What Do We Think About Climate Change

Good old Boston......

prove it

Didn't you, warmers, say planet was desertifying because of the warmer climate?

prove it


Cheers

 

A ) already did, just that like everything else the Deniers are ignoring the evidence, thats why I gave up on you guys, cause your not willing to even consider why 97% of scientist agree on this issue

B ) on land the shifting weather patterns are leading to desertification

in temporate climates there is a trend towards greening based on more exposed soil ( now that the ice has melted off and snow fall has generally diminished ) and based on more intensive farming in an attempt to keep up with feeding 6.7 billion people

also in aquatic enviroments there is a trend towards greening however this is mainly due to algal blooms based on way to many nutrients in the water and usually ends up as an aerobically stratified environment

C ) already did, why do you think you guys got labeled deniers. Your going to deny anything no mater how much evidence is produced that doesnt fit with your dreamworld of peaches and cream.

take a look back through the thread and check out all the glacier evidence that has been presented. There are numerous charts that clearly show a serious decline in the vast majority of glacier worldwide.

prove it is the basic industry stalling tactic
science doesnt seek to prove anything but instead seeks to show what is most likely to be true and what is least likely to be true
in the case of climate change it is 97% evident that we have significantly altered the climate system

if 97 people in a class all come up with independent studies concluding x to be true
and 3 peoples work fails to agree either with the 97 or each others
who you gonna believe

deniers pick one of the three
science will throw out the highs and the lows and take a serious look at whats left

proves who has an open mind
provides evidence from which to develop a theory
in this case
the theory of rapid climate change
which
has made been used to make predictions back in the 1950's
and those predictions have proven themselves accurate

proof
no
overwhelming evidence resulting in one of the largest consensus view ever seen in science
yes

cheers
B

 

Concensus in science is meaningless without empirical evidence to back it up. Lets see, distorted data, purposely misplanted temp stations, outright lies, physical and economic threats against dissenters, fraudulent studies and assumptions from computer models based on a faulty premise. If this is concensus then we don't need it. The claim of 97% is phony, it can't be backed up, but the 31,000+ plus dissenters names can. Odd that in the middle of so called desertification the Sahara is getting smaller and the Sahel has recieved more rain in the past decade than the previous 3. Finally it only takes one scientist to prove a concensus wrong. The Climate Change cult or religion is nothing more than an attempt to impose an agenda by left wing social engineers by administrative fiat that they couldn't possibly hope to accomplish at the ballot box. The folks you refer to as "the unwashed masses" recognize the smell of ******** and who is full of it. The real deniers are those who started with an assumption of warming in order to impose an agenda and backfilled the data and now won't admit what a bunch of intellectual frauds and elitists they are now that they have been exposed by those who refused to knuckle under to their extortion and intimidation.

 

sounds more like a paranoia issue than a scientific position worthy of debate
all the classic "the world government is coming to eat our children" BS

Please this thread has been over each and every one of the listed issues and in every case found the deniers case wanting

I recomend you read the thread before engaging in topics already covered

 

Typical, when your debating points are vacuous of logic, attack the opponent. Think of all the all the regulations that will be needed to implement the agenda of the no-growth folks and the climate change cult and how it will affect every moment of your day. Paranoia, no, well placed fear of omnipotent government, you betcha. Your right, we have been over these issues, and it is your arguments that are lacking and do not hold up to the scrutiny of independent review by those not on the payroll of the IPCC or government agency grants.

 

obviously you have not read the thread
the evidences presented are overwhelming and the logic based on a sound understanding of the science
deniers on the other hand are consistently found to have misunderstood or misrepresented the evidence
97% is about the largest consensus ever developed by any theory including the theory of relativity
obviously you are some kind of conspiracy nutter who would have us believe the 150 years or so of climate change research has all been a plot to some day take over the world.

right
in political science there is a type of argument called double speak. You got it down pretty well accusing generations of the scientific community of exactly the tricks the deniers are pulling. you really want to go over some of the sources quoted round here, or discuss the 97% consensus or even what a consensus is and what it is used for in science.

your barking up the wrong tree on this one mate
might want to check the paranoia at the door and take a new look at 150 years of science on the issue

Ill post this again since Im positive you are not going to be willing to put the time into reading this thread



what is most evident in nearly every single denier is that they are lacking any knowledge in the history of the development of the theory and what the predictions of that theory are. There is also a serious lack of awareness of who is leading the shrinking few who still deny warming is occurring and what there motivations might be.

go look up the glacier data or the ice data on a global scale
and tell me with a straight face that the ice is not melting
then explain how the ice can be melting if the globe is cooling
cause its not
its warming
fast
even though we are in a solar minimum
kinda frightening eh

 

Empirical evidence; will for a period (let's hope) be difficult to get exact. any large experiment like that, for it to be exact, must be based upon experiments already performed; and outcome known....
And the treehuggers (me incl.) will be "satisfyed" with calculation/ models that show a trend, while the deniers will use any uncertainty in the assumption to say that this is not enough to build corrective actions upon.

