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

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Originally posted by maybereal11
First...I know I am nit-picking, but...
Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst

You need to change the first "worst" to "worse"

LOL, you are correct

Damn, can't believe I missed that!

And all this time I thought you were misspelling wurst!

So you weren't predicting a hellish barbeque in which we will be buried under tons of German sausage?

Seriously, you're doing a brave job here.
Have you noticed how AGW sceptics* remind people when the weather is hot that one swallow does not a spring make,
(not that these guys don't appreciate a swallow if they can get one,)
but when we get some cooler weather they gloat smugly, saying global warming in disproven?

And the fact that global warming can cause Europe to freeze is a bit beyond a mind that gets its education from oil company advertisements.

A favourite tactic is to link global warming to Al Gore, in the hope that discrediting Gore will discredit AGW.
- Just like creationists link evolution to Darwin, as though he owns the theory.
- and "theory" must be redefined for them every thread.

Btw, many creationists do believe Earth is 6000 years old and that earth and man were created in the one week.
Six Thousand Years:

And then you get the "either/or" ones who insist that, as Earth has warmed and cooled before, mankind cannot effect the cooling cycles. And the ones who hate the carbon credit scheme, (possibly for good reason,) and think AGW and CCs must be accepted or rejected together ...

And there are those who would gladly commit suicide on behalf of humanity provided that means not having to modify their lifestyles today.

So, like many others here who agree with you, I mostly keep out of these threads.


*"sceptic" is the correct British English spelling for the American "skeptic".

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by smurfy
What's the long-term trend? 100yrs,1000yrs, to infinity perhaps. How can you record a global average in reality? it can't be done as the infrastructure is either, not there or incomplete.

Same way you can record a global average of the height, weight, and shoe size of men and women. Basic statistics. I don't need to sample every person's characteristics to determine that males tend to be heavier, taller, and have bigger feet than females. Similarly, we don't need to measure temperature in every meter of the Earth's surface to understand the Earth has been warming for several decades.

For a long-term climate trend, we want to look 30 years+.

Responding to something you said earlier 'jury still out on AGW' - that's pretty much way off.

A recent poll showed that 82% of US Earth Scientists (covering all fields and employment) and 97% of working climate researchers accept that main points of faux contention (that humans have contributed significantly to warming). Every major scientific association accepts these basic points, including the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (who were the last). Where your false perception derives is likely the false balance represented outside of science (e.g., many noisy 'contrarian'/denier talking-heads in the media giving a perception of some sort of debate).

But, honestly, whatever.

" 97% accept the main points of Faux contention" so you are agreeing with me then! okay I know what you meant. So you think 30yrs+ whatever is adequate, the UOA study in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is from around 2003, to 2008 (the sea that is) so not long enough there by your standard, although I think that what they found is not disputable, since they only published exactly what they found, leaking methane. They make no comment as to the long term effects. So, since they were the first to investigate that particular area, there is no precendent for them to make any long term comment on the effects, and since what is happening there could have already been occurring before their presence, especially when that area is subject to a seasonal melt which is variable, which is being measured, and currently is in decline in volume over the last few years. Add a serious earthquake or two in the general area, like the Muya area in 1957 and a fracture in the shallow sea, then large amounts of methane could have been released all those years ago and ended up as CO2 around 1977 or so. Who would have thought

Originally posted by smurfy.
So you think 30yrs+ whatever is adequate, the UOA study in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is from around 2003, to 2008 (the sea that is) so not long enough there by your standard, although I think that what they found is not disputable, since they only published exactly what they found, leaking methane. They make no comment as to the long term effects. So, since they were the first to investigate that particular area, there is no precendent for them to make any long term comment on the effects, and since what is happening there could have already been occurring before their presence, especially when that area is subject to a seasonal melt which is variable, which is being measured, and currently is in decline in volume over the last few years. Add a serious earthquake or two in the general area, like the Muya area in 1957 and a fracture in the shallow sea, then large amounts of methane could have been released all those years ago and ended up as CO2 around 1977 or so. Who would have thought

Yeah, 30 years is a sufficient period to tease out a long-term climate trend. Shorter periods (especially much shorter) are strongly influenced by noise (i.e., weather).

I suppose the point with the the permafrost is that the mechanism of a potential release of the locked up methane is pretty simple: warming = subsea melting of permafrost = ++ methane.

But, true, a short-term observation is not necessarily indicative of a long-term trend. Only time will tell, but the mechanism is obvious enough. It would be viewed as a real concern and one to keep an eye on, methinks (which I'm sure they are).

