Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[Pat]

did you read my article above pat?

heres a snippet for you:

There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

So do you think we should do something about it, Or just let the sickness run it's course? possibly kill it off with a fever?

 

[--B--]

-B-
look at the graph in post #1050
see that sharp incline in the graph
that's put out by the UK Met Bureau.
happy now?

my apologies 2020. im pleased to see you do base that claim on a graph yet dispute your interpretation that this is proof of the climate "changing at never before dreamed of rates"

 

[spooly74]

So do you think we should do something about it, Or just let the sickness run it's course?

This is what it boils down to Pat!

The problem is though, that the IPCC at the end of the day simply have a model.

All scientific models have restricted applicability, they should be thought of as representations of reality, not reality itself!

It should be the goal of the IPCC to find flaws in their model, this will highlight the areas where we need a better understanding...and I don`t think this can be denied when dealing with such a chaotic system.
They have made predictions ...lets see where the break down.

As for sickness running it`s course..... Whats happened to this system already can`t be changed.
As dj pointed out the earth is in feedback mode where every input produces an output which in turn becomes an input to the system again.
Inevitably (whenever that may be) this will lead to a phase change....our 2 nearest neighbours are testament to this.

 

[AlterEgo]

I find all this discussion of whether we think climate change is real or not, or whether humans are contributing to it to not, quite ridiculous. There are thousands of scientists all over the world that have devoted their lives to investigating this issue. If they believe there is compelling evidence (which they do) of human contribution to climate change, then who are we to argue with them?! They are the experts, not us! It’s like arguing with your doctor “No, I don’t believe you that I have cancer, so therefore I refuse to have any treatment for it”. Even if you don’t believe you have cancer (or climate change is real), you should still take the treatment for it anyway, because the consequences of not treating it will be quite catastrophic if it turns out you were wrong. Is that a risk you’d be willing to take? I think not!

 

[Pat]

I find all this discussion of whether we think climate change is real or not, or whether humans are contributing to it to not, quite ridiculous. There are thousands of scientists all over the world that have devoted their lives to investigating this issue. If they believe there is compelling evidence (which they do) of human contribution to climate change, then who are we to argue with them?! They are the experts, not us! It’s like arguing with your doctor “No, I don’t believe you that I have cancer, so therefore I refuse to have any treatment for it”. Even if you don’t believe you have cancer (or climate change is real), you should still take the treatment for it anyway, because the consequences of not treating it will be quite catastrophic if it turns out you were wrong. Is that a risk you’d be willing to take? I think not!

So true, and my point too. But arguing/debating massages my brain

B, You article is sound, and makes good point. But science is dynamic in itself, constantly changing. I can't sit still thinking "well now they say its not us....few...relief".

I suppose I wish the GW guys are correct, and could prove it was us humans doing the warming.
Not so I would be right, but so the world would be wrong.

 

[AlterEgo]

But arguing/debating massages my brain

LOL

 

[spooly74]

There are thousands of scientists all over the world that have devoted their lives to investigating this issue. If they believe there is compelling evidence (which they do) of human contribution to climate change, then who are we to argue with them?! They are the experts, not us!

And what about the scientists that say that say there is no man made contribution to GW. Scientists say there is no compelling evidence!

ignore them?

Again, no scientific model is 'the truth'.

 

[Pat]

And what about the scientists that say that say there is no man made contribution to GW. Scientists say there is no compelling evidence!

ignore them?

Again, no scientific model is 'the truth'.

Maybe it depends on who sponsored their research?
Just being pessimistic.

 

[AlterEgo]

And what about the scientists that say that say there is no man made contribution to GW. Scientists say there is no compelling evidence!

ignore them?

Again, no scientific model is 'the truth'.

Well I understand that the scientists that say there is no compelling evidence are not 'climate scientists', but work in other related fields. ie. they are not the most qualified people to know.

So the 0.1% of scientists that say there is no credible evidence are more credible than the other 99.9%??

