Scientists study the scientific standing of pro and con global warmists and find:

[Throckmorton]

So basically, no models that trend with the raw data. Haha...yeah, we'll blow up the world economies for that, genius logic there.

How about we just try and pollute lots less, and keep letting the private market develop tech that lets us live an ecologically sustainable lifestyle - as that tech becomes available, without large subsidies - without pollution? Can't we just do that?

Chuck

P.S. Even though we're going to develop it, what is going to have to end up happening is we're going to have to give it to these 3rd world countries for essentially cost, absolutely no profit. Otherwise, they'll never be able to afford it.

I don't understand what you mean by "no models that trend with the raw data". I remember 10 years ago seeing models that showed a nice triangle enveloping possibilities for the future, and now we're within that triangle.

Regardless, what do models have to do with anything? Look at the graph and the warming trend is pretty damn clear. Do you really believe we aren't warming?

 

[Throckmorton]

Climate predictions that have come true:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1984755.ece


1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893)

2) That we'd begin to see noticable changes to Earth's climate by around 2000 (some IPCC scientists ).

3) That sea-level would start rising

4) That Earth's Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson)

5) That hurricanes would increase in intensity (this one goes back to Alfred Russel Wallace in 1900)

6) That species would start going extinct as a result of climate change.

7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists)

8) That tropical diseases would increase

9) That food crops would be adversely affected

10) That the CO2 would begin to acidify the ocean

The ten biggest changes to the weather wrought by climate change

1) Shorter winters

2) Less runoff into dams and reservoirs in many regions of the world

3) More violent and longer hurricanes

4) Less chilly nights

5) Less predictable seasonal conditions

6) Less snow

7) More heat waves

8) Less rain in many regions at various seasons

9) More severe storms in the North Sea and parts of the southern Ocean

10) Generally warmer conditions

The ten places in the world / animals in the world most endangered by global warming

1) The glorious Cape Botanic province in South Africa, particularly the succulent Karoo flora.

2) Amphibians everywhere (a third of all species are already gravely endangered or extinct.

3) Coral reefs

4) Species on mountaintops (many populations are already extinct.

5) The tundra

6) The Arctic Ocean

7) The Antarctic Peninsula

8) Australia - where the drying trend is already precipitating a new wave of declines and extinctions.

9) The Amazon, where drying will affect forests and rivers

10) The boreal forests, here pest infestations are destroying vast areas of trees.

Tim Flannery is an internationally acclaimed writer, scientist and explorer. As a field zoologist he discovered and named more than thirty new species of mammals, including two tree-kangaroos. Sir David Attenborough described him as being ‘in the league of the all-time great explorers like Dr David Livingstone’. His latest book, The Weather Makers: Our changing climate and what it means for life on earth , is published in paperback by Penguin

 

[bfdd]

The miniscule amount of time is exactly why the amount of warming is significant. It's a drastic increase in the rate over what is normal, and it matches the industrial era WAY too well to be a coincidence.

Rain doesn't suddenly stop. In some places it will (and already is) rain less, and in other places more.

Here's a small scale example...
Every morning walking to work I can see the effect of the mountain on cloud formation. Humid ocean air climbs and the altitude change causes cooling which results in clouds and rainfall. If the air is 1 degree warmer, that effect rises up the mountain a certain distance. Suddenly, some poor farmers' land is no longer wet enough to grow bananas or whatever. At the same time some land further up the mountain gets more rain, but it's not necessarily fertile enough.

Now apply that kind of change globally and you have some big problems.

no I'm saying the variations are insignificant when looking at the bigger picture, that is absolutely true. climate has changed far more drastically in shorter amounts of time before humans were even around. this miniscule span of time is absolutely insignificant when looking 10,000 years, 100,000 years or more back.

 

[chucky2]

That's nice and all, but can you prove that was due to man and not nature? Go back over the past million years. The degree of warming/cooling we've seen never happened in the past million years?

I still have not seen anyone post a model that shows the past 100k years in the macro view. Then a zoomed in view where data from say 1850-1990 is plugged in. 1991-2010 is plotted via the model in one color. 1991-2010 actual is plotted in another.

The model should be right on given the small timeframe involved.

