significant global warming is ocurring.

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Vic
Of course this is bullsh!t. No one has a clue how fast nature can adapt. That's just a buzz phrase. Or isn't the wildnerness around Mt. St. Helens still supposed to be barren?

Further cuts will be required until we're back in mud huts, I assume. Proving my point. Before you go changing global political policy and fscking a lot of people over, it doesn't occur to you for one minute that maybe scientists got a hold of few bad short-term datasets that met their pre-conceived opinion and ran with on the basis of grant money and political ideology, now does it? And now that there is concensus and a ton of grant money and political interests involved, we sure as hell wouldn't want to stop now, would we?

And of course, you're preaching like one in authority, like maybe one of these mystic robed scientists themselves, when in fact you're probably just a teenage dork in your parent's basement.

I'm just calling bullsh!t to the terror of the obvious. Climates change. Continents drift. Nothing is static. Temperatures go up, temperatures go down. Change is normal. You wanna prove something, provide proof. And if the world isn't going to end, why not wait until there is actually some type of solid scientific proof? Oh wait... there isn't anything solid, just "thought."

As for my background. I'm an undergraduate geoscience major currently doing biogeochemistry research. I've been taught by several excellent climatologists and geoscientists.

"No one has any clue as to how fast nature can adapt?" Actually we do have a clue. Thanks to a field called biology. Remember, life has evolved to deal with environmental changes that have occured in the past. This rapid change in temperature has not occured in the past. So this change coupled with the fractured wilderness human development has created could be devastating to many ecosystems.

The wilderness around Mt. St. Helens is recovering. Things grow well in fertile volcanic ash. Global warming is completely different from a volcanic eruption. You can't draw that parallel between the two.

A few bad short-term datasets? You obviously have no idea how much research is going into this. You're taking wild guesses against hundreds of scientific papers.

Your mudhuts exaggeration is laughable. Nuclear power is available now, as are wind, and solar.

As for your claims of biased science. It just so happens that many of the most famous global warming detractors get funding from major fossil fuel companies.

Climate does change naturally. But we change climate too. What kind of scientific proof do you want? We have temperature and CO2 records spanning hundreds of thousands of years.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
This shows natural and anthropogenic forcing next to actual observations.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/progr...rgy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg
Here are CO2 and temperature records dating back 400,000 years. Yes, this information is on the sierra club website. But it's from a peer reviewed scientific paper, not the sierra club.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Vic
"Significantly cutting"... just how much cutting will be sufficient I wonder? After they're done cutting "significantly," will that be enough, or will further cuts be required after that? How do the coal fires relate to today? Life is still here, is it not? I thought CO2 increases and the added greenhouse effect were irreversible? 1 degree celsius per millenium, and now 1 degree per century? Do you have those records? Oh wait, no one kept weather records more than 200 years ago. And hey, I'm just old enough to remember all those warnings about "Global cooling." OMG the world was supposed to end. Are you really that stupid, or do you think I am?

The ice in greenland has kept temperature records for the last hundred-thousand years, and it's been found.
Co2 is not irreversible, that's just stupid. There's an amount in and there's an amount out, right now that in is much bigger than the out fear.
How about cutting your extreme emission of 25% of all greenhouse gasses? From 300million people?
The weather is weird, someplaces it might get cold because it gets hotter other places.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: Vic
Of course this is bullsh!t. No one has a clue how fast nature can adapt. That's just a buzz phrase. Or isn't the wildnerness around Mt. St. Helens still supposed to be barren?

Further cuts will be required until we're back in mud huts, I assume. Proving my point. Before you go changing global political policy and fscking a lot of people over, it doesn't occur to you for one minute that maybe scientists got a hold of few bad short-term datasets that met their pre-conceived opinion and ran with on the basis of grant money and political ideology, now does it? And now that there is concensus and a ton of grant money and political interests involved, we sure as hell wouldn't want to stop now, would we?

And of course, you're preaching like one in authority, like maybe one of these mystic robed scientists themselves, when in fact you're probably just a teenage dork in your parent's basement.

