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

[bfdd]

It is unreasonable. Whether you think it or not.

So which is it the science is settled or they don't know what they're talking about? You are saying these things exist and I just can't find them. Well I haven't been able to find them, I've spent over an hour today looking at so many damn charts I've seen before that I can't find a single one that lines up with reality. If they do not have an accurate projection of this decade, what makes you think they know what they're talking about? You cannot say you know for a fact something is happening if you don't know all the facts.

 

[sandorski]

So which is it the science is settled or they don't know what they're talking about? You are saying these things exist and I just can't find them. Well I haven't been able to find them, I've spent over an hour today looking at so many damn charts I've seen before that I can't find a single one that lines up with reality. If they do not have an accurate projection of this decade, what makes you think they know what they're talking about? You cannot say you know for a fact something is happening if you don't know all the facts.

The Trend is Upwards, the Models predict the Trend to be Upwards.

Any questions?

 

[Moonbeam]

Hardly. People believe in their worldview, and wouldn't accept 2+2=4 if this contradicted it.

You are the people you describe. I killed everything I held dear to find my truth except I didn't find it, It found me.

 

[Dekasa]

The Trend is Upwards, the Models predict the Trend to be Upwards.

Any questions?

Is it upwards enough that we need to do anything about it? And is it our fault (and don't say "the only variable that's changed is...." because we both know it's very possible science has overlooked a variable, likely because we don't know it's a variable (yet)).

 

[chucky2]

So far Throck and Failboy, you have failed spectacularly in this thread.

You premise is that models don't matter because you two experts say they don't matter, and that we should just commit to Trillions and Trillions of Hope and Change because, well, people funded to look for MMCC happen to have found it. But, don't ask for the raw data...can't have that. Well, maybe you can, after a suspiciously long while. And don't look at their internal e-mails.

Super convincing I tell ya, super convincing......

Chuck

 

[sandorski]

So far Throck and Failboy, you have failed spectacularly in this thread.

You premise is that models don't matter because you two experts say they don't matter, and that we should just commit to Trillions and Trillions of Hope and Change because, well, people funded to look for MMCC happen to have found it. But, don't ask for the raw data...can't have that. Well, maybe you can, after a suspiciously long while. And don't look at their internal e-mails.

Super convincing I tell ya, super convincing......

Chuck

Here's your Raw Data: You Fail

 

[ModestGamer]

Could this have anything to do with the fervent publishing of pro climate warming propaganda simply because many are eager to lap it up?

I'm surprised this is a Stanford study, the fallacy it's based upon is shocking. If I have an agenda to support, i'm quite likely to cite others who share the same agenda.

How about we use facts to back up climate warming, and not ego's publishing papers using other ego's papers as support.

Fact is over the last 4 billion years or so the earth climate has warmed and cooled. These things happen. The real debate should have always been

1. Is man affecting normal climatic oscilations in a significant manner?

2. Are these influences towards hot with high c02 levels a bad thing if man indeed is finluecning the climate in a measureable fashion ??

3. Pro's and con's of a warmer/cooler planet with more or less co2 versus solar activity.

 

[Throckmorton]

My biggest problem with this graph is that the difference between the lowest temperature and the highest temperature is 1 degree Celsius. We burn coal and oil like there's no tomorrow for the past 150 years and all it did was increase the temperature by 1 degree? Can you understand why I'm not worried about this?

The difference between an ice age and the period we are in now is only a couple degrees.

 

[ShawnD1]

The difference between an ice age and the period we are in now is only a couple degrees.

Fair enough. 1 degree difference every single day would have a large effect on ice formation, which we actually have seen.

So then factoring that in, is a dramatic climate shift a reason to panic? IIRC, earth was a lot hotter during the time of dinosaurs, so there's no question that nature can deal with this change. Can humans deal with it? I don't see why not. Humans live in both the hottest and the coldest places on earth (where there is solid ground to walk on). Hottest place on earth ever recorded was Al 'Aziziyah in Libya, population of 4000+ humans. Coldest place on earth is Vostok; wiki says 13 humans live here during winter.

Humans also live in the most extreme conditions involving water. Lots of humans live in dry areas. Las Vegas is a city in the middle of the desert. The opposite of that is monsoon season where it rains seemingly nonstop for months at a time; humans live there too.

I'm not all that concerned. People generally adapt to their environment. How many people in Florida own a winter coat? Probably not many. How many people in Yukon have a winter coat? Everyone. That's how humans adapt. I bet most houses in Texas have air conditioners. Where I live, not many people have air conditioners other than the ones in our cars. I don't know anyone who has a tornado shelter, but these are probably the norm in Oklahoma. I live in a dry-ish area, so I don't own a rain coat. Whatever happens in the future, we can adapt to it. Maybe I'll buy a rain coat.

 

[bfdd]

The Trend is Upwards, the Models predict the Trend to be Upwards.

Any questions?

If I say "Over the span of the next decade average temperature across the globe will raise 5%" then it only goes to raise 2%, am I right? No I'm not, I was wrong. So unless they can project with 100% accuracy a decade of warming they aren't doing something right so they aren't facts, the science isn't settled and it's all hot air until they can do that as far as I'm concerned.

 

[sandorski]

If I say "Over the span of the next decade average temperature across the globe will raise 5%" then it only goes to raise 2%, am I right? No I'm not, I was wrong. So unless they can project with 100% accuracy a decade of warming they aren't doing something right so they aren't facts, the science isn't settled and it's all hot air until they can do that as far as I'm concerned.

Like I said, you're criteria is the problem. 2% or 5% doesn't matter, the Trend does.

 

[William Gaatjes]

BTW, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Condensed water vapor (clouds) can reflect energy back into space, or reflect it back to the earth. That's why an overcast sky at night reduces heat loss and makes it warmer on the surface than a clear sky.

