• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * - - - 4 votes

Anthropogenic Global Warming


  • Please log in to reply
253 replies to this topic

#31 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2010 - 04:07 PM

Let me clarify my previous answer. I'm not entirely against research subsidies for green technologies.
The problem however is that it's looking more like those subsidies will continue indefinitely.

Certain green technology derived products are shifting towards the "early adopter" phase of development. They are by no means mainstream yet and are not able to finance themselves. They depend on long term investments that do not provide a short term positive return. Hydrocarbon driven technologies however are in the mainstream phase, or even already beyond that. The hydrocarbon related industry attracts sufficient investments itself to be able to sustain it's own position. Because (at least according to my opinion) there is insufficient diversity within our energy supply, the major part of investments in the energy supply chain of a normal risk level do end up in he hydrocarbon area. To call it a black hole would a bit to demagogue, but it's not that far of. Hydrocarbon related industries do have a lot of (political) power and are very capable of sustaining their own interests, making developments towards sufficient diversity within the energy supply chain very difficult.

This is a classical example of a situation were government regulation is required.

#32 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2010 - 04:29 PM

That's another problem. Due to data quality issues there's some doubt about whether those changes are drastic, or even real.
For instance the temperature sensors in the US have issues with the Urban Heat Island effect. For instance:

I haven't seen much of these things sitting around on the north and south pole lately. But it's a good point. Conclusions regarding macro scale should be compensated for micro scale disturbances. Micro scale temperature effects could be interesting on their own merit however.

We're not as close to running out of resources as you seem to think.

The major disaster regarding the BP oil leak was not the leak itself, but the fact that they had to take the trouble to drill at that depth in the first place.

Not sure what you mean by a quality boost. You do realize that the surest way to create a bubble is to attempt to subsidize certain areas of the economy ?

Yes, if done incorrectly. See also my post above. And it's certainly not the only reason economic bubbles are created.

We need new technologies, yes. Will they be green, nobody knows. Will green technology actually be as flexible as HC tech, maybe but it's not there yet.

Yes, but we need the diversity.

Well, then those politicians need to sell it on it's merits.
We all need to fight for more freedom, not more global regulations.

I would like to have the freedom to pass part of the huge bill I pay for gas towards investment in other energy technologies. I'm not able to. I'm forced to finance the hydrocarbon research unless I invest additional money.

#33 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 21 December 2010 - 04:34 PM

It is disheartening to see the same shibboleths and long-ago discredited arguments being trotted out every time the topic comes up. Try reading some of the scientific literature in the field:
http://www.nature.co...gate/index.html

Climate data were not tampered with
The real holes in climate science

Like any other field, research on climate change has some fundamental gaps, although not the ones typically claimed by sceptics. Quirin Schiermeier takes a hard look at some of the biggest problem areas.
Nature 463, 284-287( 20 January 2010 )

FWIW, past climate regimes were due to causes that are not currently pertinent; the present arrangement of continents, with and extended land mass blocking east-west ocean circulation, and an isolated and glaciated polar continent, are fairly unique in geologic time. We have a good handle on changes over the past 100,000 years and nearly as good for he past 5 million.
We know that not axial tilt, orbital nor sunspot cycle changes, nor increased solar heat are causative. We know the earth is overall heating up. The claims of "data inconsistencies" are the same sort of misuse of statistics that were used to deny cigarettes cause cancer. The data glitches pertain to local details, not the overall conclusion.

Again Occam's razor says one should choose the simplest plausible hypotheses

On the one hand, Carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, is increasing in the atmosphere and oceans in lock step with use of fossil fuel. One would expect it to cause significant warming.

On the other hand, a claim that any warming is part of a natural cycle, when no such cycle has been demonstrated and no suggest natural cause has been found to be pertinent when it even exists.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#34 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2010 - 05:04 PM

FWIW, past climate regimes were due to causes that are not currently pertinent; the present arrangement of continents, with and extended land mass blocking east-west ocean circulation, and an isolated and glaciated polar continent, are fairly unique in geologic time. We have a good handle on changes over the past 100,000 years and nearly as good for he past 5 million.
We know that not axial tilt, orbital nor sunspot cycle changes, nor increased solar heat are causative. We know the earth is overall heating up. The claims of "data inconsistencies" are the same sort of misuse of statistics that were used to deny cigarettes cause cancer. The data glitches pertain to local details, not the overall conclusion.