I think the source of current accumulating CO2 is also pretty obvious - the fact we emit twice as much as is required to account for yearly atmospheric rises does not really underpin a brain teaser. No need for CH4 derived CO2.

reply to post by mc_squared


Thanks MC. Well I'm glad I got so many flags! Hopefully at some point I'll figure out what the heck they mean! LOL

Originally posted by homesalesguy
I see. The academics are always correct, even when attempting to model something as complicated as the Earth's climate. Forgive me for being skeptical, but isn't that an underlying required for real science? Given that we know the earth recently emerged from an ice age, and that it has been warming for thousands, that's right, thousands of years, what is the underlying root cause? We've been using internal combustion engines for approximately the past 130 years. The population of the earth really exploded over the past 4500 years.

Here are the facts. The computer climate models are demonstrably false. Here is an excerpt from an article by Patrick Michaels, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at the Cato Institute, David Douglass, Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester and S. Fred Singer, Emeritus Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.

"In two research papers in the July 9 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, two of the authors of this article (Douglass and Singer) compared the NOAA record for correspondence with the surface record and the lower atmosphere histories. The odd-record-out turns out to be the U.N.'s hot-surface history.

This is a double kill, both on the U.N.'s temperature records and on its vaunted climate models. That's because the models generally predict a warming rate that increases with height above the Earth's surface (outside of local polar regions). But neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it. When this was noted in the first satellite paper published in 1990, some scientists objected that the record, which began in 1979, was too short. Now we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the U.N.'s climate models have failed, as well as indicating its surface record is simply too hot.

If the U.N.'s models are wrong as one goes up in the atmosphere, then any correspondence between them and surface temperatures is either pretty lucky or the product of some unspecified "adjustment." Getting the vertical distribution of temperature wrong means everything dependent upon that--precipitation and cloudiness, as examples--must be wrong. Obviously, the amount of cloud in the air determines the day's high temperature as well as whether it rains."

Flawed modeling and manipulation of data, as well as intentional omission and/or deletion of data sets gathered that contradict the current "Global Warming" (or is that "Climate Change"now?) have undermined the credibility of all research in this field. You may have a math degree, which means you're capable of logical thought processes. Why don't you put them to work? I'd love to see this "science" settled, but until researchers are given complete data sets, including temperature readings untainted by non-environmental influences, I'll remain a skeptic. If you choose to castigate me for that, then it is an indicator that you don't have the capacity to remain detached enough to draw non-emotional conclusions. If that's the case, then nothing you have to say has any validity.

The bottom line is this. The planet has been warming a long time. This is beneficial for most mammals. The CO2 emitted by man has not been scientifically proven to have had a major influence on surface temperatures on this planet. This is reality, not your Global Warming fantasy. Otherwise, STFU.

I love the last part:

If you want to make a compelling argument, throw in something relevant, like temperature readings. I'll go toe to toe with you on anything you bring up that's actually seated in real data."

As if there really is anything I could show you that would change your mind. You may not even realize it, but your mind is made up on the matter 100% already and therefore any data that says you are wrong, must (in your mind) be flawed. Not the best way to form an opinion if you ask me...

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by The_Liberator

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.

What if we stopped all CO2 emissions, but continue to supply the atmosphere only with dimming microparticles, till the CO2 does not return to its natural level and rate of change? I believe the best way would be to spray such microparticles from commercial and military jet liners, masquerading them as contrails. No, people, I know what you think - chemtrails, but if what you say is true, then this would obviously be the most rational course of action.

Maybe add some birth control into the mix for the third world countries which suffer from population explosion, while we are at it.

As for putting the dimming particles into the atmosphere, I believe we are already doing that (it is my belief that in fact that is exactly what chemtrails are....an effort to slow AGW).

As for CO2 naturally declining, I'm afraid that ain't gonna happen. CO2 has a long half-life, but more importantly we have already begun to see significant feedbacks beginning to kick in that will eventually put out more CO2 than we ever could.

Originally posted by Mez353
For The Liberator

'' Liberator ''
By Spear of Destiny

i have seen you in your slums , i have known you as a junkie,
and i have seen you as a drunkard , and i heard you cry when you hurted,

now you want reality, and you dont need them to see ,
our lives belong to you and me , not some banker or some other top ranker

i , i liberate , i liberate , i liberate

i have seen you as the oppressed , and i have seen you as the oppressor ,
now youve come of age this century , i know now you want to be free

now you want reality, and you dont need them to see ,
our lives belong to you and me , not some banker or some other top wanker

i , i liberate , i liberate , i liberate

been down , down , down
been angry , angry
been confused , like you....but now i liberate

I'm very touched that you took the time to write such an impressive poem for little ol' me.

