Global Warming

[Michaelo]

and that’s completely different than saying “a consensus of scientists…”

Did I ever say that? You once again falsely attribute others’ rhetoric to me. Though the number of scientists supporting the idea of anthropogenic climate change is interesting, what’s more important to consider is why they do so, which I have always implicitly stressed in my posts by not simply appealing to the majority’s opinion.

I will address the remainder of your points when I get home from school.

 

[Valke2]

Researchers are studying some common soil bacteria that “inhale” toxic metals and “exhale” them in a non-toxic form. The bacteria might one day be used to clean up toxic chemicals left over from nuclear weapons production decades ago.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090316151031.htm

 

[Valke2]

for Caliso Since I’ve been published many times in newspapers I would say that’s pretty credible.

That’s amazing.

Having lived in Middletown at the time of the Three Mile Island accident

ahhh…

 

[a_burger]

Are you kidding historical data is irrelevant. You guys are getting desperate. Last week we heard global warming causes the Antartic to get a record amount of ice. This makes my point. Your scam is coming to an end.

 

[Michaelo]

Of course…historical data is irrelevent to the topic of global warming.
After all…it is a matter of faith, not science.

Before you misrepresent my words any further, let me clarify. Oscarthecat’s request was irrelevant because of its faulty logic, a non sequitur in this case, in which he implied that supporting anthropogenic climate change somehow also requires showing that the climate has never changed prior to the industrial revolution.

 

[Michaelo]

So you admit that there is a “natural variability of the climate.”

Thank you.

Did I ever claim that natural factors don’t also influence the climate? Nope.

Now I would like you to prove that the current climate variations would not be happening if not for those pesky humans.

Then, I would like you to provide conclusive evidence of what the climate WOULD be right now if not for human beings.

The following should help you answer your fun “what if” questions:

Greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have historically varied as a result of many natural processes (e.g. volcanic activity, changes in temperature, etc). However, since the Industrial Revolution humans have added a significant amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, cutting down forests and other activities. Because greenhouse gases absorb and emit heat, increasing their concentrations in the atmosphere will tend to have a warming effect. But the rate and amount of temperature increase is not known with absolute certainty. Changes in the atmospheric concentration of the major greenhouse gases are described below:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the atmosphere increased from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) in pre-industrial times to 382 ppm in 2006 according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Earth Systems Research Laboratory, a 36 percent increase. Almost all of the increase is due to human activities (IPCC, 2007). The current rate of increase in CO2 concentrations is about 1.9 ppmv/year. Present CO2 concentrations are higher than any time in at least the last 650,000 years (IPCC, 2007).

source

Well, if the earth’s current climate change is caused by humans, then there would be no evidence that climate change on Mars has anything in common with climate change on Earth.

Did you not read the second page of that article?

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that “the idea just isn’t supported by the theory or by the observations.”

Planets’ Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet’s orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

“Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era,” Oxford’s Wilson explained. (Related: “Don’t Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says” [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth’s wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth’s axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

“Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too,” Wilson said.

Wrong…the answer is that nobody seems to be able to agree on when the last ice age ended. Some say that we haven’t had one in 18000 years. Others say we’re just about to begin one. Still others say that we’re just coming out of one.

Words like “nobody,” “some,” and “others” are conveniently vague.

It seems to me that someone who believes in global warming might need to know about those kinds of discrepancies.

It seems to me that someone who claims that scientists (this is of course assuming that “nobody,” “some,” and “others” refer to actual scientists) still hotly debate the end of the last glacial max might need to cite the purported “discrepancies.”

 

[a_burger]

Actually I guess you not only have a math comprehension problem you also seem to have a reading compreshension problem. I have written entire articles for newspapers- not sound off. Actually that’s all you do is sound off with no facts but an allegiance to your saviour Al Gore. It’s all over-you and your lies have been exposed.

Actually how does this sound. My friend has a radio talk show program. How would you like to go on and debate? Your buddies can come on and help you. Who’s your friend Michaelo?

 

[Valke2]

Actually I guess you not only have a math comprehension problem you also seem to have a reading compreshension problem. I have written entire articles for newspapers- not sound off. Actually that’s all you do is sound off with no facts but an allegiance to your saviour Al Gore. It’s all over-you and your lies have been exposed.

Actually how does this sound. My friend has a radio talk show program. How would you like to go on and debate? Your buddies can come on and help you. Who’s your friend Michaelo?

You’ve written articles AND your friend has a radio talk show program? I’d love to give you the opportunity to insult me on air.

 

[Michaelo]

Actually I guess you not only have a math comprehension problem you also seem to have a reading compreshension problem.

Is your latest ad hominem directed at me?

Actually that’s all you do is sound off with no facts but an allegiance to your saviour Al Gore. It’s all over-you and your lies have been exposed.

