Global Warming worse than expected

[Mathematician]

Hah. Of course. The infallible politically driven IPCC. Can't be biased at all can it? I mean, they only have had Mann review his own work and have a couple scientists resign in protest of preconceived findings

Most of the scientists who resigned didn't do some on the premise that man-made global warming isn't real, but the methodology.

Its odd how people assume that skeptics of global warming are ignorant and misinformed.
Its ironic how many supporters of global warming have no idea what the hell they are talking about. Don't believe this assertion? Go to an environmental rally and ask people about global warming. An alarmingly high number of them believe it merely because 1. They watched an Inconvenient Truth (quite a convincing film, until you realize there is no science behind it) or 2. They were told by person X about the problem CO2 has. Even the rally leaders have no idea what they are talking about. Of course environmental rallies rarely ever deal with the environment. Its mostly people screaming about the evils of corporate America under the guise of being an environmentalist.

Wow, and you had the nerve to call out a logical fallacy before creating your own. Go to a conservative rally where they talk about "solar activity" and the "socialist myth." Most of them won't know what they're talking about, either.

 

[Mathematician]

A few interesting facts :-
It will take another 50 years for the earth to be as warm as it was when the Romans were here.

Only once in the last 100 million years has CO2 been as low in the atmosphere as it is at present.

We are technically still coming out of an ice age.

The polar ice caps have melted completely several times and the polar bears still survived.

Temperature and CO2 are linked but Temperature rises first and CO2 levels follow with a thirty year lag. Not the other way round .

The idea that its us using our cars and bikes that is heating up the earth... I think not
What's the cause of global warming? Solar activity probably.

Some brilliant spin doctor realised that, if you turn this scenario around and claim greenhouse gas is causing global warming, you have the perfect excuse to tax the public and they can't complain because it's all in the name of saving the planet.

Solar activity. Wonderful. So you're going to blindly accept a newer, weaker theory than mad-made global warming. That's just too funny.

The rest of your post is just spin. If we accept the premise of global warming deniers that it's impossible to know temperature fluctuations prior to circa 1950, then how did you come up with the stats about Rome? From the some geological experts who agree with the UN and independent reports?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Guess we should stop excessively breeding them to feed our fat butts, then.

So when we had a drought and my fields had no grass to feed my cattle, I chose to thin the herd. Did that help or hurt the environment? I guess when I threw a couple of steaks on the grill tonight, I did something else wrong?

All I know is that because of bio-diesel fuel production, the price of my feed corn increased.

 

[yossarian22]

Most of the scientists who resigned didn't do some on the premise that man-made global warming isn't real, but the methodology.

So? if the methodology is flawed, so is their conclusion.

Wow, and you had the nerve to call out a logical fallacy before creating your own. Go to a conservative rally where they talk about "solar activity" and the "socialist myth." Most of them won't know what they're talking about, either.

So? Where did I say that the conservative side was right at all? Or that they were not at least as hypocritical as the other side. Oh wait, I denied global warming so I must be a conservative right?
It is painfully clear that the environmental movement has been hijacked by anti-corporates and socialists. There is nothing wrong with either, but don't use another movement as a front.

 

[yossarian22]

Solar activity. Wonderful. So you're going to blindly accept a newer, weaker theory than mad-made global warming. That's just too funny.

And you think your theory has strong evidence going for it?
Please don't show me Mann's work. Its flawed. And please, don't tell me Mann's work is not flawed because the IPCC accepted it, because the IPCC had Mann review his own work.

The rest of your post is just spin. If we accept the premise of global warming deniers that it's impossible to know temperature fluctuations prior to circa 1950, then how did you come up with the stats about Rome?

We do not have reliable global temperatures from the past 50 years. Lets trust temperature records from countries which do not know how many millions of people died during that year. Heat islands also screw up temperature records.
How did we get data from Rome? Proxy records. This data is suspect because we have data from only a narrow area of the world. Also has very poor resolution

Prove an increase in the rate of temperature increase, then show how the effects of this change in rate will be bad enough to justify spending trillions to stop it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

We do not have reliable global temperatures from the past 50 years.