Originally posted by Clavicula

I question your premise that you have done an in debth study of all the facts and arrived at your conclusion from a purely objective standpoint. You resort to sensationalism and claims that can not be substansiated from the facts.

My claims cannot be substantiated with facts? . How is THIS for a fact:

(Keep in mind as you read the following that the release of less than 1% of the methane stored in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf would be enough to cause "catastrophic" climate change. (that is from Shakhova, one of the lead scientists in the study .....see video at the end).)


Scientists have uncovered what appears to be a further dramatic increase in the leakage of methane gas that is seeping from the Arctic seabed.

The findings come from measurements of carbon fluxes around the north of Russia, led by Igor Semiletov from the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

"Methane release from the East Siberian Shelf is underway and it looks stronger than it was supposed," he said.

Professor Semiletov has been studying methane seepage in the region for the last few decades, and leads the International Siberian Shelf Study (ISSS), which has launched multiple expeditions to the Arctic Ocean.

Methane seepage recorded last summer was already the highest ever measured in the Arctic Ocean.

He said that methane measured in the atmosphere around the region is 100 times higher than normal background levels, and in some cases 1,000 times higher.

news.bbc.co.uk...

"As methane has been permanently originating in the seabed since it was formed, these deposits are huge and emissions of this ready-to-go methane to the water column only depend on occurence of migration pathways (provided or not provided by permafrost)," she said. "These emissions could be non-gradual, sudden, more or less massive, they could even be abrupt."

Elevated levels of methane were first observed in 2003. Venting significantly increased in the last year (2009.…that was the most recent expedition to the area to take samples of atmospheric methane concentrations). The predicted abrupt release of 50GT from the ESAS has not yet occurred, but the significant increase in venting could be a warning sign that it is imminent.

...we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause ~12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.

www.cosis.net...

Here is one of the lead scientists discussing their findings..

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by MattMulder


Yes it does suck. I have a 6.5 month old baby that is quite literally the cutest human being I have ever laid eyes on. I want to retire in 20 years and watch him flourish into old age. Believe me, I do NOT want civilization to end.

It's just the unfortunate conclusion I have come to, and I hope I am wrong (though I would bet the farm that I'm not...)

It's not global warming due to human interaction. Look up ice ages from Antarctic core samples and civilization collapses.

Originally posted by Adonsa
Greetings,
AboveTopSecret has long been the home of many of the greatest scholars and scientists in the world. Problems have been solved, questions and concerns are conclusively answered.

Yet...
Just a few easy to answer, legitimate, on-topic, questions/concerns on Page 19 of this message thread are still not answered. Perhaps I failed to properly articulate the problem.

What about China? Don't they produce more pollutants in 1 day than the US produces in a year or more? What about India's airborne pollution?

Sir, the problem is real or it's going to become real with the destruction of the Amazon Jungle! At least, go to Brazil, or send Al Gore, to enlighten their leadership. Vast amounts of the jungle are systemically destroyed, transformed into farm land, farmed for 1 year, then it becomes arid desert. Then more jungle is destroyed, and the cycle repeats. The jungle cannot be reinstated, once destroyed. The Amazon Jungle is so massive it keeps the air composition in balance. What I'm [unsuccessfully] trying to get across is to go to the problem, not punish those who have already been mitigating air pollution. The problem is in Brazil, China, India and other offending countries like Indonesia.

Again, if I may respectfully and politely ask,

Why don't the scholars, experts, and politicians involved (in the mitigation of man-made global warming) visit and convince the leadership of Brazil, India, China and other offending countries to stop destroying the Amazon rain forrest, to curtail their air pollutant outputs? Why does Al Gore ignore Brazil, while the Amazon Rain Forrest turns into a desert at a high rate of speed?

Why is it that US citizens must bear the blame, given that the US has done more to reduce air pollution than any other country?

Again, at risk of being redundant, why not focus on the worst offenders, Brazil, India, and China?

First of all I'm not sure where you get the idea that the US has done more to reduce air pollution than any other country. The US is the second highest per capital polluter in the world (used to be no.1 until Australia beat us about a year ago I think..).

