They Should Tell You Climate change

[Burnt State]

The last thing I'll take issue with is the constant quoting of estimates done by NOAA and other respectable institutions. All of these agencies run numerous models and "what if" scenarios. They get a wide range of results ranging from no sea level rise to 20 feet by 2100. The author chose the most devastating "what ifs" to quote inHow much is sea level rising? his article. Even the IPCC has backed off its early claims and only expects modest sea level rise by 2100. For the worst sea level rise to happen, the Greenland ice sheet would have to melt. That is just not likely to happen.

"Current sea level rise is after all not exaggerated, in fact the opposite case is more plausible. Observational data and changing conditions in such places as Greenland suggest if there's a real problem here it's underestimation of future sea level rise. The IPCC synthesis reports offer conservative projections of sea level increase based on assumptions about future behavior of ice sheets and glaciers, leading to estimates of sea level roughly following a linear upward trend mimicking that of recent decades. In point of fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic (Rahmstorf 2010 )."

From: How much is sea level rising?

What's difficult in this discussion is that most articles, pro or con, tend to cherry picke data from singular studies and fail to take in historical data trends as well all the various aspects of interrelated fields before making any pronoucements. Working with more holistic data indicates that Greenland's ice is as vulnerable as all other ice sheets, and glaciers, whose very specific trend is shrinkage on a persistent, global scale and not just the normal give and take fluctuation of glaciers as some climate deniers like to throw back into the wind.

 

[pduchesne]

. . .
In other words, oil company scientists are on one hand assuring them there’s big money to be made tapping the vast oil and gas reserves known to lie beneath the shallow Arctic waters now being relieved of their ice cover for the first time in millions of years. On the other hand, these same companies are simultaneously lobbying Congress to sow doubts among the public about the true impact of climate-change situation. - See more at: Denying Climate Change — While Exploiting It | WhoWhatWhy
. . .

Hmmm. The author deftly reveals that the military will follow commands and prepare for an ice free arctic. They also prepare for wars that will never happen, and in the past they have prepared for alien invasions(maybe they still do). He further discovers that President Obama lied to the people, especially environmentalists, in order to get votes. He even catches an Obama representative in a passive lie (the administration wanted to take credit for the US's recent reduction of CO2 output even though it is caused by an economic downturn, which the administration denies is happening). Then the author reveals that corporations are planning for global warming while arguing against policies to change it. Well duh. What else would they do? The authors apparent anxiety stems from his firm belief that humans are destroying the planet and we will all be dead soon unless we "do something". My question is why are people so quick to accept these apocalyptic prophesies in the first place?

Here is an article chronicling some of the recent science based doomsday scenarios: Apocalypse Not: Here's Why You Shouldn't Worry About End Times - Wired Science

What bothers me is that the current global warming doomsday scenario was cast back in 1990, and none of the prophesies from the first IPCC report have occurred. We have not seen any temperature rise in about 17 years! What's with that? If not for a giant El Nino event in 1998, we might not have seen any temperature rise since 1979.

But I am not just some hard nosed conservative who doesn't care about people and puppies. The truth is I fell for the greenhouse catastrophe hype in the 1980s, so when I see it happening again, I am not inclined to fall for it a second time. Back then, man-made CO2 was causing an ice age. I expect that if the temperature doesn't start rising soon, we will see a return to the consensus that CO2 is causing an imminent ice age.
Here is a "documentary" from the 1980s when I was a naive young man. I bought it hook line and sinker:

 

[manxman]

and how many interest groups/parasites have lived of it since, a new scare for a new generation, every generation, science needs to eat.

 

[pixelsmith]

I welcome global warming.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

What bothers me is that the current global warming doomsday scenario was cast back in 1990, and none of the prophesies from the first IPCC report have occurred. We have not seen any temperature rise in about 17 years! What's with that? If not for a giant El Nino event in 1998, we might not have seen any temperature rise since 1979.

Actually that's not true. The opening decade of the millennium was the warmest on record and 2009-2010 the hottest year going. When you look at temperature increase on the planet you need to take into consideration where heat gets stored - in the water, and take that into consideration when you start measuring temp. increase. Now some uninformed folk like Pixel will talk about how wonderful global warming is citing that it's going to be great for the plants and all but that's also a billionaire's myth and conspiracist talk. The truth is that increase in temperatures will not only kill even more species it will turn our food growing land into desert and that's really going to suck for a lot of folk who are already suffering from a lack of foodtstuffs coming from a depleted ocean, a toxic ocean and soon to be acidified ocean with even less fish and more jellyfish. None of these are positives.

What has global warming done since 1998?