I do not understand your point. We do not have the measurements of 5 billion years ago. We did measure some CO2 contents of fossils and stone layers and used that in models to draw conclusions. These models are based on modern measurements and on modern geographical configurations. How can we have a "good handle on changes for the past ...." based on that?
But to be clear, I don't want to polarize to much since I think we agree on the bigger picture and context.

#35 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 21 December 2010 - 05:22 PM

I haven't seen much of these things sitting around on the north and south pole lately. But it's a good point. Conclusions regarding macro scale should be compensated for micro scale disturbances. Micro scale temperature effects could be interesting on their own merit however.

Yes, there's even a temperature station at the Amundsen-Scott south pole station. The NOAA station says that the south pole has been hot, and the GISS (satellite) data says it's been cold. Enough micro scale temperature effects can add up to a large error in the macro scale.
<h1></h1>The major disaster regarding the BP oil leak was not the leak itself, but the fact that they had to take the trouble to drill at that depth in the first place.

They had to take the trouble to drill there because drilling closer to shore is forbidden by federal regulations.


Yes, but we need the diversity.

No, not really. Not any more than we need to have horse carriages around for the diversity. Most green technologies are not ready for prime time.

I would like to have the freedom to pass part of the huge bill I pay for gas towards investment in other energy technologies. I'm not able to. I'm forced to finance the hydrocarbon research unless I invest additional money.

You do have the freedom to install solar panels and buy an electric vehicle, and other green technologies.
What you mean to say is that you would like to force taxpayers to subsidize immature energy technologies so you can buy it without financial drawbacks.



#36 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2010 - 06:09 PM

What you mean to say is that you would like to force taxpayers to subsidize immature energy technologies so you can buy it without financial drawbacks.

I didn't mention the magical word tax. Tax is one form of government regulation I do not prefer.

And no. I don't want to buy solar panels to fuel my e-car that I do not want to buy either. I do want to have the possibility to choose the energy source I need. Maybe I want nuclear power, maybe I want reduced dependency on OPEC, what do you know about my preferences?

My point was and is that the AGW discussion on it's own is suited for discussion of technicalities. And apparently deeply rooted dogma's and pre-assumptions. If you want to think about a strategy towards implementation of sustainable, independent and diverse energy resources, AGW is just a tiny part of the landscape of relevance.

Edited by Brainbox, 21 December 2010 - 06:35 PM.


#37 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 21 December 2010 - 06:22 PM

And no. I don't want to buy solar panels to fuel my e-car that I do not want to buy either. I do want to have the possibility to choose the energy source I need. Maybe I want nuclear power, maybe I want reduced dependency on OPEC, what do you know about my preferences?


Forgive my presumption. In the case of nuclear and hydroelectric power you might want to take it up with the environmentalists who have made it much harder.
Here where I live my power company offers a choice to buy power from wind power at a higher cost.
Is that what you're talking about ?

Edited by rwac, 21 December 2010 - 06:26 PM.


#38 david ellis

  • Guest
  • 1,014 posts
  • 79
  • Location:SanDiego
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2010 - 06:29 PM

FWIW, past climate regimes were due to causes that are not currently pertinent; the present arrangement of continents, with and extended land mass blocking east-west ocean circulation, and an isolated and glaciated polar continent, are fairly unique in geologic time. We have a good handle on changes over the past 100,000 years and nearly as good for he past 5 million.
We know that not axial tilt, orbital nor sunspot cycle changes, nor increased solar heat are causative. We know the earth is overall heating up. The claims of "data inconsistencies" are the same sort of misuse of statistics that were used to deny cigarettes cause cancer. The data glitches pertain to local details, not the overall conclusion.

I do not understand your point. We do not have the measurements of 5 billion years ago. We did measure some CO2 contents of fossils and stone layers and used that in models to draw conclusions. These models are based on modern measurements and on modern geographical configurations. How can we have a "good handle on changes for the past ...." based on that?
But to be clear, I don't want to polarize to much since I think we agree on the bigger picture and context.


