Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

Scientist who have no way of predicting anything are dilligently working on a solution to the global freezing that is occuring in antarctica. It appears according to recent studies conducted at the exopense of your tax dollars that it's cold in antarctica. This is a brillient discovery hails the american government who has with the help of other global elitist countries said bravo tothe scientist effort to determine that it is cold in antarctica. One reporter bravely suggested that this discovery refering of course to the notion that it was presumed cold in antarctica. that reporter is no longer with us as it has been assertained that the reporter is now a scientist working in antarctica.

In the future there will be much speculation as to how these geniuses have discovered that it's cold in antarctica. What kinfd of bold and brazen men just walk onto a continent of ice and without much adiou about anything can just claim that the area is cold. this is quite honestly the most brillient work I have ever seen.

reply to post by Nathan-D


The entire point of mentioning the logarithmic effect was so one of you doesn't try to once again distort the numbers by saying something like "oh - well in the Ordivician concentrations dropped by 2600ppm, and we are only raising them by 280ppm, therefore that's only 0.00000000003268752% or something so don't worry be happy yaddi yadda"

The lesson is going from 3000 to 5600 is the same as going from 300 to 560.

500 million years ago this had massive consequences, and that was before people were around to rely on crops and live along coastlines. So all the Ordovician denier myth does is actually help support all the alarmist red flags being raised by people like Dan Miller in the OP and make anyone who says "no big - climate's always changin" look like a tool.

And the "centered talk" isn't really about CO2 doubling but about the magnitude of feedbacks.

No. It's about the magnitude of feedbacks centered around a CO2 doubling.

Given this, how could anthropogenic CO2 possibly have accumulated over 70 years as the IPCC postulates since it has an atmospheric-lifetime of about ten years?

Do you understand the difference between accumulation and individual lifetime? Let's say we have a sea monkey aquarium where each sea monkey lives for six months and all the dead ones get buried away inside the little castle next to the scuba guy. If we add the same number of sea monkeys every six months then no, nothing accumulates I suppose - but you've still got a steady number of sea monkeys that wouldn't otherwise be there. But even that's not happening. Because we are adding more and more sea monkeys every six months and the aquarium is getting more and more crowded.

And ok, I know how much you guys love to throw anything you can at the wall and hope it sticks, but seriously - this what you're resorting to now? You think it's just a coincidence that once we started pumping loads and loads of CO2 into the sky, the atmospheric concentration just happened to change in step "naturally"? You think fossil fuel emissions and C13/C12 ratios follow each other so closely entirely by fluke?

This is why you get condescending answers from me. Because I am tired of being patronized with this nonsense. You might want to play it off like you are just being skeptical and open-minded to all possibilities but there is a difference between being skeptical and being rational.

Look at your entire argument: it is completely predicated along this flimsy line of mostly unrelated what ifs and maybes and missing links and hypotheticals and minority opinions that can't hold a candle to the coherent, multiple lines of evidence supporting anthropogenic warming.

So do you think you're not going to convince me in this debate because I'm so stubbornly conditioned to be stuck on CO2, or maybe - just maybe - because your argument just sucks?

reply to post by kernalpanic

I've already put the whois information to that domain. If you accept a crappy cartoonist (not a scientist) as relavent to your 'argument', you have to accept Watts too.

That cartoonist also happens to have a degree in solar physics. And your ad hominem attack has no bearing on the content contained within that website, since it is all based on legitimate science that is all linked and sourced.

Meanwhile Watts is a joke - he was already discredited by his own work, he's been routinely caught lying and distorting information, and he is connected to the Heartland Institiute, a notorious anti-environmental lobby group that acts as a front for Big Oil and Tobacco.

reply to post by mc_squared

The lesson is going from 3000 to 5600 is the same as going from 300 to 560.

How can it possibly be the same when CO2 has an ever-diminishing warming effect with increased concentrations?

500 million years ago this had massive consequences, and that was before people were around to rely on crops and live along coastlines. So all the Ordovician denier myth does is actually help support all the alarmist red flags being raised by people like Dan Miller in the OP and make anyone who says "no big - climate's always changin" look like a tool.

According to rock strata paleo-reconstructions there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature going back 500 million years so how can you possibly imply with a straight face that CO2 has influenced temperature in the past?

No. It's about the magnitude of feedbacks centered around a CO2 doubling.