As far as the hype of the 80's you can explore that bit as well. Keep in mind that popular media reports vs. scientific reports are two different sets of realities. Exploring what science says on the whole, sans rhetoric, gives you a more accurate position. Where are you getting information that that the global trend is not warming when that's what's agreed upon by the majority of scientists working on this material?

The casual position that thinks everything is fine right now is an ignorant one that ignores the evidence at hand. It's unfortunate that past media hype has blinded so many people to reality, even more devastating is that much of the major media has been co-opted by corporations and so people turning to that for information will only get a corporate perspective which is not one that believes in humanity at all.

 

[pixelsmith]

Omg, I will let you hang yourself in this discussion..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Burnt State]

Still not taking time to read or post a relevant fact? Rhetoric just slows the world down and obfuscates the truth.

 

[Burnt State]

and how many interest groups/parasites have lived of it since, a new scare for a new generation, every generation, science needs to eat.

i don't think that's it entirely an accurate perspective. Yes to the parasites, absolutely, but science does what science will do. It's the interpreters, collectors, selectors and promoters of ideologies that determines what makes the news no matter how accurate or hyped that position may be, hence the importance of taking time to read facts as opposed to generalizing positions through emotion. Not that different individual scientists are not guilty of being selective, but when you can collect data over time in a holistic manner and then determine what the totality of science says, outside of an individual bias, is there anything objective to say.

 

[pduchesne]

Actually that's not true. The opening decade of the millennium was the warmest on record and 2009-2010 the hottest year going. When you look at temperature increase on the planet you need to take into consideration where heat gets stored - in the water, and take that into consideration when you start measuring temp. increase. Now some uninformed folk like Pixel will talk about how wonderful global warming is citing that it's going to be great for the plants and all but that's also a billionaire's myth and conspiracist talk. The truth is that increase in temperatures will not only kill even more species it will turn our food growing land into desert and that's really going to suck for a lot of folk who are already suffering from a lack of foodtstuffs coming from a depleted ocean, a toxic ocean and soon to be acidified ocean with even less fish and more jellyfish. None of these are positives.

What has global warming done since 1998?

As far as the hype of the 80's you can explore that bit as well. Keep in mind that popular media reports vs. scientific reports are two different sets of realities. Exploring what science says on the whole, sans rhetoric, gives you a more accurate position. Where are you getting information that that the global trend is not warming when that's what's agreed upon by the majority of scientists working on this material?

The casual position that thinks everything is fine right now is an ignorant one that ignores the evidence at hand. It's unfortunate that past media hype has blinded so many people to reality, even more devastating is that much of the major media has been co-opted by corporations and so people turning to that for information will only get a corporate perspective which is not one that believes in humanity at all.

BS, if all you do is blindly believe one alarmist website and re-post their heavily biased blog entries, then what's the point. I could just re-post even better information from wattsupwiththat.com . We could go on like that until we've re-created both websites right here on this thread. I'd prefer to look at all the information and at least try to find the best information I can.
In that light, here is the data to which I refer. It is satellite data since 1979. It accurately measures energy input vs. energy output with no magic heat hiding in the ocean and no wild theories about why CO2 is not having the impact the doomsayers said it would. Average Global Temperatures Through Time

 

[pduchesne]

I just noticed the the data stopped at 2007. So you don't think a conspiracy is afoot, here is the most current:

This is the most peer reviewed data on the market. It is provided by a real life professor, who happens to be a skeptic. When his data is in the slightest bit out of whack, he hears about it from the consensus. Latest Global Temps « Roy Spencer, PhD
If you want to see what integrity looks like, do a search on how Dr. Spencer reacted when early flaws with his methodology were found. Compare that with how the doomsayers reacted when none of their climate models worked.

 

[manxman]

I just noticed the the data stopped at 2007. So you don't think a conspiracy is afoot, here is the most current:

You have to double check everything the lad links to, shame but there it is.

 

[Burnt State]

I really wanted to stay away from this thread for all the usual rhetoric and disinformation that gets presented here and then of course it turns to insult. Personally, I feel it is important to care for the planet, others have axes to grind, understood. Perhaps I should have started this on a kinder note, myself, but I've been down this road on this forum before and it ends just like this thread will - going nowhere!

That respected phd is advertising himself and not the planet:
"Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[24][25] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".[26] He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of long-term changes in the Earth's albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average cloud cover.[27]" There's lots of folks who used to work for NASA who also think there's aliens on the moon, and like this particular loon, his climatological perspectives have been smashed repeatedly.

The data3o centre also posts the exact same image I did regarding temperature anomalies, not differentials, which is how temperature is measured. Here's a backgrounder:Did You Know? | Monitoring References | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

When looking at graphs, seriously, it's important to note just how many legitimate sources are being used to present temperature vs. literally splicing different graphs onto other graphs for the sake of forcing data models to look the way the person presenting the data wants it to.

