World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’ll try to be brief: Yes, the WSJ article is an opinion piece but it is at least a précis of the topic and an invitation to further investigation of the same. Also, if an association with the Heartland Institute is grounds for suspicion of diminished veracity, is not lucrative association with the UN or other deep-pocketed sources of research money just as tainted? I would rather believe a person to be sincere until proven otherwise. I have yet to hear an explanation of what caused pre-industrial era warming periods at least as warm and even more so than presently. Could the answer by rooted in nature both terrestrial and celestial? Finally, if I dread any temporal entity, it is government turned Leviathan.
 
There will never be enough proof for the skeptics. They are well entrenched. If someone present really good evidence, then they say it is bogus and made-up by 1000s of evil scientists in a vast conspiracy. There is absolutely nothing that will ever convince them otherwise.

It is really a very sad situation for our children and their children and descendants, who will be bearing the brunt of it.
It would be a lot easier to convince me if there were some warming taking place.
 
That others are guilty is not an excuse for guilt.

“Everyone else is doing it” is rarely going to be accepted as a reason.

So, can the actual question be answered?
Developing medicines that save lives is not being guilty, for crying out loud. I applaud the gov helping in those efforts. I’m a pro-life person, happy when my tax dollars go for saving lives, but leary of gov spending on pro-death policies and measures.
 
I have yet to hear an explanation of what caused pre-industrial era warming periods at least as warm and even more so than presently.
You can study climate change, esp paleoclimotology. It is all there. They know the causes, or at least have very good hypotheses.

Some causes include the earth’s irregular orbit and wobble. Extreme volcanism of the Siberian Traps is thought to have triggered the end-Permian warming some 251 million years ago (during which 95% of life died out).

Initial warming due to things like that then cause several positive feedbacks: initial warming reduces ice and snow cover, which reveals darker land and ocean, which absorbs more heat, which causes more warming, causing more melting, causing more warming…

Initial warming also melts permafrost and ocean hydrates, releasing ice-trapped carbon (CH4 and CO2), enhancing the greenhouse effect, causing more warming, causing more melting and carbon release, causing more warming…

Climatology and paleoclimatology are fascinating topics and worthy of study, esp since these are of concern to anyone who values life on earth on into the future (like their children and grandchildren).
 
I’ll try to be brief: Yes, the WSJ article is an opinion piece but it is at least a précis of the topic and an invitation to further investigation of the same. Also, if an association with the Heartland Institute is grounds for suspicion of diminished veracity, is not lucrative association with the UN or other deep-pocketed sources of research money just as tainted?
That depends on the agenda of the source. To do any research takes deep pockets, so that alone is not grounds for suspicion. I don’t care if the Heartland Institute has deep pockets or not. I do care that they were founded with the express purpose of disproving global warming. They don’t even try to hide their agenda. So let’s not try to hide it here in this forum when they are quoted as a source. Let people decide for themselves if the data is to be trusted, once they know the nature of the source.

As for the UN, I would not trust them as an ultimate source either (although I would probably trust them more than the Heartland Institute). Ideally I would like to get my information from the research scientists who have academic freedom to find results in either direction, provided the results are well supported by facts. Fortunately most academic institutions do provide that freedom, as do the highly-reputable technical journals in which they publish.

You said you would rather believe a person to be sincere until proven otherwise. Then apply that principle to the majority of expert independent scientists in the field of climate research.
I have yet to hear an explanation of what caused pre-industrial era warming periods at least as warm and even more so than presently.
I don’t understand why you think an explanation of pre-industrial warming periods is necessary. Does the lack of a definitive cause for each temperature excursion somehow contradict global warming theory? MMGW theory does **not **hold that the world would have a constant climate, if not for man and his activities. MMGW says that added on to whatever would have been without man is a significant effect that gets more and more pronounced as time goes by. It is difficult to prove MMGW directly by experiment because the needed experiment would last 100-200 years. So instead the mechanisms for heat transfer are analyzed and various proxies for long term warming (like CO2) are presented as evidence. Are these proxies as good as the real thing? No. But they are the best you will get in a compressed time frame. By the way, I don’t see any MMGW skeptics contesting the fact that CO2 has risen dramatically in the industrial era.
 
By the way, I don’t see any MMGW skeptics contesting the fact that CO2 has risen dramatically in the industrial era.
The only things I have seen are numbers from when they were able to measure it, then with proxy information before that. Maybe it’s due to industry, and maybe not, since it has been higher before, again by proxy information.
 
MMGW theory does **not **hold that the world would have a constant climate, if not for man and his activities. MMGW says that added on to whatever would have been without man is a significant effect that gets more and more pronounced as time goes by…
Do those two statements seem to you to fit together well?