My point was, the warming from CO2 by itself is largely inconsequential, since most of the warming (in the climate models) comes from feedback factors.

Do you understand the difference between accumulation and individual lifetime? Let's say we have a sea monkey aquarium where each sea monkey lives for six months and all the dead ones get buried away inside the little castle next to the scuba guy. If we add the same number of sea monkeys every six months then no, nothing accumulates I suppose - but you've still got a steady number of sea monkeys that wouldn't otherwise be there. But even that's not happening. Because we are adding more and more sea monkeys every six months and the aquarium is getting more and more crowded.

Your analogy doesn't make any sense. We have direct observational evidence based on nuclear testing on C14 documenting that the real atmospheric-lifespan for CO2 is about 10 years and if the lifespan is 10 years then anthropogenic CO2 pumped out into the atmosphere 50 years ago cannot possibly remain now. With a ten year atmospheric-lifespan, as opposed to 70-200 years, the maximum anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere now would be around 4%-8%, much lower than what is suggested by the IPCC.

Do you understand the difference between accumulation and individual lifetime?

Yes, although you don't appear to.

nothing accumulates I suppose

And that is the point, isn't it? It can only accumulate for ten years.

And ok, I know how much you guys love to throw anything you can at the wall and hope it sticks, but seriously - this what you're resorting to now? You think it's just a coincidence that once we started pumping loads and loads of CO2 into the sky, the atmospheric concentration just happened to change in step "naturally"?

Without the bias selection method from Callander the CO2 concentration over the 20th Century looks like this. Callander cherry-picked data, you can see here all the measurements above 350ppm he rejected without justification.

You think fossil fuel emissions and C13/C12 ratios follow each other so closely entirely by fluke?

Please burn into your memory the fundamental scientific principle that correlation does not prove a cause, which renders the 'overwhelming majority' of scientific studies like the one cited above whose results purported to prove AGW is totally irrelevant and complete red-herrings in fact. If anthropogenic CO2 is accumulating at such a fast pace then why is the interannual variability of CO2 driven mostly by the oceans? The interannual increase in CO2 from observations at Mauna Loa show very large natural fluctuations caused by temperature changes, easily overwhelming anthropogenic CO2. Given the oceans have such a large influence over the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere any significant warming or cooling of the oceans would easily dwarf the contribution that humans have. Would it not?

This is why you get condescending answers from me. Because I am tired of being patronized with this nonsense. You might want to play it off like you are just being skeptical and open-minded to all possibilities but there is a difference between being skeptical and being rational.

No, I'll tell you why you're being condescending. Because AGW has become a part of your identity and when someone challenges it, you perceive it as a personal attack. It's the same with any religion.

Look at your entire argument: it is completely predicated along this flimsy line of mostly unrelated what ifs and maybes and missing links and hypotheticals and minority opinions that can't hold a candle to the coherent, multiple lines of evidence supporting anthropogenic warming.

Okay, so where is the evidence (apart from computer models) that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will result in catastrophic warming?

So do you think you're not going to convince me in this debate because I'm so stubbornly conditioned to be stuck on CO2, or maybe - just maybe - because your argument just sucks?

The former seems more likely to me.

Anyone notice the podium he's speaking at? It says "The Hillside Club". Notice the acronym is T.H.C.?

I think that is the Universe telling us this guy is high.

reply to post by harrytuttle


Yeah,maybe so....but it could also be we're the ones high for not taking this serious. So, touche.

reply to post by Nathan-D

If anthropogenic CO2 is accumulating at such a fast pace then why is the interannual variability of CO2 driven mostly by the oceans? The interannual increase in CO2 from observations at Mauna Loa show very large natural fluctuations caused by temperature changes, easily overwhelming anthropogenic CO2.

I dont know what you see in the graph, but after averaging out seasonal oceanic fluctuations, which are zero-sum changes net effect of which is zero on larger timescales, there is clearly visible upward slope, in correlation with human emmisions adding additional CO2, oversaturating the natural sources/sinks ratio (green line).

LIfetime of CO2

5 years!?! This was something I was not aware of. I would of thought that it's effect was culmative over a longer span of time?

5 years is like nothing. We can plant more trees and get rid of CO2 in the atmosphere.
GW is a joke.

reply to post by Maslo

I dont know what you see in the graph, but after averaging out seasonal oceanic fluctuations, which are zero-sum changes net effect of which is zero on larger timescales, there is clearly visible upward slope, in correlation with human emissions adding additional CO2, over saturating the natural sources/sinks ratio (green line).

