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 (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter NCCommish
- Start date
timschochet
Footballguy
But he's right, Max. You haven't offered one piece of evidence that proves the vast majority of scientists wrong about this subject. (Of course, if you could, you would be world famous.)
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
No, he's not. Check the internet. And it really doesn't matter with you guys. You've closed your mind. Remember "the science is settled"?But he's right, Max. You haven't offered one piece of evidence that proves the vast majority of scientists wrong about this subject. (Of course, if you could, you would be world famous.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
Shut your mouth. The science is irrefutable. It is your fault. The billions and billions of years the earth has been in this universe and mankinds tiny reign in it is bringing it to an end. Thanks guys.
Mind unpacking that for me a bit, jon_mx? So is data for the entire planet showing warming...just "less than predicted?" And predicted by whom, specifically?
Seems to me that temperatures (temperatures near the poles and the temperature of the ocean) have risen less than the Chicken Littles on the far-left predicted...but have risen more than many folks on the far-right predicted. So IYHO, is it good logic to deduce that because temperatures haven't risen as fast as *some* folks on the left have predicted, it's *all* junk-science?! Wouldn't that be about on-par with saying that temperatures have increased more than folks on the Right have predicted...then promptly selling all one's worldly possessions and waiting for the apocalypse?! Which would have Max posting
and a few other Righties posting 
Last edited by a moderator:
jonessed
Footballguy
Almost all of the predictive models have been very far off on their temp predictions for several years now. I don't believe anyone knows exactly why yet.That doesn't necessarily mean anything, but if you are going to act like a ##### know-it-all you should at least follow the pertinent news.Mind unpacking that for me a bit, jon_mx? So is data for the entire planet showing warming...just "less than predicted?" And predicted by whom, specifically?Seems to me that temperatures (temperatures near the poles and the temperature of the ocean) have risen less than the Chicken Littles on the far-left predicted...but have risen more than many folks on the far-right predicted. So IYHO, is it good logic to deduce that because temperatures haven't risen as fast as *some* folks on the left have predicted, it's *all* junk-science?! Wouldn't that be about on-par with saying that temperatures have increased more than folks on the Right have predicted...then promptly selling all one's worldly possessions and waiting for the apocalypse?! Which would have Max posting
Last edited by a moderator:
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
"The basic trouble, you see, is that people think that 'right' and 'wrong' are absolute; that everything that isn't perfectly and completely right is totally and equally wrong."
Isaac Asimov
The Relativity of Wrong
The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44
Isaac Asimov
The Relativity of Wrong
The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44
timschochet
Footballguy
Can you provide a link for this? And what exactly is "far off" in your definition?Almost all of the predictive models have been very far off on their temp predictions for several years now. I don't believe anyone knows exactly why yet.That doesn't necessarily mean anything, but if you are going to act like a ##### know-it-all you should at least follow the pertinent news.Mind unpacking that for me a bit, jon_mx? So is data for the entire planet showing warming...just "less than predicted?" And predicted by whom, specifically?Seems to me that temperatures (temperatures near the poles and the temperature of the ocean) have risen less than the Chicken Littles on the far-left predicted...but have risen more than many folks on the far-right predicted. So IYHO, is it good logic to deduce that because temperatures haven't risen as fast as *some* folks on the left have predicted, it's *all* junk-science?! Wouldn't that be about on-par with saying that temperatures have increased more than folks on the Right have predicted...then promptly selling all one's worldly possessions and waiting for the apocalypse?! Which would have Max posting
IPCC authors confident their global warming predictions were wrong BY RON ARNOLD | SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 AT 8:22 AM
TOPICS: CLIMATE CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNITED NATIONS ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
The 31-page "Summary for Policymakers" of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate...My copy of the leaked final draft of the world’s most influential global warming report, despite authors of the highest reputation, reads like something from a mental hospital with no doctors or nurses.
The 31-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced the authors' stunning concession that computer-modeled forecasts of imminent planetary catastrophe were catastrophically wrong – global surface temperatures haven’t risen significantly in the last 15 years – but, even with many other doubts, also insisted that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.
Then European Union Climate Change Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told the London Telegraph that EU policy on global warming is right even if the science is wrong. That’s nuts, but that’s Big Green: Facts don’t matter.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
I asked climate realist Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and former Senate Environment and Public Works professional staff member, whether the leaked IPCC report was indeed full of inconsistencies.
“It is, but you have to pity the UN. The climate events of 2013 have been devastating to its political narrative on global warming,” Morano said.