Where is that model?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Climate predictions that have come true:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1984755.ece


1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893)

2) That we'd begin to see noticable changes to Earth's climate by around 2000 (some IPCC scientists ).

3) That sea-level would start rising

4) That Earth's Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson)

5) That hurricanes would increase in intensity (this one goes back to Alfred Russel Wallace in 1900)

6) That species would start going extinct as a result of climate change.

7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists)

8) That tropical diseases would increase

9) That food crops would be adversely affected

10) That the CO2 would begin to acidify the ocean

The ten biggest changes to the weather wrought by climate change

1) Shorter winters

2) Less runoff into dams and reservoirs in many regions of the world

3) More violent and longer hurricanes

4) Less chilly nights

5) Less predictable seasonal conditions

6) Less snow

7) More heat waves

8) Less rain in many regions at various seasons

9) More severe storms in the North Sea and parts of the southern Ocean

10) Generally warmer conditions

The ten places in the world / animals in the world most endangered by global warming

1) The glorious Cape Botanic province in South Africa, particularly the succulent Karoo flora.

2) Amphibians everywhere (a third of all species are already gravely endangered or extinct.

3) Coral reefs

4) Species on mountaintops (many populations are already extinct.

5) The tundra

6) The Arctic Ocean

7) The Antarctic Peninsula

8) Australia - where the drying trend is already precipitating a new wave of declines and extinctions.

9) The Amazon, where drying will affect forests and rivers

10) The boreal forests, here pest infestations are destroying vast areas of trees.

Tim Flannery is an internationally acclaimed writer, scientist and explorer. As a field zoologist he discovered and named more than thirty new species of mammals, including two tree-kangaroos. Sir David Attenborough described him as being ‘in the league of the all-time great explorers like Dr David Livingstone’. His latest book, The Weather Makers: Our changing climate and what it means for life on earth , is published in paperback by Penguin

Much of this is garbage...you should be ashamed of yourself for posting this kind of tripe.

I got to #3 anyway...giving you the benefit of the doubt on #1 and #2. Sea levels have been rising since the last Ice Age approximately 15k years ago. They didn't just start rising. The rise has moderated substantially the last 7k years.

 

[Throckmorton]

Doc Savage Fan, did you learn about *rate* in medical school?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Doc Savage Fan, did you learn about *rate* in medical school?

I understand rate quite well. Do you understand false extrapolation from extremely limited data sets?

 

[bfdd]

Climate predictions that have come true:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1984755.ece


1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893) I thought correlation does not prove causation, but hey what do I know

2) That we'd begin to see noticable changes to Earth's climate by around 2000 (some IPCC scientists ). They've said a lot of shit, a lot that has been wrong

3) That sea-level would start rising if it's not significant then it doesn't matter

4) That Earth's Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson) this has for the most part been proven false I believe

5) That hurricanes would increase in intensity (this one goes back to Alfred Russel Wallace in 1900) since Katrina what has happened? nothing

6) That species would start going extinct as a result of climate change. got a list that proves without any doubt that some species have gone extinct with climate change being the SOLE reason? I think not

7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists) Australia is dry....

8) That tropical diseases would increase haven't seen this one pop up

9) That food crops would be adversely affected got evidence that it is solely caused by global warming/climate change?

10) That the CO2 would begin to acidify the ocean Damnit I know I read an article that said researchers in the Netherlands I believe want to increase the ocean acidity because it would cause the ocean to pull down more CO2 out of the atmosphere, but I can't find it so I don't really have anything for this one

The ten biggest changes to the weather wrought by climate change

1) Shorter winters It snowed in Saudi Arabia in May 2009, I'm not sure that's a "shorter winter." Winter also lasted longer in the Washington DC and surrounding areas this year also.

2) Less runoff into dams and reservoirs in many regions of the world I got nothing for this except there have been water problems in certain areas for quite a long time.

3) More violent and longer hurricanes haven't really seen this one yet

4) Less chilly nightshaven't seen this one yet, I live in "Sunny California"

5) Less predictable seasonal conditions possibly but the farmers almanac seems to still be holding up so I don't put much weight into that

6) Less snow where? it's snowed in areas it hasn't snowed in 50+ years

7) More heat waves haven't seen it where I live or read anything about it areas being in more and longer heat waves

8) Less rain in many regions at various seasons this could be due to many different factors that aren't global warming

9) More severe storms in the North Sea and parts of the southern Oceanevidence?