Is there a misunderstanding here? Millions vs billions?

#39 david ellis

  • Guest
  • 1,014 posts
  • 79
  • Location:SanDiego
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2010 - 06:35 PM

Certain green technology derived products are shifting towards the "early adopter" phase of development. They are by no means mainstream yet and are not able to finance themselves. They depend on long term investments that do not provide a short term positive return. Hydrocarbon driven technologies however are in the mainstream phase, or even already beyond that. The hydrocarbon related industry attracts sufficient investments itself to be able to sustain it's own position. Because (at least according to my opinion) there is insufficient diversity within our energy supply, the major part of investments in the energy supply chain of a normal risk level do end up in he hydrocarbon area. To call it a black hole would a bit to demagogue, but it's not that far of. Hydrocarbon related industries do have a lot of (political) power and are very capable of sustaining their own interests, making developments towards sufficient diversity within the energy supply chain very difficult.

This is a classical example of a situation were government regulation is required.


I agree, and want to add, that not only is HC dominant, it has the political power in the United States to benefit from subsidies of its profit stream.

#40 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2010 - 06:57 PM

Here where I live my power company offers a choice to buy power from wind power at a higher cost.
Is that what you're talking about ?

Yes, exactly. At a personal level that is. We can buy so called green power from our network here. But then, this example is also a bad one. If you think of a concept like "ecological footprint", which would guide towards choices based on ecological impact, there is a problem. We do not pay for the impact we induce upon the environment, resulting in the higher cost for wind or green energy.

#41 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 21 December 2010 - 07:07 PM

Yes, exactly. At a personal level that is. We can buy so called green power from our network here. But then, this example is also a bad one. If you think of a concept like "ecological footprint", which would guide towards choices based on ecological impact, there is a problem. We do not pay for the impact we induce upon the environment, resulting in the higher cost for wind or green energy.


So what you're saying is, The playing field is not level, it should be leveled by having the government subsidize green energy or tax HC energy.
Which comes to the same thing.

But anyway.
What is that impact on the environment and what is the cost associated with it?
This is dependent to a large extent on whether AGW is real, and on the damage caused thereof, bringing us back to the original question.

#42 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 December 2010 - 03:12 AM

Yes, exactly. At a personal level that is. We can buy so called green power from our network here. But then, this example is also a bad one. If you think of a concept like "ecological footprint", which would guide towards choices based on ecological impact, there is a problem. We do not pay for the impact we induce upon the environment, resulting in the higher cost for wind or green energy.

So what you're saying is, The playing field is not level, it should be leveled by having the government subsidize green energy or tax HC energy.
Which comes to the same thing.

But anyway.
What is that impact on the environment and what is the cost associated with it?
This is dependent to a large extent on whether AGW is real, and on the damage caused thereof, bringing us back to the original question.

I think what Brainbox is saying is that for the past century, we've been subsidizing HC in a variety of ways. We've been paying for the pollution they cause (through healthcare costs and costs of premature deaths, among other things), the destruction of the environment caused by their extraction, and very importantly the cost of our military endeavors that ensure the flow of oil and gas. All these costs are borne by society, and represent either a large tax or subsidy, however you want to look at it. If the price of hydrocarbons represented their true cost, so that more subsidy was paid by those who use more fuel, then HC would be more expensive, but society would be more wealthy. We could then choose to use unsubsidized green technologies if we wished, as they would be more economically competitive. This does not depend very much on whether or not one believes AGW is real. There are plenty of other fossil fuel externalities besides that. All I'm asking for is a free market in which everyone pays the true costs of their choices, and don't fob those costs off on their neighbors.

#43 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 22 December 2010 - 04:58 AM

New York Times on Dr. Charles David Keeling,

When Dr. Keeling, as a young researcher, became the first person in the world to develop an accurate technique for measuring carbon dioxide in the air, the amount he discovered was 310 parts per million. That means every million pints of air, for example, contained 310 pints of carbon dioxide.

By 2005, the year he died, the number had risen to 380 parts per million. Sometime in the next few years it is expected to pass 400. . . .


Worth reading.