As I stated above, are you willing to bet your life, or the lives of future generations (possibly your kids) on all those climate scientists being wrong? We don't need to be 100% certain that the scientists are right to act on it, even if there is only a possibility that they are right we should still act, because the consequences will be extremely severe if it later turns out that they were right all along and we didn't do anything at the time, when we had a chance that we could have done something about it.

 

[spooly74]

Well I understand that the scientists that say there is no compelling evidence are not 'climate scientists', but work in other related fields. ie. they are not the most qualified people to know.

So the 0.1% of scientists that say there is no credible evidence are more credible than the other 99.9%??

Where on earth did you pull that stat from? .....oh wait, I`ve got a model :

 

[2020hindsight]

Where on earth did you pull that stat from? .....oh wait, I`ve got a model :

spooly
are you not ignoring the rest of what alterego posted ..

I mean - do you accept that the polar ice caps are melting? - and at an alarming rate? or not ?

As I stated above, are you willing to bet your life, or the lives of future generations (possibly your kids) on all those climate scientists being wrong? We don't need to be 100% certain that the scientists are right to act on it, even if there is only a possibility that they are right we should still act, because the consequences will be extremely severe if it later turns out that they were right all along and we didn't do anything at the time, when we had a chance that we could have done something about it.

or do you agree with wayne that even global warming ( forget the anthropogenic bit) is a nonsense. eg when asked "is it ok to joke about global warming?" , wayne says ...

Considering it has about as much validity at the flying spagetti monster, it would be wrong to not make fun of it.

On the other hand, taking it seriously is resulting in psychosis, as detailed on the other thread.

 

[wayneL]

spooly
are you not ignoring the rest of what alterego posted ..

I mean - do you accept that the polar ice caps are melting? - and at an alarming rate? or not ?



or do you agree with wayne that even global warming ( forget the anthropogenic bit) is a nonsense. eg when asked "is it ok to joke about global warming?" , wayne says ...

Whoa there Mr BSer. I've just about had enough of your misrepresentations.

I do not deny the dynamism of climate. Some areas are warming, some are cooling. My point is that it is probably not warming or cooling or doing anything on a macro scale other than by natural factors.

North Sea ice IS smaller than it was in 1979, but not anywhere even remotely close to what the AGW alarmists would have people believe. I have demonstrated that... not that it isn't less, but that it's a lot less "less" than AGW hypocrites represent.

POLAR BEARS AREN'T DROWNING as the Al Bore imbecile foisted on a gullible and concerned public.

On the other hand, Southern ocean ice is increasing, and many areas are having their coldest periods for decades.

Climate will change. The Aztecs (or Mayans or one of those Central American Tribes) lost their civilization due to Climate change. But they didn't drive cars; nor did anyone else in the 12th century.

Humans CAN affect micro-climates via deforestation, heat sinks effects of cities and so on... and I am personally active in trying to counter those influences.

However on the macro scale, it has not been demosnstrated that humans have been responsible for any worldwide climate change. At best it is a hypothesis, at worst it is a mass complicity in fraud, or perhaps mass delusion and most certainly a huge gravy train for the pro-AGW lobby.

It is now time to cease your intellectual dishonesty of misrepresenting... no, downright lieing about the position of others that disagree with the fraud.

Cut it out 2020, fair warning.

 

[Julia]

Well I understand that the scientists that say there is no compelling evidence are not 'climate scientists', but work in other related fields. ie. they are not the most qualified people to know.

Source for this claim?

So the 0.1% of scientists that say there is no credible evidence are more credible than the other 99.9%??

Again, please state the source for these percentages and provide back up link to prove your point.

 

[Julia]

Whoa there Mr BSer. I've just about had enough of your misrepresentations.


It is now time to cease your intellectual dishonesty of misrepresenting... no, downright lieing about the position of others that disagree with the fraud.

Cut it out 2020, fair warning.

