Global Warming is Not a Crisis

[matty]

http://www.npr.org/templates/text/s.php?sId=9082151&m=1

 

Reported here by NPR and watching the debate unfold was no less compelling.

 

"In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." In a vote before the debate, about 30 percent of the audience agreed with the motion, while 57 percent were against and 13 percent undecided. The debate seemed to affect a number of people: Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion, roughly 42 percent were opposed and about 12 percent were undecided.

"~from the link above...

 

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=2938762

 

Also seconded here by ABC, who reminds us of fashionable alarmist rhetoric of the seventies on a coming ice age; popular and profitable hysterics and nothing more than the groundwork of exploitive fearmongerers.

 

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/index.php/past-debates/global-warming-is-not-a-crisis/ --view full debate video here, it's surprisingly entertaining...

 

If you google The Great Global Warming Swindle you'll find another powerful presentation not to be missed arguing against an already established consensus on anthropogenic--man caused--warming.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html. -- the Washington Post on the IPCC organized climate science email scandle

 

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

 

Last but hardly the least, I'll leave you with this for tonight, the piece de resistance; Michael Mann's hockey stick, right to the kisser.

 

~Nite

 

Ok, this's really the last one, clarifying "The Hockey Stick Controversy"--and to the researcher here looking for climate stats, you can't beat this...

 

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

Edited October 11, 2011 by matty

[swansont]

Zombie arguments, all. Debunked multiple times, yet they will not die.

 

Science does not depend on popular vote.

 

Global cooling was "alarmist rhetoric" of the popular media, not of the scientific literature.

 

The email "scandal" was manufactured — multiple investigations have shown that no wrongdoing happened.

 

Regarding the hockey stick "controversy" From your link:

 

More than twelve subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph

 

Wow, what an indictment!

[Phi for All]

People can't stand to have deeply held beliefs challenged. It invalidates them somehow to be wrong. And like the revolving door on a creationist sepulchre, they keep resurrecting dead old myths over and over, and calling it compelling evidence.

[John Cuthber]

"In this debate, the proposition was: "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis." ... Afterward, about 46 percent agreed with the motion."

Even after watching the film (which could loosely be called propaganda) most people still didn't support the motion that "Global Warming Is Not a Crisis."

 

That's hardly a damning expression of faith in the safety of the world.

[matty]

Pff, I believe Cuthbert is the only one who actually addrEssed my post but I'll come back later on how far outta context you jacked up that remark. So as far as Cuthbert is concerned, I'm not sure the significance was entirely spent on the obvious nature of those numbers as it illustrated how easily you can sway this issue in the setting of an honest, patient discussion; i.e. the marked upsurge in numbers for it's not being the big crisis it'd been purported to have been may have been rather some smidgeon of the issue at hand.~You keeping up?

 

Good.

 

For clarity, I didn't say warming hadn't gone on; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm; One, I categorically questioned how much of the press discussion thus far on GW has been rooted in genuine Crisis vs how much is bloated by profitable-popular hysteria, both in light of the previous link and taking into account how ridiculous it is to rely on these aforementioned 'climate models' held now in such high esteem:) and, TWO, I as much as disregarded AGW either trumping or competing with any of it because--and I'm sure we can agree on this much--we've already arrived at thin territory in the way of the Known vs Unknowable discussion by this juncture asis, esp since water vapor is a pretty major player on the scene by comparison, juxtaposed against the backdrop of man's collective footprint but I never said we shouldn't prepare to do better by the planet, of course we should do what we're able. But water vapor having gone so quiet on the greenhouse gases-front and from the outset should have rang out like Barry Sanders, the household Brand, falling on deafears in a Peak season, lol. Most very suspect with the near omission:)

 

Lessee, here, don't bother throwing me a bone on the IPCC email scandal, which'd be fun; we'll call it a 'gimme' and go for arithmetic instead, a simple logic problem?--If ten turds a-stinking swell up from underneath the seats of their ranks and another five in Maggots goes askitter trying to ditch the sinking ship, well, what Is the official count, should it take One thing coming to light to wash it all clean for the whole? lol Hey, I guess we all have our standards but I'm kinda big on that whole ratio and proportion thing.