I don't deny it's complicated, and I can understand how people can smugly wrap themselves in their own convictions and blanket judgments, or blank posts, without even taking time to research past the link, something Manxman feels very comfortable in doing as opposed to heavy lifting.

Each website published by individuals is problematic hence the need for consensus science to help us understand what's actually taking place. The deeper you explore climatology the more absolutely complicated it becomes.

But citing intelligent design or uninterprted graphs on sites that just say here's some data doesn't give you a lot to talk about. Obviously big money is at stake in climatology otherwise Koch wouldn't have taken time to fund anyone, or any group willing to pooh pooh global warming as a human construct. If anyone has something reasonable to post I will respond in kind but linking to wingnuts or useless data will no longer be entertained.

 

[manxman]

its an un-winable arguement m8, only if it happens will a winner be known, and reading alternate bias's from financially interested parties couldnt be more of a waste of a persons time, if its cold put the heating up, if its wet, wear a coat, if your house is getting flooded, move, simples.

black and white, here and now.

 

[pduchesne]

i don't think that's it entirely an accurate perspective. Yes to the parasites, absolutely, but science does what science will do. It's the interpreters, collectors, selectors and promoters of ideologies that determines what makes the news no matter how accurate or hyped that position may be, hence the importance of taking time to read facts as opposed to generalizing positions through emotion. Not that different individual scientists are not guilty of being selective, but when you can collect data over time in a holistic manner and then determine what the totality of science says, outside of an individual bias, is there anything objective to say.

You seem to have a lot of respect for scientists. Until they don't fully support your environmental agenda. Then it's anything goes and the Nazi rhetoric starts.

I really wanted to stay away from this thread for all the usual rhetoric and disinformation that gets presented here and then of course it turns to insult. Personally, I feel it is important to care for the planet, others have axes to grind, understood. Perhaps I should have started this on a kinder note, myself, but I've been down this road on this forum before and it ends just like this thread will - going nowhere!

That respected phd is advertising himself and not the planet:
"Spencer is a signatory to An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming,[24][25] which states that "Earth and its ecosystems – created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting".[26] He believes that most climate change is natural in origin, the result of long-term changes in the Earth's albedo and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused some warming, but that its warming influence is small compared to natural, internal, chaotic fluctuations in global average cloud cover.[27]" There's lots of folks who used to work for NASA who also think there's aliens on the moon, and like this particular loon, his climatological perspectives have been smashed repeatedly.

The data3o centre also posts the exact same image I did regarding temperature anomalies, not differentials, which is how temperature is measured. Here's a backgrounder:Did You Know? | Monitoring References | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

When looking at graphs, seriously, it's important to note just how many legitimate sources are being used to present temperature vs. literally splicing different graphs onto other graphs for the sake of forcing data models to look the way the person presenting the data wants it to.

I don't deny it's complicated, and I can understand how people can smugly wrap themselves in their own convictions and blanket judgments, or blank posts, without even taking time to research past the link, something Manxman feels very comfortable in doing as opposed to heavy lifting.

Each website published by individuals is problematic hence the need for consensus science to help us understand what's actually taking place. The deeper you explore climatology the more absolutely complicated it becomes.

But citing intelligent design or uninterprted graphs on sites that just say here's some data doesn't give you a lot to talk about. Obviously big money is at stake in climatology otherwise Koch wouldn't have taken time to fund anyone, or any group willing to pooh pooh global warming as a human construct. If anyone has something reasonable to post I will respond in kind but linking to wingnuts or useless data will no longer be entertained.

Yeah, thanks for the graph reading lesson. But if you actually looked at the graph I provided, you would see it is temperature anomaly. It is considered by scientists to be the best climate temperature data available. And while I don't agree with Dr. Spencer's theology, I don't see how it negates the validity of the data he provides. If you ever worked in a scientific environment, you would see that most scientists and engineers are church going folks who believe in God. Except astronomers for some reason. Are you suggesting we ignore all of their work? Or only that which you dislike? I know you are feeling a little outmatched and looking for a way out, and to be honest I'm getting a little tired of your closed-mindedness on this topic. So, bye bye.

 

[pduchesne]

its an un-winable arguement m8, only if it happens will a winner be known, and reading alternate bias's from financially interested parties couldnt be more of a waste of a persons time, if its cold put the heating up, if its wet, wear a coat, if your house is getting flooded, move, simples.

black and white, here and now.

Yeah, but it was fun for a while. Cheers.

 

[Burnt State]

Nazi=somene who holds racist positions to the extent they are willing to kill others to support it. That's highly inappropriate as a mode of discourse @pduchesne and I hope you will refrain from future similar comparisons or the use of that word. Racism and genocide are positions I'm sensitive to.

