What Do We Think About Climate Change

yes the IPCC was wrong
it underestimated the rate of ice loss

and again the IPCC was wrong
in that they underestimate both the rate and degree of temp change

the IPCC also underestimated the rate of sea level change

so although I agree the IPCC is flawed it is equally as obvious that they have chosen to err on the conservative side in nearly all of there predictions from even just a few years ago

although the IPCC is not what is on trial here
what is is the inability of the deniers to provide any viable alternative theory that explains the data being collected

instead the deniers deny the data even thought tens of thousands of independent researchers have confirmed these findings

denial is not just a river in Egypt
its also a fairly transparent mind set of those who simply chose to ignore the obvious

 

Marco,

I know this is a facetious post, but let's think of these points seriously for a moment.

If everyone, everywhere around the world did all these things you've outlined, would atmospheric CO2 levels actually begin to drop? The answer is in the historical record of atmospheric CO2 levels, kindly posted by WONDER Boy, above. If you look closely, you will see that CO2 levels were rising more than 150 years ago, at a time when industrial CO2 emissions were less than 1/100 of present emission levels, and at a time when earth's human population was less than 10% of the present population. So we've already been to the place where the WONDERs want to take us, and CO2 levels were already climbing.

This was (is) likely the result of the earth's response to the emergence from the little ice age. The earth warms and, as usual, CO2 levels rise in response.

Jimbo

 

The IPCC is a bunch of lying sacks.

 

who's estimates from 2001 can, and have been checked against current data, and in most cases turned out to be on the conservative end of correct.

so actually they have a proven track record

which the deniers are sorely lacking

if you cant provide a comprehensive counter theory

and you cant provide any viable data to the contrary

maybe one of the deniers can point out one of there own scientists or scientific groups who have anything even remotely resembling the consistent and accurate track record of the IPCC as proven by predictions made say nearly ten years ago and born out in the data collected since

and keep in mind
one of the rare few peer reviewed papers refuting the IPCC (Miskolczi) turned out to be chalk full of errors which he himself admits and is not cited once in further peer reviewed works. IE. it is being ignored by the scientific community on both sides of the issue. Hardly a stellar review.

 

The South Sakatchewan river has 1/10th the flow it had in 1900. The Antarctic ice shelves are breaking up at record rates. Beaches in the Marshalls that a friend used to walk along, are now under three feet of water. A friend went to 80 degrees north a couple of years ago, without finding any sea ice. Climate has begun to fluctuate wildly lately.
Of course ,organisations paid for by the oil, coal and gas industry are telling us that global warming is a myth , for their own economic gains, at our expense. Corporations are required, by law, to put the short term economics of their share holders above all else. These propaganda machines are the same companies hired by the tobbacco industry to tell us that smoking is harmless. Its amazing that there are people dense enough to actually believe them this time.
The evidence of global warming is overwhelming and irrefutable. Is there any such credible evidence to the contrary? Zero.

 

Some credible evidence to the contrary, without much effort.:

Even in 1842 Charles Darwin was aware that the Marshall Islands were subsiding due to movements of the lithosphere.

http://www.geoberg.de/text/geology/07051601.php

 

The Gardiner Dam built in the 1960's is the primary reason for reduction in flow of the Southern Saskatchewan River. Other dams, such as Dickson Dam, also divert flow away from its banks.

 

I can understand that the deniers would not want to address the fact that there is simply no competing theory with Rapid Global Climate Change and so might want to skip to a different subject

I can also understand that deniers would prefer to ignore the lack of scientifically acquired data contrary to the theory of Rapid Global Climate Change

What I have trouble understanding is the insistence on using obvious PR sources for there unscientific information in an effort to engage in what they would like to claim is a scientific debate. Why if you are hoping to engage the scientific community in a scientific debate would you so consistently use industry spin and obvious PR pieces from denialist blogs and industry rags rather than actually present what scientific data you have and attempt at least to formulate a hypothesis for review so that we might have something to discuss.

but if you would prefer to discus river ecology I did start out studying marine biology so I suppose thats fine as well

from http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/South_Saskatchewan_River

I also found this from http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&ved=0CAoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.econet.sk.ca%2Fissues%2Fwater%2Fbasin.html&rct=j&q=river+flow+and+climate+change+Saskatchewan+river&ei=o1yMS83TCpKQtgP2nvHLAw&usg=AFQjCNEe0BIhBQd6Myb9e89_UwFE6_tcAg&sig2=_79NUJSSAaKqJLyB29DMTQ

what I found very interesting is that the environmental report was markedly differing from the government report found here

http://www.nswa.ab.ca/pdfs/WUD_QandA.pdf

looks like in spite of what the Canadian gov. would like us to believe the both the N/SSR is having some difficulties keeping up with growing demands

 

We don't need a theory. We have facts. Your theory(web of deceit) is an attempt to destroy the truth of our facts, which you cannot overcome. The facts trump your theory. End of story.