 

Uhh, Science may not Entirely depend on popular vote but Legislation is King regardless, having trumped your science way back now in a warm, bacteria-friendly climate such as this.--And legislation today, *Zombie*, in fact Lives and Diies by just that, popular vote & propaganda. Guess you don't catch even the average paper any too frequently or you're an awfully surface-reader, *snicker*~maybe you oughta yank your head outta the sand, have a peek around the lay of the land just every now and again.

 

Why, the grand web itself--a major mechanism to that end in the scheme of things--revOlves around a yawner of a predictable struggle between Interested-Parties-propagandizement; whoever's determined to fight the hardest to maintain their shit at the top of the heap *wins*! A literal continual deathbattle ensues there around the clock, every time you google Today anything even remOtely related to what's even thinly projected to be on the legislative docket Tomorrow.

 

It is precisely this kind of Hillrod, relax yourself into a Stupor-mindset that plagues the US today, one brewski at a time.

 

But you go ahead and enjoy, it was probably Millertime anyway.

 

And, btw, boys, speaking of obvious evidence having your beliefs challenged itches like a rash, I noticed the first two of you, Mods, yes?, rushed right in to greet me.

 

And on a forum so bent on providing backup for your bullshit that it approaches adnauseum--not a link between the three.*lol*

[swansont]

And, btw, boys, speaking of obvious evidence having your beliefs challenged itches like a rash, I noticed the first two of you, Mods, yes?, rushed right in to greet me.

 

And on a forum so bent on providing backup for your bullshit that it approaches adnauseum--not a link between the three.*lol*

 

We prefer facts and links to peer-reviewed literature, and I don't see any in your post. Just tired arguments that have been debunked before. Use the search function — there really isn't a shortage of discussion on the topic.

[John Cuthber]

Just out of idle curiosity, could you make this statement

"I as much as disregarded AGW either trumping or competing with any of it because--and I'm sure we can agree on this much--we've already arrived at thin territory in the way of the Known vs Unknowable discussion by this juncture asis,"

any less clear and concise?

[Greg Boyles]

Global cooling was "alarmist rhetoric" of the popular media, not of the scientific literature.

 

Let's remember here that there is a serious theory that a period of average global warming will melt the greenland ice sheet, disrupt the critical turn around of the gulf stream ths shutting it down, halt redistribution of heat from the tropics to the northern latitiudes and thus trigger an ice age in much of north america.

 

And that the last ice age was triggered by a similar period of global warming that melted a major ice sheet in the great lakes region of north america that also shut down the gulf stream.

 

So global cooling may indeed happen.

 

I think the deniers and media have successfully derailed the debate by centering it exclusively on average warming such that any instances of cooler average temperatures is seen as evidence against global warming.

 

If anything the increased heat retention in the atmosphere energises the global climate system and makes it swing more wildly between extremes, including possible ice age conditions.

 

Through statemements like this you are re-inforcing the deniers' strategy and debating the issue entirely on their terms.

 

STOP IT!

 

 

 

The correct term is global climate change, which may include both periods of warming and periods of cooling over a longer time frame.

[michel123456]

Read only the bold.

Let's remember here that there is a serious theory that a period of average global warming will melt the greenland ice sheet, disrupt the critical turn around of the gulf stream ths shutting it down, halt redistribution of heat from the tropics to the northern latitiudes and thus trigger an ice age in much of north america.

 

Does that make sense to anybody?

 

I prefer people who fight for a better worldwide environment without the need of a hollywoodian sword of Damocles..

[Psycho]

Read only the bold.

 

 

Does that make sense to anybody?

 

 

Yes, apart from it was shown not to be occurring.

[matty]

We prefer facts and links to peer-reviewed literature, and I don't see any in your post. Just tired arguments that have been debunked before. Use the search function — there really isn't a shortage of discussion on the topic.

 

Heh, as opposed to yours? A copout

 

Your Search unearthed scarcely four mind-numbing remarks ever on the Kyoto Protocol, as I'd have imagined, the reason I don't rely on looking back to what copouts can be counted on to favor a lean against, a supposed arsenal in the database that exists in outdated posts.--Telltale enough on relevant science behind your Factplay but thanks just the same...

