General Climate Discussion

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Sabre

He's obviously a paid hack for Big Oil.

well gee Sabre, I dunno...would you consider Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association to be big oil?

Its amazing to what lenght some people (meaning you) will go to in order to try to shove their heads deeper into the sand while chanting that there is no global warming.

Meanwhile in the real world...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21423872/

Just a days after the Nobel prize was awarded for global warming work, an alarming new study finds that warming signals are stronger, and happening sooner than expected, due to increased human emissions of carbon dioxide and an Earth less able to absorb them.

Carbon dioxide emissions were 35 percent higher in 2006 than in 1990, a much faster growth rate than anticipated, researchers reported in Tuesday’s edition of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The researchers cited three factors: global economic growth; the global economy becoming more carbon intense — since 2000 more carbon is being emitted to produce each dollar of global wealth, they noted — and a decline in the land and oceans’ ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.

[Angus]

Here is one song from this Singer guy:
"Well, there's no question in my mind that humanity is able to affect climate on a local scale. We all know that cities are warmer than the suburbs or surrounding countryside. So there's clear indication that human beings, in producing energy, in just living, generate heat. We're not going to go back to living without energy.

Whether or not human beings can produce a global climate change is an important question. This question is not at all settled. It can only be settled by actual measurements, data. And the data are ambiguous. For example, the data show that the climate warmed between 1900 and 1940, long before humanity used much energy. But then the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975. Then it warmed again for a very short period of time, for about five years. But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming. "

"The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites. "

1. He does say yes to local scale warming from human origin.
2. He sais surface records are not reliable enough. (which are the only records for pre-sattelite times he just mentioned)
3. Then he moves to weather sats as a reliable sort, - not mentioning that they are registering warming.
4. He clames climate cooling since 1979....which is boulderdash. Seems like 2005 is now the king on the hill
5. He gets through the whole interview without naming ocean temps or Glacial melting.

Doesn't hold much water to me, sorry.

Linkie:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

[lazs2]

no measurable rise in global temperature in 8 years now...  no measure of any increase for two decades in the US according to sat data...

Angus... are you now off co2 as the cause?  On to methane?   we are not contributing to methane.

And... say that co2 was evil... say that we decided to reduce it by 30%...  that would cost the world maybe 100 billion a year or more and... even if everything went just right... and nothing else changed...  we would reduce the temp .29 degrees by the year 2100...  if we happen to go into a cooling trend anytime before that.. we would simply be making things worse by .29 degrees.  Boroda would just be .29 degrees colder.

The global temp will trend downward in the next few years... the acoloytes and high priests of MMGW are in a race... the race is to enact taxation and penalties in time to take credit for nature... they have only a few years before their fraud is expossed.

It is a power grab by the socialists... plain and simple.   It is pure greed by the willing grant seeking "scientists" who go along.

lazs

[Hortlund]

See Rule #4

[Jackal1]

In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scien-tific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The As-sociated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”

Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.

[SkyRock]

I think many of you on these boards are trying to be too political about this topic.  Eventually, man's impact on this planet will be something to be lived with on a daily basis!

[Angus]

It already is

[lazs2]

skyrock.. of course we can affect this planet.   It is very easy to affect it locally for instance.. we can pollute a stream or clean up one nature has polluted.

It behooves us to do the best we can but... the co2 BS is a diversion.. it uses up energy and resources and... good will.. that could be better used elsewhere.. even some rabid environmentalists are realizing that it is taking away from real environmental problems that we can do something about.   That viking country one with the unpronouncable name for instance, just wrote a book on it.

Co2 is not pollution.. it can't warm the planet in any meaningful way.. it can increase crop production and it is impossible to stop from happening at this point.. and expensive power grab.

Some things we simply can't change at this point....

Hell.. how much c02 is being released by the current forest fires raging in so cal?

WE CAN'T EVEN PUT OUT A FIRE.   Do you get it?  you want to reduce the level of C02 in the entire globe.. when the temp has not even risen in 8 years... and

WE CAN'T EVEN PUT OUT ONE LITTLE FIRE.   I say this because... the MMGW acolytes believe.. and would have us believe.. that we are in control.. that we can change the very climate of the globe.. it is in our hands... we can somehow change the whole atmosphere but we can't put out a fire.

lazs

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Jackal1

Source?

[Angus]

Lazs:
"Hell.. how much c02 is being released by the current forest fires raging in so cal?"
Quite a bit. Will have some dimming effect too because of soot particles.
If you have the acrage and a rough biomass, I can make a good guess and calibrate it into it's value of burned diesel....

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Hortlund
Source?

The thumbs up smiley can be located just to the left of the reply text box.
The rest came from the article.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Jackal1
The thumbs up smiley can be located just to the left of the reply text box.
The rest came from the article.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf

Pages 15-39 are the contributors to the report. As you can see, they all have scientific qualifications you lying sack of s hit.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Hortlund
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf

Pages 15-39 are the contributors to the report. As you can see, they all have scientific qualifications you lying sack of s hit.

Maybe you had better go practice your reading and comprehension skills.

Also if you are going to go PC Rambo on me and start calling me names.....do it in person. PC warriors hardly impress me.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Shamus
LOL...it would seem that he is

shamus

You missed the point of my bit of sarcasm, which was that the MMGW supplicants would probably just discount Singer (through guilt by association) rather than engage in his arguments. And you did exactly as I expected, i.e. commited the genetic fallacy.  That is, you attacked the source of the argument, rather than the argument itself.  This is a typical tactic of someone forced to defend a weak position.  So, Singer has associations with various thinktanks and policy groups that have received grants from oil companies.  What does that have to do with his credentials as a scientist, or with the data he sites?  Either the satellite data supports his conclusions or it does not.  Same goes for his other arguments and their supporting data.  If a scientist gets money from an enviromental group instead, does that mean we should automatically discount his/her conclusions as "tainted" by the anti-capitalist agenda of some enviro groups?

[SkyRock]

Originally posted by lazs2
Co2 is not pollution..

I agree with you, it is not a pollution unless at high concentrations.  It is however a gas that produces what Joseph Fourier discovered as the greenhouse effect.  

Originally posted by lazs2
it can't warm the planet in any meaningful way..

This is simply a false statement.  "When" CO2 levels reach a certain point, they will have a direct effect on the amount of heat that is witheld in the atmosphere.  The argument lately is if we are to that point yet or not.

Originally posted by lazs2
Some things we simply can't change at this point....lazs

I do not believe we can change the outcome too much either!:aok