I'm just calling bullsh!t to the terror of the obvious. Climates change. Continents drift. Nothing is static. Temperatures go up, temperatures go down. Change is normal. You wanna prove something, provide proof. And if the world isn't going to end, why not wait until there is actually some type of solid scientific proof? Oh wait... there isn't anything solid, just "thought."

As for my background. I'm an undergraduate geoscience major currently doing biogeochemistry research. I've been taught by several excellent climatologists and geoscientists.

"No one has any clue as to how fast nature can adapt?" Actually we do have a clue. Thanks to a field called biology. Remember, life has evolved to deal with environmental changes that have occured in the past. This rapid change in temperature has not occured in the past. So this change coupled with the fractured wilderness human development has created could be devastating to many ecosystems.

The wilderness around Mt. St. Helens is recovering. Things grow well in fertile volcanic ash. Global warming is completely different from a volcanic eruption. You can't draw that parallel between the two.

A few bad short-term datasets? You obviously have no idea how much research is going into this. You're taking wild guesses against hundreds of scientific papers.

Your mudhuts exaggeration is laughable. Nuclear power is available now, as are wind, and solar.

As for your claims of biased science. It just so happens that many of the most famous global warming detractors get funding from major fossil fuel companies.

Climate does change naturally. But we change climate too. What kind of scientific proof do you want? We have temperature and CO2 records spanning hundreds of thousands of years.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm
This shows natural and anthropogenic forcing next to actual observations.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/progr...rgy/climate-change/vostok-ice-core.jpg
Here are CO2 and temperature records dating back 400,000 years. Yes, this information is on the sierra club website. But it's from a peer reviewed scientific paper, not the sierra club.

Yes, mudhuts are stupid, coal power, and cars are the two biggest contributors to Co2 emissions. two things we can "easily" change.
Is that chart verified? If so, damn.

 

[Vic]

According to that chart, the increases in CO2 concentrations and temperature began 15,000 years ago. That was the last ice age, when nearly half the earth was covered in ice. If anything, it reinforces my position that change is normal.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Vic
According to that chart, the increases in CO2 concentrations and temperature began 15,000 years ago. That was the last ice age, when nearly half the earth was covered in ice. If anything, it reinforces my position that change is normal.

Well, that was a worthless comment. Try it like this:

You see that temperatures increase according to the amount of co2 in the amtomsphere. Now, see what amounts of co2 we've had in the atmosphere in the past, now check what we had in 2002, which is stated in the table. The maximum amount earlier is below 300 ppmv. In 2002 we were at 370 ppmv. And present there is measured at 1950.

Nobody is denying any natural change, and i am certainly not denying human effects. Don't know about you though.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Well, that was a worthless comment. Try it like this:

You see that temperatures increase according to the amount of co2 in the amtomsphere. Now, see what amounts of co2 we've had in the atmosphere in the past, now check what we had in 2002, which is stated in the table. The maximum amount earlier is below 300 ppmv. In 2002 we were at 370 ppmv. And present there is measured at 1950.

Nobody is denying any natural change, and i am certainly not denying human effects. Don't know about you though.

The 2002 figure is not credible, particularly as it looks like the Sierra Club inserted it. They even put a little approximation symbol next to it.
Even a casual observation of the data shows that the CO2 spikes and remains high even after temperatures go back down. This does not mean that 2 data are unrelated, just that they don't relate in perfect synch.

Human effects pale compared to natural effects. You ever put a compost pit in your garden? Funny thing, they get downright warm as the biological matter decomposes, and they release greenhouse gases. Magnify that by a forest. There are a billion other examples (like natural forest fires). But I like the compost analogy because oil is basically preserved liquid compost.

And oh! we could go back to nuclear. That's rich, considering it was the environmental crowd pretty much put a stop to the further development of nuclear power more than 20 years ago.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Well, that was a worthless comment. Try it like this:

You see that temperatures increase according to the amount of co2 in the amtomsphere. Now, see what amounts of co2 we've had in the atmosphere in the past, now check what we had in 2002, which is stated in the table. The maximum amount earlier is below 300 ppmv. In 2002 we were at 370 ppmv. And present there is measured at 1950.

