What Do We Think About Climate Change

[mydauphin]

Go to any canal, swamp or garbage pile, stick something into it. What comes up.... Methane, sulfur dioxide, all greenhouse gases. Lots of them. In the course of any day. The millions of acres of swamp, canals, and volcano's do more for Global Warning gases than all the cars, planes and ships in the world. Do the math.

That said the biggest problem is garbage contamination into ocean, particular SEWER, treated or untreated from all major cities on waterfront throught the world.


And CO2 is not a bad gas, trees need it. During other periods in earth's history their have been much higher levels of CO2 and animals and plants thrived.

[Zed]

Remember when they where all down on cows for farting too much methane... then those wacky Germans went and came up with this --> Plants revealed as methane source {link} Now they don't pick on Cows so much...

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Boston

so apparently now having a background in the sciences is some kind of evil on a thread that is supposed to be having a scientific debate

wow

and you wonder why I am so disgusted with the ethics on this page

What is a lack of ethics (or then simple moronism) is to proclame yourself as a scientist, as it is evident you are not. Neither am I a scientist, nor any of the posters in this thread, as far as I know, except prove in contrary. But although probably some of such posters have quite better scientific background than you or me do, none of them has dared to present him/herself as a scientist. Scientists do not come to these kind of forums to have stupid conversations like this one.

Cheers.

[Zed]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

Scientists do not come to these kind of forums to have stupid conversations like this one.

[Knut Sand]

Another one here:

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...6010317AAAcYyf
(climate scientists...).

From one of the contributors: Quote:

[i][indent]The specific questions in the 97% poll were:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

"Of these specialists [climate scientists], 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

So basically there were 3 climate science researchers in the sample who don't think global temperatures have risen since pre-1800s levels (hard to believe isn't it?) and 2 who said humans aren't significantly contributing to global warming. It's only logical to assume that the 2 who answered 'no' to question 2 also didn't answer 'risen' to question 1, so basically they have no freaking clue what they're talking about (sorry, but anyone who says global temperatures haven't risen since 1800 is ignorant of climate data). I suspect they were people like Tim Ball who claim to be climate scientists but aren't. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that one of them was Tim Ball.

As for what climate scientists disagree on, in most cases it's climate sensitivity (how much the planet will warm/cool in response to rising temperatures due to AGW). Guys like Christy and Lindzen think the planet will naturally counteract anthropogenic warming with negative feedbacks - namely increasing cloudcover. They don't dispute the human cause of global warming. Few climate scientists do - I don't think even Spencer disputes it.

*edit* I find it very amusing that several deniers are claiming never to have heard of this study. I've personally referenced and linked it several dozen times. Goes to show deniers aren't interested in learning and block out any information they don't want to hear.
Source(s):

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf


Quote end...

Think this one could be pointed out:
Goes to show deniers aren't interested in learning and block out any information they don't want to hear.

[Knut Sand]

Double posted...

Well your'e supposed to have two eyes.....;-D

[Jimbo1490]

It seems that the "Eco-Enquirer" website was the source of that article I posted earlier (link repaired). That's not to say the information in the article is false. I found some better references to the content here:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/biztra...ion-usat_x.htm

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/25/...s-and-the-epa/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124001537515830975.html

It's much more nuanced, here.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Guys like Christy and Lindzen think the planet will naturally counteract anthropogenic warming with negative feedbacks - namely increasing cloudcover. They don't dispute the human cause of global warming. Few climate scientists do - I don't think even Spencer disputes it.

But they do object to the idea that humans are causing climate change on the basis of the existence this negative feedback! You've got it wrong, Knut!

Spencer says we've caused more climate change by our land use changes. That's what he was referring to, NOT 'greenhouse' gases.

Jimbo

[mudman]

Did Chicken Little tell someone that the sky was falling?

Al gore set this off with his little power point presentation. They found like sixty something lies in that film if I remember right. Al Gore has large investments in Green Technology. Al Gore is also huge supporter of NOAA. I'm sure that other high up politicians are also invested in going green. There is an agenda there, if you don't see that, you are blind. I don't believe anything that the Dept of commerce says and especially NOAA.