#44 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 22 December 2010 - 05:03 AM

I think what Brainbox is saying is that for the past century, we've been subsidizing HC in a variety of ways. We've been paying for the pollution they cause (through healthcare costs and costs of premature deaths, among other things), the destruction of the environment caused by their extraction, and very importantly the cost of our military endeavors that ensure the flow of oil and gas. All these costs are borne by society, and represent either a large tax or subsidy, however you want to look at it. If the price of hydrocarbons represented their true cost, so that more subsidy was paid by those who use more fuel, then HC would be more expensive, but society would be more wealthy. We could then choose to use unsubsidized green technologies if we wished, as they would be more economically competitive. This does not depend very much on whether or not one believes AGW is real. There are plenty of other fossil fuel externalities besides that. All I'm asking for is a free market in which everyone pays the true costs of their choices, and don't fob those costs off on their neighbors.


Let me first point out that without the HC fuels there would have been no industrial revolution.

The biggest problem with your argument is that you are taking the current economy for granted instead of the historical miracle it is.
You are assuming that the economic miracle will survive a drastic change like large increases in HC prices.

You can never make things completely fair, be it people or technologies.
No two people are alike and neither are any two technologies.

We need cheap transportation, and green tech doesn't fit the bill yet.

As for the environment, it turns out that the people most affected also tend to welcome the offending industry for the employment opportunities that it brings.

#45 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 22 December 2010 - 05:17 AM

I think what Brainbox is saying is that for the past century, we've been subsidizing HC in a variety of ways. We've been paying for the pollution they cause (through healthcare costs and costs of premature deaths, among other things), the destruction of the environment caused by their extraction, and very importantly the cost of our military endeavors that ensure the flow of oil and gas. All these costs are borne by society, and represent either a large tax or subsidy, however you want to look at it. If the price of hydrocarbons represented their true cost, so that more subsidy was paid by those who use more fuel, then HC would be more expensive, but society would be more wealthy. We could then choose to use unsubsidized green technologies if we wished, as they would be more economically competitive. This does not depend very much on whether or not one believes AGW is real. There are plenty of other fossil fuel externalities besides that. All I'm asking for is a free market in which everyone pays the true costs of their choices, and don't fob those costs off on their neighbors.

Let me first point out that without the HC fuels there would have been no industrial revolution.

The biggest problem with your argument is that you are taking the current economy for granted instead of the historical miracle it is.
You are assuming that the economic miracle will survive a drastic change like large increases in HC prices.

You can never make things completely fair, be it people or technologies.
No two people are alike and neither are any two technologies.

We need cheap transportation, and green tech doesn't fit the bill yet.

As for the environment, it turns out that the people most affected also tend to welcome the offending industry for the employment opportunities that it brings.

I'm not arguing against the industrial revolution, just asking that the true cost be assessed to the people who use hydrocarbons. If this were done correctly, I don't see how it would wreck the economy because the people who are presently paying the externalities would have that much more money in their pockets. Society as a whole would be no poorer. I think you are ignoring some of the great green tech that exists today. A VW Jetta TDI gets pretty amazing mileage, and is clean. There are lots of cars that get good mileage, and there are lots of people driving around in monster trucks that they don't need. If they want them, that's fine, but I would like them to pay the full cost for their decision rather than making you and I pay for it.

#46 RighteousReason

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 27 December 2010 - 01:27 AM

ICE AGE: Columbia, SC has first Christmas snow since records first kept in 1887...
http://www.breitbart...&show_article=1


Atlanta's First Since 1882...
http://www.breitbart...mas-since-1862/

It was quite snowy here in Atlanta on Christmas day.

#47 RighteousReason

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,491 posts
  • -103
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 27 December 2010 - 01:30 AM

http://www.investors...Warm-ongers.htm

Climate: Nothing makes fools of more people than trying to predict the weather. Whether in Los Angeles or London, recent predictions have gone crazily awry. Global warming? How about mini ice age?

The sight of confused and angry travelers stuck in airports across Europe because of an arctic freeze that has settled across the continent isn't funny. Sadly, they've been told for more than a decade now that such a thing was an impossibility — that global warming was inevitable, and couldn't be reversed.