Nobody is denying any natural change, and i am certainly not denying human effects. Don't know about you though.

The 2002 figure is not credible, particularly as it looks like the Sierra Club inserted it. They even put a little approximation symbol next to it.
Even a casual observation of the data shows that the CO2 spikes and remains high even after temperatures go back down. This does not mean that 2 data are unrelated, just that they don't relate in perfect synch.

Human effects pale compared to natural effects. You ever put a compost pit in your garden? Funny thing, they get downright warm as the biological matter decomposes, and they release greenhouse gases. Magnify that by a forest. There are a billion other examples (like natural forest fires). But I like the compost analogy because oil is basically preserved liquid compost.

And oh! we could go back to nuclear. That's rich, considering it was the environmental crowd pretty much put a stop to the further development of nuclear power more than 20 years ago.

Just denying things when proven wrong? What? Well ok, i guess it's valid to doubt any information your given, and i don't even know what sierra-club is i guess.

Okay, now check this little text, which has alot of information. Now it doesn't directly say how much Co2 is in the atmosphere, so lets keep looking.

Here is some data.

We also have somethinghere, but this is interesting. This doctor attempts to prove that the measuring of Co2 in ice cores is wrong. I can't argue against him as i am not educated enough, but i'll keep searching in just a bit.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Well, that was a worthless comment. Try it like this:

You see that temperatures increase according to the amount of co2 in the amtomsphere. Now, see what amounts of co2 we've had in the atmosphere in the past, now check what we had in 2002, which is stated in the table. The maximum amount earlier is below 300 ppmv. In 2002 we were at 370 ppmv. And present there is measured at 1950.

Nobody is denying any natural change, and i am certainly not denying human effects. Don't know about you though.

The 2002 figure is not credible, particularly as it looks like the Sierra Club inserted it. They even put a little approximation symbol next to it.
Even a casual observation of the data shows that the CO2 spikes and remains high even after temperatures go back down. This does not mean that 2 data are unrelated, just that they don't relate in perfect synch.

Human effects pale compared to natural effects. You ever put a compost pit in your garden? Funny thing, they get downright warm as the biological matter decomposes, and they release greenhouse gases. Magnify that by a forest. There are a billion other examples (like natural forest fires). But I like the compost analogy because oil is basically preserved liquid compost.

And oh! we could go back to nuclear. That's rich, considering it was the environmental crowd pretty much put a stop to the further development of nuclear power more than 20 years ago.

But how dare you say human effects pale compared to natural effects? That is completely based on your own opinion.

And yes, they should relate, but they don't have to relate in prefect synch.

 

[Forsythe]

Originally posted by: Forsythe

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Well, that was a worthless comment. Try it like this:

You see that temperatures increase according to the amount of co2 in the amtomsphere. Now, see what amounts of co2 we've had in the atmosphere in the past, now check what we had in 2002, which is stated in the table. The maximum amount earlier is below 300 ppmv. In 2002 we were at 370 ppmv. And present there is measured at 1950.

Nobody is denying any natural change, and i am certainly not denying human effects. Don't know about you though.

The 2002 figure is not credible, particularly as it looks like the Sierra Club inserted it. They even put a little approximation symbol next to it.
Even a casual observation of the data shows that the CO2 spikes and remains high even after temperatures go back down. This does not mean that 2 data are unrelated, just that they don't relate in perfect synch.

Human effects pale compared to natural effects. You ever put a compost pit in your garden? Funny thing, they get downright warm as the biological matter decomposes, and they release greenhouse gases. Magnify that by a forest. There are a billion other examples (like natural forest fires). But I like the compost analogy because oil is basically preserved liquid compost.

And oh! we could go back to nuclear. That's rich, considering it was the environmental crowd pretty much put a stop to the further development of nuclear power more than 20 years ago.

But how dare you say human effects pale compared to natural effects? That is completely based on your own opinion.