The green-line represents the year-to-year fluctuations from biological sources and has nothing to with over-saturation of sinks. What gave you that idea? The blue line represents the purported increase due to anthropogenic emissions (key word 'purported') as noted on the graph, and you can see how much CO2 fluctuates year-to-year due to the oceans. The averaged-out oceanic fluctuations do correlate with anthropogenic CO2 (leave out the 'emissions' bit, that's misleading) providing you believe that the 2.5ppm increase of CO2 on the graph is anthropogenic in the first place and not from the oceans. How do you know that the 2.5ppm increase apparently due to anthropogenic CO2 is not simply just from the oceans?

reply to post by grey580

LIfetime of CO2 . 5 years!?! This was something I was not aware of. I would of thought that it's effect was culmative over a longer span of time?

The fact that CO2 has such a small atmospheric lifetime precludes any possibility that we can control the CO2 concentration. All observations show, without exception, a lifespan between 5-10 years.

"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through ... a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."
--Lyndon Johnson
Special Message to Congress, 1965

I like this article from 2008 that puts perspective on both scientific theory and gloom and doom environmentalists, politicians etc; and goes back a long way. At least they spoke out in a forthright manner, even if they were badly wrong ultimately. It's different today when many scientists, who may have other agendas besiege with charts and graphs, and the "you better believe me or else" mentality with "Man made global warming scenarios" while they also, are looking over their shoulders in case a fellow scientist comes up with something better, scientists like fashion statements too...but only as long as there is a big following, they are just a little more conservative than the Plebians. Anyway the quote;

"By Walter E. Williams – Now that another Earth Day has come and gone,
let’s look at some environmentalists’ predictions they would prefer we forget.

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel
Calder warned, "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside
nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for
mankind." C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said,
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough
that it will not soon be reversed."

In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, former Vice President Al Gore’s hero
and mentor, predicted a major food shortage in the U.S. and "in the
1970s… hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death."
Mr. Ehrlich forecast 65 million Americans would die of starvation
between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have
declined to 22.6 million. Mr. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were
gloomier: "If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England
will not exist in the year 2000."

In 1972, a report for the Club of Rome warned the world would run out
of gold by 1981, mercury and silver by 1985, tin by 1987 and
petroleum, copper, lead and natural gas by 1992.

Gordon Taylor, in his 1970 book "The Doomsday Book," said Americans
were using 50 percent of the world’s resources and "by 2000 they [Americans] will,
if permitted, be using all of them."

In 1975, the Environmental Fund took out full-page ads warning, "The
World as we know it will likely be ruined by the year 2000."

Harvard University biologist George Wald in 1970 warned, "civilization
will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken
against problems facing mankind." That was the same year Sen. Gaylord
Nelson warned, in Look Magazine, that by 1995 "somewhere between 75
and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct."

It’s not just latter-day doomsayers who have been wrong; doomsayers
have always been wrong. In 1885, the U.S. Geological Survey announced
there was "little or no chance" of oil being discovered in California,

and a few years later they said the same about Kansas and Texas. In
1939, the U.S. Interior Department said American oil supplies would
last only another 13 years. In 1949, the interior secretary said the
end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the
U.S. Geological Survey advised us that the U.S. had only a 10-year
supply of natural gas. In fact,, according to the American Gas
Association, there’s a 1,000- to 2,500-year supply.

Here are my questions: In 1970, when environmentalists were making
predictions of manmade global cooling and the threat of an ice age and
millions of Americans starving to death, what kind of government
policy should we have undertaken to prevent such a calamity?

When Mr. Ehrlich predicted England would not exist in the
year 2000,
what steps should the British Parliament have taken in 1970 to prevent
such a dire outcome? In 1939, when the Interior Department warned we
only had oil supplies for another 13 years, what actions should
President Roosevelt have taken? Finally, what makes us think
environmental alarmism is any more correct now the tune has been
switched to manmade global warming?

Here are a few facts: More than 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is
the result of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere. Without the
greenhouse effect, Earth’s average temperature would be zero degrees
Fahrenheit. Most climate change is due to the orbital eccentricities
of Earth and variations in the sun’s output. On top of that, natural
wetlands produce more greenhouse gas contributions annually than all
human sources combined.

