An Inconvienent Truth

[ThaG]

Ok and as for some of the false predictions made by the greenhouse gas theory....

"If the Greenhouse theory were valid, temperatures in the Arctic and the Antarctic would have risen several degrees Celsius since 1940 due to the huge emissions of man-made CO2. The icy bad news for the CO2 alarmists is that the temperatures at and near the North and South poles are lower now than they were in 1930."

"The data from twenty-one Antarctic surface stations show an average continental decline of 0.008 degrees Celsius from 1978 to 1998, and the infrared data from satellites operating since 1979 show a decline of 0.42 degrees Celsius per decade. David W.J. Thompson of Colorado State University and Susan Solomon of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration also report a cooling trend in the Antarctic interior.

The sea ice surrounding the Antarctic continent also confirms cooling. Australia's A.B. Watkins and Ian Simmonds report increases in Southern Ocean ice parameters from 1978 to 1996 and an increase in the length of the sea-ice season in the 1990s." (Unstoppable Global Warming, Singer and Avery)

So no warming in the poles, even though that is the place warming is to be first noticed according to some proponents of the theory.

WTF????

Polar ice is disappearing faster than what anybody ever supposed is possible, yet you say poles are cooling???????????

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061212-arctic-ice.html

a GIST map:

as you can see polar regions are the ones that are warming the most

these are MEASURED temperatures, not predictions...

 

[ThaG]

Thats all you have for a comeback? Funding is a factor in both sides.

Atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson said in a June, 2007 interview that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'"[13]

NASA's Roy Spencer says that climate scientists need for there to be problems to get more funding. Climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy says of climate scientists, “We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then flow to climate scientists.” University of London biogeographer Philip Stott says that “If the global warming virago collapses, there will be an awful lot of people out of jobs.”

French climatologist and author Marcel Leroux makes a claim similar to that of Lindzen's: "In the end, global warming is more and more taking on an aspect of manipulation, which really looks like a "scientific" deception, and of which the first victims are the climatologists who receive funding only when their work goes along with the IPCC." (translated from French) [97]

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

Look, I am not some anti-environment guy in favor of big polluting companies. I really think we need to be cleaner and greener. I simply think that the global warming issue is being exaggerated and scare tactics are being used. I think we need cleaner cars and energy so we have less carcinogens in the air, not to avert some predicted crisis that is based on possibly flawed computer models. The Earth has naturally warmed and cooled as far back as we can go with the temperature data. There was a Roman warming, a Medieval warming, and the current warming we are in now. It has happened before and everything still turned out ok.

2 degrees in 150 years have never happened, neither have 5 degrees in 200

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

these are MEASURED temperatures, not predictions...

LOL YOU JUST MADE A HUGE ASS OF YOURSELF IT SAYS PREDICTION RIGHT THERE.

And for the other graph above that one it DOES SHOW COOLING in Antarctica. None of the other graphs have much data at all about Antarctica. The only part that is warming is the peninsula that sticks up towards South America. This is 3% of the land mass of Antarctica. So your point is not yet proven. In fact, you have hurt your own argument. The study that Singer and Avery cited for the net cooling of the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000 is P.T. Doran et al., "Antarctic Climate Cooling and Terrestrial Ecosystem Response," Nature Advance 415 (2002): 517-20

here is a link for more info http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cold-science/2002-01-13-antarctic-cooling.htm
"Dry Valleys temperatures dropped an average of 1.23 degrees Fahrenheit a decade from 1986 to 2000, with the greatest cooling during the December through February Antarctic summer, they report."

 

[ThaG]

Antarctica is mostly gray which means there is no data, the peninsula has warmed 2 degrees which is food for thought to say the least

What is most important is that you failed to mention that all of Arctic is dark red while just three posts earlier you said polar regions were cooling

 

[ThaG]

LOL YOU JUST MADE A HUGE ASS OF YOURSELF IT SAYS PREDICTION RIGHT THERE.

Yes, this is a prediction

The others are not, they show the trend. The trend and the prediciton match very well. I would take it serious if I were you

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

Take a look at the first graph. Then take a look at all the blue in Antarctica. The other ones do not have very much data but there is still some cooling in them also. So a lot of Antarctica is cooling. And about the Arctic, the only thing I have read in the book so far about it is that according to Polish climatologist Rajmund Przybylak the highest temperatures in the Arctic in the history of instrumental observation were in the 1930's. What possible explanation for that could there be besides the Earth going through natural climate changes?

 

[ThaG]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThaG

these are MEASURED temperatures, not predictions...

LOL

I guess some people can't read or can't find another way to defend their opinion other than twisting what their oponent said

 

[ThaG]

Take a look at the first graph. Then take a look at all the blue in Antarctica. The other ones do not have very much data but there is still some cooling in them also. So a lot of Antarctica is cooling. And about the Arctic, the only thing I have read in the book so far about it is that according to Polish climatologist Rajmund Przybylak the highest temperatures in the Arctic in the history of instrumental observation were in the 1930's. What possible explanation for that could there be besides the Earth going through natural climate changes?