And yes, they should relate, but they don't have to relate in prefect synch.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm
Emission of Carbon DiOxide around the world.

 

[Forsythe]

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
More about the Mauna Loa records.

 

[Forsythe]

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7
Something about that guy argumenting against the truth regarding ice core measures.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Well, that was a worthless comment. Try it like this:

You see that temperatures increase according to the amount of co2 in the amtomsphere. Now, see what amounts of co2 we've had in the atmosphere in the past, now check what we had in 2002, which is stated in the table. The maximum amount earlier is below 300 ppmv. In 2002 we were at 370 ppmv. And present there is measured at 1950.

Nobody is denying any natural change, and i am certainly not denying human effects. Don't know about you though.

The 2002 figure is not credible, particularly as it looks like the Sierra Club inserted it. They even put a little approximation symbol next to it.
Even a casual observation of the data shows that the CO2 spikes and remains high even after temperatures go back down. This does not mean that 2 data are unrelated, just that they don't relate in perfect synch.

Human effects pale compared to natural effects. You ever put a compost pit in your garden? Funny thing, they get downright warm as the biological matter decomposes, and they release greenhouse gases. Magnify that by a forest. There are a billion other examples (like natural forest fires). But I like the compost analogy because oil is basically preserved liquid compost.

And oh! we could go back to nuclear. That's rich, considering it was the environmental crowd pretty much put a stop to the further development of nuclear power more than 20 years ago.

You really should study global warming before you make claims that you understand it.

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
Eh? I never heard that the effects of greenhouse gases were completely irreversible. I think all sorts of ultra-left wing rhetoric is starting to mix and congeal in your head.

Eh? Not at all. I saw some scientist say exactly that on a TV documentary recently (PBS IIRC). He said specifically that the addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere was irreversible.

Some scientist is exactly the problem. Science is not an entity. Science is a method. The problem is figuring out which scientists to trust... and lone scientists who make vague points outside of the general conensus surely don't help matters. That said, I'll be quicker to trust the scientific community's judgement before I trust your analysis of the situation, to be frank.

Your frankness doesn't bother me. Whether you trust me I don't care about. What is reality is that 99% of the world thinks of science as a religion now, with anyone labeled by the media as a "scientist" as being akin to a holy priest. This is simply a fact of today's world. So if one rogue priest decides to get his 15 minutes and make "vague points outside of the general consensus," then most of the viewers are going to take it as gospel. Add up enough of these instances, combined with the flawed thinking that science involves consensus at all (the method does not), and you can see how something like this manufactures itself, I hope. Throw politics into the mix, and the silencing of any dissenting opinion or the denouncing of any requests for more hard proof, and well... it just gets ugly.


edit: I provide this proof that science is now considered a religion. Since this thinking began (roughly 40 years ago), and for as long as it continues, science will always have a "doomsday" scenario in the works. Some type of end of the world unless we do something to stop it. The exact details of this impending scientific armageddon will frequently change, global warming to asteroids to supervolcanoes to little green men to nuclear winter to atomic war, but such a scenario will always be in the public eye, held up as very real and with no heretics allowed. This is not proof for now, but for later. Just a tidbit I'm throwing out, not to be used as part of this debate. Just 15 years from now, try to remember this post

Have you even studied any of the modern research on global warming, or are you just making up vague theories?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: conehead433
Coolest May we've had here in South Georgia that I can remember. Probably averaged 10 degrees cooler. Turned my AC on on June 8. Every year prior I have turned it on by May 1.

This is the understandably narrow point of view that doomed the Norse in Greenland as temperatures gradually cooled there until they could no longer support their population through farming. It's the same view that caused the Mayans to keep expanding their population as their weather became gradually drier.

For some reason, people expect a monotonically changing curve instead of the actual curve of such events, which is more akin to a damped or driven sine wave instead of a monotonic increase or decrease. It's important to remember that a global warming trend means that the average over the globe and over many years shows increasing temperatures. However:

1. Global warming does not mean that each year will be warmer than the last.

2. Global warming does not indicate that each region will get warmer at the same time or even at all.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ
What scientists are you referring to when you say "scientists have argued that the earth was cooling"?