It’s ironic that you condemn myself and others for spouting “lies” that have no factual basis when you yourself repeatedly fail to provide any concrete evidence refuting our “conspiracy.”

Actually how does this sound. My friend has a radio talk show program. How would you like to go on and debate? Your buddies can come on and help you. Who’s your friend Michaelo?

Nah, I don’t need your radio show to refresh myself on rhetorical fallacies.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Did I ever claim that natural factors don’t also influence the climate? Nope.

My apologies. I guess that’s not what you intended to say in the following statements…

Did you not check out the information I posted from the EPA linking human activity to a rise in average global temperature? Or have you already conveniently dismissed it?

(…)
If the multitude of negative effects of climate change are anthropogenic, then why don’t we have a responsibility to act?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Before you misrepresent my words any further, let me clarify. Oscarthecat’s request was irrelevant because of its faulty logic, a non sequitur in this case, in which he implied that supporting anthropogenic climate change somehow also requires showing that the climate has never changed prior to the industrial revolution.

Well, if you’re going to blame the current climate change on human beings, then you’d at least better be able to explain how the current climate change is not being caused by the same forces responsible for all previous instances of climate change.

Sorry if you find that logic to be faulty. Don’t feel bad, though- it is a question global warming enthusiasts have been unable to answer since the very beginning of their movement.

 

[Calliso]

About that 1970’s thing are you refering to the myth that the majority of scientists thought we were heading into an ice age? If do that is untrue.
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/ Sure doesn;t seem like most scientists were predicting an ice age to me…

I am going to do my it;s not the sun post soon. I have just been procrastinating lol…and I get distracted easily.

 

[Michaelo]

My apologies. I guess that’s not what you intended to say in the following statements…

No, I definitely did not. I can vouch for human induced climate change and simultaneously acknowledge that natural factors also influence climate. The two are not mutually exclusive.

That hardly sounds conclusive to me.

It’s unreasonable to demand that climate models have no “margin of error,” and that quote simply acknowledges this reality.

Even the low growth model predicts an unfortunate rate of increase in temp:

Climate Change | US EPA

Comprehensive information from U.S. EPA on issues of climate change, global warming, including climate change science, greenhouse gas emissions data, frequently asked questions, climate change impacts and adaptation, what EPA is doing, and what you can do.

www.epa.gov

source

For that matter, it doesn’t actually respond to the “fun ‘what if’ questions” I posed.

This also touches upon natural influences on climate change:

Non-Human Influences on Climate Change

Before the Industrial Age, the sun and volcanic eruptions were the major influences on Earth’s climate change. Earth warmed and cooled in cycles. Major cool periods were ice ages, with the most recent ending about 11,000 years ago.

“Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene,” said Cahalan. “Over recent decades, however, we have moved into a human-dominated climate that some have termed the Anthropocene. The major change in Earth’s climate is now really dominated by human activity, which has never happened before.”

The sun is relatively calm compared to other stars. “We don’t know what the sun is going to do a hundred years from now,” said Doug Rabin, a solar physicist at Goddard. “It could be considerably more active and therefore have more influence on Earth’s climate.”

Or, it could be calmer, creating a cooler climate on Earth similar to what happened in the late 17th century. Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun’s surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe and may reflect cyclic or irregular changes in the sun’s output over hundreds of years. During this period, winters in Europe were longer and colder by about 1 C than they are today.

Since then, there seems to have been on average a slow increase in solar activity. Unless we find a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, the solar influence is not expected to dominate climate change. But the solar variations are expected to continue to modulate both warming and cooling trends at the level of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.18 to 0.26 Fahrenheit) over many years.

And keep in mind…

Over the past century, Earth’s average temperature has increased by approximately 0.6 degrees Celsius (1.1 degrees Fahrenheit). Solar heating accounts for about 0.15 C, or 25 percent, of this change

source

Yes, I did- and I was hoping you’d bring it up because “wobbling” is the latest in the long list of theories explaining how another planet could experience perfectly natural climactic change without committing blasphemy in eyes of environmentalists.

Yes, the Milankovitch cycles do affect climate, however…

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth’s position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth’s ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

source

Until then, you aren’t standing on common ground for a fair exchange with me, and it is simply too frustrating to keep having to explain and re-explain everything for your benefit.

Don’t worry, I’m not as ignorant as you think.

You might want to start by looking into what scientists thought was happening with the environment back in the 1970s.

Calliso, nice find

But our analysis nevertheless showed clear trends in the focus and conclusions the researchers were making. Between 1965 and 1979 we found (see table 1 for details):

* 7 articles predicting cooling
* 44 predicting warming
* 20 that were neutral

In other words, during the 1970s, when some would have you believe scientists were predicting a coming ice age, they were doing no such thing. The dominant view, even then, was that increasing levels of greenhouse gases were likely to dominate any changes we might see in climate on human time scales.

source

 

[a_burger]

In case you’re interested I just read an article in the local newspaper from one of the 31,000 (yes, 31,000) scientists who signed a petition exposing the global warming scam.