Exactly. And the most powerful greenhouse gas it is. Afcourse the earth will radiate as much as it receives. And the clouds have a part to play in how much is reflected back to the earth and reflected back to space. We agree on this :

During the day time we have a clear sky, thus we can assume the earth receives a full dose of IR and heats up. The earth is rotating. After a day of warming, the side of the earth that has been heated is now face away from the sun. If the sky is clear, the IR radiation will be emitted and the earth cools down. But when during nighttime that part of the earth is covered in clouds or water vapour. That water vapour reflects the heat back to the earth. And the air in between heats up.

Then we have to take into account humidity and super saturated air.
We have to take into account the amount of cosmic rays that enter our atmosphere. And the effect this all has on cloud formation at different heights in the atmosphere.

I wonder if that is ever done. I know of one scientists and his fellow members who have tried this and where ridiculed and ignored. Luckily their researched is being verified now and they cannot be ignored or ridiculed anymore.

 

[ASTOCADDIDS]

I guess on the bright side that damned poll about G. also got deleted. I always want to kick someone in the teeth when I see those. But is there confirmation that Cheerio did this?

 

[bfdd]

Like I said, you're criteria is the problem. 2% or 5% doesn't matter, the Trend does.

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

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The models are a direct reflection of what we know about how our climate works. The models totally failed to predict the cooling trend over the past 10 years. Here's a thought...perhaps we don't know nearly as much as we think we do.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Like I said, you're criteria is the problem. 2% or 5% doesn't matter, the Trend does.

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

 

[bfdd]

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

If they don't think rate of change doesn't matter then everything sandroski is basing his opinion on is faith.

 

[Munky]

It's basically like this:

1. The global warming advocates are always right
2. If their models and predictions don't reflect observed results, see #1.

 

[Throckmorton]

Fair enough. 1 degree difference every single day would have a large effect on ice formation, which we actually have seen.

So then factoring that in, is a dramatic climate shift a reason to panic? IIRC, earth was a lot hotter during the time of dinosaurs, so there's no question that nature can deal with this change. Can humans deal with it? I don't see why not. Humans live in both the hottest and the coldest places on earth (where there is solid ground to walk on). Hottest place on earth ever recorded was Al 'Aziziyah in Libya, population of 4000+ humans. Coldest place on earth is Vostok; wiki says 13 humans live here during winter.

Humans also live in the most extreme conditions involving water. Lots of humans live in dry areas. Las Vegas is a city in the middle of the desert. The opposite of that is monsoon season where it rains seemingly nonstop for months at a time; humans live there too.

I'm not all that concerned. People generally adapt to their environment. How many people in Florida own a winter coat? Probably not many. How many people in Yukon have a winter coat? Everyone. That's how humans adapt. I bet most houses in Texas have air conditioners. Where I live, not many people have air conditioners other than the ones in our cars. I don't know anyone who has a tornado shelter, but these are probably the norm in Oklahoma. I live in a dry-ish area, so I don't own a rain coat. Whatever happens in the future, we can adapt to it. Maybe I'll buy a rain coat.

You're wayyy too optimistic, probably because you haven't considered all the implications.

Temperature isn't what matters, rainfall is.

Las Vegas can exist and crops can be grown in the desert because of water from mountain ranges and higher latitudes. There are models that can predict those things, but disregarding models it's a roll of the dice whether it gets better or worse.

A tiny climate oscillation causes El Nino and La Nina, and look at the dramatic effects.

 

[Throckmorton]

If they don't think rate of change doesn't matter then everything sandroski is basing his opinion on is faith.

I don't know about sandorski, but rate of change does matter. And the trend has been much greater, AND IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, from what we were experiencing before the industrial revolution.

Like I said in another thread, mild anthropogenic global warming could save us from the next ice age. But we've gone way beyond that.

 

[Genx87]

So what is the answer if these predictions come true? Cap N Tax? Reverse industrial progress of the past 200 years?

 

[Throckmorton]

So what is the answer if these predictions come true? Cap N Tax? Reverse industrial progress of the past 200 years?

We've gone way past the point of no return. Even if we stopped burning fossil fuel the climate would continue to warm because of feedbacks. For example the melting ice caps allow more energy absorption by the ground, higher temperature means less carbon capacity in the oceans, etc.

The more carbon we put in the atmosphere the worse it will be, but it's inevitable that humanity (whether it's us or China) burns oil until it gets too expensive. Call me cynical but I don't see any way we can convince the third world to not enjoy burning oil like we have. They want musclecars too. Cap and trade won't change that.

You're backwards with "reversing industrial progress". If we want to reduce our emissions we'll have to use more advanced tech, not less... like solar power, wind, nuclear, tidal, etc. Those things will make us much better off in the long run as fossil fuels become scarcer and scarcer.

 

[bfdd]

I don't know about sandorski, but rate of change does matter. And the trend has been much greater, AND IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, from what we were experiencing before the industrial revolution.

Like I said in another thread, mild anthropogenic global warming could save us from the next ice age. But we've gone way beyond that.

When we take into consideration the last 150 years when looking back at the last 10,000 it's pretty insignificant the further back you go the more insignificant this miniscule moment in time is. Your rain fall thing doesn't make sense to me. If temperatures rise, evaporation would rise too, so why would rain suddenly stop?

 

[chucky2]

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.

 

[Throckmorton]

When we take into consideration the last 150 years when looking back at the last 10,000 it's pretty insignificant the further back you go the more insignificant this miniscule moment in time is. Your rain fall thing doesn't make sense to me. If temperatures rise, evaporation would rise too, so why would rain suddenly stop?

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.