He reeled off examples as if spooling out crime scene tape: “Both poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking all time records. Global temperatures have failed to rise for 15-plus years. Global cooling has occurred since 2002. Polar bear numbers are increasing. Wildfire numbers are well below average. Sea level rise is failing to accelerate. Tornadoes are at record lows. Hurricanes are at record low activity.” Case closed.
I complained that none of that was in the IPCC report. Morano indicated that the facts were well known even if obscured by jargon. As a result, “former climate believers like Judith Curry are growing more skeptical by the day,” Morano said.
It’s true. Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, this week published her analysis of the leaked IPCC draft report – and it sparked an international Twitter war.
"In view of the recent pause [in warming] and the lower confidence level in some of the supporting findings,” Curry said, it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased. “This is incomprehensible to me,” she said. “The science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux.”
All this business about “confidence” sounds like a sophomoric game because it is. It’s the IPCC’s consensus-seeking process at work. Consensus is a group decision-making process that seeks the consent of all participants, and it is not part of the scientific method. It gained popularity in the women’s liberation and anti-nuclear movements of the 1970s.
The only advantage of consensus-seeking for the IPCC is the political clout of being able to say, “The scientific consensus is…”, thereby totally undercutting the views of non-IPCC scientists.
Its disadvantage to science is that nobody knows by an up-and-down vote who disagrees with major pieces of the science and why, instead devising a scale of “confidence” for each set of results: “weakly confident,” “moderately confident,” and “extremely confident” – like marking your kids’ heights on the kitchen wall with “short,” “taller” and “way tall.”
Curry recommended that the consensus-seeking IPCC process be abandoned for a more traditional review, saying, "I think that arguments for and against would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.”
One of the report’s authors, professor Myles Allen, director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, said, “The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works.” He recommended this IPCC report be the last.
With all the economic pain, social divisiveness and resource misdirection the IPCC has caused, the 195 governments that funded it should get their money back.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Wow. That's quite damning.IPCC authors confident their global warming predictions were wrongBY RON ARNOLD | SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 AT 8:22 AM
TOPICS: CLIMATE CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY UNITED NATIONS ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
The 31-page “Summary for Policymakers” of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announced the authors' stunning concession that computer-modeled forecasts of imminent planetary catastrophe were catastrophically wrong – global surface temperatures haven’t risen significantly in the last 15 years – but, even with many other doubts, also insisted that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.
Then European Union Climate Change Commissioner Connie Hedegaard told the London Telegraph that EU policy on global warming is right even if the science is wrong. That’s nuts, but that’s Big Green: Facts don’t matter.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
I asked climate realist Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and former Senate Environment and Public Works professional staff member, whether the leaked IPCC report was indeed full of inconsistencies.
“It is, but you have to pity the UN. The climate events of 2013 have been devastating to its political narrative on global warming,” Morano said.
He reeled off examples as if spooling out crime scene tape: “Both poles have expanding ice, with the Antarctic breaking all time records. Global temperatures have failed to rise for 15-plus years. Global cooling has occurred since 2002. Polar bear numbers are increasing. Wildfire numbers are well below average. Sea level rise is failing to accelerate. Tornadoes are at record lows. Hurricanes are at record low activity.” Case closed.
I complained that none of that was in the IPCC report. Morano indicated that the facts were well known even if obscured by jargon. As a result, “former climate believers like Judith Curry are growing more skeptical by the day,” Morano said.
It’s true. Judith Curry, head of climate science at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, this week published her analysis of the leaked IPCC draft report – and it sparked an international Twitter war.
"In view of the recent pause [in warming] and the lower confidence level in some of the supporting findings,” Curry said, it therefore made no sense that the IPCC was claiming that its confidence in its forecasts and conclusions has increased. “This is incomprehensible to me,” she said. “The science is clearly not settled, and is in a state of flux.”
All this business about “confidence” sounds like a sophomoric game because it is. It’s the IPCC’s consensus-seeking process at work. Consensus is a group decision-making process that seeks the consent of all participants, and it is not part of the scientific method. It gained popularity in the women’s liberation and anti-nuclear movements of the 1970s.
The only advantage of consensus-seeking for the IPCC is the political clout of being able to say, “The scientific consensus is…”, thereby totally undercutting the views of non-IPCC scientists.
Its disadvantage to science is that nobody knows by an up-and-down vote who disagrees with major pieces of the science and why, instead devising a scale of “confidence” for each set of results: “weakly confident,” “moderately confident,” and “extremely confident” – like marking your kids’ heights on the kitchen wall with “short,” “taller” and “way tall.”