Wayne, I agree completely with all you have said.
But , to be fair, 2020 is not alone in this misrepresentation.
I have also asked Alter Ego to justify his claims.
Fair enough?

 

[wayneL]

Wayne, I agree completely with all you have said.
But , to be fair, 2020 is not alone in this misrepresentation.
I have also asked Alter Ego to justify his claims.
Fair enough?

Exactly!

If one must use hyperbole, it should be obviously so, rather than representing it as fact or statistic.

 

[Pat]

Have not yet seen any evidence the south is gaining any ice.

Infact aren't some of Antartica's ice sheets breaking/broken up?

I have heard a theory that ice on main land Antartica may grow if the climate warms, due to moisture, snow etc.

More propaganda for the melting sea ice.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/06/vanishing-sea-ice/sea-ice-text

Before and after, this looks like some rapid melting to me. On the other hand, I'd say it would take just as long to create them. Still, there going. Thems facts hey partner?

 

[Doris]

I do not deny the dynamism of climate. Some areas are warming, some are cooling. My point is that it is probably not warming or cooling or doing anything on a macro scale other than by natural factors.

On the other hand, Southern ocean ice is increasing, and many areas are having their coldest periods for decades.

I read, a few days ago, that 80% of babies of one specie of penguin in the Antarctic have died by freezing to death. It does not usually rain there as it's too cold. But now these babies become wet, when their parents go to catch food, as they have not yet grown their water resistant feathers. Of course this freezes... 'They' suggested that in ten years this penguin will be extinct.

Climate will change. The Aztecs (or Mayans or one of those Central American Tribes) lost their civilization due to Climate change. But they didn't drive cars; nor did anyone else in the 12th century.

Not the Mayans... no-one has come up with a reason to prove why they were decimated... a century or two before Columbus. 20 million became several hundred thousand. Hmm.

Btw... it's fascinating to see the Mayans at Costa Maya. They have never inter-bred and are still very tiny with very high cheekbones. And the original Africans from the slave trade days are also pure breeds. Incredible!

Humans CAN affect micro-climates via deforestation, heat sinks effects of cities and so on... and I am personally active in trying to counter those influences.

I was taught in high school geography (long time ago) that if one third of your body was burnt you could not live and this was related to forests. If one third of the trees on Earth were removed the world could not survive.

 

[Pat]

I read, a few days ago, that 80% of babies of one specie of penguin in the Antarctic have died by freezing to death. It does not usually rain there as it's too cold. But now these babies become wet, when their parents go to catch food, as they have not yet grown their water resistant feathers. Of course this freezes... 'They' suggested that in ten years this penguin will be extinct.

You see thats just the media taking things out of context.

 

[wayneL]

Have not yet seen any evidence the South is gaining any ice.

Infact aren't some of Antartica's ice sheets breaking/broken up?

I have heard a theory that ice on main land Antartica may grow if the climate warms, due to moisture, snow etc.

More propaganda for the melting sea ice.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/06/vanishing-sea-ice/sea-ice-text

Before and after, this looks like some rapid melting to me. On the other hand, I'd say it would take just as long to create them. Still, there going. Thems facts hey partner?

Pat,

Unfortunately the argument has become an adversarial one. That is, it is about winning the argument instead of finding the truth. The IPCC will only present evidence to support their case, ignoring all else that doesn't.

This is observable and predictable in a greater way than the AGW hypothesis itself.

You haven't heard about Antarctica getting colder or southern ocean ice increasing because they don't want to tell you.

First result from goooooooogle http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antarctic_020822.html

Of course there is the obligatory spin to fit in with IPCC dogma, but the fact is, many regions are getting colder.

As I detailed in my previous post; climate is dynamic, it changes. But the causes on the macro level are natural, not anthropogenic.

 

[wayneL]

Not the Mayans... no-one has come up with a reason to prove why they were decimated... a century or two before Columbus. 20 million became several hundred thousand. Hmm.

Doris,

Read it and weep. http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/fitch1/abrupt_e.html