10) Generally warmer conditionswhere? because it didn't hit over 80 last year here until late August and it's July here now and it's barely breaking 70

The ten places in the world / animals in the world most endangered by global warming

1) The glorious Cape Botanic province in South Africa, particularly the succulent Karoo flora.

2) Amphibians everywhere (a third of all species are already gravely endangered or extinct.

3) Coral reefs

4) Species on mountaintops (many populations are already extinct.

5) The tundra

6) The Arctic Ocean

7) The Antarctic Peninsula

8) Australia - where the drying trend is already precipitating a new wave of declines and extinctions.

9) The Amazon, where drying will affect forests and rivers

10) The boreal forests, here pest infestations are destroying vast areas of trees.

Tim Flannery is an internationally acclaimed writer, scientist and explorer. As a field zoologist he discovered and named more than thirty new species of mammals, including two tree-kangaroos. Sir David Attenborough described him as being ‘in the league of the all-time great explorers like Dr David Livingstone’. His latest book, The Weather Makers: Our changing climate and what it means for life on earth , is published in paperback by Penguin

This post is pretty bogus and reads like unsubstantiated talking points.

 

[Throckmorton]

I understand rate quite well. Do you understand false extrapolation from extremely limited data sets?

You yourself posted a graph showing levelling off in sea level rise after the "post glacial" period ended. Current sea level rise is a departure from that levelling off.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6638

 

[bfdd]

You yourself posted a graph showing levelling off in sea level rise after the "post glacial" period ended. Current sea level rise is a departure from that levelling off.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6638

His chart is in thousands of years yours is in 1 year. Yours only matters when looking at a very small time frame, his looks at a much larger time frame. Considering our planet is multiple billions of years old looking at a 10 year time line is straight fucking retarded. Hell if you're a fundie who believes the world is 4000 years old looking at a 10 year time line is straight fucking retarded. If you look over the last thousands of years it has leveled off and isn't spiking anywhere near what it was previously. This isn't a departure as it is zooming in on a chart of a mild incline over the last few thousand years to the last 10. Not relevant imo.

 

[Throckmorton]

bfdd, you're confusing observed effects with value judgements. And on some things you're just plain wrong.

Yes it's true that correlation is not causation. But more CO2 in the atmosphere has the direct effect of more heat retention. I've been trying to get you to understand that being a greenhouse gas means that retaining heat in the atmosphere is a physical property of CO2.

Sea level has risen like you'd expect with the increasing heat. Whether it's a dangerous amount or not is beside the point. You were just talking about models yesterday, and now when a prediction from a model comes true, you say it doesn't matter because it's not Waterworld with Kevin Costner swimming around.

 

[Throckmorton]

His chart is in thousands of years yours is in 1 year. Yours only matters when looking at a very small time frame, his looks at a much larger time frame. Considering our planet is multiple billions of years old looking at a 10 year time line is straight fucking retarded. Hell if you're a fundie who believes the world is 4000 years old looking at a 10 year time line is straight fucking retarded. If you look over the last thousands of years it has leveled off and isn't spiking anywhere near what it was previously. This isn't a departure as it is zooming in on a chart of a mild incline over the last few thousand years to the last 10. Not relevant imo.

I don't think you're getting it. His chart showed sea level rise while the glaciers receded, then a levelling off. That was without the current greenhouse gases. During the past 100 years sea level has begun to rise again, which it wouldn't naturally. That's exactly why showing a 100 year graph is important, because THAT IS THE TIME SCALE OF ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING.

I don't get how you can possibly think the lack of sea level rise over 8000 years until we started warming the earth somehow proves that the earth isn't warming. Do you live in opposite land or something?

 

[chucky2]

I don't think you're getting it. His chart showed sea level rise while the glaciers receded, then a levelling off. That was without the current greenhouse gases. During the past 100 years sea level has begun to rise again, which it wouldn't naturally. That's exactly why showing a 100 year graph is important, because THAT IS THE TIME SCALE OF ANTHROPOGENIC WARMING.