This is a big problem for those who see human-caused global warming as an irreversible result of the Industrial Revolution's reliance on carbon-based fuels. Based on global warming theory — and according to official weather forecasts made earlier in the year — this winter should be warm and dry. It's anything but. Ice and snow cover vast parts of both Europe and North America, in one of the coldest Decembers in history.

A cautionary tale? You bet. Prognosticators who wrote the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we're experiencing now, weren't even listed as a possibility.

Since at least 1998, however, no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.

Karl Popper, the late, great philosopher of science, noted that for something to be called scientific, it must be, as he put it, "falsifiable." That is, for something to be scientifically true, you must be able to test it to see if it's false. That's what scientific experimentation and observation do. That's the essence of the scientific method.

Unfortunately, the prophets of climate doom violate this idea. No matter what happens, it always confirms their basic premise that the world is getting hotter. The weather turns cold and wet? It's global warming, they say. Weather turns hot? Global warming. No change? Global warming. More hurricanes? Global warming. No hurricanes? You guessed it.

Nothing can disprove their thesis. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere..."



#48 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 27 December 2010 - 02:24 AM

Snowier winters in North American east coast, and in Europe, parts of Asia, explained here by Judah Cohen, the director of seasonal forecasting at an atmospheric and environmental research firm.

Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming

Warmer oceans increase moisture, snow fall in Siberia, which also diverts jet stream from north to south, bringing colder weather and snow in some temperate regions.

#49 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 19 January 2011 - 04:35 PM

I wanted soooo hard to believe that the left wing was right here. Being a vegan, and an occasional animal rights and environmental volunteer and activist, I was a die hard.
To disbelieve was to doom us, etc.

But, I cannot deny what 40 years of evidence indicate:

GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST SCAM IN SCIENTIFIC HISTORY.

There is no way that the world is warming. There are nothing but bitterly cold winters, endless super cold days and nights:
Not just increase in precip due to warmer oceans, but just a relentless uptick in coldness each and every winter.

Am I to believe that the warming is always felt everywhere else but where I happen to be living?
Is that really believable?

When the stats are tallied year after year, the supposed warming is most often in the most remote places, where individual scientists en masse with lots of bias can record and convey the data.
The heat island effect also probably has something to do with it.
And a bunch of other statistical errors and bias are responsible for amassing a huge amount of deceptive and flawed evidence.
100,000 blurry photos of UFOs does not prove that extraterrestrials are visiting us.

I am not saying that I want the planet to warm just so I can enjoy more warm winters in NYC, just that every year, I hear about milder winters and they only get colder and more brutal.
Try and tell me that global warming is causing this brutal cool down and I will know you are gullible and easily deceived by manipulation of data and the promulgation of plausible but far from proven theories and speculations.

The straw that broke this proverbial camel's back was when I read an article right after the northeastern blizzard of Dec. 26th or so that patterns were shifting and that a warm January was in store. There was no direct reference to global warming, but it was hinted at and the buzzevents La Nina/El Nino and the North Atlantic Oscillation were dropped to add credibility.
What a frikkin disappointment.
Nothing but wave after wave of brutal cold and snow.
No January warming or thaw around here.

And, when it finally warms in March, it wont be due to global warming but due to seasonal change, the law of averages and the randomness of weather.
Tragic waste of time on this issue. Sad beyond sad. A mass hoodwinking

Edited by Brafarality, 19 January 2011 - 04:39 PM.

  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#50 JLL

  • Guest
  • 2,192 posts
  • 161

Posted 19 January 2011 - 04:57 PM

Snowier winters in North American east coast, and in Europe, parts of Asia, explained here by Judah Cohen, the director of seasonal forecasting at an atmospheric and environmental research firm.

Bundle Up, It's Global Warming

Warmer oceans increase moisture, snow fall in Siberia, which also diverts jet stream from north to south, bringing colder weather and snow in some temperate regions.


The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.


Boy are they grasping at straws now.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#51 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 19 January 2011 - 05:43 PM

Snowier winters in North American east coast, and in Europe, parts of Asia, explained here by Judah Cohen, the director of seasonal forecasting at an atmospheric and environmental research firm.

Bundle Up, It's Global Warming

Warmer oceans increase moisture, snow fall in Siberia, which also diverts jet stream from north to south, bringing colder weather and snow in some temperate regions.