Walter E. Williams is a nationally syndicated columnist and a
professor of economics at George Mason University."


Of course you don't need to agree with anything written here, but it is something to chew on.

Originally posted by greenfruit

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
What's saddest to see is that the fossil fuel industry's propaganda has worked on so many of you...

Talk about lemmings.

I too have researched global warming much much further than most people, and I've given EVERY SINGLE AGW DENIAL ARGUMENT A CHANCE. I really did... and ya know what? Essentially ALL of them proved to be wrong and/or plain ignorant. After going deeper down the rabbit hole than probably most of you... the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has only been strengthened in my mind.

The scientific debate ended decades ago, then a couple decades after that, the fossil fuel industry put out SERIOUS money, disinformation, propaganda, and political/media takeovers to convince people that there was a giant conspiracy. So essentially what happened is TPTB made you think that you are fighting them by denying global warming when you're actually playing right into their plutocrat hands. The fossil fuel industry is the WEALTHIEST INDUSTRY EVER TO EXIST ON PLANET EARTH, and for the world to take global warming seriously it would entail SERIOUS cuts to industry profits and their reign over our governments/planet. Do you really think they're gonna play nice? No. Here is the reality:

READ THESE NOW

www.greenpeace.org...

www.greenpeace.org...

www.ucsusa.org...

www.pbs.org...

www.grist.org...

www.skepticalscience.com...

climateprogress.org...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 2-11-2010 by NoHierarchy because: (no reason given)

Bravo on this post and ESPECIALLY the one just above. Brilliantly laid out.

But you know what's funny? I bet not one skeptic will change their mind....they never do. I don't believe they are capable of doing so no matter WHAT evidence they are shown.

They post [easily disprovable] nonsense, we point out their flaws, they post more nonsense and start to get angry, we point out their flaws, so they post more nonsense and get REALLY angry and start ranting about how brainwashed and stupid we are. It's almost pathological.....

edit on 3-11-2010 by The_Liberator because: (no reason given)

Then disprove my question why CO2 goes up but temp comes down...


1: During the Ordovician Period average temps were 12 degrees Celsius or less (today's avg is about 12C) but CO2 levels were about 4000 ppm but yet today we are about 380 ppm and avg temp of 12 degrees Celsius?

According to basic 101 greenhouse theory the earth should have been hot as hell not a freezing cold ice age.

Why don't you go DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK TO FIND OUT? Instead of jumping to the conclusion that AGW is automatically a hoax because CO2 levels in the past didn't cause crazy warming.

The reality is, during the Ordovician period there were SERIOUS SOLAR INFLUENCES that decreased temps to balance out the rises in CO2.

www.skepticalscience.com...

I think you should just let everyone live their life for a change.

WE DON'T NEED TO BE TOLD THAT WE ARE FACING SOMETHING 10,000 WORSE THAN OUR WORSE NIGHTMARES. THAT IS FEARMONGERING, AND FEAR CAUSES CHOAS, ANGER, FRUSTRATION.

Simple as that.

Originally posted by ckitch
In the light of all that's been said on here, and all we've been made aware of in other posts, does anyone else, like me, find themselves thinking, that the Illuminati already know this planet is over, and that's why they have done nothing serious about correcting our polluting lifestyle. All they've concentrated on is making vast amounts of money, which presumably they can buy their way out of here with, and leave the rest of us to the collapsing world....

Seems to me that it's too late to correct climate change, or grow back our forests etc. Man is not going to change his ways until it's too late. Have any of us on here? I doubt it. I haven't. I still drive my car and enjoy the same lifestyle as everyone else. And lets not forget, the third world wants a piece of the consumable,commercial capitalist world action, and who can blame them. So when they start polluting at the rate we do... goodnight!

I don't want to sound defeated, but unless mankind sees the error of his ways, as a collective whole, we aren't going to solve this, and it's plane as the melting ice-caps, that the governments and powers that be on this world, are doing jack-sh*t to solve it, probably for fear of being unpopular, or as in line with my post, don't care coz they've already booked their ticket out!

That is a possibility I've considered.

Originally posted by Gabrielle.Black
I think you should just let everyone live their life for a change.

WE DON'T NEED TO BE TOLD THAT WE ARE FACING SOMETHING 10,000 WORSE THAN OUR WORSE NIGHTMARES. THAT IS FEARMONGERING, AND FEAR CAUSES CHOAS, ANGER, FRUSTRATION.