Dr. Reid Bryson - Fortune mag called him - "the most important figure in climatology today" when they ran with the global cooling chant.
Dr. Stephen Schneider - In the 70's he was chanting about global cooling due to dust concentration in the atmosphere. He's now joined the global warming bandwagon.
There are others in this too but we have had Newsweek, Time, and Fortune champion this global cooling notion in the past.

Who do we believe? Is their "evidence" and/or reasoning any better today than it was just a few years ago?

CsG

This post repeats at the bogus claim recently re-iterated in Crichton's recent novel that science was claiming that strong and possibly dangerous global cooling existed in the 1970s.

However, the state of science of the time wasn't what Crichton and certain columnists have claimed it was. There was a cooling trend from the 1940s and 1970s, but there were no scientists predicting an imminent ice age (though the popular press got things wrong about science then at times as they do today) and we can look to the National Academy of Sciences 1975 report for a summary of the US scientific opinion, which was that we needed to obtain more data to develop a quantitative understanding of climate change.

In summary, there weren't any dire scientific predictions, but instead a request for more extensive data which we have been gathering for the last three decades.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Vic
Global warming is the modern Chicken Little. Pseudo-scientific fearmongering for neurotics. Change is normal, fools. Volcanoes will erupt, tsunamuis will occur, as will earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes. Get over it. I noticed no one picked up on the fact I left about natural coal fires. I threw that in with the BS to demonstrate a truly scientific fact.

Yeah, right. Claiming that you were just lying isn't the best way to convince us that you know your science or that you're worth responding to.

Here's an idea. Which do you fear more? Global warming? Or going back to living in mud huts with a 50%+ infant mortality rate. Choose.

That's a false dichotomy. Civilization won't collapse to that level if we prevent environmental collapse. The reality is the opposite as history has demonstrated time and time again--environmental collapse is what would drive us back to that level of civilization, as other environmental collapses drove the Anasazis, Mayans, eastern Polynesians, and many other socities to collapse. However, we also have examples of societies that turned back from environmental collapse, such as Japan, which had severe environmental degregdation due to deforestation but which turned around from their self-destructive course and which is now has the most forested percentage of any first world country.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Underground Coal Fires - Burn, Baby, Burn !

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cquark
Yeah, right. Claiming that you were just lying isn't the best way to convince us that you know your science or that you're worth responding to.

No more so than YOU are lying. That's my point. This whole issue is bullsh!t. Google on! There is no forthcoming environmental collapse, Chicken Little.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Crimson
You must believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUV's.

This statement is nonsense, but it's obvious how a limited intellect might find it meaningful.

The temperature of the earth is approximately 500 degrees Kelvin. Let us say that "natural" temperature variation across the millenia is +/- 20 degrees for any given region. At it's worst, a 20 degree variation might make, say, Los Angeles barely habitable, or might create wintery conditions in the higher US latititudes, say, 9 months out of the year.

But if human activities were to add, say, only another 10 degrees of variation over the next two hundred years, that additional variation might put us "over the top". Maybe L.A. would become completely uninhabitable, or perhaps northern latitudes in the U.S. might be in continuous wintery conditions ("climate change" can raise AND lower temperatures).

So you see, it isn't whether human behavior has "more" of an affect than the natural world. It's that the affects can be addititive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic.

And? Can you show these "additive" effects? Quantify them? Even conclusively identify them?

What say you about the global cooling bleaters? Seems that used to be the environut chant of yesteryear...

CsG

Apparently your reading comprehension is limited, so I've bolded important portions of the posts which preceded yours to aid in your understanding.

Crimson cited the bolded statement and indicated he thinks it's appropo. I've refuted the quotation but showing how it's possible that human contributions to climate change can be less than natural variations yet still be the deciding factor in catastrophic climate change. That, in turn, demonstrates how one does not "have to believe" human contributions are greater than natural variations.