The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.


Boy are they grasping at straws now.


No straw that. 2010 officially tied 2005 as warmest year on record. If you put a scoop of ice cream atop say, hot mashed potatoes, it will melt, and as it dribbles down the potatoes, some regions of the mashed potatoes will become cooler. But not for long.

The bands of latitudinal atmospheric circulation around the earth are mixing, there are fewer distinct bands. The result is that arctic air comes south more frequently, and you see snowier and intermittently colder winters. If climate change had not become a political issue for the right wing, there would be no "controversy". Exon and other oil and coal companies have for the last 30 years engaged in a disinformation campaign to cast doubt on global warming. When that doesn't work, claim it isn't caused by human activity. IF you claim increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 30%, (due to double by next century) isn't warming the earth, you are a useful tool for Exon.

Edited by maxwatt, 19 January 2011 - 06:12 PM.

  • like x 2

#52 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 19 January 2011 - 06:00 PM

Snowier winters in North American east coast, and in Europe, parts of Asia, explained here by Judah Cohen, the director of seasonal forecasting at an atmospheric and environmental research firm.

Bundle Up, It's Global Warming

Warmer oceans increase moisture, snow fall in Siberia, which also diverts jet stream from north to south, bringing colder weather and snow in some temperate regions.


The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes.


Boy are they grasping at straws now.


No straw that. 2010 officially tied 2005 as warmest year on record. If you put a scoop of ice cream atop say, hot mashed potatoes, it will melt, and as it dribbles down the potatoes, some regions of the mashed potatoes will become cooler. But not for long.

The bands of latitudinal atmospheric circulation around the earth are mixing, there are fewer distinct bands. The result is that arctic air comes south more frequently, and you see snowier and intermittently colder winters. If climate change had not become a political issue for the right wing, there would be no "controversy". Exon and other oil and coal companies have for the last 30 years engaged in a disinformation campaign to cast doubt on global warming. When that doesn't work, claim it isn't caused by human activity. IF you claim increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere by 30%, (due to double by next century) isn't warming the earth, yo are a useful tool for Exon.

It is rather unbelievable that global warming can only be witnessed somewhere where I happen not to be.
Like, out in the Pacific Ocean, in some 10,000 square mile area, the buoys are all resulting temperature increases that are offsetting the cooling that is occuring in every area where people actually are directly witnessing colder winters and cooler summers.

Laughable.
In order to deal with the fact that 90 percent of the people of the world are actually experiencing global cooling, the believers conjure up stats to imply that the noticeable warming is actually occuring everywhere people are not located.
This is a real stretch and seems like someone has stretched and bent reality to fit a theory and not the other way around.

New Mantra:
There is no global warming (x10).
I am 100 percent done with it and have closed my mind off to new info for the time, since it will almost certainly be deceptive and biased.

Edited by Brafarality, 19 January 2011 - 06:05 PM.


#53 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 19 January 2011 - 06:12 PM

Grasshoppers vs ants. See AEsop..

Edited by maxwatt, 19 January 2011 - 06:22 PM.


#54 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 19 January 2011 - 06:16 PM

After reading this thread, I can clearly see that people have extreme difficulty understanding the difference between weather and climate. I can also clearly see that some people do not understand that thier local or regional temperatures are not representative of the planet as a whole. I can also clearly see that my general conceptions about this community being far more intelligent, observant, and knowledgable than the general populace are in question after reading this.

It was freezing cold last winter locally, the coldest I remember ....but it was followed by one of the hottest summers I can ever remember as well. It also seemed to rain way way more than usual. This means exactly jack shit on a global scale.
  • like x 1

#55 mikeinnaples

  • Guest
  • 1,907 posts
  • 296
  • Location:Florida

Posted 19 January 2011 - 06:18 PM

ICE AGE: Columbia, SC has first Christmas snow since records first kept in 1887...
http://www.breitbart...&show_article=1


Atlanta's First Since 1882...
http://www.breitbart...mas-since-1862/

It was quite snowy here in Atlanta on Christmas day.


I remember snow in Florida on Christmas in the early 90's ....what's your point?