Curry recommended that the consensus-seeking IPCC process be abandoned for a more traditional review, saying, "I think that arguments for and against would better support scientific progress, and be more useful for policy makers.”
One of the report’s authors, professor Myles Allen, director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, said, “The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility is a misrepresentation of how science works.” He recommended this IPCC report be the last.
With all the economic pain, social divisiveness and resource misdirection the IPCC has caused, the 195 governments that funded it should get their money back.
Study finds Climate Change Models most widely overestimated global warmingCan you provide a link for this? And what exactly is "far off" in your definition?Almost all of the predictive models have been very far off on their temp predictions for several years now. I don't believe anyone knows exactly why yet.That doesn't necessarily mean anything, but if you are going to act like a ##### know-it-all you should at least follow the pertinent news.Mind unpacking that for me a bit, jon_mx? So is data for the entire planet showing warming...just "less than predicted?" And predicted by whom, specifically?Seems to me that temperatures (temperatures near the poles and the temperature of the ocean) have risen less than the Chicken Littles on the far-left predicted...but have risen more than many folks on the far-right predicted. So IYHO, is it good logic to deduce that because temperatures haven't risen as fast as *some* folks on the left have predicted, it's *all* junk-science?! Wouldn't that be about on-par with saying that temperatures have increased more than folks on the Right have predicted...then promptly selling all one's worldly possessions and waiting for the apocalypse?! Which would have Max posting
By about 300%.....Models in 1989 were prediction a 2 degree rise by 2010, it rose 0.7 degrees. Climate Change experts have no explaination why tempretures have not risen for the last 15 years.
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm sorry, but I don't find the Washington Examiner to be a viable source.
Now it is true that we're currently seeing a pause to global warming, which scientists are yet unable to explain. But it represents a pause, not a stoppage, and so far it's statistically too short to matter. The evidence still remains that mankind's use of fossil fuels is warming the globe and that the effects will be eventually catastrophic. This is what all the science is telling us.
Now it is true that we're currently seeing a pause to global warming, which scientists are yet unable to explain. But it represents a pause, not a stoppage, and so far it's statistically too short to matter. The evidence still remains that mankind's use of fossil fuels is warming the globe and that the effects will be eventually catastrophic. This is what all the science is telling us.
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/opinion/a-pause-not-an-end-to-warming.html?_r=0
THE global warming crowd has a problem. For all of its warnings, and despite a steady escalation of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, the planet’s average surface temperature has remained pretty much the same for the last 15 years.
As you might guess, skeptics of warming were in full attack mode as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gathered in Sweden this week to approve its latest findings about our warming planet. The skeptics argue that this recent plateau illustrates what they always knew — that complex global climate models have no predictive capability and that, therefore, there is no proof of global warming, human-caused or not.
Greenhouse theorists appear to be on the defensive as they offer different explanations for the letup — that deep ocean water may be draining some warmth from the atmosphere, that increases in high-altitude water vapor may be responsible or that numerous small volcanic eruptions are the cause.
My analysis is different. Berkeley Earth, a team of scientists I helped establish, found that the average land temperature had risen 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years. Solar variability didn’t match the pattern; greenhouse gases did.
As for the recent plateau, I predicted it, back in 2004. Well, not exactly. In an essay published online then at MIT Technology Review, I worried that the famous “hockey stick” graph plotted by three American climatologists in the late 1990s portrayed the global warming curve with too much certainty and inappropriate simplicity. The graph shows a long, relatively unwavering line of temperatures across the last millennium (the stick), followed by a sharp, upward turn of warming over the last century (the blade). The upward turn implied that greenhouse gases had become so dominant that future temperatures would rise well above their variability and closely track carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
I knew that wasn’t the case. The planet warmed by 0.6 degrees over the prior 50 years, but occasional, unexplained temperature fluctuations of as much as 0.3 degrees countered the rise at times and resulted in apparent pauses. Some of the fluctuations might have been caused by shifting ocean currents related to the Gulf Stream and El Niño — the episodic appearance of unusually warm ocean temperatures along the west coast of South America. Here’s what I wrote in 2004:
“Suppose... future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously — that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small — then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.”
O.K., I didn’t actually predict a pause in the warming but a possible period of cooling. But that’s close enough. We are now in that pause, and too many people are taking it too seriously, not just the skeptics and the media but even the greenhouse-warming advocates.
