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

[Jaskalas]

What makes you say that?? And what reason do you have to believe the current warming trend will reverse?

Because interglacial periods on this planet are the exception to a much colder ice cube.

 

[Throckmorton]

Because interglacial periods on this planet are the exception to a much colder ice cube.

Right, and we're supposed to be cooling right now, but we aren't because of the warming we've caused.

 

[ModestGamer]

Whether it's 99% or 90%, it's a good enough estimate to know for a fact that we put a LOT of CO2 into the atmosphere, and about half that amount was absorbed by the oceans.

The CO2 in the atmosphere and the sea didn't come from some magical source. Do you know something the rest of us don't?

So what. by the thinking of the MMGW science community the tempature of this planet should be like 400F. Yes even with all the extra co2 tempatures are running near averages on a millenial scale.

the reason Venus is so hot has little to do with co2.

 

[ModestGamer]

Right, and we're supposed to be cooling right now, but we aren't because of the warming we've caused.

almost all period of global cooling are preceeded by fast tempature rise.

 

[shira]

for a few thousand years the best scientists of the day though the earth was flat to.

So it sounds like your criterion is: Whatever a strong scientific consensus supports, you reject.

Now, based on the above criterion, please tell us one other strong scientific consensuses that you reject.

<crickets>

 

[ModestGamer]

So it sounds like your criterion is: Whatever a strong scientific consensus supports, you reject.

Now, based on the above criterion, please tell us one other strong scientific consensuses that you reject.

<crickets>

no my thoery is that CO2 doesn't retain enough extra heat at even 5X the current concentrations to have any negliable impact on planetary tempature.

which if you'd pick up a fucking high school chemistry text book and crunch the math. you'd know this already.

 

[shira]

The lie behind anthropologic global warming is that atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures DO IN FACT CORRELATE. But correlation does not mean causation. If you raise the temperature of a body of water (like the oceans) it's capacity as a solvent for CO2 is diminished. Ergo more CO2 in the atmosphere.

While it is true to say that most of today's scientists believe in global warming, it is untrue to say that most of today's climatologists are convinced of AGW.

Are you psychotic or just really, really retarded?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Consensus

The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007[31], no remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

Environmental groups, many governmental reports, and the media in all countries but the United States often state that there is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community in support of human-caused global warming. Opponents either maintain that most scientists consider global warming "unproved", dismiss it altogether, or highlight the dangers of focusing on only one viewpoint in the context of what they say is unsettled science, or point out that science is based on facts and not on opinion polls.

Environmental journalist George Monbiot revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" distributed by the Heartland Institute included numerous scientists who demanded to be removed from the list. The institute refused requests by scientists to have their names removed, stating that the scientists "have no right - legally or ethically - to demand that their names be removed."

In 1997, the "World Scientists Call For Action" petition was presented to world leaders meeting to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. The declaration asserted, "A broad consensus among the world's climatologists is that there is now ‘a discernible human influence on global climate.’" It urged governments to make "legally binding commitments to reduce industrial nations' emissions of heat-trapping gases", and called global warming "one of the most serious threats to the planet and to future generations."[39] The petition was conceived by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a follow up to their 1992 World Scientists' Warning to Humanity, and was signed by "more than 1,500 of the world's most distinguished senior scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in science."

A January 19, 2009 survey of over 3,000 scientists as listed by the American Geological Institute showed 90% agreed that global temperatures have risen in the last 200 years, and 82% agreed that human activity played a significant role.

A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analysed 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. Judith Curry has said "This is a completely unconvincing analysis," whereas Naomi Oreskes said that the paper shows that "the vast majority of working [climate] research scientists are in agreement [on climate change]... Those who don't agree, are, unfortunately—and this is hard to say without sounding elitist--mostly either not actually climate researchers or not very productive researchers." Jim Prall, one of the coauthors of the study, acknowledged "it would be helpful to have lukewarm [as] a third category."

Now, why don't you provide us with links to the studies that convince you that a majority of climate researchers do NOT believe in MMCC?

 

[ModestGamer]

The Pope advocates fiath in god and tithing of income as a way to get to haven.

MMGW where facts don't stand up to scrutiny.

BTW I am very against polution.

 

[shira]

The Pope advocates fiath in god and tithing of income as a way to get to haven.

MMGW where facts don't stand up to scrutiny.

BTW I am very against polution.

According to whom?

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your "version" of the "facts."

 

[Jaskalas]

Right, and we're supposed to be cooling right now, but we aren't because of the warming we've caused.

I'd like to see such a seemingly ridiculous claim explained.

Why are we supposed to be cooling, and when? If referring to the past decade, it's quite flat and even slightly declining.

 

[shira]

I'd like to see such a seemingly ridiculous claim explained.

Why are we supposed to be cooling, and when? If referring to the past decade, it's quite flat and even slightly declining.