#56 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 19 January 2011 - 06:34 PM

Note the hard fact: The level of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere was 284 parts per million in the preindustrial era; it is more than 385 ppm today will reach 490 ppm by 2020 at current rate of increase. There is not way this cannot bu warm the planet unless you want to argue with the laws of physics. Neither is it possible IMO to stop it. Efforts need to focus on mitigation.

Earth may be 2.4 degrees Celsius warmer by 2020, potentially triggering global scrambles for food supplies, according to a new analysis. Work from the Universal Ecological Fund, the U.S. branch of Argentina-based nonprofit Fundación Ecológica Universal (FEU), sketches a somber portrait for world hunger by the end of the decade. Rising temperatures will slash yields for rice, wheat and corn throughout the developing world, exacerbating food price volatility and increasing the number of undernourished people, the report warns. It projects that food demand will substantially dwarf available supply. The group drew upon existing climate and food production data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the World Meteorological Organization and other U.N. agencies to draw its conclusions. Chief among its findings, UEF said, is that if the planet continues on a business-as-usual path, temperatures may rise at least 2.4 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels -- or 4.3 degrees Fahrenheit -- by 2020. Crossing a 2-degree-Celsius climate threshold is commonly considered dangerous. The level of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, which was 284 parts per million in the preindustrial era, tallies more than 385 ppm today. By 2020, it could reach 490 ppm, cautions the report. Carbon concentrations that high are associated with a global temperature rise of 2.4 degrees Celsius, according to IPCC estimates.


Rising temperatures may slash yields for rice, wheat and corn throughout the developing world, according to a new report

Edited by maxwatt, 19 January 2011 - 06:35 PM.


#57 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 19 January 2011 - 08:40 PM

Good Lord, people, the ignorance being evidenced here is breathtaking. Do the denialists remember the Northern Hemisphere Summer Heat Wave, the one that happened way back in, oh... 2010? The death toll in Russia was in the thousands. We did better in the US, but my yard got fried.
  • like x 1

#58 Brafarality

  • Guest
  • 684 posts
  • 42
  • Location:New Jersey

Posted 20 January 2011 - 12:42 AM

After reading this thread, I can clearly see that people have extreme difficulty understanding the difference between weather and climate. I can also clearly see that some people do not understand that thier local or regional temperatures are not representative of the planet as a whole. I can also clearly see that my general conceptions about this community being far more intelligent, observant, and knowledgable than the general populace are in question after reading this.

It was freezing cold last winter locally, the coldest I remember ....but it was followed by one of the hottest summers I can ever remember as well. It also seemed to rain way way more than usual. This means exactly jack shit on a global scale.

LOL! Several here, including myself, may have had this coming, but I still am holding doggedly.
It would be the case if I was the only person saying that it was locally getting colder, but when you add up all the "locally"s, it becomes most of the inhabited planet, which forces the believers to suggest that the warming is "everywhere else", essentially, and I find this hard to believe.
Yes, I remember summer 2010, and it was warm, but it was a fluke: summers have been generally cooler in the NE USA over the past 10 years or so, and anyone can verify that with simple remembrance. This hot one seemed like an exception, not a trend.
It is the complete opposite with winters. They have been relentlessly cooling, no doubt about it.
Global warming MAY produce pockets of coolness, but what are the chances I just happen to be living under one? And everyone else for that matter noting that the frenzy flies in the face of personal sensory experience?

And, remember, Im the ultra-insecure dude who sometimes cites his near perfect GRE score and ultra high IQ as a personal credential before embarking on a (usually) non-scientific polemic, so maybe its not the actual intelligence level, but something else plucking the strings of the heart and senses enough to lead to supposedly false beliefs and viewpoints, even ones that contradict hard science and evidence! :)

Mantra: Global warming is not occuring (X10). Do not be hoodwinked by the biased believers. They will bend every stat since the evidence is not there.
  • like x 1
  • dislike x 1

#59 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 20 January 2011 - 01:02 AM

After reading this thread, I can clearly see that people have extreme difficulty understanding the difference between weather and climate. I can also clearly see that some people do not understand that thier local or regional temperatures are not representative of the planet as a whole. I can also clearly see that my general conceptions about this community being far more intelligent, observant, and knowledgable than the general populace are in question after reading this.