Misplanted temp stations; On land areas, there are many temp stations poorly placed, and these will show wrong trends. On the other hand (riding my well known arguments here again); The atmosphere is only something similar to the first 10 m of sea in its possibility to keep heat content (approx). There are many studies that have proven (with some uncertainties, off course ) that the sea temperature have on large areas increased, way below the 10 m limit... , pretty certain estimates of the change in heat input also, that is difficult to explain in other ways that we're getting warmer. The ice in the Artic regions is thinner, less ice extent of multiple sea ice, and that is sufficient for me to for instance; say that the sea temp in this region has increased. And by the way; sea temp right outside here is also a tiny bit higher than the average.... now. And the sea temperatures the last couple of years, in the summers, have worried a couple of the researchers on the station approx 70 km from here; Its not the fact that only the surface is warmer, that's pretty normal, and variations that the surface is warmer than normal can be explained by normal variations, but a considerable change (increase) in the water temperture also at -20 m (or was it 19 m?) is something new.
So take the distance from sothern part of Norway, to the Arctic, some area, the Gulf Stream spread this temp increase out, over this area. And we have a change in the heat input. This heat/ increase; It's gotta come from somewhere...? Consider this to be a local trend, but then there are other areas that have experienced something similar, wich may be many enough that makes this a global issue....

So, to make some assumption that this local warming, takes only a little change in heat input/ heat loss...Over a defined area. We have (among many) CO2; that have its mechanical properties, that can't be denied or explained away.
We burn off a building full of oil, each year, sized 1000 x 1000 x 4500 meters (base dimension x height) One barrel (approx 160 ltr? not my way of measuring) will make approx 320 kg CO2.....
One m3 of CO2 as gas will take up 1,9 kg or something,
spread this thin out in the atmosphere for years,
add the other fossile fuels, coal/ gas....
Even a short expected life span of the CO2 in the atmosphere can cause some effect.

Edit; Climate models must improve, as they are right now, they show the trend (in my opinion pretty clearly), but the lack of certainity does not rule out possible actions.....

On the other hand; weather is crap... a little local warming right now.....

 

Knut, the CO2 argument is a distortion in itself. Anthopogenic CO2 only makes up 3% of the total and the total is less that 3% of the atmosphere so any model or conclusions based on CO are like trying to measure the impact of a fart in a hurricane. If the models and conclusions are based on poorly placed temp stations then the information from those misplaced stations are crap and distort the data and the conclusions and the models based on the data. Artic ice this year has returned to normal levels and the Antartic Ice cap is increasing in thickness and has been for decades. So really all we have is a big what if? Now if the response to the what if was global and uniform we might have something to work with but it is not. What is being proposed is to devolve the developed economies through a series of tax schemes and regulations while the underdeveloped economies catch up and are not required to share in the alleviation burden and can pollute to their hearts desires. Then once we are all equally miserable, some more equal than others of course, we will let the bureaucrats devide up the world economy. My fear is that the bureaucrats will be led by smug elitists like Boston who show an obvious disdain for the "unwashed masses" as he terms them.

 

We had a Bank Holiday yesterday. The weather was cool and wet in NW London. The BBQ was a waste of time, not the cooking, just the eating outside. Here's why. http://www.solarcycle24.com/index2.htm

"Updated 2009 May 25 2201 UTC

Joint USAF/NOAA Report of Solar and Geophysical Activity

SDF Number 145 Issued at 2200Z on 25 May 2009

Analysis of Solar Active Regions and Activity from 24/2100Z to 25/2100Z: Solar activity was very low. No flares were observed during the past 24 hours. The visible disk remained spotless.

Solar Activity Forecast: Solar activity is expected to be very low.

Geophysical Activity Summary 24/2100Z to 25/2100Z: The geomagnetic field was quiet.

Geophysical Activity Forecast: The geomagnetic field is expected to be quiet for the next three days (26-28 May)."

Where is this Global Warming we are supposed to be having? As temperatures continue to fail to endeavour to persevere, without prejudice, I hereby provide a useful link for a warming dish on a miserable British summer weekend.. http://www.aboutgeorgia.net/cuisine/meats.html?page=8

Scrumptious.

 

Many scientists are now trying to back out of the "concensus" without having their careers ruined like atmospheric scientist and meteorologist Dr. Joanna Simpson who said "Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. " Dr. Simpson has authored more than 190 studies.

 

So, a kind of conclusion is that, for this person at last, earlier; the truth was where the money came from....?

Maybe a valid question to ask, now, is; where does this newfound truth come from...?

Would rather have a loose cannon on the deck than one that piss you up your back...

 

For the 500th time,

Glacial retreat is a 200+ year old phenomena while significant anthropogenic CO2 has only a ~60 year history.



Jimbo

 

For all of you able to understand spanish
(Sent for publishing)

Cheers.

 

Knut the conclusion is that often times that even in the world of science, one has to go along to get along. The gist of my post was that intimidation has no place in scientific reasearch, whether is be physical or mental or economic. Why would truth need intimidation in order to be accepted? Why should those who question be bullied into silence through ridicule? Those who question anthropogenic climate change are not the folks who want to the human race to devolve to a societal structure only slightly more sophisticated than a meerkat colony. It is up to those who present a theory to justify it and prove it, not those who question to prove it wrong.

 

All that CO2 came from the atmosphere. We are putting it back and so are all plant eating animals.