Really? According to whom?

Why don't you provide us with a link to a peer-reviewed paper in a major climatology journal that makes the statement that in the last decade there's been cooling?

Let me guess: You can't, because there's a vast conspiracy that prevents such a statement from appearing in a major, peer-reviewed journal. But you're so clever you can see right through the conspiracy, and you get your "real facts" from . . . um . . . from totally reputable sources that understand the earth's climate better than climate scientists. And you know those sources are telling the "real facts" - and the climate scientists are lying - because . . . well . . . just because.

And if anyone presents new information that supports the scientific consensus on MMCC, that's just the conspiracy at work.

 

[shira]

no my thoery is that CO2 doesn't retain enough extra heat at even 5X the current concentrations to have any negliable impact on planetary tempature.

which if you'd pick up a fucking high school chemistry text book and crunch the math. you'd know this already.

So, you're asserting that thousands of climate scientists are overlooking basic high school chemistry, and mistakenly vastly over-stating the role of CO2 in climate change? And in 30 years of climate papers, no one's blown the lid off of this huge error?

And this makes sense to you?????

 

[ModestGamer]

According to whom?

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your "version" of the "facts."

fact of the matter is that CO2 concerntrations are no where near high enough to have any measureable effect on global tempature.

Grab a chemical data sheet on co2 and start working from current air concentrations.

you'll be pretty shocked at the concentrations it would take to riase the tempature even 1*

but if your board and you have a light bulb. You can do some bell jar experiments and get some startling answers. You won't see any meaningful gain in tempature rise until you start hitting concerntrations of around 10-15%. Oddly welding shielding gases are mixed at 20-25%. becuase co2 is a great insulator.

that siad CO2 rejects as much thermal output as it would in thoery store.

Nitrogen is a better themral barrier then co2 and makes up 78% of the atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide(CO2) makes up only .036%


http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritter/geog101/textbook/atmosphere/atmospheric_composition.html


I also want you to think about this statement

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then slowly declining with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[24][25] Human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.[26]
Up to 40% of the gas emitted by some volcanoes during subaerial eruptions is carbon dioxide.[27] It is estimated that volcanoes release about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere each year. This is about 100 times smaller than the sources from human activity. Carbon dioxide is also produced by hot springs such as those at the Bossoleto site near Rapolano Terme in Tuscany, Italy. Here, in a bowl-shaped depression of about 100 m diameter, local concentrations of CO2 rise to above 75% overnight, sufficient to kill insects and small animals, but it warms rapidly when sunlit and the gas is dispersed by convection during the day.[28] Locally high concentrations of CO2, produced by disturbance of deep lake water saturated with CO2 are thought to have caused 37 fatalities at Lake Monoun, Cameroon in 1984 and 1700 casualties at Lake Nyos, Cameroon in 1986.[29] Emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide


Most of the c02 on the planet is naturally occuring. but concentrations in the air go up when the oceans warm as the Co2 comes out of the ocean. Now c02 always seems to go up after warming.

the indicator is that the planet is warming. c02 has nothing to do with it other then the fact that. the planet is warming.

4 billion years ago the whole thing was a molten ball of rock and predominantly it has been more in a state of ice ages then in hot periods.

We are in the middle of a break in the ice ages. the warming trend if plotted along time is not even close to abnormal. we may not even be emitting as much co2 as we think.

There has been a pretty good jump in volcanic activity on the surface in the last few centurys.

the planet does what it does. co2 is a poor leading indicator besides to say that the planet is warming.

coincedence and cuasality are not the same thing.

 

[ModestGamer]

So, your asserting that thousands of climate scientists are overlooking basic high school chemistry, and mistakenly vastly over-stating the role of CO2 in climate change? And in 30 years of climate papers, no one's blown the lid off of this huge error?

And this makes sense to you?????

sure. brought to you by 2 billion people who belive a all powerful all knowing being who created the entire known universe.Just for some dust on a rock.

we have no where near enough co2 to effect tempatures.

You can experiment yourself if you like.

 

[shira]

sure. brought to you by 2 billion people who belive a all powerful all knowing being who created the entire known universe.Just for some dust on a rock.

we have no where near enough co2 to effect tempatures.

You can experiment yourself if you like.

Please address my question:

We're talking about faith versus science.

On one side, we have thousands of scientific papers, the result of serious scientists doing climate research for several decades. And the overwhelming consensus of that research is that CO2 is a major contributor to greenhouse warming of the earth, and the earth's current CO2 concentration is artificially high due to human activity.

What I just stated is - in a simplified form - what a huge majority of climate scientists have concluded.

On the other side, we have those who make assertions and claims based on almost no science at all. Who believe arguments made by non-scientists. And you, apparently, are one of those people.

