S
SamH
Guest
We are looking at highs today of 85 does that mean global cooling has started?
- Status
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Sorry if I recently used “denialist” for anyone here at CAF. Some time back a poster alerted me to it being offensive, and I’ve tried not to use it, but use “skeptic” instead, which indicates the person is open-minded, but just has doubts that need to be cleared up.
However, it is entirely appropriate to use the term “denialist” for the denialist industry and those paid by it. They know ACC is real and dangerous (it seems to me), but are striving to protect their economic interests by creating false science. They are funded by such as Exxon, Koch, Peabody, and Scaif, who are all into the fossil fuels industry. They are, it seems, guilty of huge sins – lies that cause a great deal of harm and lead to people’s death by getting people not to mitigate ACC.
I just hope people eventually understand this and start turning off lights not in use, and finding ways to reduce their I.C.E. car driving – become energy/resource conservative/efficient, go on alt energy when feasible. There are so many ways to reduce GHG (and the concomitant pollution that also harms and kills) that save money without lowering living standards and productivity. That is what the fossil fuel industries are scared to death about – losing profits. And they are willing to pay for fake science and denialist politicians (who also are not skeptics, but denialists for the reasons given above).
Better to listen to JPII and BXVI on the topic and just do whatever one can to reduce the harm in one’s own life. My husband and I have reduced our GHG 60%+ below our 1990 levels, and we’re richer and living a high living standard than ever. It can be done by starting with one baby step after another. Within a few years or decades one can scale the mountain, so to speak.
So instead of cursing the heat, let’s just do whatever we can to mitigate ACC (whether or not we think it is real), and in that way mitigate a number of other environmental and non-environmental problems and harms and help ourselves become economically better off.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
I just don’t know what to say to you any more. You have been drinking so much Kool-Aid you’re now
:hypno:
How do you think we even got to this point in our history without the fossil fuels that you now believe are so evil? If they are evil, why did God make so much of them? Didn’t God give us this planet as our temporary home, and create everything on it and in it to be good? Are you saying that God gave us these materials NOT to use? Do you think that we could actually have anything like our current prosperity WITHOUT fossil fuels?
Do you believe that the side you are supporting, the AGW believers, or should I say, AGW zombies, could have an agenda? You are quick to ascribe an agenda to anyone who points out the flaws in your statements and the bogus “science” being done…Do you think the profits from Carbon Credits are evil? Or will everyone who benefits from Cap and Tax give up their money to the greater good?
Your posts actually frustrate me more than any on this entire forum, lynnevic. You are so close-minded and blind that it’s hard for me even be charitable to you. So this will be my last response to you, since I don’t want to have to bring this to confession. Good luck in your life.
:hypno:
How do you think we even got to this point in our history without the fossil fuels that you now believe are so evil? If they are evil, why did God make so much of them? Didn’t God give us this planet as our temporary home, and create everything on it and in it to be good? Are you saying that God gave us these materials NOT to use? Do you think that we could actually have anything like our current prosperity WITHOUT fossil fuels?
Do you believe that the side you are supporting, the AGW believers, or should I say, AGW zombies, could have an agenda? You are quick to ascribe an agenda to anyone who points out the flaws in your statements and the bogus “science” being done…Do you think the profits from Carbon Credits are evil? Or will everyone who benefits from Cap and Tax give up their money to the greater good?
Your posts actually frustrate me more than any on this entire forum, lynnevic. You are so close-minded and blind that it’s hard for me even be charitable to you. So this will be my last response to you, since I don’t want to have to bring this to confession. Good luck in your life.
P
Persuader
Guest
It’s interesting how you turn the truth exactly on its head, and criticize people for behavior you are responsible for yourself. First of all, why would you think God meant for us to indulge on fossil fuels just because it’s available? Is it that way with everything? Is it always wise to show no constraint. Please. That’s shoddy reasoning.
Second of all, why do you call environmentalists zombies, yet criticize your opponent for calling people denialist? How can you not see the blatant double-standard? Unbelievable.
The reality is that there is scientific consensus on AGW (provided link earlier in the thread), and the consensus is strong enough to give politicians and other world-leaders the necessary moral incentive to act. That they do not is a moral and political failure. So you shouldn’t interpret the lack of action as a scientific shortcoming. The evidence is sufficient for action. Unfortunately, the moral fiber of our leaders is not up to par.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
P
Persuader
Guest
Who said that it was? And what are you talking about? When making informed, political decisions, what should a politician be doing? Should he not listen to a sustained consensus among the national academies of every major nation?
S
SamH
Guest
And a hot summer is not climate change - it’s weather.
S
SamH
Guest
And what would that be?
P
Persuader
Guest
I gave a link earlier in the tread, but I can post it again:
“2007 In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, “It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.”[23] The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
P
Persuader
Guest
No, I didn’t. I implied that scientific consensus matters, and should be informing and guiding political decisions.YOU DID!!! Right above!!!
Now, methodologically, science is not made true by virtue of consensus. However, sociologically, we have a scientific community which will often reach consensus positions on different issues (like general and special relativity, the germ theory of disease, the theory of evolution etc.). What is recognized as consensus positions are generally what is being taught as science, so consensus really matters in a sociological sense. In the case of AGW, we have reached what could be labeled a consensus position, which means that the overwhelming majority of experts on climate science beliefs AGW to be true. So, as a politician, probably quite ignorant on the science, you have the responsibility to act on that fact. And most politicians on the international stage do accept AGW as true. The issue is that they are not doing anything about it. They are arguing amongst themselves on who should pay for it, and who should do what. This is a political and moral failure, as has been reported from people sitting in on these international meetings. The issue on these meetings is not that they don’t believe in AGW – it’s that they cannot agree on the solutions.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
You are right!