If someone is projecting what MMGW would have been like WITHOUT man and his activities, then necessarily that person is assuming some kind of baseline that would have been the case but for man and his activities. It might or might not be posited as a constant, but it seems even more speculative than positing a constant.
 
…if an association with the Heartland Institute is grounds for suspicion of diminished veracity, is not lucrative association with the UN or other deep-pocketed sources of research money just as tainted?
You have to understand that while the UN established the IPCC, the reports come from 1000s of scientists around the world, who are not getting paid to do that work. Most of the studies on which those reports are based are either from universities or gov institutes, and the studies were mainly funded by gov grants, which do not have agenda to sway public opinion one way or the other, but let the facts “chips” fall where they may. Here is a link to the IPCC reports (which are based on many 1000s of scientific studies and comprising 1000s of pages): ipcc.ch/

This is unlike Heartland, Exxon, and the Koch bros (and their orgs) who are specifically funding people (most of them NOT climate scientists) to create misinformation about AGW with the express purpose to deceiving a gullible public that perhaps wants the wool pulled over its eyes bec they don’t want to take responsibility for AGW.

As the Bible says, be as shrewd as serpents and gentle as doves, and as the US bishops say prudence requires that we mitigate AGW.

I don’t know why people here hate the UN so much. It is a good institution. Perhaps the world governments that compose it have not given it much “teeth” to bring about world peace, end conflict, and bring economic uplift for the poor, but it does very good work in its efforts to do these. If anything I imagine it is underfunded and could do a lot more good with more funding.

And this is even if people may take issue with some of its policies, such as re family planning, etc. Even the Vatican works with the UN to express our Catholic perspective and greatly applauds the humanitarian works the UN does.
 
Please try to maintain the distinction between energy policy issues like this and the strictly science question of what is happening to the climate. Otherwise we end up with really nonsensical arguments like “Gee, these climate change mitigation measures really hurt the poor, therefore climate change must not be happening.”

For example, I accept global warming as a scientific fact, yet I do not believe one single cent should be used to subsidize electric cars or solar cell manufacturers.
Good afternoon, LeafByNiggle,

My income is below the USofA federal poverty level. I know what it’s like to be poor. I wasn’t always poor, as I’ve worked hard all my life until my disability started in 2009.

The AGW proposals to hurt the poor. Hurt middle class, too. It’s not good to hurt the public. Military people don’t expect ordinary civilians to have the same self discipline which the military exercise. That’s common sense. But it seems that "scientists, radical liberals and progressives expect ordinary people to exercise a self -discipline that they just don’t have. And the hard nosed, let them learn to exercise self-discipline is a mantra for lack of common sense. Ordinary people do not exercise self discipline common to scientists and military. Nobody’s paying them to.

And I think is is lack of common sense and judgmental harshness to expect ordinary people to develop that level of self discipline for some progressive, radical liberal and scientists who have no real authority over the populace, anyway.

God loves you,
Don
 
You have to understand that while the UN established the IPCC, the reports come from 1000s of scientists around the world, who are not getting paid to do that work. Most of the studies on which those reports are based are either from universities or gov institutes, and the studies were mainly funded by gov grants, which do not have agenda to sway public opinion one way or the other, but let the facts “chips” fall where they may. Here is a link to the IPCC reports (which are based on many 1000s of scientific studies and comprising 1000s of pages): ipcc.ch/

This is unlike Heartland, Exxon, and the Koch bros (and their orgs) who are specifically funding people (most of them NOT climate scientists) to create misinformation about AGW with the express purpose to deceiving a gullible public that perhaps wants the wool pulled over its eyes bec they don’t want to take responsibility for AGW.

As the Bible says, be as shrewd as serpents and gentle as doves, and as the US bishops say prudence requires that we mitigate AGW.

I don’t know why people here hate the UN so much. It is a good institution. Perhaps the world governments that compose it have not given it much “teeth” to bring about world peace, end conflict, and bring economic uplift for the poor, but it does very good work in its efforts to do these. If anything I imagine it is underfunded and could do a lot more good with more funding.

And this is even if people may take issue with some of its policies, such as re family planning, etc. Even the Vatican works with the UN to express our Catholic perspective and greatly applauds the humanitarian works the UN does.
Good afternoon, Lynn,

I respectfully disagree that government grants have no agenda. Regardless of bias, each administration has its own agendas, which are forwarded by strings attached to each and every government grant. imo.