Now, please explain on what basis you've made the faith-based decision to disregard the scientific experts and believe in non-science? And tell us why it's RATIONAL to assume that highly educated, highly intelligent scientists in the field of climatology grossly misunderstand the role of CO2, yet you do have that understanding, since that's essentially the claim you're making.

Oh, and while you're at it, please tell us what other strong scientific consensuses you've also chosen to disbelieve. Bet you can't name even ONE other one.

 

[ModestGamer]

those scientist missed basic chemsitry 101 and should head back there ASAP.

How many incompetent people do you meet in your professional life on a dialy basis ?

same applys with sciene.

do the math yourself run some experiments.

the fact is that the planet always warms BEFORE c02 elevates.

Now that is a interesting fact.

which points to a very diffierent climate model.

windows still can't write a os that handles application multi threading either.


there is a glut of MMGW idiots here. so I often take the side with the least representation in a argument. Except for when you actually do the book work. you'll find out how wrong you are. but first. you have to get off your ass and do the experiments.

Prove C02 concerntraionts not only raise tempature but stores more heat in the atmosphere. Prove it. don't just shout it from the roof tops.

you cannot prove a negative. hence my situation. I can do experiments and show the effects do not occur in any current concentrations.

Please address my question:

We're talking about faith versus science.

On one side, we have thousands of scientific papers, the result of serious scientists doing climate research for several decades. And the overwhelming consensus of that research is that CO2 is a major contributor to greenhouse warming of the earth, and the earth's current CO2 concentration is artificially high due to human activity.

What I just stated is - in a simplified form - what a huge majority of climate scientists have concluded.

On the other side, we have those who make assertions and claims based on almost no science at all. Who believe arguments made by non-scientists. And you, apparently, are one of those people.

Now, please explain on what basis you've made the faith-based decision to disregard the scientific experts and believe in non-science? And tell us why it's RATIONAL to assume that highly educated, highly intelligent scientists in the field of climatology grossly misunderstand the role of CO2, yet you do have that understanding, since that's essentially the claim you're making.

Oh, and while you're at it, please tell us what other strong scientific consensuses you've also chosen to disbelieve. Bet you can't name even ONE other one.

 

[shira]

those scientist missed basic chemsitry 101 and should head back there ASAP.

How many incompetent people do you meet in your professional life on a dialy basis ?

same applys with sciene.

do the math yourself run some experiments.

the fact is that the planet always warms BEFORE c02 elevates.

Now that is a interesting fact.

which points to a very diffierent climate model.

windows still can't write a os that handles application multi threading either.


there is a glut of MMGW idiots here. so I often take the side with the least representation in a argument. Except for when you actually do the book work. you'll find out how wrong you are. but first. you have to get off your ass and do the experiments.

Prove C02 concerntraionts not only raise tempature but stores more heat in the atmosphere. Prove it. don't just shout it from the roof tops.

you cannot prove a negative. hence my situation. I can do experiments and show the effects do not occur in any current concentrations.

The same arguments you're making here can be made about any field of science. And you're not arguing that there are SOME incompetent smart people in climatology. You're arguing that they're all incompetent. And that your knowledge of of the chemistry and thermodynamics of gaseous CO2 is superior to that of climatologists - PhDs all, whose career it is to understand this stuff.

"Prove that CO2 raises temperatures?" That's what climatologists have been doing for decades.

And you think you're being rational?

You're astoundingly stupid and astoundingly arrogant.

 

[William Gaatjes]

It is know that some of the temperature logging by MMGW scientists is done close to cities. That this creates an offset because of the heat storage capacity of concrete stone, roads is sometimes forgotten. Here is another side effect. In the great global warming swindle video i posted on page 16 this is also explained.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100719162945.htm

Because white roofs reflect far more of the sun's heat than black ones, buildings with white roofs will stay cooler. If the building is air conditioned, less air conditioning will be required, thus saving energy. Even if there is no air conditioning, the heat absorbed by a black roof both heats the space below, making the space less comfortable, and is also carried into the city air by wind -- raising the ambient temperature in what is known as the urban heat island effect. Additionally, there's a third, less familiar way in which a black roof heats the world: it radiates energy directly into the atmosphere, which is then absorbed by the nearest clouds and ends up trapped by the greenhouse effect, contributing to global warming.

The U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu has just announced a series of initiatives at the Department of Energy to more broadly implement cool roof technologies on DOE facilities and buildings across the federal government. As part of the effort to make the federal government more energy efficient, Chu has directed all DOE offices to install cool roofs, whenever cost effective over the lifetime of the roof, when constructing new roofs or replacing old ones at DOE facilities. Additionally, the Secretary has also issued a letter to the heads of other federal agencies, encouraging them to take similar steps at their facilities.