I am a little color blind, but even I can see the difference between blue and grey, not to mention orange

BTW most of Antarctica is orange and continental Antarctica is expected to respond much more slowly to warming because the climate there is influenced a lot by the huge ice sheet and the winds, in contrast to floating ice in the Arctic

There is no way the Earth is going through a natural climate change because of the speed of the change. A change of 2 to 5 degrees does not happen in a century, understand it

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

man i was typing up a good response and firefox froze on me. anyways first off - that graph is bullshit. no title, no dates, no nothing besides a color code. could mean anything. secondly this whole climate science field is soft science and computer predictions. i do not put too much faith in it, we will see if it can be accurate enough to be useful. lastly the cities threatened by rising sea levels are the ones that need defenses against storms and floods anyways. nations could spend billions on switching over to green energy, or they could spend billions preparing for short term issues like an increase in storm activity if/when our warming trend cools down or the next Katrina strikes. (Both sides agree they are going to get stronger). The storm increase happened twice recently (past 2,000 years) and is documented by hundreds of historical sources after the Roman Warming and Medieval Warming periods.

 

[ThaG]

man i was typing up a good response and firefox froze on me. anyways first off - that graph is bullshit. no title, no dates, no nothing besides a color code. could mean anything. secondly this whole climate science field is soft science and computer predictions. i do not put too much faith in it, we will see if it can be accurate enough to be useful. lastly the cities threatened by rising sea levels are the ones that need defenses against storms and floods anyways. nations could spend billions on switching over to green energy, or they could spend billions preparing for short term issues like an increase in storm activity if/when our warming trend cools down or the next Katrina strikes. (Both sides agree they are going to get stronger). The storm increase happened twice recently (past 2,000 years) and is documented by hundreds of historical sources after the Roman Warming and Medieval Warming periods.

OK, so if according to you, engineering is a hardcore science (engineering is not science at all), I would like you to be the one who will design methods to prevent flooding when sea level rises several meters...

Oh, wait, the ground in Florida is porous so absolutely nothing can be done to save it because no matter how high dams you build, water will get under them

But you knew that, right??

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

Yes, the government should stop paying for flood insurance, which encourages people to build houses in dangerous coastal locations. Any city in danger of the next Hurricane Katrina should be preparing for this right now. And no more houses in Florida that you can get insurance on sounds like a great idea... But not because of future threats of global warming, how about the next Katrina. With all the taxes we pay I think that the government should be able to come through on that, and it would also generate a lot of jobs. But the government is mainly spending money on war these days. IMO people should just get the hint and not live in cities like New Orleans if they are not good swimmers.

Also, from an engineering standpoint, the Florida situation does present a challenge. One thing that comes to my mind right off the bat is to do like Bangladesh has done. They have big towers kinda like parking garages that people can run to and survive in the event of a flood. But that is not really preventative measures to keep people safe all the time. If people wanted to live there, they should build those...but if its me I would live somewhere else that you dont have to fucking worry about it anytime within the forseeable future. Coastal living is not that sustainable.

 

[ThaG]

Yes, the government should stop paying for flood insurance, which encourages people to build houses in dangerous coastal locations. Any city in danger of the next Hurricane Katrina should be preparing for this right now. And no more houses in Florida that you can get insurance on sounds like a great idea... But not because of future threats of global warming, how about the next Katrina. With all the taxes we pay I think that the government should be able to come through on that, and it would also generate a lot of jobs. But the government is mainly spending money on war these days. IMO people should just get the hint and not live in cities like New Orleans if they are not good swimmers.

Also, from an engineering standpoint, the Florida situation does present a challenge. One thing that comes to my mind right off the bat is to do like Bangladesh has done. They have big towers kinda like parking garages that people can run to and survive in the event of a flood. But that is not really preventative measures to keep people safe all the time. If people wanted to live there, they should build those...but if its me I would live somewhere else that you dont have to fucking worry about it anytime within the forseeable future. Coastal living is not that sustainable.

1. Try to tell these to the millions who will lose their homes.

2. there is a slight difference between a flood and a sea level rise. Towers can't solve the problem, if you think they can, build yourself one several miles into the sea and move there

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

1. I dont give a fuck about them they are stupid for living there.

2. True. But if the sea level just gradually rises is that really going to endanger anyone? Once it gets really really close, they are probably just going to say ok time to move. The towers are sort of a last resort type thing, I said they are not preventative. Some areas there is really no practical action you can take to prevent disaster. That is why I feel they should move.

Also, you never told me anything more about that one graph. Do you have any info about it at all like time period or what computer model its based off of? And lastly, you are flat out wrong saying engineering is not science. Materials science, nuclear science, alternative energy technology, etc. is not science? If not, then what in the world is it?

 

[ThaG]

1. I dont give a fuck about them they are stupid for living there.

2. True. But if the sea level just gradually rises is that really going to endanger anyone? Once it gets really really close, they are probably just going to say ok time to move. The towers are sort of a last resort type thing, I said they are not preventative. Some areas there is really no practical action you can take to prevent disaster. That is why I feel they should move.

