State of the Union 2014 -- Addressing the Propaganda: "Climate Change"

Kali74
reply to post by Cynic

 

Whether the government profits off something should not be basis to deny reality.
They profit off sales, do the things we buy not exist?

Carbon Credits are the same as Bit Coins. Both are intangibles yet can yield more cash than any goods tangible items we may by.

reply to post by Cynic

Probably not dinosaur farts. But intense volcanic emissions could have.
Trouble is, we aren't seeing enough volcanic activity to account for the rise in CO2 levels we've seen but we do see us doing it.

reply to post by Cynic


What happened to the climate during the Cretaceous period?
Between the early to mid-Cretaceous, the world climate became warmer by as much as 10°C. Some scientists have linked this stage of global warming to a huge asteroid impact. Others have linked it to the large number of volcanic eruptions in the area that today is India and Pakistan.

The Late Cretaceous Period was a time of great change. The continents were breaking up. Volcanoes were throwing ash and gas into the atmosphere, rapidly altering the climate.

Sea levels fell in the final stage of the Cretaceous. Changes in climate would have occurred due to the disruption of wind and ocean currents. These marine changes, combined with volcanism and an extraterrestrial impact, may have caused the mass extinctions.



www.qm.qld.gov.au...




Hmm... No Man walked the Earth at that time in our Planets History , but Life of Many Kinds survived the Climatic changes . So will We......

reply to post by Zanti Misfit

Yeah. We could probably "survive" a nuclear war too. But..um..

Even at current carbon release levels global warming isn't expected to reach a "survival crisis" levels for a couple of hundred years and it's really the worst case scenarios that take it that far. But it doesn't take a that level of change to cause a lot of misery.

reply to post by Phage


" But it doesn't take a that level of change to cause a lot of misery."


Whoever said Life was Easy ? Look at the Dodo Bird.........

reply to post by Zanti Misfit

A large flightless bird with a single habitat.
A bird which also happened to be tasty.

Bummer of a combination. But it worked fine until something changed.

Phage
reply to post by Zanti Misfit

 

A large flightless bird with a single habitat.
A bird which also happened to be tasty.

Bummer of a combination. But it worked fine until something changed.

edit on 1/31/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I'm so glad you know that the Dodo was tasty, it also gives a clue as to your lifespan. Bonking them on the head was a means of survival for factions of our species though/maybe. Tasty? I'm not so sure, I never ate one. but did you leave out the friendly Dodo bit? I forget.
But, to get back to 'climate change is a fact' who says, IPCC? no they don't, they say, 'most likely AGW' they also said, 'unequivically AGW' and 'Human intervention' the very 'fact' that you have differering messages coming out is a green light for the politicos to say whatever they want to say...if they want to. So, they go with the 'climate change is a 'fact' umbrella, just as the killing of OSBL is a 'fact' without a modicum for the 'plebs' to have something to agree to, as if?.

reply to post by smurfy

But, to get back to 'climate change' is a fact' who says, IPCC? no they don't, they say, 'most likely AGW'

I know. 95% to be precise. And, as I said, in science that may as well be fact.

You have a 5% chance of not breaking your leg if you jump off your roof. What would it take to make you take those odds?

smurfy
So, they go with the 'climate change is a 'fact' umbrella, just as the killing of OSBL is a 'fact' without
a modicum for the 'plebs' to have something to agree to, as if?

Nice comparison, and interestingly enough,
they are both fantastic boogey men.

Phage
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

No, it's not certain that warming is being caused by us. Only a 95% chance.

Where are you quantifying this "95%" from? That part of your argument (since you keep claiming it) is obscure and ambiguous. Maybe you can clarify that?

It should also be noted that while I have framed the debate in not believing the president, the question asked was, what evidence points to definitive data that Man has altered the course of the Earth's weather?

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Where are you quantifying this "95%" from? That part of your argument (since you keep claiming it) is obscure and ambiguous. Maybe you can clarify that?

Sure. I am using the claim that the IPCC is not "certain".

"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."

www.climatechange2013.org...

If you would like to dispute the IPCC assessment, that is another matter. One which would require a detailed refutation of each point made in the 2013 assessment. Feel free.

reply to post by Phage

If you would like to dispute the IPCC assessment, that is another matter. One which would require a detailed refutation of each point made in the 2013 assessment. Feel free.

I'll bet 10 bucks that challenge goes unanswered.

Phage
reply to post by smurfy

 

But, to get back to 'climate change' is a fact' who says, IPCC? no they don't, they say, 'most likely AGW'

I know. 95% to be precise. And, as I said, in science that may as well be fact.

You have a 5% chance of not breaking your leg if you jump off your roof. What would it take to make you take those odds?

Why are you so into stats?, they just so don't work most of the time.

reply to post by smurfy

Why are you so into stats?,

Because, for one reason, I was directly questioned about them.