In logic or science, one disproves a statement or theory by providing a counterexample. I've provided a counterexample to Crimson's claim - my sole intention, and have therefore demonstrated that the statement was nonsense. The only assumptions that my counterexample depends on are (1) that it's possible for human contributions to add to natural variation, and (2) that it's possible that these marginal contributions could put climate "over the top". Hence my use of the words "can" and "may", rather than "are" and "will".

Now, if you want to argue that it is NOT possble for human behavior to add to natural variations, or that marginal contributions cannot be decisive, you can certainly try. But I think you're facing a huge hurdle.

Your actual question (to have me provide specific information on addititive contributions by humans) is completely irrelevant to my argument. But then, you aren't very logical, so what could I have expected.

Nice try but you premise is flawed -which I was pointing out. You said: "It's that the affects can be additive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic" - which means you assume that man causes additional effects. "Scientists" have argued that the earth was cooling - are we causing some "additional" effects in those cases too? You see -the whole issue is absurd because there is nothing showing causation by humans - let alone something quantitative(either way).

So yes, it seems one of us has problems with logic and comprehension - unfortunately for you - it is you. My questions are completely relevant to your premise - you haven't shown anything to support your "additional effects caused by mankind" premise. You just flop it out there and suggest people just nod without question.

CsG

What scientists are you referring to when you say "scientists have argued that the earth was cooling"?

Dr. Reid Bryson - Fortune mag called him - "the most important figure in climatology today" when they ran with the global cooling chant.
Dr. Stephen Schneider - In the 70's he was chanting about global cooling due to dust concentration in the atmosphere. He's now joined the global warming bandwagon.
There are others in this too but we have had Newsweek, Time, and Fortune champion this global cooling notion in the past.

Who do we believe? Is their "evidence" and/or reasoning any better today than it was just a few years ago?

CsG

Thirty years ago, you mean?

I believe some were hawking that "science" as late as 1996.

CsG

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Underground Coal Fires - Burn, Baby, Burn !

Burning Mountain

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Nice try but you premise is flawed -which I was pointing out. You said: "It's that the affects can be additive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic" - which means you assume that man causes additional effects. "Scientists" have argued that the earth was cooling - are we causing some "additional" effects in those cases too? You see -the whole issue is absurd because there is nothing showing causation by humans - let alone something quantitative(either way).

So yes, it seems one of us has problems with logic and comprehension - unfortunately for you - it is you. My questions are completely relevant to your premise - you haven't shown anything to support your "additional effects caused by mankind" premise. You just flop it out there and suggest people just nod without question.

CsG

Please explain how you twist, "It's that [mankind's] effects can be additive" into meaning "mankind causes additional effects"? Can you really not understand that to say that mankind CAN do something is not the same thing as saying mankind IS doing that thing?

If the difference between "can" and "is" is really too difficult a "concept" for you to grasp, perhaps an incontrovertible example will make it clear to you:

"Mankind can blow this planet into oblivion with nuclear weapons."

(I assure you, I truly believe that statement.)

Now, are you going to claim that this means:

"Mankind is blowing the planet into oblivion with nuclear weapons"?

Please, please tell me you aren't THAT dense.

So, now that we are on the same page: When I write: "It's that the effects can be additive", that means that even if mankind produces only a .00001 degree change, that change CAN in theory be in the same direction as "natural" variations. (That's what "additive" means.) So, it is true to say that, "the effects can be additive."

And if instead of .00001 degrees, the change were (say) 10 degrees (and if it were also additive), the result of the "addition" MAY be "catastrophic".

That's not an assertion that mankind is making any particular contribution to climate change. Nor is it a statement that, whatever the contribution, it's additive. And it is certainly not a statement that whatever the contribution is, and in whatever direction, it's catastrophic.

Get it?

:roll: - same old BS from you...

"additional effects caused by mankind" is what you typed. I don't care if you try to limit it with a "can be additive". Your premise is not sustained - period. No where have you shown that there are "additional effects" by humans - let alone linked them to "global warming".
So please show these "additional effects" you claim humans have before you claim they "can be additive".