I was referencing the data360 graph and not yours.

I think any minor amount of research on Spencer will give you a better estimation of where he stands in the climate debate and how poorly regarded he is.

As for sticking it out in threads - it does not perturb me at all but it needs to be functional and responses should speak to the issue at hand. Experience has demonstrated on the forum before that when it comes to conspiracies (whichever side you are on) resolutions are pretty much impossible unless people are willing to give a little.

But when you start calling people Nazis that's the sign that things have destabilized entirely.

 

[pduchesne]

Nazi=somene who holds racist positions to the extent they are willing to kill others to support it. That's highly inappropriate as a mode of discourse @pduchesne and I hope you will refrain from future similar comparisons or the use of that word. Racism and genocide are positions I'm sensitive to.

I was referencing the data360 graph and not yours.

I think any minor amount of research on Spencer will give you a better estimation of where he stands in the climate debate and how poorly regarded he is.

As for sticking it out in threads - it does not perturb me at all but it needs to be functional and responses should speak to the issue at hand. Experience has demonstrated on the forum before that when it comes to conspiracies (whichever side you are on) resolutions are pretty much impossible unless people are willing to give a little.

But when you start calling people Nazis that's the sign that things have destabilized entirely.

I wasn't calling you a Nazi. I was accusing you of using Nazi rhetoric against me. In your very first post to this thread you said:

"I don't and have never understood this method of thinking, but please recognize that historical scapegoating brought us genocide quite consistently time and time again".

Seriously? My use of historical fact is in some way akin to condoning genocide? When we think of genocide, who else but the Nazis comes to mind. So, without using the "n " word, you were, in fact calling me a Nazi. And to be frank, that pisses me off a bit. You are honestly the most closed minded and intolerant person I have dealt with in a long time.

 

[manxman]

Nazi=somene who holds racist positions to the extent they are willing to kill others to support it. That's highly inappropriate as a mode of discourse @pduchesne and I hope you will refrain from future similar comparisons or the use of that word. Racism and genocide are positions I'm sensitive to.

I was referencing the data360 graph and not yours.

I think any minor amount of research on Spencer will give you a better estimation of where he stands in the climate debate and how poorly regarded he is.

As for sticking it out in threads - it does not perturb me at all but it needs to be functional and responses should speak to the issue at hand. Experience has demonstrated on the forum before that when it comes to conspiracies (whichever side you are on) resolutions are pretty much impossible unless people are willing to give a little.

But when you start calling people Nazis that's the sign that things have destabilized entirely.

no this tantrum is nothing more than a debating tactic, commonly used to get the opposition on the defensive, and move away from the discussion, ive seen this skeptic tactic in-play so many times its made my eyes bleed, used to get post's or posters deleted, mainly posters.

 

[pduchesne]

no this tantrum is nothing more than a debating tactic, commonly used to get the opposition on the defensive, and move away from the discussion, ive seen this skeptic tactic in-play so many times its made my eyes bleed, used to get post's or posters deleted, mainly posters.

Well, that would be ironic if BS implies that I'm genocidal and I get banned for calling him on it. I'll add him to my ignore list.

 

[Jimi H.]

You made the statement that the ice core record showed a correlation between CO2 and temperature.

You don't understand the article you linked to, lol. You have no idea what it means or what relevance it has to the case of global warming.

I don't get people like you, but if I'm being kind, I think you've been misled.

"Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change"
Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com

You want to know how they operate? They employ disinformation campaigns, literally. And you are a tool for these guys.

Check this story on a major player like FOX, they were manipulating and presenting false info while covering the Copenhagen Conference:
FOXLEAKS: Fox boss ordered staff to cast doubt on climate science | Blog | Media Matters for America

yet here you are banging your drum for your particular brand propaganda.

Listen, why don't you get over your issues wrt people who educated themselves? And why don't you drop the 'millionaire' scientist blabla? FYI people don't become rich working for environmental studies.

Look at the disinformation revealed above and take heed. That way I could respect your attitude, if it was actually directed at the appropriate parties.

YOU are the one who made this simplistic statement: “Yea, for instance, the Northwest passage opened up for the first time in recorded history in 2007”. You didn't say the NW passage was the most open since 1905 because that just doesn't have the impact you were looking for. ...

So you refuse to acknowledge what 'open passage' means? Mind you, I'm simply using the appropriate language. I think it's bizarre, but I've debated enough deniers like you to know how impossible it is to have a reasonable discussion. You're simply standing in the corner with your hands on your ears shouting 'no, no, no, no!'

..For the worst sea level rise to happen, the Greenland ice sheet would have to melt. That is just not likely to happen.

But it's melting very fast at this point.