We don’t fully understand past variations, but there is a theorem in science: if it happens, it must be possible. The frequent rises and falls, virtually a stair-step pattern, are part of the historic record, and there is no expectation that they will stop, whatever their cause. A realistic prediction simply includes a similar variability as an unexplained component.
Of course, there are scientists who thought they had explained the variability. Previous pauses in temperature rise in 1982 and 1991 were attributed to the ash and sulfur aerosols spewed into the atmosphere by the volcanic eruptions of El Chichón in Mexico and Pinatubo in the Philippines, respectively. I never found those attributions compelling; in particular, the eruption of El Chichón was too small to account for the stall in warming that was attributed to it. I suspect it was more likely that the variations were the result of chaotic changes in ocean currents.
Because of the instability of ocean flow, the best evidence of a changing climate may be the land temperature record. It is full of fits and starts that make the upward trend vanish for short periods. Regardless of whether we understand them, there is no reason to expect them to stop. The best statistical test of an observation is to see if it has happened naturally in the past.
Most of us hope that global warming actually has stopped. (Not everyone; some argue that the warming is good.) Perhaps the negative feedback of cloud cover has kicked in, dampening global warming, or the ocean absorption of atmospheric heat is playing a new and more decisive role.
Alas, I think such optimism is premature. The current pause is consistent with numerous prior pauses. When walking up stairs in a tall building, it is a mistake to interpret a landing as the end of the climb. The slow rate of warming of the recent past is consistent with the kind of variability that some of us predicted nearly a decade ago.
Richard A. Muller is a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of “Energy for Future Presidents.”
THE global warming crowd has a problem. For all of its warnings, and despite a steady escalation of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, the planet’s average surface temperature has remained pretty much the same for the last 15 years.
As you might guess, skeptics of warming were in full attack mode as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gathered in Sweden this week to approve its latest findings about our warming planet. The skeptics argue that this recent plateau illustrates what they always knew — that complex global climate models have no predictive capability and that, therefore, there is no proof of global warming, human-caused or not.
Greenhouse theorists appear to be on the defensive as they offer different explanations for the letup — that deep ocean water may be draining some warmth from the atmosphere, that increases in high-altitude water vapor may be responsible or that numerous small volcanic eruptions are the cause.
My analysis is different. Berkeley Earth, a team of scientists I helped establish, found that the average land temperature had risen 1.5 degrees Celsius over the past 250 years. Solar variability didn’t match the pattern; greenhouse gases did.
As for the recent plateau, I predicted it, back in 2004. Well, not exactly. In an essay published online then at MIT Technology Review, I worried that the famous “hockey stick” graph plotted by three American climatologists in the late 1990s portrayed the global warming curve with too much certainty and inappropriate simplicity. The graph shows a long, relatively unwavering line of temperatures across the last millennium (the stick), followed by a sharp, upward turn of warming over the last century (the blade). The upward turn implied that greenhouse gases had become so dominant that future temperatures would rise well above their variability and closely track carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
I knew that wasn’t the case. The planet warmed by 0.6 degrees over the prior 50 years, but occasional, unexplained temperature fluctuations of as much as 0.3 degrees countered the rise at times and resulted in apparent pauses. Some of the fluctuations might have been caused by shifting ocean currents related to the Gulf Stream and El Niño — the episodic appearance of unusually warm ocean temperatures along the west coast of South America. Here’s what I wrote in 2004:
“Suppose... future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously — that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small — then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.”
O.K., I didn’t actually predict a pause in the warming but a possible period of cooling. But that’s close enough. We are now in that pause, and too many people are taking it too seriously, not just the skeptics and the media but even the greenhouse-warming advocates.
We don’t fully understand past variations, but there is a theorem in science: if it happens, it must be possible. The frequent rises and falls, virtually a stair-step pattern, are part of the historic record, and there is no expectation that they will stop, whatever their cause. A realistic prediction simply includes a similar variability as an unexplained component.
Of course, there are scientists who thought they had explained the variability. Previous pauses in temperature rise in 1982 and 1991 were attributed to the ash and sulfur aerosols spewed into the atmosphere by the volcanic eruptions of El Chichón in Mexico and Pinatubo in the Philippines, respectively. I never found those attributions compelling; in particular, the eruption of El Chichón was too small to account for the stall in warming that was attributed to it. I suspect it was more likely that the variations were the result of chaotic changes in ocean currents.
Because of the instability of ocean flow, the best evidence of a changing climate may be the land temperature record. It is full of fits and starts that make the upward trend vanish for short periods. Regardless of whether we understand them, there is no reason to expect them to stop. The best statistical test of an observation is to see if it has happened naturally in the past.