It's not that hard - you just don't seem to understand that you are using assumptions in your argument that aren't backed up - I'm asking for you to back that premise up before we get into the potential "additive" nature of things.

"Get it?" :roll:

CsG

 

[yllus]

The Global Warming Debate (2005-01-12)

Observed global warming: real or measurement problem?
Proponent: Global warming is 0.5-0.75°C in past century, at least ~0.3°C in past 25 years.
Skeptic: Since about 1850 "...more likely ... 0.1±0.3°C" (MIT Tech Talk, 34, #7, 1989).

Planetary disequilibrium
Proponent: Earth is out of radiative equilibrium with space by at least approximately 0.5 W/m2 (absorbing more energy than it emits).

This is the most fundamental measure of the state of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. The disequilibrium should exist if climate sensitivity is as high (and thus the ocean thermal response time so long) as we estimate, and if increasing greenhouse gases are the dominant climate forcing mechanism. We have presented evidence (Hansen et al. 1997) of a disequilibrium of at least 0.5 W/m2. This imbalance is the basis by which we could predict that record global temperatures would occur within a few years, that the 1990s would be warmer than the 1980s, and that the first decade of next century will be warmer than the 1990s, despite the existence of natural climate variability. I do not know of a reference where Lindzen specifically addresses planetary radiation imbalance, but his positions regarding climate sensitivity and the ocean response time clearly imply a smaller, negligible imbalance.

The important point is that the planetary radiation imbalance is measurable, via the ocean temperature, because the only place this excess energy can go is into the ocean and, probably to a less extent, into the melting of ice. If our estimates are approximately right, this heat storage should not escape detection during the next several years.

In summary, all of these issues are ones that the scientific community potentially can make progress on in the near future, if they receive appropriate attention. The real global warming debate, in the sense of traditional science, can be resolved to a large extent in a reasonable time.

Climate model predictions from 1960 - 2000, compared to observed temperatures.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ
What scientists are you referring to when you say "scientists have argued that the earth was cooling"?

Dr. Reid Bryson - Fortune mag called him - "the most important figure in climatology today" when they ran with the global cooling chant.
Dr. Stephen Schneider - In the 70's he was chanting about global cooling due to dust concentration in the atmosphere. He's now joined the global warming bandwagon.
There are others in this too but we have had Newsweek, Time, and Fortune champion this global cooling notion in the past.

Who do we believe? Is their "evidence" and/or reasoning any better today than it was just a few years ago?

CsG

This post repeats at the bogus claim recently re-iterated in Crichton's recent novel that science was claiming that strong and possibly dangerous global cooling existed in the 1970s.

However, the state of science of the time wasn't what Crichton and certain columnists have claimed it was. There was a cooling trend from the 1940s and 1970s, but there were no scientists predicting an imminent ice age (though the popular press got things wrong about science then at times as they do today) and we can look to the National Academy of Sciences 1975 report for a summary of the US scientific opinion, which was that we needed to obtain more data to develop a quantitative understanding of climate change.

In summary, there weren't any dire scientific predictions, but instead a request for more extensive data which we have been gathering for the last three decades.

No "bogus claims" - these people exist and so do the wailings published about global cooling.
They may not be bad as the "sky is falling" global warming whining of today - but they did exist and people believed it.

The question is who do we believe? and then why should we believe them?

CsG

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cquark
Yeah, right. Claiming that you were just lying isn't the best way to convince us that you know your science or that you're worth responding to.

No more so than YOU are lying.

I'm offering scientific facts. You're the one who stated that you were spreading BS.

I threw that in with the BS

and throwing ad hominems because you cannot support your own BS

There is no forthcoming environmental collapse, Chicken Little.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: cquark
Yeah, right. Claiming that you were just lying isn't the best way to convince us that you know your science or that you're worth responding to.

No more so than YOU are lying.

I'm offering scientific facts. You're the one who stated that you were spreading BS.

I threw that in with the BS

You have offerred opinion. No more. I should have said "your" BS. And yes, you are Chicken Little. "Impending environmental collapse." :roll: What a fsckin' crock.