God loves you,
Don
 
dailycaller.com/2014/07/23/130-environmental-groups-call-for-an-end-to-capitalism/

Conspiracy? Maybe. How about ulterior motives? I do not imply that anyone posting here is looking to overturn the free enterprise economy and establish worldwide socialism but some environmentalists intend no less. For many of them, Green is the new Red. I have followed the topic for years and I have yet to hear a probable cause for the Medieval Warm Period other than it being a natural manifestation. I do not mean events of prehistoric times but a phenomena occurring in relatively recent history but clearly prior to automobiles and modern manufacturing, and quite clearly after such enormous and chaotic prehistoric events. I have not heard it refuted that CO2 is a result of warming rather than a significant cause. I have neither heard a credible explanation that although CO2 from human activity constitutes less than 0.12 percent of the greenhouse gases, we are the principle culprits. Nonetheless, if we were the villains destroying the world, logic would say that we must return to a preindustrial lifestyle to have any significant effect. It logically follows that a world population of seven billion people would not be supportable. That is precisely what some of the more extreme environmentalists posit as they lobby for mandatory population control. Their program is one which can only be supported by an atheist. I do not accuse anyone on this thread of being an atheist but we should be aware of the company we unknowingly keep. I’m sorry some have been unable to open the WSJ link. I would copy and paste it but I think that may be contrary to the CAF rules. I will be happy to respond to a private message, with the article. Closing, I repeat having not even an iota of insinuation that anyone here is a radical with a political agenda. Be Well and God Bless.
 
Good afternoon, LeafByNiggle,

My income is below the USofA federal poverty level. I know what it’s like to be poor. I wasn’t always poor, as I’ve worked hard all my life until my disability started in 2009.

The AGW proposals to hurt the poor. Hurt middle class, too. It’s not good to hurt the public. Military people don’t expect ordinary civilians to have the same self discipline which the military exercise. That’s common sense. But it seems that "scientists, radical liberals and progressives expect ordinary people to exercise a self -discipline that they just don’t have. And the hard nosed, let them learn to exercise self-discipline is a mantra for lack of common sense. Ordinary people do not exercise self discipline common to scientists and military. Nobody’s paying them to.

And I think is is lack of common sense and judgmental harshness to expect ordinary people to develop that level of self discipline for some progressive, radical liberal and scientists who have no real authority over the populace, anyway.

God loves you,
Don
Greetings, Don.

I never meant to imply that AGW mitigation measures do not hurt the poor. In fact I think the poor would be hurt very much by these measures. That is why I do not support them. But I do support the scientific fact of MMGW. The whole point of that posting was to illustrate the difference between scientific theory and political responses.
 
The only things I have seen are numbers from when they were able to measure it, then with proxy information before that. Maybe it’s due to industry, and maybe not, since it has been higher before, again by proxy information.
Which specific period are you referring to when you say it has been higher before?
 
Good afternoon, Lynn,

I respectfully disagree that government grants have no agenda. Regardless of bias, each administration has its own agendas, which are forwarded by strings attached to each and every government grant. imo.

God loves you,
Don
What reason is there to believe that the agenda of government grants is not the obvious one - to find out the truth?
 
Do those two statements seem to you to fit together well?

If someone is projecting what MMGW would have been like WITHOUT man and his activities, then necessarily that person is assuming some kind of baseline that would have been the case but for man and his activities. It might or might not be posited as a constant, but it seems even more speculative than positing a constant.
One can assume the existence of a baseline of what the climate would have been without man, which specifically knowing what the baseline is. The theory is about the relative difference man’s activities make - not about what the absolute end result will be.
 
Mann, among others, is still hiding his data. Fought a court battle to keep doing it. Doesn’t bode well for the MMGW hypothesis if he refuses to share how he reached his conclusions. Hansen was caught with his hand in the cookie jar for changing the NOAA raw data to fit his conclusions. East Anglia imbroglio a few years back was about this hiding or obfuscating the data as well. If these people really believe their case, why not let ALL their data out there. Why not make them fully explain why they accepted some data points, but not others? The MMGW theory lost a lot of credibility with me just on that alone.
 
Mann, among others, is still hiding his data. Fought a court battle to keep doing it. Doesn’t bode well for the MMGW hypothesis if he refuses to share how he reached his conclusions. Hansen was caught with his hand in the cookie jar for changing the NOAA raw data to fit his conclusions. East Anglia imbroglio a few years back was about this hiding or obfuscating the data as well. If these people really believe their case, why not let ALL their data out there. Why not make them fully explain why they accepted some data points, but not others? The MMGW theory lost a lot of credibility with me just on that alone.
He sued The National Review for pointing out the problems with his research.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top