"Cool roofs are one of the quickest and lowest cost ways we can reduce our global carbon emissions and begin the hard work of slowing climate change," said Chu. "By demonstrating the benefits of cool roofs on our facilities, the federal government can lead the nation toward more sustainable building practices, while reducing the federal carbon footprint and saving money for taxpayers."

In the latest study, the Berkeley Lab researchers and their collaborators used a detailed global land surface model from NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, which contained regional information on surface variables, such as topography, evaporation, radiation and temperature, as well as on cloud cover. For the northern hemisphere summer, they found that increasing the reflectivity of roof and pavement materials in cities with a population greater than 1 million would achieve a one-time offset of 57 gigatons (1gigaton equals 1 billion metric tons) of CO2 emissions (31 Gt from roofs and 26 Gt from pavements). That's double the worldwide CO2 emissions in 2006 of 28 gigatons.

Their results were published online in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

"These offsets help delay warming that would otherwise take place if actual CO2 emissions are not reduced," says Surabi Menon, staff scientist at Berkeley Lab and lead author of the paper.

Co-author Hashem Akbari emphasizes that cool roofs and pavements are only a part of the solution: "Two years worth of emissions is huge, but compared to what we need to do, it's just a dent in the problem," says Akbari, the former head of the Berkeley Lab Heat Island Group and now Hydro-Quebec Industrial Research Professor at Concordia University in Montreal. "We've been dumping CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 200 years as if there's no future."

This study is a follow-up to a 2008 paper published in the journal Climate Change, which calculated the CO2 offset from cool surfaces by using a simplified model that assumed a global average for cloud cover. The earlier paper, co-authored by Akbari, Menon and Art Rosenfeld, a Berkeley Lab physicist who was then a member of the California Energy Commission, found that implementing cool roofs and pavements worldwide could offset 44 gigatons of CO2 (24 Gt from roofs and 20 Gt from pavements).

Equivalent to Getting 300 Millions Cars Off the Road

"If all eligible urban flat roofs in the tropics and temperate regions were gradually converted to white (and sloped roofs to cool colors), they would offset the heating effect of the emission of roughly 24 Gt of CO2, but one-time only," says Rosenfeld, who returned to Berkeley Lab this year. "However, if we assume that roofs have a service life of 20 years, we can think of an equivalent annual rate of 1.2 Gt per year. That offsets the emissions of roughly 300 million cars (about the cars in the world) for 20 years!"

In both studies, the researchers used a conservative assumption of increasing the average albedo (solar reflectance) of all roofs by 0.25 and of pavements by 0.15. That means a black roof (which has an albedo of 0) would not have to be replaced by a pure white roof (which has an albedo of 1), but just a roof of a cooler color, a scenario that is more plausible to implement.

Roofs and pavements cover 50 to 65 percent of urban areas. Because they absorb so much heat, dark-colored roofs and roadways create what is called the urban heat island effect, where a city is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas. This additional heat also eventually contributes to global warming. More than half of the world's population now lives in cities; by 2040 the proportion of urbanites is expected to reach 70 percent, adding urgency to the urban heat island problem.

The Berkeley Lab study found that global land surface temperature decreased by a modest amount -- an average of roughly 0.01degrees Celsius, based on an albedo increase of .003 averaged over all global land surfaces. This relatively small temperature reduction is an indication that implementing cool surfaces can be only part of the solution to the global climate change problem, the researchers say. To put the number in context, consider that global temperatures are estimated to increase about 3 degrees Celsius in the next 40 to 60 years if CO2 emissions continue rising as they have. Preventing that warming would necessitate a 0.05 degree Celsius annual decrease in temperature between now and 2070.

Thus, even modest changes should not be dismissed. "Simply put, a cool roof will save money for homeowners and businesses through reduced air conditioning costs. The real question is not whether we should move toward cool roof technology: it's why we haven't done it sooner," says Rosenfeld.

Other Studies Reach Similar Conclusions

Another recent study on cool roofs, led by Keith Oleson at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and published in Geophysical Research Letters, found that if every roof were painted entirely white, the CO2 emission offsets would be approximately 32 Gt for summer and about 30 Gt annually. While the NCAR study used a different model, the calculated CO2 emission offsets are similar to the results from the Berkeley Lab study and provide a useful and independent verification of the expected CO2 emission offsets from increasing the reflectivity of roofs.

Some observers have pointed out that cool roofs do not make sense in cooler climates because of "winter penalties," since cooler buildings require more energy to heat. However, the energy savings from cooler buildings usually outweighs any increase in heating costs. Furthermore, in winter, there tends to be more cloud cover; also, the sun is lower and the days are shorter, so a flat roof's exposure to the sun is significantly reduced.

"Cool roofs have worked for thousands of years in the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cities, where demand for air conditioning is low," says Akbari. "If you have a cool roof on your house, that will reduce your energy use from air conditioning and it's a gift that keeps on giving for many, many years, for the life of the roof."