Simple as that.

There's a difference between fear-mongering and raising legitimate/real concerns.

What's worse than being legitimately concerned about the state of our world? Being apathetic and sticking your head in the sands of denial.

Originally posted by The_Liberator
If you look into it, you will see that in fact the science is settled. There is no question about what is going on.

Are you willfully distorting the truth, or do you just not know?

Even the leading scientist at East Anglia/CRU, Phil Jones, admits that the science is NOT settled, and that climate science is FAR from accurate.

When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

BBC interview with Phil Jones

(Of course, this is the same scientist and institution that were caught fudging data, censoring opposing views and covering it all up.)

Climate science is more accurate than you think. In the 70's they exactly predicted that temps would rise by .6 degrees by 2000 on current emissions paths...and that was with primitive computers.

That is entirely false.
Many predictions were made at many different times by scientists, seers and prophets. You could search for almost ANY figure for sea levels or temperatures and find SOMEONE who said it years ago. Why not cite John of Patmos, or Nostradamus?

You fail to cite who "they" are, and which data set you rely upon for your ".6 degrees" assertions. Saying it is so does not make it so; this is a non-scientific myth.

If anything, the only way they are wrong is that they tend to underestimate the situation because they don't account for the myriad positive feedbacks that exist that make things much worst (such as the albedo of melting ice or the methane from the ESAS, or the fact that the ocean absorbs less CO2 as it warms and becomes saturated)

This is a back-handed way of acknowledging that every AGW "model" utterly fails to track reality. There is not one single model that has yet, when fed accurate historical measurement (as opposed to tree-ring supposition), offered a "prediction" that matches observed climate globally, much less locally. The "Farmers' Almanac" is equally accurate over a longer historical period.

To positively aver that AGW is real, without factual support, and that the threat is "10,000 times worst" is unsupportable hyperbole. Citing "97% of climate scientists" without reference to a source is neither proof, nor accurate. It is a reflexive echo of AGW propaganda fed to those unable or unwilling to examine the underlying assertions and assumptions.

There is no population of "climate scientists" anywhere of which 97% believe that AGW is proven or settled. This is utter nonsense and anyone who takes such a statement at face value deserves to live in perpetual fear and intellectual poverty. Cite your sources. YOU CAN"T!

deny ignorance

jw

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by The_Liberator
But you know what's funny? I bet not one skeptic will change their mind....they never do.

but you said:

Originally posted by The_Liberator

There is nothing we can do about it at this point. It's already game over I'm afraid.

so for the love of God, please tell me why you seem you need to spew your garbage about being an expert on global warming and trying to change our minds? It's game over, so go spend time on the UFO boards where you are also an expert. Maybe we can force disclosure before we all die.

I'm not sure. I guess I just wanted to share what I have learned because I sure as hell can't talk to my family and friends about the topic!

Originally posted by C0bzz
If for a moment, we assume that global warming is true and that we need a way to lower carbon dioxide emissions quickly. How should we achieve this?

Unfortunately we can't. If we lower emissions, temps will spike up overnight because of the loss of the cooling effect of particulates that help block the sun (known as global dimming). Global dimming has essentially masked the true severity of the problem...

The only solution would be large scale removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. I suppose if we put all our resources into building CO2 scrubbers (as in spent trillions), we could probably solve the problem. We would, of course, also have to stop emitting CO2 ASAP.

Originally posted by Mez353

Originally posted by The_Liberator

See that big red fiery thing in the sky? Look up once in a while and you may notice it (unless you too are here in Ireland where it’s quite rare). Well, that’s the thing that’s causing solar climate change.

False.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Watch the video I posted in this thread and educate yourself before spouting uninformed opinions. If you don't know what you are talking about, you are not entitled to an opinion on the matter.

This coming from you, an expert on such matters. You sir are a deluded idiot and rate yourself very highly. I am entitled to any opinion I wish thank you and do not need nor seek your permission to retain one. How can you or anyone else say that the sun in our solar system does not heat the planet? That’s one of the most pathetic examples of madness I have ever heard expressed. Please do not attempt to focus on abstract opinion to worm your way out of the fact that you’re an imbecile, the sun heats the whole of the solar system, the further away the planet the less heat it gets that’s all. These are basic principles. You are basically a fool.

Please accept my apologies for my tone. It was uncalled for.

But no, the suns effect is minimul when compared to CO2 I'm afraid.