Second, from what I remember, China is building something like 1 or 2 (maybe more....don't remember) coal fired power plants every day. Nuclear power is crazy expensive, plus from the time of conception until the time that a new nuke plant actually delivers electricity is something like a decade (again, that's off the top of my head so I may be off by a few years).

What do you suggest doing to stop other countries from polluting? If China wants to build coal fired power plants, they have that right.

Same with the Amazon....if companies want to cut it down for lumbar, who is going to stop them? Greenpeace? Obama?

Obama can't even get meaningful climate legislation passed in our OWN country....

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

The problem I have with that one paper is that it's a best guesstimate. There is still alot that scientists do not understand.
Scientists are people and can be wrong.
And we've seen in the past that a majority of scientists have claimed there would be a global freeze. Now they are crying global warming.
What's gonna happen in the next 10-20 years if global warming doesn't pan out?
do they say oops our bad we were wrong? by the way here's the next boogey man. Global pan-luke-warming?

Personally I think we should all be focusing on reducing pollution and cleaning up the toxic waste already in the environment. I feel that this would be a better way to go. And would also polarize the public into action.
You can fight waste. It's a tangible enemy. You can film it and photograph it. it's undeniable and would help to combat global warming directly by reducing noxious emissions.

Well as you know, I believe that the evidence points to global warming being an extinction level event within the next decade because of the permafrost venting untold amounts of methane.

However, let me play devil's advocate here....

You said "What's gonna happen in the next 10-20 years if global warming doesn't pan out?
do they say oops our bad we were wrong? by the way here's the next boogey man. Global pan-luke-warming?"

I say "what's gonna happen in the next 10-20 years if global warming IS real and we have done nothing. What then?"

Originally posted by Ghrwilson
Its a hoax. Believe what you want but it got it start with `Maurice Strong`. Global warming was his ideal since the 60/70s. I strongly believe as humans we need to recycle all of are trash and get off the fossil fuels but not because of so called `man made global warming. Mars`s polar caps are melting at the same speed as the earths. `Didn't know they had such a carbon problem on mars`. Anyways TPTB `when` they get away with `cap and trade` will have more control than ever.

False.

www.realclimate.org...

Originally posted by Wertdagf
arent they stating to fit coal plants with allge in water that they buble teh co2 through and it converts it into methane or something? there was some news about it a bit ago. Theres just to much fear mongering. Youd almost think all these alarmist WANT the world to end.

stop being ignroant alarmist douche bags who only think the world is out to abuse them because thats what they do to all the people they know.

That's brilliant, so they have figured out how to convert CO2 to methane? Brilliant. Problems solved. Well, except that methane is 20-70 times more potent as a greenhouse gas (depending on the time frame).

Yet the 'alarmists" are "ignorant". Uh.....ok.

reply to post by GlennCanady


I am familiar with Tesla's zero point energy, and I am also familiar with the work of Stephen Green (there have been many free energy devices over the years that worked perfectly).

I am also aware of the powerful interests involved in stopping such inventions from ever seeing the light of day.

However, that has nothing to do with global warming. Your contention that the sun is causing global warming tells me that you have almost no knowledge of the subject.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Originally posted by smurfy
Hi Lib,
The East Siberian Arctic Shelf is a relatively new area of research, from around 2003 I think. Previous to that the research ended at the shallow sea. That has to be taken into account as the research results are not longtime observations, but new findings from 2003 to 2008. They were done at a time when the seasonal sea ice melt was on the increase, although this last few years that volume of melt has decreased. In fact the study was very low key and the researchers felt that a much bigger experiment is/was needed. They made no predictions based on their results. I will look for the pdf file.

Hi Smurfy. If that were the case, I would not be overly concerned. However:

The preliminary findings of the International Siberian Shelf Study 2008, being prepared for publication by the American Geophysical Union, are being overseen by Igor Semiletov of the Far-Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Since 1994, he has led about 10 expeditions in the Laptev Sea but during the 1990s he did not detect any elevated levels of methane. However, since 2003 he reported a rising number of methane "hotspots", which have now been confirmed using more sensitive instruments on board the Jacob Smirnitskyi.

Venting significantly increased in the last year (2009.…that was the most recent expedition to the area to take samples of atmospheric methane concentrations). The predicted abrupt release of 50GT from the ESAS has not yet occurred, but the significant increase in venting could be a warning sign that it is imminent.

Experts say methane emissions from the Arctic have risen by almost one-third in just five years, and that sharply rising temperatures are to blame.