 

[Squishy]

In case you’re interested I just read an article in the local newspaper from one of the 31,000 (yes, 31,000) scientists who signed a petition exposing the global warming scam.

Scientist is a very broad term. Exactly which fields do these 31,000 work in ? What are their credentials? What was your artical about? Who wrote the artical? Are you able to link to this artical?

I would also like to ask the question. Do you believe that our climate is currently changing? I think most of the posters on this thread agree that we are experiencing a climate shift. The disagreement comes weather its man made or its the natural cycle of the earth.

Please post a little more detail about your side of the argument. I am definatly intrested in why you think the way that you do.

 

[vz71]

Before you misrepresent my words any further, let me clarify. Oscarthecat’s request was irrelevant because of its faulty logic, a non sequitur in this case, in which he implied that supporting anthropogenic climate change somehow also requires showing that the climate has never changed prior to the industrial revolution.

Not at all. what is being brought out is that the climate changed before man showed up, and the climate will likely continue to change long after we leave.

Before you can lay claim to man-made anything, you need to show what changes occurred in the past in order to show why this change is somehow different.

There is nothing non sequitur about it.

 

[vz71]

Wrong…the answer is that nobody seems to be able to agree on when the last ice age ended. Some say that we haven’t had one in 18000 years. Others say we’re just about to begin one. Still others say that we’re just coming out of one.

Words like “nobody,” “some,” and “others” are conveniently vague.

Talking about vague as though the 18,000 is the pillar of accuracy.

I for one demand proof that the last ice age ended 18,000 years ago and not 18,001 years ago.

And I also would like to know if it occurred in late afternoon or early morning.

 

[Ender]

Ahhh good old urban heat island effect. First of all watch this video… Course it would be good to listen to the whole thing as well. I am just isolating the part specifically about urban heat island effect.

Well, bringing up videos on my old computer is really painful - how about extracting (or paraphrasing) the central argument of the presentation?

Ender

 

[Walt_Oliver]

Reminder:

Please discuss the topic of the thread and stop with the personal insults. Failure to obey forum rules could well result in the suspension of posting privileges for violators.

Thank you for your cooperation.

 

[Oscarthecat]

About that 1970’s thing are you refering to the myth that the majority of scientists thought we were heading into an ice age? If do that is untrue.
realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/ Sure doesn;t seem like most scientists were predicting an ice age to me…

I am going to do my it;s not the sun post soon. I have just been procrastinating lol…and I get distracted easily.

I do have to commend you for trying- but you’re going to have to do better than just using google to cherry pick things that look like they might help your position.

Yes,I am familiar with that study, and I don’t know which of the following makes me like it more…

Do I like it because it highlights perfectly how the media ran with the story that would generate the most hype, with little regard for an accurate and honest portrayal of the truth? For example, select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B11FB385B147A93C2AA178AD85F458685F9

After all, that pretty much sums up the media’s current habit of ignoring just about every scientist who expresses anything less than panic about climate change.

Or do I like it because it exemplifies how global warming enthusiasts have discovered that they can rewrite history with the same impunity that they rewrite the scientific evidence against them. For example, take this excerpt from an article about the same study you cited…

Numerous studies have since shown that the cooling trend was the result of fine aerosol pollution, which reflected solar radiation back out into space (also known as “global dimming”). Clean air policies in the 90s in Europe, the US and the former Soviet Union resolved the problem - although it is again rearing its ugly head in China, India and other emerging economies.

newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html

Do you find it odd that this article (which heralds the study you found because it debunks the myth that global cooling was a consensus) goes on to explain how “clean air policies…resolved the (global cooling) problem.” ??

So which is it? Was there a global cooling problem or not? If so, does that mean that you study demonstrates how fewer scientists were doing studies on what turned out to be a valid scientific position?? If there wasn’t, then how did our beloved government policies FIX that problem if it never really existed?? Does that mean that the government took action on something that wasn’t a problem?
Why would the government do that? Looking back, would it appear that the government was being influenced by media hype, rather than scientific consensus?

Sounds like doublespeak to me. In any event, it should be pretty clear by now that climate hysteria is just a convenient avenue for the media to generate paper sales, and for the scientific community to generate continued funding from politicians hoping to claim that they “solved” some made up problem, or from corporations hoping to cash in on consumer anxiety.

But aside from all that, I think I like that study most because it so perfectly demonstrates how the global warming movement will twist and turn even the most rudimentary concepts to their advantage. Did you notice that the authors of the study you cited have subtly redefined “scientific consensus.” It seems that they define it by the number of studies published in a given period of time. But the scientific community defines it as “normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, replication (reproducable results by others) and peer review.” Odd that they didn’t take into account the number of conferences about the topic, how particular articles in their tally were accepted by those in the scientific community, etc.