Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Most-Used Climate Myths
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

Climate's changed before
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

It's the sun
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

It's not bad
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

There is no consensus
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

It's cooling
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

Models are unreliable
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

Temp record is unreliable
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

Animals and plants can adapt
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Can-animals-and-plants-adapt-to-global-warming.htm

It hasn't warmed since 1998
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264

Antarctica is gaining ice
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...ntarctica-sea-ice-paradox-science-environment

Other Questions
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/

What Role Does Water Vapor Play
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html#watervapor
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

Why Is The Stratosphere Cooling
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/strato_cooling.asp

Meteorologists Disagree With Climatologists
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html

Why Global Warming Seldom In News
http://www.usnews.com/news/slideshows/10-reasons-america-talks-less-about-climate-change

1/3 Of CO2 From Human Sources
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
http://www.newscientist.com/article...man-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter.html

Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle
climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/emissions_0207.pdf (page3)
http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432 (section 5)

 

A slight correction here, Yobarnacle. Nitrogen is not an inert gas. It combines with O2 and H2 as well as with other elements and molecules to form any number of compounds including but not limited to nitrous oxide, nitric acid, ammonia, ammonium hydroxide, cyanide, saltpeter and nitroglycerin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nitrogen_compounds

 

you are right. nitrogen is not an inert gas.
neither does nitrogen vy with oxygen,
water vapor doesn't VY with CO2, It overwhelms CO2 as a greenhouse gas!


"Two rules of thumb:

Rule 1: If the majority of experts in a particular field agree with each other, smart money bets in favor of the experts.

Rule 2: If the majority of experts in a particular field don’t agree with each other, smart money will not bet on ANY point of view. "

'consensus'

everytime groups of scientists declare they "don't agree" with AGW, the warmists say, "their shills".

when scientists agree warming is happening and man is affecting climate, the warmists automatically include them in the radical fringe.

Any time the 'science' of warming fails to endure close scrutiny. out comes the "majority rules" argument.

I'd like to see an impartial, independent poll, of scientists real endorsements of AGW. With degrees of accordance, and separate votes on,
agrees with the CO2 theory,
agrees with rapidity of climate warming,
agrees with imminent catastrophe,
agrees with dismantling 21st century tech culture as solution.
How large of a 'consensus' DO you have?
judging from the numbers of scientists NOT wanting to be included in the 'consensus', not many. Is the 'consensus' maintained by just ignoring scientists who don't agree?
Seems ignoring facts is a favorite tactic of warmists! Maybe they should call themselves, "Ignoramuses!"

 

Yobbo, this is complete nonsense. Those who accept AGW (man-made warming) do not consider the vast majority of climate scientists who accept this as "radical". This is the collective conclusion of the science to date. Nothing "radical" about it, except in your own mind.

Sounds like you only consider claims as "facts" when they come from your favourite websites like rightwingreligiousnutcases.com, where you got your last doctored diagram showing "global cooling" - that you've since deleted, I see.

 

Non-sense is doesn't make sense. I suppose one man's sense is another's non-sense.

NOAA scientists say water vapor is the largest amount of greenhouse gas. They say, understanding it, is critical to understanding climate warming, but, it isn't understood very well yet.
Is THIS non-sense? Is NOAA a religiousnut.com?
Why should I delete the chart I posted? Nothing is doctored, except the one I added a horizontal ceiling line to be easier to see no warming, and a caption. I didn't change any of the data! I didn't delete them. the posts 3842, 3848, 3853 are still there.
As to ignoramuses, I thought , since ignoring things like water vapor, the sun, cosmic rays, other scientists and other hypothesis, they might LIKE it as the team name.

Back to the "consensus". Saying you have one, is kind of arrogant when so many say "take my name off!"
Shall I post all the groups who say they AREN'T wanting to be in the "consensus"?
And ALL climatologists do not agree, certainly not in degree. On the fringe, furthest out is Dr Hansen of NASA. Not many endorse HIS complete set of ideas!
Many in the "consensus", are probably just to this degree,
"yeah, it's warming. Climate always changes. Sure man is probably affecting it more or less. You bother me kid. Go away. I'm busy. "
And some "Yeah. Added my name to the 'consensus'. Seemed a good idea at the time."

 

Just in and waiting for it to cool off a little before I head to the park and put in a few miles. Something told me you'd likely have responded.

I don't think anyone has suggested this is anything but a laymans conversation, we don't have a single climate scientist on the forum from what I can tell. Your right though and in addition I have an opportunity to study on line from one of the universities I attended as a kid and I'm thinking of taking them up on a very generous offer. But still, it doesn't preclude this from being anything but a lay conversation. What made you think it was anything but, or that anyone thought otherwise ?

your right, we haven't analyzed much at all, and likely never will, which is exactly the point about Yabs nonsense. Spewing complete fantasy, proselytizing and flooding the thread with five and six posts in a row, when people are trying to hash out rational opinions has prevented any meaningful conversation, as intended. Personally I'd think our moderator would have had enough but I commend his patience, even if I'd have handled it differently. Typically when someone seeks to disrupt a thread to the degree Yab and his cronies have, on any other forum, they'd be outa here in a heartbeat.