Climate change, of course, is the aggregate of all weather, and global warming is the increase in the average global temperature over the years and decades, so it is the average world temp the scientists will be looking at, not just local or regional temps. We’ll see then after end of 2012 whether there was an uptick or downtick in the global average temp.
And there are many factors that affect the global average temp, not just GHGs in the atmosphere, such as volcanic activity (negative impact for a few years from the aerosols), and solar maximums and minimums in irradiance (about a 11 year cycle), and longer term impacts from the earth’s orbit, etc.
I know over the past 10 years or so there has been a solar minimum in irradiance, which should have dipped us into globally average temps below those of the 1960s, had there not been the warming from the increasing GHGs, so instead we got a slight increase (non significant) in warming over the past 10 years by some calcs and no increase by other calcs.
Now having said all that, if AGW is not happening and there is no increase in the warming in 2012, then it’s probably as cold as ___ somewhere else in the world, with temps well below average (to balance out the heat wave in the U.S.). I check the global temp anomalies and get back with you all about that…
Also, if our current heatwave is just typical and normal, then when AGW really kicks in (and there’s lots aready in the pipes for decades to come, even if we reduce our GHGs down to zero tomorrow), then I guess we’ll see some really hot times, way beyond today’s heatwaves.
Some just like it hot…very hot.
S
stevegravy
Guest
This has been argued to death on dozens of threads and web sites. There may or may not be global warming or global cooling but it ain’t man made. Competing computer algorithms do no not science make. Now here is your scientific fact of which there is damn little in these debates. AGW has 50-50 chance of being true. Go flip a coin.
Finally as far as politicians acting on “consensus data” is baloney. They are public serpents and as such, they ought not to waste public money unless they know what they are doing not guessing.
Of course it is an American’s birthright to be ripped off. So it seems.
Finally as far as politicians acting on “consensus data” is baloney. They are public serpents and as such, they ought not to waste public money unless they know what they are doing not guessing.
Of course it is an American’s birthright to be ripped off. So it seems.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Well, sorry to say, but you are wrong. AGW reached .05 on the null in 1995 (95% confidence or a 95-5 chance of it being true), and the science has strengthened a lot since, and become more “robust” with many many lines of evidence.
Also AGW is not based on computers; these are simply used to help the scientists. It is based on actual temperatures since record-keeping began, and proxies back millions of years. And there are many many different proxies and the all jive well to show that AGW is happening.
It is anthropogenic because:
*]It is well accepted for over 200 years that GHGs cause warming, and that without the natural GH effect life would not be possible on earth. Logic says that adding more GHGs will increase the globally average temp.
*]There are several factors beside GHGs that cause warming, but none of these are in play now.
*]Paleoclimate evidence shows that it has warmed a great deal in the past, and has been the cause of great extinction events – such as the end-Permian great warming (when 90% of life on earth died) 251 mill yrs ago, Paleo-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) 55 mill yrs ago, etc.
The computer models – fed with actual data – help us project into the future. These models are constantly being tweaked as new data and more computer power and other factors get included. The problem is for this science, we do not have another earth without the enhanced GH effect to use as a control. And also there is no IRB that would approve of the experiment we are conducting by emitting so much GHGs and putting life at risk.
For better and more indepth explanations, see the books mentioned in my previous post (link to it):
It is well worth it to not only tune into the denialist industry assessment of the issue, but give climate change a chance and look into it. Lives are at stake.
Logic also says that we do not know if the gasses we produce are in sufficient quantity to have an effect at all.
Science and logic do not support this.
Which does not in any way indicate if man is the cause of any climate change at all.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Well, I misspoke. It’s not only logic, but they have tracked the GHGs along with the great warming periods and they go together. Now in some cases it is the warming that helps release the GHGs that cause further warming…as we are doing now by the warming we have causes, which CH4 from melting permafrost and ocean hydrates are getting into the atmosphere. It’s like we’re poking a sleeping dragon, and he’s beginning to wake up. However, it is still our CO2 that is topmost concern, since CO2 can stay in the atmosphere many decades, centuries, and even a portion up to 100,000 years (according to top climate scientist, which no one on this thread want to believe anyway).
Yes, indeed science does support that the other factors that cause warming are not in play – in fact we have been in a “solar minimum” for the past 10 years, when it should have been cooling below 1960 levels, if it were not for the enhanced GH effect.
However, it does look like we are perhaps climbing out of the solar minima into a solar maxima, which means there will be warming caused by that PLUS the increasing GHGs in the atmosphere. Some scientists, however, have suggested we might be staying in a deep solar minima. At any rate they have instruments to measure the energy income from the sun and outgoing energy. There has been reduced solar energy over the past 10 years; also the energy coming in is greater than that going out, which means the earth climate system is in imbalance, and it will take a long time, even after we’ve stopped emitting GHGs for a balance to again be established…at a higher global average temp.
Where have I heard that before. Adam? Cain?
Then I am sure you will have no problem actually supplying the dates for these ‘great warming periods.’
Please, put up the data.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
For the “end-permian extinction” great warming & CO2 emissions from extreme volcanism, a brief overview is here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event
For the PETM great warming & extinction, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PETM
You can also go on Google scholar and look up articles about these and other great warming events. I read a study about how the warming during the end-Permian may have led to H2S outgassing that killed off a lot of life – see geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/33/5/397.full.pdf+html
There are other such warming events, as well. These are all common knowledge in paleoclimatology, textbook stuff. This may also help: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Well, I guess I was wrong. Scientists ARE now attributing extreme weather to AGW. Just started a new thread re that: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=692810
O
OLofMtCarmel
Guest
Ever heard of the Dust Bowl? Global Warming from all those automobiles I presume. Have those scientists ever heard of continentality?
- Status