I don't get how you can possibly think the lack of sea level rise over 8000 years until we started warming the earth somehow proves that the earth isn't warming. Do you live in opposite land or something?

How do you know the bold?

 

[bfdd]

bfdd, you're confusing observed effects with value judgements. And on some things you're just plain wrong.

Yes it's true that correlation is not causation. But more CO2 in the atmosphere has the direct effect of more heat retention. I've been trying to get you to understand that being a greenhouse gas means that retaining heat in the atmosphere is a physical property of CO2.

Sea level has risen like you'd expect with the increasing heat. Whether it's a dangerous amount or not is beside the point. You were just talking about models yesterday, and now when a prediction from a model comes true, you say it doesn't matter because it's not Waterworld with Kevin Costner swimming around.

CO2 can also only retain so much heat until any more is useless at retaining any more heat. Oceans have been rising as Doc Savage has shown for the last few thousand years and then the incline became almost flat, but still showing that the ocean has been rising even in the last 1000 years. The rate 5 thousand years ago was way more insane than what we are seeing now, why isn't that relevant to you? How come only 10 years is relevant?

 

[bfdd]

How do you know the bold?

He doesn't and evidence proves otherwise. Doc Savage posted a chart that shows over the last few thousand years we had a very dramatic increase in sea level until the incline almost flattened out, but didn't go completely flat. Meaning the sea level has been rising for the last thousand years. I fail to see where a slight rate increase of the sea level rising is anything to be alarmed about when it's no where near the rate of increase 5000 years ago, you know before man was burning hydrocarbons.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You yourself posted a graph showing levelling off in sea level rise after the "post glacial" period ended. Current sea level rise is a departure from that levelling off.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6638

I asked you a question: "Do you understand false extrapolation from extremely limited data sets?" Let it go on record that your answer is NO.

 

[Throckmorton]

CO2 can also only retain so much heat until any more is useless at retaining any more heat. Oceans have been rising as Doc Savage has shown for the last few thousand years and then the incline became almost flat, but still showing that the ocean has been rising even in the last 1000 years. The rate 5 thousand years ago was way more insane than what we are seeing now, why isn't that relevant to you? How come only 10 years is relevant?

You're misreading both these graphs. The ice age graph shows sea level rise slowing down drastically and becoming almost level 7500 years ago. The rate it shows would be undetectable on the 100 year time scale.

The graph I showed is of a 125 year period, NOT 10 year.

Now consider this. It shows 125 years of rising sea level. That's not random fluctuation, it's a clear trend. There has to be a cause. Ask yourself what would cause that.

 

[Throckmorton]

I asked you a question: "Do you understand false extrapolation from extremely limited data sets?" Let it go on record that your answer is NO.

What false extrapolation? The graph shows a RECORD of sea level rise since around 1875. Do you understand what a historic record is?

 

[ModestGamer]

Increase CO2 is actually beneficial to crop yeilds.

 

[sandorski]

The trend has been up since the last Ice Age. So rate of change no longer matters?

Of course it matters. It especially matters when the Rate of Change is far above the Norm with only dramatic CO2 Increases caused by Human Activity account for it.

 

[sandorski]

That's where you're wrong because then it was just a good guess.

Negative.

 

[SagaLore]

In other news: Butchers' study reveals that humans are actually carnivores.

In other news: Vegans' study reveals that humans aren't meant to eat meat.

In other news: Moonbeam's study reveals that Moonbeam's studies are most accurate.

 

[Throckmorton]

Increase CO2 is actually beneficial to crop yeilds.

That would depend on the crop. It only helps a species if CO2 is the limiting factor. And higher CO2 can benefit competing species to the detriment of crops. It's a myth that more CO2 is "good for plants". That's exactly like claiming that more money is "good for the economy". Sounds good to laymen, but ecologists and economists know better.

http://www.physorg.com/news196442897.html

 

[ShawnD1]

Increase CO2 is actually beneficial to crop yeilds.

This one was actually debunked a while ago. Some scientists grew crops in an area where CO2 was being sprayed in a way similar to irrigation. The result was that the plants created less of some toxin that prevents bugs from eating them. As a result, pests ate more of the high CO2 plants.

 

[Craig234]

We'll wait.