 

Least Greg there is kept current enough to have caught on to the latest popularized terminology in Climate Change, since warming alarmists were outed for Hyping and had to get a facelift, like every other scandalous thing suddenly found morphing under new identity~classic. Not unlike the 'ol bait n' switcheroo..*hee*

Edited October 16, 2011 by matty

[Greg Boyles]

Yes, apart from it was shown not to be occurring.

 

 

Who has shown that heat re-distribution des not occur via the gulf stream and other ocean currents?

 

It seems as though it is still at the hypothesis stage, but here are the details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation

 

The NewScientist.com news service^[13] reported on 30 November 2005 that the National Oceanography Centre in the UK found a 30% reduction in the warm currents that carry water north from the Gulf Stream from the last such measurement in 1992. The authors note that currently the observed changes are "uncomfortably close" to the uncertainties in the measurements. However, the North Atlantic is currently warmer than in the earlier measurements.^[14] This suggests that either the circulation is not weakening, or that, even if it is weakening, the weakening is not having the hypothesised cooling effect, or that other factors are able to overwhelm any cooling.^[15]

 

So there is currently insufficient firm evidence to prove the hypothesis. Probably the same problem with proving CO2 induced geenhouse effect. I.E. It requires many decades of accumulated evidence to reveal any overwhelming pattern. Presumably the hypothesis is far to young as yet.

 

But it is certainly not the case that the hypothesis has been empahtically disproved.

 

Heh, as opposed to yours? A copout

 

Your Search unearthed scarcely four mind-numbing remarks ever on the Kyoto Protocol, as I'd have imagined, the reason I don't rely on looking back to what copouts can be counted on to favor a lean against, a supposed arsenal in the database that exists in outdated posts.--Telltale enough on relevant science behind your Factplay but thanks just the same...

 

Least Greg there is kept current enough to have caught on to the latest popularized terminology in Climate Change, since warming alarmists were outed for Hyping and had to get a facelift, like every other scandalous thing suddenly found morphing under new identity~classic. Not unlike the 'ol bait n' switcheroo..*hee*

 

Please don't misinterpret my post as supporting your notion that climate change, global warming or what ever your prefer to call it is not somthing to be very concerned about.

 

 

A mini or full ice age will kill millions or billions of humans and destroy western civilisation just as surely as the effects of significantly increased average temperatures.

 

 

As I pointed out, a future ice age will not necessarily disprove that global warming was real prior to it.

 

 

The larger issue here is global climate change or shift not short term global warming.

[matty]

Here's a doosey on that email scandal...

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html

 

Yeah, see what you mean on that narrow escape, lol.

[swansont]

Heh, as opposed to yours? A copout

 

Your Search unearthed scarcely four mind-numbing remarks ever on the Kyoto Protocol, as I'd have imagined, the reason I don't rely on looking back to what copouts can be counted on to favor a lean against, a supposed arsenal in the database that exists in outdated posts.--Telltale enough on relevant science behind your Factplay but thanks just the same...

 

Least Greg there is kept current enough to have caught on to the latest popularized terminology in Climate Change, since warming alarmists were outed for Hyping and had to get a facelift, like every other scandalous thing suddenly found morphing under new identity~classic. Not unlike the 'ol bait n' switcheroo..*hee*

 

The Kyoto protocol and "popularized terminology" are political issues. This is in the climate science section.

[matty]

Got me there, certainly, and, anyway, it wasn't even that I meant to derail the thread to but more that troubling unknown area and a lot of it still leaves the climatescience community itself somewhere nOt the least bit in accordance with consensus. The list is topheavy.

 

Some of what I did wonder about was more along the lines of these topics and their potential overall factoring into the warming equation...

 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. --gas sinks

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html.--mars warming and age

 

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vZJG1-1ad38 --solar storms

 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/feb06/noaa06-025.html. --cooling factors

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ --water vapor not being figured into the math (and I do see their forcers-methodology, read a bit about that, I'm saying it strikes me odd regardless of the rationale).

 

Another small but troubling forinstance, just trying to gleen what part water vapor plays in the scheme of things, from all manner of credible sources you arrive at a seriously wide-ranging figure, running the gamut, and, again, I get we're not on a forcers/"drivers"-plane there~nonetheless...