We have accurate measured Global temperature and pressure and tidal records going back to the 18th century. these cover most parts of the world accessible to the British, who set up weather stations where ever they went.

Geologists have accurate Temperature, Gas, carbon and magnetic records Going back many millions of years. It does not Take a little man with a thermometer and note book to do this.

 

[Reverend Rick]

If the people smarter than I had not tried to convince me that the planet was cooling and we were headed for an ice age not so long ago, I might have took the long leap of faith and bought into man made global warming. I am already doing the things they suggest we should do about it anyway. I am ready to do even more.

What I am not ready to do is blindly follow what the scientists say is gospel. It is pretty arrogant to think we really have a clue about why the planet does what it does much less think we can control it. I hold the agnostic view here.

It sure would be nice to know as much as we think we know about this issue.

 

[yossarian22]

We have accurate measured Global temperature and pressure and tidal records going back to the 18th century. these cover most parts of the world accessible to the British, who set up weather stations where ever they went.

Just look at the data before making statements like this. Temperature records are notoriously unreliable beyond 50 years. You do not think it is odd at all how temperature data begins to massively scatter when we go back 50 years? Also, most of the british colonies have had major revolutions at some point or the other. You think they ever bothered to keep temperature records at all then? And never mind urbanizations. That parking-lot we just paved is not gong to screw temperature records up at all

Geologists have accurate Temperature, Gas, carbon and magnetic records Going back many millions of years.

Yes, for data from a certain area. Local weather fluctuates all the time and are not indicative of global means. Proxies are subject to many other variables which alter them, besides having extremely poor resolution for the most part. Ice core records are great. Unfortunately, not much of the world has been covered with ice for a few million years. Ice cores, by the way, show that even the most extreme IPCC estimates are not uncommon in history

 

[yossarian22]

What I am not ready to do is blindly follow what the scientists say is gospel. It is pretty arrogant to think we really have a clue about why the planet does what it does much less think we can control it. I hold the agnostic view here.

The problem is, man induced global warming is not gospel at all. Its a minority view. The vast majority of scientists are neutral on the issue.
Consensus never proved anything though.

 

[blackout]

Global Warming worse than expected

eh. why bother live in the land of expectations?
why argue about what may or may not be?
To cherish life in the moment...
and touch the world gently...
would be the restoration & regeneration
of a hurting people...
and a hurting planet.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Just look at the data before making statements like this. Temperature records are notoriously unreliable beyond 50 years. You do not think it is odd at all how temperature data begins to massively scatter when we go back 50 years? Also, most of the british colonies have had major revolutions at some point or the other. You think they ever bothered to keep temperature records at all then? And never mind urbanizations. That parking-lot we just paved is not gong to screw temperature records up at all

All the records were kept and returned to london al least annually. so why do you say 50 years...? temperatures were very accurately measured in the 16th century.
even at school 60 years ago we had a weather station that had been set up before the war... and we sent accurate reports daily to the Met office.
Every one who fired guns in both world wars knew the importance of accurate temperature... pressure and wind velocities at various heights. to have any hope af accurate ranging.
The met office even holds Darwin's weather and temperature data.

Yes, for data from a certain area. Local weather fluctuates all the time and are not indicative of global means. Proxies are subject to many other variables which alter them, besides having extremely poor resolution for the most part. Ice core records are great. Unfortunately, not much of the world has been covered with ice for a few million years. Ice cores, by the way, show that even the most extreme IPCC estimates are not uncommon in history

Rock cores are older and more accurate,as are coal deposits and chalk strata.

 

[yossarian22]

All the records were kept and returned to london al least annually. so why do you say 50 years...?