...we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause ~12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.

www.guardian.co.uk...

iopscience.iop.org...

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by AceWombat04
It is possible that anthropogenic climate change is happening. It is also possible that natural, non-man-made climate change is happening. The evidence for both is significant. The so-called "greenhouse effect" has been extensively studied and documented. However, recent studies indicate that the release of "greenhouse" gasses have historically followed global temperature increases in Earth's past, rather than preceeding them. Therefore the proof of either hypothesis - natural or man-made - is sufficiently lacking that I cannot state categorically - at least by my standards of proof - which is the case.

The first is backed by facts, and the second has been debunked over and over. Big difference.

www.skepticalscience.com...

Originally posted by johnny2127

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
The notion that there is no convincing scientific evidence of AGW or its predicted consequences is a notion of PURE RUBBISH. It's totally uneducated to say that the science is "unconvincing"... according to WHOM?? To you? You don't matter, frankly, nor does Monckton or Lindzen or any of the other unqualified and/or paid-off hacks of AGW denial. It really sounds like YOU need to do your homework much deeper instead of taking right-wing propaganda sites for gospel simply because it feels good to you.

My friend, do not assume that I only visit right wing sites or haven't read the same things as you. I have no allegiance to any political party. I watched the video you asked up to, and there was nothing new in it for me. From my perspective, it provided a ton of information, but then made tremendous leaps as to correlations and causality. Good video, far from unbiased or non-political. Still was worth watching for sure.

It is wrong to assume that everyone will come to the same conclusions, or view things the same. It is also wrong to put down the opinions or viewpoints of others. I have read and reviewed what both sides say of the man made climate change debate. I don't come to the same conclusion as you, nothing wrong with that. Sadly, since the science has been so politicized and hijacked by both sides, its hard for people to view this topic independently without subconsciously 'rooting' for one side. Me, personally I don't care which side is correct. If global warming is caused by man, well sorry but no one will stop it. You will never control China, or Russia, or the US. If its nature, we can't control it. Either way, earth has changed, is changing, and always will change. The earth staying constant has never been normal.

I'm glad you're passionate about this topic, but the sources you presented to me seemed to be the equivalent of studies put out by tobacco companies saying smoking doesn't cause cancer. These are all studies and research DESIGNED to come to a certain conclusion. Hence they will always be flawed.

Please illustrate exactly what those "tremendous leaps as to correlations and causality" were. Also demonstrate fully how the videos were politically biased in a manner that was irrelevant or untrue.

This isn't about one viewpoint versus another, everyone has a place, let's agree to disagree... no, this is about science versus blatant pseudo-science, corporate sponsored sabotage, and disinformation. Facts are facts, and regardless of any uncertainties in the realms of science (and specifically Climatology), they're still massively substantial enough to satisfactorily explain global warming as anthropogenic. The REAL scientific debates now are not about whether or not global warming is real, man-made, or presents serious threats... but instead centers around the extent of those threats- grave or quasi-apocalyptic. Just because it's extreme doesn't mean it's wrong, it just means that sh*t happens and humans are causing the bulk of it lately.

And the notion that we should just accept global warming as inevitable and just indulge our way off the cliff is a terrible concept that will ensure our doom. We CAN do something, many things, they will be difficult and hard to tolerate for some, but we've lived on ecological credit for long enough. Tipping points will surely bankrupt our civilization if we don't put an end to it first.

What's gonna happen in the next 10-20 years if global warming doesn't pan out?

Even if we put into practice drastic measurements to limit fossil fuels and promote atlernatives, NOTHING bad would happen. Because fossil fuels will still run out after some time, and the sooner we start to develop alternatives the better. So even if AGW would be theoretically proven as a fraud in the future, limiting our dependance on non-renewable energy resources and investing into renewable and efficient technologies would still be beneficial for mankind. Its a win-win situation.

Not to mention that oil is important resource in chemical nad materials industry, and its a big waste to burn it as a fuel. If we stopped to do that, we would have enough oil for chemical industry for hundreds of years, and the sooner we stop burning it, the longer it would last.

reply to post by melatonin


how about this. Could you show me a graph of temperature trends over the last 10,000 years that you would accept as evidence? What I would be looking for is the large temperature rises and falls, much like the medieval warm period. Then I would ask what caused that. Since you guys seem to have an answer for everything, I think that is fair. Then explain the ice age. I am afraid that maybe WE (the collective us) don't really know everything yet and we just think we do. But prove me wrong, as you love to do.