Most of us hope that global warming actually has stopped. (Not everyone; some argue that the warming is good.) Perhaps the negative feedback of cloud cover has kicked in, dampening global warming, or the ocean absorption of atmospheric heat is playing a new and more decisive role.
Alas, I think such optimism is premature. The current pause is consistent with numerous prior pauses. When walking up stairs in a tall building, it is a mistake to interpret a landing as the end of the climb. The slow rate of warming of the recent past is consistent with the kind of variability that some of us predicted nearly a decade ago.
Richard A. Muller is a professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of “Energy for Future Presidents.”
jonessed
Footballguy
No matter how highly you think of yourself your future predictions still aren't factual yet.
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
One day. You just wait!
When the data for the rise is only about 40 years, a pause for 15 years is very significant.
The General
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Actually it would be awesome if I were wrong about this. How wonderful would it be if we could just continue to burn fossil fuels without ever having to worry about this problem again? Without restrictions, without having to spend money on this issue? I would think that anyone short of fanatical environmentalists who hate production as a general rule would love this to be true. Certainly I would.
But it doesn't make any sense that it's the case. I wish it were.
See, and this is part of the problem Tim. No one really doubts that the earth has warmed some. There's some degree of uncertainty over how much man has caused it, but just about everyone acknowledges that it's happening. But the alarmists have consistently overplayed and hyped up the data and their predictions. In the case of the hockey stick curve graph it appears there might have been some deliberate attempt to actually make it look like that.
Personally, I'm not certain that global warming isn't a good thing. As someone that once engaged in the hobby of growing certain plants, I know that increased CO2 (basically always) and heat (to a point) are actually good for plant growth . And that happens to be the bottom of the food chain on our planet. "But it could throw off this system and that system and blah blah blah blah blah". Whatever. I don't believe that our last few centuries of temperature are necessarily ideal for life on this planet, that the earth's systems and its life are incapable of adjusting to a very slow and gradual heating process, or that it's actually worth investing basically anything into trying to stop it. When oil becomes too expensive or the hippies make something else cheaper the planet and our economy will adjust to that too. A bunch of alarmist crap doesn't do anyone any good, except people in the business of researching alarmist crap or getting votes off of alarmist crap.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
I never said that. Someone else did. You know what the response to that was from you global warming alarmists? Providing a link to a place where it was hot as evidence of global warming.
Last edited by a moderator:
spreagle
Footballguy
Imagine you shrunk the global warming issue down to the factory level and the issue landed on some engineers desk to evaluate... "Hey Joe Engineer we got this very slowly rising CO2 in the factory, some from us, but most from natural sources that we can't do anything about, we're thinking it might warm the factory, yes we understand there's been no factory warming for 17 years and 3 months from this CO2 but anyways we're thinking this slowly rising CO2 might warm up the factory by a couple degrees by 2100, that may or may not be bad, anywho if we don't do something about it RIGHT NOW the small amount of potential temperature rise might happen and might cause something bad in the factory to happen in 2100 (or not) so we probably should think about spending millions RIGHT NOW to slow down the portion of the CO2 problem we have some control over. But if we can slow down what we can control (we probably can't) there is no guarantee natural CO2 would stop rising if we do this. "
In the garbage can it would go. Engineers understand wild goose chases and catastrophic Al Gore warming (CAGW) is a wild goose chase.
In the garbage can it would go. Engineers understand wild goose chases and catastrophic Al Gore warming (CAGW) is a wild goose chase.
Last edited by a moderator:
And really Tim, your entirely position on this is just really dumb if you ask me. You think that the planet is going to be seriously screwed by this warming stuff - that CO2 is a pollutant that's infringing on the property rights of others. But oh no, carbon taxes are terrible. A simple solution that would actually make oil and clean energy play on a more even playing field and is actually reasonable if you consider CO2 a pollutant is unacceptable and I don't want to actually do anything that might "hurt the economy" to solve this. You say private industry is way better and while our government can't even put together a workable website to distribute health care we should just throw a pile of money at some "Manhattan Project" for clean energy that has no guarantee of actually providing any real returns. It's not at though private industry has any incentive to make energy cheaper, afterall.
That's a really stupid position. Do nothing is far superior to this one IMO. It's cheaper, and your plan has no better chance of success. In fact, I'll one up my do nothing and say we get rid of stupid "green energy" tax credits which are just a political game to act like they're trying to do anything. That's a waste of money too. And let's cut funding to researching this stuff too and put these scientists to work at something useful - like space technology or something.