Skeptical Science

Kali74
reply to post by Phage

 

If you would like to dispute the IPCC assessment, that is another matter. One which would require a detailed refutation of each point made in the 2013 assessment. Feel free.

I'll bet 10 bucks that challenge goes unanswered.

Of the 1300+ page report? Or the "policy maker" highlights? Just curious because save a few, I doubt anyone has delved into the mammoth report presented by Phage. Now the Policy Maker highlights, that is a different story. When I get my quota back, I will download the 350mB report; until then, here is my rebuttal to the highlights:

First, let us address what the President said and compare it to the facts (along with the highlights from Phage's link). The President, before laying claim that the debate is "over", made this statement to frame the debate (that is over apparently) "[W]e have to act with more urgency...because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods.”

But is it because of anthropological warming or is it part of the natural cycle of the Earth's climate system? We all know climate changes, it happens every minute of every day, for 365 days a year. The climate is not static; nor is it more destructive or even more dramatic. Of course, when we look at the subset of data that the President has utilized, it gives that feeling, and with a greater population along with more expensive items, it looks like it is indeed a dire situation as presented by the President.

In his refute, Professor Lindzen highlights the IPCC's model that is oft utilized; model I. This model is already dated and made nothing near the predictions, nor will it even if we maintain our level of energy use. This is important to the IPCC Working Group's summary for "policy makers", as it doesn't make sense when actually put to the test.

For instance, in their assessment, they are hoping that the "movers and shakers (policymakers) will rely upon "virtually proven", "likely" and "confidence" to be the defining terms of pushing their agenda -- if policymakers can't read 1300+ pages of a bill that will affect their constituents, what makes you think they will read anything regarding "climate change"?

The IPCC states that CO2 is the leading contributor of the greenhouse effect, but Mr. Lindzen argues otherwise. He even explains that the greenhouse effect, and how it leads to "warming" is presented in a sophomoric way that doesn't really explain the science behind it. Here is what he has to say regarding the greenhouse effect:

The fact that the Earth's average surface temperature is fifteen degrees centigrade rather than minus eighteen degrees centigrade is attributed to that effect. The main absorbers of infrared in the atmosphere are water vapor and clouds. Even if all other greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide and methane) were to disappear, we would still be left with over 98 percent of the current greenhouse effect.

That is completely contrary to the IPCC's claims and one that should be analyzed for validity in my opinion. I will have to continue to go through papers and the IPCC report for the time being though.

This is why I question the claim by the president though, that the debate is over. It seems far from it and as I read somewhere, the political debate is over; the science is far from it.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

In his refute, Professor Lindzen highlights the IPCC's model that is oft utilized; model I. This model is already dated and made nothing near the predictions, nor will it even if we maintain our level of energy use.

If you are talking about this: dailycaller.com...
It's sort of hard to take his "refute" seriously when the full report had not been released when he shot of his mouth. But if his claims concern you I recommend you read the section of the full report which specifically addresses the models (plural) which are actually used. Throughout the report the strengths and weaknesses of the multitude of models used is discussed and they all are taken into account in the assessment but Chapter 9 does provide a good basis.

The IPCC states that CO2 is the leading contributor of the greenhouse effect, but Mr. Lindzen argues otherwise. He even explains that the greenhouse effect, and how it leads to "warming" is presented in a sophomoric way that doesn't really explain the science behind it.

Really? I wonder if he even read Chapter 8. It gives a pretty detailed technical description of how it works. But then, the report is aimed at policymakers, not scientists. Oh, wait. Had he read the full report? And, of course, all the reference material is available for those who would like more detailed information. Does he expect all of the research to be reposted in the report about the research? That's not usually how it works. Summaries and conclusions are made and the references are provided.

That is completely contrary to the IPCC's claims and one that should be analyzed for validity in my opinion.

It is. It is also a bit ambigous. Is he talking about the changes in radiative forcing? Does he mean that without increasing CO2 levels, radiative forcing would continue to increase at 98% of it's current rate? Yes, I too question the validity of his claim.

I will have to continue to go through papers and the IPCC report for the time being though.

Please do because Lindzen's arguments are specious.

This is why I question the claim by the president though, that the debate is over. It seems far from it and as I read somewhere, the political debate is over; the science is far from it.

The "debate" will never be over. Deniers will continue to deny forever. The real science shows 95% confidence, in science that is the equivalent of settled. Want to jump off your roof? 5% chance you won't break your leg.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


It would be an epic thread, two of the brightest minds on ATS debating a 1300 page document... I'd pay to see it. Speaking of debate... the scientific debate on AGW induced climate change, has long been over... some people just keep ignoring the memo.

On tonight, live from 10PM Eastern time!

Show thread with listening information

reply to post by adjensen


Now that sounds like a show to catch!

Nice choice for threads to focus on too!