I don't think its possible to raise the level of discussion by pretending there is a debate or pandering to some few deniers who refuse to accept the reality of climate shift. Few if any in the scientific community are debating climate shift. Whats on the table is, how fast is it going to change, how bad will it be and what do we need to do to at least slow it down. There is no debate within climate science. 98% is the largest consensus ever, as far as I can tell. While raising the level of discussion would be preferable to this childish nonsense we've experienced here, I don't see how thats going to change any time soon as long as Yab and the like are allowed to disrupt the thread.

There are quite a few peripheral issues that we could discuss. Things like that paper you brought up a while back. Another might be the issue of sea level rise. Very difficult to estimate that one. Others might include rate of change. I'm feeling confident its not linear and we don't actually have till 2100 before we see increases in the 5~6°C range. I'd bet more like 2050 or even 2040 is when we'll see temps like that. And I'd argue that the organic carbons are already being triggered.

In any case there is a lot to discuss about climate shift. If certain people had the decency to allow a rational conversation. But as we have seen, thats not going to happen on this forum. For some reason those who wish to prevent an actual conversation, are allowed to.

cheers
B

Oh here's an idea
I've had Yab on ignore for a while now. If we all put him on ignore we might better be able to proceed

 

I would bet there is no clear consensus even among AGW believers, here on this thread!

Boston just posted, "Another might be the issue of sea level rise. Very difficult to estimate that one. Others might include rate of change. I'm feeling confident its not linear and we don't actually have till 2100 before we see increases in the 5~6°C range. I'd bet more like 2050 or even 2040 is when we'll see temps like that. And I'd argue that the organic carbons are already being triggered."

Boston, self admited in several posts, (and not the total he believes), believes GW is

'Man-made, rapid, catastrophic, imminent, maybe extinction event, and maybe too late, unstoppable.'

Others may believe parts of this, or just bare bones 'man is causing global warming', with no doom forecasts.
.Where are you on this Ray?

 

Sad --very sad thread is this --depressing repetitive crap.

Its opened my eyes just how sad a life can get after retirement I will make damn sure I dont end up with a nothing type life doing stuff like this.

 

climate religion is nearly as bad as Communism except this time around its engineered to make money for the government ( and some others)
the more converts the more in the plate each week
the experts funding comes from..well the same place the smoking industry doctors' funding came from
the result of all this is to tax and trade pollution certainly not to stop it..no money in that so clearly anyone advocating C02 buildup disaster is deluded or on the take, what other result is there...better EPA regulations...anyone?
Australian government has a huge deficit so guess what... carbon tax and that clown gillard says we are doing this for our children..that could be true what she means is not leaving a deficit to the grandchildren like Europe has.
The only thing that could go wrong with this plan is industry cleans up, wouldnt that be a financial disaster!!

Maurice Strong.......

http://whatreallyhappened.com/conte...-key-players-cashing-chicago-climate-exchange
http://politicalvelcraft.org/2010/0...from-u-n-to-china-after-oil-for-food-scandal/

 

I offered in several posts, to discuss what we all could agree on doing together to mitigate "possible" warming consequences.
It would be easiest to gain acceptance among the largest number of people, if the projects had intrinsic value, even if it didn't get warmer, or got cooler.
Still waiting.

 

How about if instead of some extremely uninformed op ed piece we actually discuss the science

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4GUMMx4sK8&feature=player_embedded

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY&feature=related

An excellent and scientific and civilized debate.

 

Oh here's an idea
I've had Yab on ignore for a while now. [quoting boston]
__________________

I feel honored to be on your ignore list, Boston. Along with the genius scientists, data, and facts you ignore. Quite a distinguished group!

 

Do you have your own list of these genius well renowned scientists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming provides a list of "notable scientists who have made statements that conflict with the mainstream scientific understanding of global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies." There is a short summary of whether he or she 1.) questions the accuracy of climate prediction, 2.) argues global warming is natural process (many more than #1, 3.) argue the cause of global warming is unknown, or 4.) argue global warming has few negative consequences.

 

a 98% consensus would by definition require there to be a 2% disagreement.



I suppose if we're going to descend to quoting wiki then

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...C7mtuueY41luDu8RQ&sig2=ADc2IQ_Jd2A2GQ_SOC7RFQ

and as it turns out the ones that disagreed with the majority, were on the take from the oil and gas industry. Lindsen, Idso Spencer.