Also, you never told me anything more about that one graph. Do you have any info about it at all like time period or what computer model its based off of? And lastly, you are flat out wrong saying engineering is not science. Materials science, nuclear science, alternative energy technology, etc. is not science? If not, then what in the world is it?

Sorry, you're too dumb to argue with

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

So then enlighten me. What will they do instead? Will they just sit there and wait to die? If all the sudden the town next to you is underwater, you are not going to pack up and leave? I dont get what you are saying with bolding that quote. Besides, those people near sea level in many places are going to have to move eventually because the sea level has been rising steadily since the end of the last Ice Age. So sooner or later Florida is going to be screwed anyways.

Also, what about that other graph? Why aren't you posting the info about it?
You throw up all these graphs trying to prove your point and basically from what I can tell its all bullshit.

 

[mouth_my_nuts]

Would it be more practical to live underwater or on mars? If we knew it was going to happen and nothing we can do to reverse it then what would be our means of surviving?

 

[ThaG]

Would it be more practical to live underwater or on mars? If we knew it was going to happen and nothing we can do to reverse it then what would be our means of surviving?

Again, you are more than welcome to devise ways of moving 10 billion people to Mars and underwater and in the same time providing them with the necessary food and water...

in the next less than 50 years....

But to do this you will need to find a new, much more powerful than anything known, source of energy, which, if you find it, better be used to fight global warming than to move people underwater, I don't think anybody wants to live underwater, it will get boring fast, believe me

 

[HiT-2-TiMeS]

Still no info on that other graph?

 

[Hutch]

“The other ones do not have very much data but there is still some cooling in them also.”

A localised anomaly. Do you assume that, for global warming to be occurring, every single location on earth must be heating up? Also, why does ‘natural climate changes’ provide the only explanation for why the highest measured temperatures in the arctic were recorded in the 1930s? They are both extremely fallacious arguments used by climate change sceptics to cast doubt on the evidence. “It’s not heating up in the regions covered by pure ice, so climate change is not occurring – who cares about the other 98% of the planet which definitely IS heating up!!!”.

“This whole climate science field is soft science and computer predictions. I do not put much faith in it”.

Climate science research is undertaken following the true scientific method - it gathers empirical evidence and then uses this to establish statistically significant patterns which can then be used to draw a conclusion. They employ mathematics to develop computer predictions, which are often quite accurate, most often closely matching estimates outlined in their conclusions. The specific figures may have an standard error of ~10% or so, but discrediting the whole trend – the millions of observations supporting an increase in mean global temperature – based on this small anomaly, is quite self deceptive. Are you sure you don’t work for the Bush administration?

“… nations could spend billions on switching over to green energy, or they could spend billions preparing for short term issues like an increase in storm activity if/when our warming trend cools down or the next Katrina strikes.”

This statement highlights, more than anything you’ve said previously, how ignorant you are on the topic of global climate change. You’re suggesting that, instead of curing this global disease, we spend all our money treating it? If someone told you that you had cancer, and that you could either (a) spend $10,000 on getting it cured and that this would guarantee the cancer didn’t return, or (b) spend $10,000 on tablets and therapy over the next ten years, with your imminent death to follow soon after – which one would you choose? I’d go for the cure myself. If we don’t stop global climate change, then such natural disasters will get worse and worse until we’re all fucked. Sitting back and doing nothing about the causes whilst spending all your money on the treatment is not only extremely stupid, but downright dangerous.

Finally, that graph ThaG posted is a bad example of evidence supporting global climate change. Why? ThaG made an erroneous statement suggesting that ‘these are MEASURED temperatures, not predictions’. The graph clearly depicts PREDICTED increases in global temperatures (from average temps 1960-1990 to average temps 2070-2100) instead of actual observed increases in temperature. Why bicker over this graph though Hit? Is your argument so strongly resting on the inability of ThaG to provide accurate referencing to this material? If you want evidence, clearly referenced and cited, check out the IPCC website. Are you telling me that all the data presented there is false? Made up? ALL of it is inaccurate? I dare you.

 

[ThaG]

Finally, that graph ThaG posted is a bad example of evidence supporting global climate change. Why? ThaG made an erroneous statement suggesting that ‘these are MEASURED temperatures, not predictions’. The graph clearly depicts PREDICTED increases in global temperatures (from average temps 1960-1990 to average temps 2070-2100) instead of actual observed increases in temperature. Why bicker over this graph though Hit? Is your argument so strongly resting on the inability of ThaG to provide accurate referencing to this material? If you want evidence, clearly referenced and cited, check out the IPCC website. Are you telling me that all the data presented there is false? Made up? ALL of it is inaccurate? I dare you.

I posted three graphs - two presenting measurements and one CLEARLY STATING IT IS A PREDICTION

My point was to show what the trend is and where we're going...

it was not a mistake

sorry for the confusion