G&M: The Great Global Warming Collapse

[Zguy28]

Yay! Let's dig it up, burn it up, drill it up, pile it up, and screw it up! Let's not give a crap that in the next century the oil will be nearly gone, our mountains will be leveled to parking lots, our streams and rivers will be more and more polluted and all so we can drive our SUV's and so corporations can get richer while holding the rest of the world hostage.

BTW, to those who love nuclear power, I guess we can store the waste in your neighborhoods right?

We're going to put it on the moon silly.

[Predicto]

This is turning into a classic know-nothing subject.

"I don't understand the science, I don't care what the science actually is, I thought it was a hoax all along by those damn elites who think they are smarter than the rest of us, and dammit, I'm going to call YOU the one motivated by politics because it sure can't be me and my side (even though I have no idea what I'm talking about). I will rely on editorials and blogs for all my information and mock anyone who doesn't."

Ignorance is bliss.

[Kosher Ham]

Sarcastic: What no global warming ? So I have been riding my bike for nothing ?

[Larry]

Sarcastic: What no global warming ? So I have been riding my bike for nothing ?

I'm sure you have very firm buns.

[The Evil Genius]

I'm sure you have very firm buns.

Are you a chiropractor?

[McD5]

Run for your lives!!!!!

[Duncan]

The underlying science with respect to global warming has to due with the ability of green house gases' ability to absorb energy that is normally reflected into outer space. The idea that it would cause warming is over 100 years old:

If you THINK you know a study that refutes that CO2 will absorb energy that would normally reflected into space, please post the relevant study.

I’m not and never have disputed the greenhouse effect. What I do dispute is that man-made CO2 is the main cause of the current miniscule change in temperature and the catastrophic change predicted in most of these bogus models.

95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor. The rest is methane, NO2, CO2, and a few others. Total CO2 is only 3% of greenhouse gases and man only produces a fraction of that total. I think it’s only 2.5%.

Here is a study showing that total CO2 (I’m assuming natural and man-made) has a much smaller effect on climate than stated by the IPCC. Man-made CO2 would thus have very little impact.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

“New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assumes,” wrote AEI’s Schwartz, who hold a master’s degree in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology.”

Here is another peer-reviewed paper being published in the AMS Journal titled “Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?”.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI3461.1&ct=1

About the authors:

Schwartz and Charlson coauthored the paper with Ralph Kahn, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland; John Ogren, NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado; and Henning Rodhe, Stockholm University.

Here is the abstract if you are interested..

“The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Possible reasons for this warming discrepancy are systematically examined here. The warming discrepancy is found to be due mainly to some combination of two factors: the IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity being too high and/or the greenhouse gas forcing being partially offset by forcing by increased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols; the increase in global heat content due to thermal disequilibrium accounts for less than 25% of the discrepancy, and cooling by natural temperature variation can account for only about 15%. Current uncertainty in climate sensitivity is shown to preclude determining the amount of future fossil fuel CO2 emissions that would be compatible with any chosen maximum allowable increase in GMST; even the sign of such allowable future emissions is unconstrained. Resolving this situation, by empirical determination of Earth's climate sensitivity from the historical record over the industrial period or through use of climate models whose accuracy is evaluated by their performance over this period is shown to require substantial reduction in the uncertainty of aerosol forcing over this period.”

[Teller]

Could you all just agree to pay me a quarter everytime a thread is posted that definitively proves/disproves manmade global warming? I don't have a retirement plant yet.

[Skins24]

Sarcastic: What no global warming ? So I have been riding my bike for nothing ?

There is no reason why any of that stuff should stop. Doing so with the purpose of cleaning the environment. I guess to get people to do that though you have to make up stuff like some of these ridiculous predictions concerning global warming since just telling them to clean up won't/doesn't work.

[alexey]

95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor. The rest is methane, NO2, CO2, and a few others. Total CO2 is only 3% of greenhouse gases and man only produces a fraction of that total. I think it’s only 2.5%.

00:26 to 01:26 here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/1/PoSVoxwYrKI

Here is a study showing that total CO2 (I’m assuming natural and man-made) has a much smaller effect on climate than stated by the IPCC.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/

[Duncan]

00:26 to 01:26 here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/1/PoSVoxwYrKI

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/

Realclimate masquerades some objective group. Do a little research before you embarrass yourself by posting links to that website.

From that article you posted..."Despite the celebratory reaction from the denialist blogosphere...". Wow, real professional.

I was asked to post studies and I did so we are left with the old "my scientist can beat up your scientist" garbage that permeates these debates.

The point is that the science is not settled.

[alexey]

Realclimate masquerades some objective group. Do a little research before you embarrass yourself by posting links to that website.

I was asked to post studies and I did so we are left with the old "my scientist can beat up your scientist" garbage that permeates these debates.

The point is that the science is not settled.

I had to scroll through 4 pages of "finally the HOAX is exposed" search results to find an actual scientific discussion of the source, and this is your reaction? Do you have any objection to the content? Do you think objective is the same as in the middle? What if we're talking about science vs BS?

Any comments on the video?

[Skins24]

I had to scroll through 4 pages of "finally the HOAX is exposed" search results to find an actual scientific discussion of the source, and this is your reaction? Do you have any objection to the content? Do you think objective is the same as in the middle? What if we're talking about science vs BS?

Any comments on the video?

Those videos have been posted and discussed before. Check any of the hundreds of other global warming threads on here.

Do you think the more you post them in this thread the more accurate they become?

[Predicto]

From that article you posted..."Despite the celebratory reaction from the denialist blogosphere...". Wow, real professional.

Re-read the Original Post in this thread or any other on this subject.

Now, what are you objecting to again?