Because the vast majority of the world was very unstable prior to 50 years ago. Its
edging closer to 60 years now. Do you think during a revolution, people will bother to keep meticulous temperature logs?

temperatures were very accurately measured in the 16th century.

Temperatures could be very accurately measured in the 16th century. It did not mean they were. Do you think there are temperature records from North America, Africa, Asia, Australia, or South America in the 16th century?

even at school 60 years ago we had a weather station that had been set up before the war... and we sent accurate reports daily to the Met office.

So? Anecdotal evidence shows nothing.

Every one who fired guns in both world wars knew the importance of accurate temperature... pressure and wind velocities at various heights. to have any hope af accurate ranging.

The fact that people kept temperature logs during war means nothing. Temperature needs to be recorded at the same time every day for there to be any meaning behind them. There is a reason why our temperature data scatters when we go back 50-60 years. Its a bit more for data from America. It goes back around 100 years before scattering.

Rock cores are older and more accurate,as are coal deposits and chalk strata.

And they lack fine grain resolution for the most part.
There are not enough that are geographically far from each other to create an accurate global temperature record.

Edit:For the sake of continuing the argument, I will cede that temperature records we have are accurate and entirely trustworthy. I will also cede that there has been an increase in the rate of temperature and that carbon dioxide is the primary driver of temperature changes
The Kyoto Accords would have a negligible effect on global temperature increases (The expected gain in temperature would be lowered by .25C) and would have cost the American economy at least $300 billion to sign it. It will take tens of trillions to combat global warming.
How can we justify this expenditure of money? How the consequences of not doing anything trump the trillions that could go into other fields? There is evidence that an increase in temperature would be beneficial to us (El Nino of 97-98)

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

How can we justify this expenditure of money? How the consequences of not doing anything trump the trillions that could go into other fields? There is evidence that an increase in temperature would be beneficial to us (El Nino of 97-98)

That would seem to be a little america viewpoint..
America's future is interlinked with that of the rest of the world.
However vast chunks of America will suffer directly.

 

[yossarian22]

That would seem to be a little america viewpoint..
America's future is interlinked with that of the rest of the world.
However vast chunks of America will suffer directly.

How so? There is no evidence supporting the assertion that global warming will cause more severe weather. If the premise of global warming is suggested, the opposite appears to be true for drought. Severe droughts have decreased in frequency. To stop global warming either a radical new source of energy must be developed, or we must return to 1840 population levels.

 

[UnTheist]

or we must return to 1840 population levels.

Let the extermination begin!!

 

[Melissa G]

I wonder how many atheists believe in man made global warming?

I wonder how many global warming blind followers are attempting to do anything about the problem?

What needs to happen is, people need to start living in a community that is self supplying. This world economy is the problem. We ship goods from China that could be made locally, we drive by people each day on the highway heading to each others location to perform similar services.

Air travel should be something you do once every several years and not a common occurrence.

What is wrong with taking a local vacation?

I would be willing to bet most of the koolaid drinkers have not even changed their air filter on their furnace this year yet!

Global warming is happening, and I have little doubt that even if man made emissions are not the prime cause, they can surely only matters worse. Global Warning is for Scientific Enquiry, I fail to see what Atheism has to do with it.

Melissa G

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Ehhh, global warming is so exxagurated.

 

[Valjean]

Why do you say that, Penguino? I think, on the contrary, that most people are not aware of it's full implications.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Why do you say that, Penguino? I think, on the contrary, that most people are not aware of it's full implications.

Most people are afraid....
They prefer to bury their heads in the sand than do anything...
They prefer to deny a problem than think about the implications.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Global warming is happening, and I have little doubt that even if man made emissions are not the prime cause, they can surely only matters worse. Global Warning is for Scientific Enquiry, I fail to see what Atheism has to do with it.

Melissa G

If the same amount of scepticism was applied to Global Warming as religious beliefs, you would come up with the same conclusions that neither exist.