 

no offense intended but that level of ignorance is what makes the science so hard for some to understand

there is no scientific debate
for a reason
the science is so overwhelming that there is nothing to argue
and so deniers simply deny the scientific process entirely

first you would need to understand the scientific process

then you would have to deal with the mountains of data that stand in bleak testimony to one of the most widely accepted theories of all times.

then you would be able to understand why the theory is so widely accepted
and why we who have a background in the sciences are laughing our asses off at those rare few with no scientific background who seem to get themselves in so much trouble listening to the industry spin.

 

Ignorant?
There is no scientific debate because you are so blinded by your desire to put forth your agenda that you cannot see the truth.
Your data is flawed. When the data did not support your desired conclusion it was massaged, tampered, altered, or hidden until you had something with which you could swindle the truly ignorant.
There has always been climatic fluctuation. There will always be climatic fluctuation.
Only dead planets lack climatic fluctuation. Marijuana smoking is creating greenhouse gases. I won't tell you not to burn cannabis if you don't tell me not to burn fossils.

 

ignorant does not mean stupid it just means that you dont know something

we are all ignorant of a whole lot of stuff

I have no agenda
I simply follow that data and go where it leads
in the case of Rapid Global Climate Change it leads to only one inescapable conclusion

I realize you would like to think that the data is flawed but as has been proven through thousands of posts its is instead the "facts" of the deniers that in virtually every case is found to be wanting

there is no swindle
if you remember I am against taxes entirely and frankly do not even believe in income tax
the gov is better off operating on a shoe string
if nothing else it would get rid of some of the dead wood

yes there is always a climatic fluctuation
no one is arguing that but its the rate of fluctuation that is changing and that seriously effects both the ecosystem and the climate
that and if we continue within this trend we will be way outside of normal parameters fast and already are in a number of areas
co2 being one of them

oh
I dont burn weed I tend to make chocolate chip cookies and pas em out
way better for your lungs and you still get all the benefits

the term ignorant is not an insult its just representative of a state of mind

best of wishes as always
B

 

All this reads like the reports from the 1930's as well, a period which predates the beginning of significant anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The arctic was actually warmer in the 1930's than it is now. So how do these facts fit in with your belief in AGW?

Jimbo

 

lets look at the data



hmmm
nothing in the global temp record that would substantiate that claim

what about the local arctic temp record



and it looks like another wild claim debunked but lets keep looking



hmmm
nothing there
but frankly Im not sure those were specific to the arctic and your not suggesting a global trend so lets keep looking and I'll try and focus on just local arctic trends



Fairbanks records clearly show that the temp is higher today than it was in the 30s

looks like that should be enough nails in the coffin eh
oh well we after all talking only about a global climate change and not local but something about that last just rang not true so I thought maybe we should look at some data and check that last wild claim

cheers
B

and now back to my movie
hope all is well

 

Checken Little and Climate Change

Hi Pericles,

You are SO correct about the Greens. By contrast, I find some of the writings of the Creationists quite compelling. The issue of their idea of ultimate accountability to a Divine Being outside of our space and time NOTWITHSTANDING, their science is not written by fools. It is quite entertaining for its intellectual integrity and in some respects, it is equally compelling. Two interesting organizations for the curious are: ICR (Institute for Creation Research) and www.wyattmuseum.com

Their 14 reasons for the young earth theory have never been adequately rebuffed by non-Creationists.

Francis A. Shaffer, IV wrote a book entitled "How Should We Then Live?" He devotes several chapters to how one's philosophical underpinnings, e.g. "world view" affects one's interpretation of science. It is exquisitely articulate regardless of one's position. The video is lavishly illustrated.

Your metaphor of Greens' social Mongol takeover is a brilliant analogy. The Greens do not teach science but, rather, an agenda. They wish to be the self-described philosopher kings sitting at the top controlling, I believe, even every thought if it were possible.

As a public school teacher, I find it appalling that the liberal left gets abominably shrill about even debating other theories contrary to their own. Their theories are presented as fact and not as theories. I am a dyed in the wool Independent. Al Gore looked like an utter dolt when he had a disputer's microphone turned off. Gore could not explain a recent surge in the population of Polar Bears. Gore definitely hurt the liberal left at that forum.

In sum, open, uncensored dialogue is healthy and is a litmus test for integrity.

Kudos to you Pericles!

P.S. If it were to the advantage of the Greens' social agenda, they would have you to believe that the gods of the ancient Greeks were, in fact,
Mammaries, Ovaries, and Testicles.