 

And I swore I gave you credence of being aware of the changeover to "CC", Greg, likewise, don't trip over your own two feet in the rush to pat yourself on the back.

 

That is, you might give the rest of us credit for having some semblance of a notion on what an ice age would mean to us in basic math...

Edited October 17, 2011 by matty

[the asinine cretin]

I would suggest RealClimate and SkepticalScience as solid resources for the interested layman.

[matty]

Read only the bold.

 

 

Does that make sense to anybody?

 

I prefer people who fight for a better worldwide environment without the need of a hollywoodian sword of Damocles..

 

 

Lolol~a show of hands?

[CaptainPanic]

Provinding a link does not mean that you've "proven" your point. There are thousands of denialist blogs out there that link to each other, and that write semi-scientific papers that aren't peer-reviewed... and none of those are any good to back up a story. Trolling has long ago stopped to happen at a single-forum-scale. Trolling went global several years ago.

 

The main argument in the OP goes like this: "I've found something wrong with the climate change story - therefore, the entire story must be a lie"... which in itself is a fallacy ("argument from fallacy").

 

Also, I fail to see what our OP troll is claiming: Is he claiming:

(1) that the earth is not heating up, by saying that the hockey stick is wrong, or

(2) that humans are not the cause of the earth's heating (as in the Swindle documentary)?

 

Because you cannot logically defend both those points, because they contradict. You cannot say that the earth isn't heating up, but if it is, then it wasn't us.

 

And finally, the argument that pro-climate change science and politics are funded by some magical pot of money is bollocks. There is so much more money in oil, coal and gas than in the sustainable energy business that the argument can only logically go the other way: the whole denialist movement is likely funded by Big Oil.

[matty]

I would suggest RealClimate and SkepticalScience as solid resources for the interested layman.

 

Thanks I'd rather just hoped to be brought up to speed, honest; hadn't peeked in on the discussion in some time, I very much did wonder what sources people'r looking to today. Used to check out RealClimate at one time, I like to revisit NASA periodically, ScienceDaily, a couple of others I haven't had time to return to in a while until recently, one shouldn't take his eye off the IPCC too long...

 

Anybody else?

 

Lol, I hardly remember suggesting a link pOssibly proved a thing, what I did allude to was the strange dynamic such a supposedly backup-link centered forum should respond in the manner it does and from a moderator vantage, let's not lose perspective on reminders here to State IMO. But a bit of a delayed reaction lies in all that, now days ago, preferred to address exactly what I posted this morning, which Isn't, ironically, trolling someone with talk about how loathsome trolling is. --With that, I'm out of time but your twobits won't go unnoted.

 

I think, Panic, you're overthinking my original aim which was to regenerate an old topic, surely covered here at length, so I knew it'd take some Doing, lol, in hopes of stirring anything having

some Updated interest, if at all possible. Let us not become entrenched, then, in what Isn't the science.

 

And, finally, I don't do blogs...

Edited October 17, 2011 by matty

[CaptainPanic]

matty,

Unfortunately, I struggle to understand your last post... partially because of your liberal use of punctuation and capital letters, and partially because I am not sure which posts you refer to. Or maybe it's just my English (it's only my 2nd language). Anyway, please be more clear.

 

It seems you say that you just wanted to learn more about global warming, and although you entered the discussion with a strong opinion, you're open for new input... that's good.

 

We're all very sorry we dismiss most of your input. It is not because we are "entrenched" regarding the climate debate. We are only entrenched in the Scientific Method...

Edited October 17, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[swansont]

Got me there, certainly, and, anyway, it wasn't even that I meant to derail the thread to but more that troubling unknown area and a lot of it still leaves the climatescience community itself somewhere nOt the least bit in accordance with consensus. The list is topheavy.

 

Some of what I did wonder about was more along the lines of these topics and their potential overall factoring into the warming equation...

 

http://epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport.html. --gas sinks

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html.--mars warming and age

 

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=vZJG1-1ad38 --solar storms

 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/releases2006/feb06/noaa06-025.html. --cooling factors

 

 

 

These links gave me a 404 error or equivalent.