It is all just scare tactics. "Buy this stuff people, or we're all gonna die!!!!" People are buying some sort of green bucks now to offset their "carbon footprint". It is a scam! People feel guilty for driving big SUV's and trucks, because someone told them that were killing the earth. So they pay (someone, I don't know who) to feel better.

Any statistics that you show me are not credible, especially if you got them from the government. In the 80's there was a hole in the ozone. Before that, there was Global cooling.

There is an old time oil tycoon (T Boone Pickens) who is on TV promoting wind power and telling all that we need to go green, or we will face the consequences. (unknown consequences BTW, and we all know that people fear the unknown) Do you really think that he is concerned about global warming? He made gazillions with oil. Now he promotes wind, I wonder why. I'm sure that he in not invested in wind power.

Global warming???........I had almost a foot of snow in my yard last year. I live in SE Louisiana 30.4 Latitude. Christmas of 2004, there was snow almost 60 miles into the Gulf of Mexico, lower than 29 latitude. (thats true)

Until I can get some real facts, I will go with what the other HALF of the scientific community says about global warming. It is the earths natural cycle, and if anything we are heading towards an ice age, not a meltdown.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Knut Sand

Goes to show deniers aren't interested in learning and block out any information they don't want to hear.

Knut:
Don't perform "Bostonities", please. We have had enough of that crap obscuring the thread already. Let's just post our opinions and supporting data/works to be debated here, not pulling all of us to enter the spiral of disqualifications again, please.

Thanks.

[Guillermo]

I've been addressed by Antón Uriarte, an spanish geologist well known to be against the AGW theory, to dig deeper on this possibility:

May the present interglacial continue for another 20-25 kyrs more, in the wake of MIS 11 (Marine Isotopic Stage), as its insolation is highly correlated with predicted near future situation?

"Interglacial periods that occurred during Pleistocene times have been recently put under investigation, in order to better understand our present and future climates. In fact, paleoclimatic interpretations often depends on observations drawn from the study of modern/historical processes. In order to better estimate the ”natural range” of climatically important mechanisms, it seems crucial to attempt detailed comparisons of the present interglacial (i.e., the Holocene) with previous warm periods of the Quaternary, such as Marine isotopic stage 11 (hereafter “MIS 11” for the sake of brevity). Similar orbital configurations and comparable atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (considering only the period before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, i.e. 1800 AD ca.) have led to the suggestion that MIS 11 is a suitable, possibly the best, geological analogue for the natural development of Holocene and future climate. Another candidate was MIS 5, but several characteristics do not fit the present conditions. MIS 11 spans from 420 to 360 ka , and represents the longest and warmest interglacial interval of the last 500 kyr. In fact, it shows the highest-amplitude deglacial warming in the last 5 Myr and possibly lasted twice the other interglacial stages. MIS 11 is characterized by overall warm sea-surface temperatures in high latitudes, strong thermohaline circulation, unusual blooms of calcareous plankton in high latitudes, higher sea level than the present, coral reef expansion resulting in enlarged accumulation of neritic carbonates, and overall poor pelagic carbonate preservation and strong dissolution in certain areas."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Isotopic_Stage_11

Most interesting.
Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Some (contradictory) more info on MIS 11:
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/5/1...-1337-2009.pdf

From there:

"Comparison of the vegetation trends in MIS 1 and MIS 11 favours a precessional alignment, which would suggest that the Holocene is nearing the end of its natural course."

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

This works denies a MIS 11 like behaviour.....
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06...06-J-06120.pdf
(unluckily only the abstract is there)

....and states:
Thus, contrary to some recent suggestions all our evidence strongly implies that the specific orbital configuration within the next millennia will have little or no direct effect on the further Holocene climate development.

[fasteddy106]

For those with a sense of humor..................

http://dailybayonet.com/?p=1554

[Boston]

more industry spin
more paper thin attempts to deny the poll results
more of the same bullying tactics of the deniers
who are obviously struggling as hard as they can to keep up the denial
but your right about one thing
the level of your conversational and debating skills is far bellow any level worthy of scientific consideration
I guess that's why there is no need for an official debate
the deniers team simply has no case to make
just industry spin
love and happiness
and thanks again for the laughs
B