That's a really stupid position. Do nothing is far superior to this one IMO. It's cheaper, and your plan has no better chance of success. In fact, I'll one up my do nothing and say we get rid of stupid "green energy" tax credits which are just a political game to act like they're trying to do anything. That's a waste of money too. And let's cut funding to researching this stuff too and put these scientists to work at something useful - like space technology or something.
Last edited by a moderator:
As is a cooling trend. And, in fact, the longer the cooling trend lasts, the more certain warming becomes. In the 4 billion year history of the earth, every single cooling trend has eventually been followed by a warming trend. Bring on the Ice Age!timschochet said:
Climate stability is just another symptom of climate change.
timschochet
Footballguy
What we should do about global warming is a separate issue entirely. It may be that carbon taxes are the best solution. Yes, I am concerned that they will hurt the economy and I wish there was a better way to deal with this issue. But there might not be a better way. I don't know.DrJ said:
But none of this has anything to do with the central issue of THIS thread- those people that deny that global warming is happening.
Hunterbeer
Footballguy
I posted some of this earlier, yet since it does not conform to some's set ideas it seems to have been forgotten. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate which represents over 1,000 scientist cannot explain it, yet Tim can? The head of that panel, Hans von Storch, on the 17 year pause in global warming:
“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break,” von Storch told der Spiegel in a June 2013 interview. Storch said the IPCC will have to tone down its climate models unless warming quickly and rapidly accelerates ”According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero,” Storch told der Spiegel. “This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.”
“At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase,” Storch explained.
If the best scientist in the world are confused, maybe it is not set science yet. Perhps you can believe in global warming AND believe man has very little to do with it.
“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break,” von Storch told der Spiegel in a June 2013 interview. Storch said the IPCC will have to tone down its climate models unless warming quickly and rapidly accelerates ”According to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero,” Storch told der Spiegel. “This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year.”
“At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase,” Storch explained.
If the best scientist in the world are confused, maybe it is not set science yet. Perhps you can believe in global warming AND believe man has very little to do with it.
Mario Kart
Footballguy
No, there's 20 years difference.jon_mx said:about as old as the' since 1978 argument'.joffer said:Ahhhh.... The whole "since 1998 argument". Never gets old
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I'm not reading anywhere there that they are confused about global warming that has already taken place, or what the causes are. They are confused, as they should be, about the pause and what it means. But what scientists are saying that (a) global warming doesn't exist and (b) that it's not man-made?
Hunterbeer
Footballguy
Well since 98% of their forecasts, using the CO2 emissions we have had, cannot figure out why the temp has not increased, the man-made affect (how much it actually is) has to be questioned. Could it be cyclical? We simply do not have enough information about 99% of the Earth's existence to be sure. These are over 1,000 scientist from all over the globe and they have no answer.
Sand
Footballguy
There are many cycles, many we know about and assuredly many we don't. The question is sifting through the data and trying to allocate delta T slices to different causes. Very difficult to do.
It's all irrelevant anyway. At this point we should simply stop all climate change research.
Sound like some awesome models. Global warming - certain to be man made. Except when it doesn't happen, then it's confusing.
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Hey, all you nutbag wingers done jerking each other off yet?
Don't worry, you guys will still get the last laugh when global warming kills us all.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Homer J Simpson
I don't push
Yay, another nutter!
Schlzm
Footballguy
I don't remember who it was the last page because I don't care posting about a record heatwave in Australia but;
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/snow-falling-in-australia-in-summer-that-is-all/story-e6frflp0-1226775945701
Schlzm
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/snow-falling-in-australia-in-summer-that-is-all/story-e6frflp0-1226775945701
Schlzm
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Wow.
3C's
Footballguy
It shouldn't be a yes or no question, us vs them, cons vs liberal. It's considerably broader than that. Is warming occurring? Yes, though a small number would disagree. Is it a result of humans? Some say yes, some no, others aren't sure. Is it a serious issue? same answer as before. This lady breaks it down as it really is within the science community versus an us v them. Most of the scientists polled fell between 2 and 4 and I would think that's true of most regular people too. http://www.energyblogs.com/weather/index.cfm/2013/7/8/Five-Differing-Viewpoints-on-Climate-Change
3C's
Footballguy
"Snow is not a freak event in southern Australia in the warmer months. A small dusting usually appears on the higher parts of the Australian Alps at least once each summer"