[matty]

dAngit, thanks, return with them later

 

matty,

Unfortunately, I struggle to understand your last post... partially because of your liberal use of punctuation and capital letters, and partially because I am not sure which posts you refer to. Or maybe it's just my English (it's only my 2nd language). Anyway, please be more clear.

 

It seems you say that you just wanted to learn more about global warming, and although you entered the discussion with a strong opinion, you're open for new input... that's good.

 

We're all very sorry we dismiss most of your input. It is not because we are "entrenched" regarding the climate debate. We are only entrenched in the Scientific Method...

 

Lol, thanks, Panic, I get that a lot, but, yes, spot on. Indisposed a few hours wrangling healthcare issues...

[swansont]

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ --water vapor not being figured into the math (and I do see their forcers-methodology, read a bit about that, I'm saying it strikes me odd regardless of the rationale).

 

Because we seek an index that is accurate, only the direct forcing has been included. Model-dependent feedbacks, for example, due to water vapor and ozone depletion, are not included.

 

Water vapor is a feedback term; it responds to the temperature. i.e. absolute humidity has a temperature dependence. Saying that water vapor is not "figured into the math" is a very different claim, and is false.

[matty]

Water vapor is a feedback term; it responds to the temperature. i.e. absolute humidity has a temperature dependence. Saying that water vapor is not "figured into the math" is a very different claim, and is false.

 

Right, a feedback and not a forcer, but I'm sure I came across a couple of references, once maybe on the NOAA website, saying it wasn't figured in because it wasn't a forcer and, in fact, you found it under a subheaded link entitled "Limits," i.e. natural limits in the equation built in from a broad view into the study.

 

I'll see if I can't scare up a link, meanwhile, I was interested in thoughts on gas sinks figuring in but a moment, please to grab the Wikipedia reference...

 

This is from the wiki carbon sink reference...

http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2586

 

"...Some climate models have already predicted such a slowdown in the oceans’ ability to soak up excess carbon from the atmosphere, but this is the first time scientists have actually measured it. Models attribute the change to depletion of ozone in the stratosphere and global warming-induced shifts in winds and ocean circulation. But the new study suggests the slowdown is due to natural chemical and physical limits on the oceans’ ability to absorb carbon—an idea that is now the subject of widespread research by other scientists..."

 

Wait, another quote in there before you comment, please...

 

"...For decades, scientists have tried to estimate the amount of manmade carbon absorbed by the ocean by teasing out the small amount of industrial carbon—less than 1 percent—from the enormous background levels of natural carbon. Because of the difficulties of this approach, only one attempt has been made to come up with a global estimate of how much industrial carbon the oceans held--for a single year, 1994..."

 

I'm sure you see what I'm getting at, in addition, every place you look akin to this relies on as many "may be's", "could be's" and the like, in the end, truly you can't help but be left with a problematic formula, I should think, at least by any reasonable estimation...

 

Physics is founded on anything but guesswork and neither, then, should the arithmetic our climate science is rooted in, or it isn't science.

 

To further qualify the previous remarks, oceans being the largest carbon sink, are a single, tiny element in the grand scheme of mechanisms going into the climate models we're founding all this on, it's all built awful thinly to buy in so readily we ever again consider a US-centric Kyoto Protocol, that's my issue...

 

Further yet, you can't help but introduce significant cumulative err by sampling from the microcosm in attempt to graft it in as a template for the whole, as they suggest in the above statement and as is widely recognized to be used in other relative methodologies in this all-important field of study.

 

And it's very irresponsible to condone swans on tea...

Edited October 17, 2011 by matty

[swansont]

I'm sure you see what I'm getting at, in addition, every place you look akin to this relies on as many "may be's", "could be's" and the like, in the end, truly you can't help but be left with a problematic formula, I should think, at least by any reasonable estimation...

 

Physics is founded on anything but guesswork and neither, then, should the arithmetic our climate science is rooted in, or it isn't science.

 

Oh yes, I see where you're going with this. That's been very clear. If I had stopped reading at that point, I would have said you were going to make some kind of dismissive remark about science using some pejorative term(s) to describe the process, but that doesn't contain any actual science argument. And I would have been right.