[Predicto]

Those videos have been posted and discussed before. Check any of the hundreds of other global warming threads on here.

Do you think the more you post them in this thread the more accurate they become?

No one has ever tried to show that they are not accurate. Have you?

[Skins24]

No one has ever tried to show that they are not accurate. Have you?

It's not even necessarily showing them to be inaccurate or not. It's just those videos are not the end all to the anthropogenic warming debate.

And yes I have discussed those vids before. Here's one of the many times alexey has spammed them:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=311929

[Kosher Ham]

There is no reason why any of that stuff should stop. Doing so with the purpose of cleaning the environment. I guess to get people to do that though you have to make up stuff like some of these ridiculous predictions concerning global warming since just telling them to clean up won't/doesn't work.

Did you miss something ? I don't even own a bike unless you mean the one in my gym.

[Duncan]

Re-read the Original Post in this thread or any other on this subject.

Now, what are you objecting to again?

Seeing as you liberally throw around the ignorant label, did you read either of the links I posted?

[Predicto]

Seeing as you liberally throw around the ignorant label, did you read either of the links I posted?

Nice change of the subject. Do you disagree that the Original Post in this thread is pretty much the purest definition of a "celebratory reaction from the denialist blogsphere" posted by a celebratory denialist Tailgate poster?

As to your links, I glanced at them. My take is that they basically say "manmade global warming is happening, but not quite as fast as once thought, so we may have a little more time to maneuver." Is that an accurate characterization?

Of course, I'm not qualified to weigh the studies accurately, but I admit, it is nice to have someone post an actual scientific study calling into question an aspect of global warming debate, rather than just another blog spin. We rarely get those here.

I will wait to see what PeterMP has to say on the issue. He has the patience of Job, and may be able to add some more useful context.

[Skins24]

Did you miss something ? I don't even own a bike unless you mean the one in my gym.

lol, no I know what you meant.

I was just saying in general. Riding bikes and all that other green crap really does help the environment. But getting people to do that by themselves is hard. So I guess they came up with this man made global warming stuff to scare people into doing that.

[Predicto]

lol, no I know what you meant.

I was just saying in general. Riding bikes and all that other green crap really does help the environment. But getting people to do that by themselves is hard. So I guess they came up with this man made global warming stuff to scare people into doing that.

I am always amazed that people would really believe that thousands of scientists across the globe are all in on a grand conspiracy to decieve us poor common folks. They know they are lying to us and that everything they do is a fake, but they just don't care. Those goddamn elites!! Make me so angry!!!.

[nonniey]

When you say the behavioru of the AGW side you are talking about 10 people total.

You don't think I can't find questionable and fradualent behaviour by 10 or so people on the anti-AGW side?

There's nothing out there that underlies the basic science undermining global warming, which goes back 100+ years.

Again perception is reality. And it was more than just the misconduct of the ten people. The whole movement had an arrogance that set AGW up for the scandals to derail any chance of major policy achievements. You do remember the "debate is over" meme that was used repeatedly by just about every proponent of AGW to bash any dissenters? That approach essentially set the stage to magnify any effects of a Scandal.

[PeterMP]

I’m not and never have disputed the greenhouse effect. What I do dispute is that man-made CO2 is the main cause of the current miniscule change in temperature and the catastrophic change predicted in most of these bogus models.

95% of greenhouse gas is water vapor. The rest is methane, NO2, CO2, and a few others. Total CO2 is only 3% of greenhouse gases and man only produces a fraction of that total. I think it’s only 2.5%.

Here is a study showing that total CO2 (I’m assuming natural and man-made) has a much smaller effect on climate than stated by the IPCC. Man-made CO2 would thus have very little impact.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

“New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assumes,” wrote AEI’s Schwartz, who hold a master’s degree in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology.”

Here is another peer-reviewed paper being published in the AMS Journal titled “Why Hasn't Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?”.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI3461.1&ct=1

Okay, but even at 1/3 that is a significant amount of warming, especially when even only CO2 levels are increasing at a faster than a linear rate (other green house gas increases are also going up at an increasing rate).

And, yes we are only reponsbile for a small amount of total CO2, BUT we are ALMOST entirely responsible (indirectly due to changes in land use to some extant) for the increases in CO2.

Even given the 1/3 decrease in the senstivity when you consider the rate at which CO2 is going out EVEN if you ignore other green house gases, you are looking at substantial changes.

Here's some comments by the author of the piece:

"I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."

"It's not out of the question that the ice sheet on Greenland could melt, and the consequence of that is the sea level would rise," he said. "The shoreline on Long Island would move inland by two to three miles."

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSun.html

If this guy's studies are what the "hoax" and "no big deal" crowd are basing on their observations on, they are just WRONG.

Moving the Long Island shoreline in a couple of MILES is a HUGE deal.

[Predicto]

That is exactly the context I am talking about.

I need to repeat that. The very guy who wrote the study that Duncan claims to refute manmade global warming, says: "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years.... It's not out of the question that the ice sheet on Greenland could melt, and the consequence of that is the sea level would rise," he said. "The shoreline on Long Island would move inland by two to three miles."

What does this tell you about the denial people? Are they actually looking for the truth, or are they cherry picking things out of context and shoving them into blogs to fool their readers? Because that scientist sure doesn't sound like a denier, but he is being cited as one.

[Skins24]

I am always amazed that people would really believe that thousands of scientists across the globe are all in on a grand conspiracy to decieve us poor common folks. They know they are lying to us and that everything they do is a fake, but they just don't care. Those goddamn elites!! Make me so angry!!!.

Only half joking with that post.

The real debate is our (human beings) impacts on global warming. There is not as wide a consensus. And there shouldn't be.