It was freezing cold last winter locally, the coldest I remember ....but it was followed by one of the hottest summers I can ever remember as well. It also seemed to rain way way more than usual. This means exactly jack shit on a global scale.

LOL! Several here, including myself, may have had this coming, but I still am holding doggedly.
It would be the case if I was the only person saying that it was locally getting colder, but when you add up all the "locally"s, it becomes most of the inhabited planet, which forces the believers to suggest that the warming is "everywhere else", essentially, and I find this hard to believe.

Are you basing this on a bunch of guys you know, and some dudes on the internet? How many of them live in the arctic? How many in the southern hemisphere? I think you are drawing from a very biased sample.

Yes, I remember summer 2010, and it was warm, but it was a fluke: summers have been generally cooler in the NE USA over the past 10 years or so, and anyone can verify that with simple remembrance. This hot one seemed like an exception, not a trend.
It is the complete opposite with winters. They have been relentlessly cooling, no doubt about it.
Global warming MAY produce pockets of coolness, but what are the chances I just happen to be living under one? And everyone else for that matter noting that the frenzy flies in the face of personal sensory experience?

I live in the NE US, and the summers seem like they've been pretty warm to me, but our subjective experience and faulty memory are just bullshit when it comes to determining the state of the climate. We have satellites and zillions of sensors to collect data like that.

And, remember, Im the ultra-insecure dude who sometimes cites his near perfect GRE score and ultra high IQ as a personal credential before embarking on a (usually) non-scientific polemic, so maybe its not the actual intelligence level, but something else plucking the strings of the heart and senses enough to lead to supposedly false beliefs and viewpoints, even ones that contradict hard science and evidence! :)

OK, now you're talking. What do you think it is that makes the fossil fuel industry's (and the Tea Party's) line so attractive? What makes it so attractive that you are willing to toss out science and go with your gut?

Mantra: Global warming is not occuring (X10). Do not be hoodwinked by the biased believers. They will bend every stat since the evidence is not there.

Perfect GRE score, and then you say this. Something isn't adding up. I wouldn't bother replying if you were one of those ideologues who drank the Kool Aid, but I know you're a smart guy. Something weird is going on here. Do you accept science in other areas, or do you frequently find yourself taking an anti-science path? Any idea why?
  • like x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#60 maxwatt

  • Guest, Moderator LeadNavigator
  • 4,949 posts
  • 1,625
  • Location:New York

Posted 20 January 2011 - 01:03 AM

After reading this thread, I can clearly see that people have extreme difficulty understanding the difference between weather and climate. I can also clearly see that some people do not understand that thier local or regional temperatures are not representative of the planet as a whole. I can also clearly see that my general conceptions about this community being far more intelligent, observant, and knowledgable than the general populace are in question after reading this.

It was freezing cold last winter locally, the coldest I remember ....but it was followed by one of the hottest summers I can ever remember as well. It also seemed to rain way way more than usual. This means exactly jack shit on a global scale.

LOL! Several here, including myself, may have had this coming, but I still am holding doggedly.
It would be the case if I was the only person saying that it was locally getting colder, but when you add up all the "locally"s, it becomes most of the inhabited planet, which forces the believers to suggest that the warming is "everywhere else", essentially, and I find this hard to believe.
Yes, I remember summer 2010, and it was warm, but it was a fluke: summers have been generally cooler in the NE USA over the past 10 years or so, and anyone can verify that with simple remembrance. This hot one seemed like an exception, not a trend.
It is the complete opposite with winters. They have been relentlessly cooling, no doubt about it.
Global warming MAY produce pockets of coolness, but what are the chances I just happen to be living under one? And everyone else for that matter noting that the frenzy flies in the face of personal sensory experience?

And, remember, Im the ultra-insecure dude who sometimes cites his near perfect GRE score and ultra high IQ as a personal credential before embarking on a (usually) non-scientific polemic, so maybe its not the actual intelligence level, but something else plucking the strings of the heart and senses enough to lead to supposedly false beliefs and viewpoints, even ones that contradict hard science and evidence! :)

Mantra: Global warming is not occuring (X10). Do not be hoodwinked by the biased believers. They will bend every stat since the evidence is not there.

You cite no sources.
  • like x 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users