TIME: Why Cold Weather Doesn’t Disprove Global Warming

Environment • Views: 6,673

One of the most ignorant (and often intentionally deceptive) “common sense” talking points promoted by the climate denial industry is that cold weather proves global warming theories are a hoax. Every time there’s a blizzard, this hoary old chestnut is taken out of the freezer, thawed out, and hyped by all the usual suspects, including the Republican Party. And every time they defrost it, it smells worse.

Here’s a good article in TIME Magazine explaining why this talking point should be (but won’t be, it’s too useful as propaganda) thrown out with that tuna casserole from 1998: Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change.

As the blizzard-bound residents of the mid-Atlantic region get ready to dig themselves out of the third major storm of the season, they may stop to wonder two things: Why haven’t we bothered to invest in a snow blower, and what happened to climate change? After all, it stands to reason that if the world is getting warmer — and the past decade was the hottest on record — major snowstorms should become a thing of the past, like PalmPilots and majority rule in the Senate. Certainly that’s what the Virginia state Republican Party thinks: the GOP aired an ad last weekend that attacked two Democratic members of Congress for supporting the 2009 carbon-cap-and-trade bill, using the recent storms to cast doubt on global warming.

Brace yourselves now — this may be a case of politicians twisting the facts. There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter — in December and during the first weekend of February — are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely.

But there have been hints that it was coming. The 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report found that large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years. While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That’s in part because of global warming — hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall.

UPDATE at 2/10/10 3:40:26 pm:

Jeff Masters explains in more technical detail at Wunder Blog.

Heavy snow events—a contradiction to global warming theory?

As I discussed in my previous post, record-breaking snowstorms are not an indication that global warming is not occurring. In fact, we can expect there may be more heavy snowstorms in regions where it is cold enough to snow, due to the extra moisture global warming has added to the atmosphere—an extra 4% since 1970. Snow is not the same as cold, and we have to look at global temperatures, not snowfall, to evaluate whether global warming is occurring. Heavy snow can act to bring down global temperatures, as occurred in December 2009, when the Northern Hemisphere experienced its second greatest snow extent on record (only 1985 saw greater December snow cover since reliable snow records began in 1967). Global average land temperatures, as a result, were just 31st warmest on record, even though global ocean temperatures were the 2nd warmest on record. It will be interesting to see what global temperatures did in January, when the statistics are released next week. The global temperature of the lower atmosphere as measured by satellites was the warmest on record in January, and by a considerable margin. I’ll discuss this finding in more detail once the blizzard is over. It’s also of interest to note that December temperatures in the U.S. were the 18th coldest in the historical record, but January temperatures were 0.3°F above average, according to the National Climatic Data Center. As a whole, it’s been a colder than average winter in the U.S., but not greatly so. However, December snow cover was the greatest on record in the contiguous U.S., and January’s ranked sixth. Snow cover records go back 44 years, to 1967.

Jump to bottom

305 comments
1 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:08:30am

The reaction to this by most people? If I might paraphrase Homer Simpson

"So now global warming makes things colder? Yeah right Lisa!"

2 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:08:33am

We just got a massive dump of global warming here.

3 Kragar  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:13:04am

Don't try tricking us with your silly logic and scientific evidence again!

4 jaunte  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:13:09am
...hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier...


This is a good point to remember.

5 Silvergirl  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:14:21am

The best part of the article is at the end

Weather is what will happen next weekend; climate is what will happen over the next decades and centuries. And while our ability to predict the former has become reasonably reliable, scientists are still a long way from being able to make accurate projections about the future of the global climate. Of course, that doesn't help you much when you're trying to locate your car under a foot of powder.

Remember that disaster film, The Day After Tomorrow? I remember reading scientists at the time writing that the mayhem in that movie would not be from global warming as they called it at the time.

6 jdog29  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:14:26am

Yep, the Statue of Liberty will up to her neck in water within 10 years if Audi's Green Police SuperBowl commercial isn't reality within 6 months.//

7 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:14:41am

The harsh weather being experience in the US is not a regional phenomena, it is also occurring in Britain, Europe, Mongolia, China, Tibet, etc. The snow is irrelevant, it is the temperature that is indicative of warming or not. Once the numbers are in for the year, this will be included in the climate based global average temperature data sets.

8 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:15:02am

Is there any amount of cold temperatures that would mean something?

I mean An Inconvenient truth did hilight higher temperatures.... at what point would lower temps mean anything?

9 lawhawk  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:15:22am

For those hoping to rely on the NJ Transit website to figure out whether they're going to get around today with the blizzard, the site is down. "Emergency maintenance."

10 jdog29  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:16:01am

re: #7 Bagua

The harsh weather being experience in the US is not a regional phenomena, it is also occurring in Britain, Europe, Mongolia, China, Tibet, etc. The snow is irrelevant, it is the temperature that is indicative of warming or not. Once the numbers are in for the year, this will be included in the climate based global average temperature data sets.

Unless the raw data is destroyed and the game is rigged, not that ever has or will happen. //

11 Vicious Babushka  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:16:04am

re: #6 jdog29

Yep, the Statue of Liberty will up to her neck in water within 10 years if Audi's Green Police SuperBowl commercial isn't reality within 6 months.//

I liked that commercial.

12 sattv4u2  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:16:48am

re: #8 Buck

Is there any amount of cold temperatures that would mean something?

I mean An Inconvenient truth did hilight higher temperatures... at what point would lower temps mean anything?

Try going outside in New York City in shorts today

That will "mean" you're an idiot!
/

13 lawhawk  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:17:03am

re: #7 Bagua

In the US, it's symptomatic of the jet stream being in the right place at the right time for storm development. Depending on the placement, the Middle Atlantic gets walloped, or it goes further north. The past few weeks, it's the Middle Atlantic.

14 jaunte  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:17:21am

At -459F it will stop snowing.

15 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:17:39am

re: #8 Buck

Is there any amount of cold temperatures that would mean something?

I mean An Inconvenient truth did hilight higher temperatures... at what point would lower temps mean anything?

The theory lives or dies based upon the Global average temperature readings, that is why the allegations of data manipulation and inaccuracy are so important. Individual or regional weather variation and extremes are not relevant in and of themselves, they are individual data points.

16 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:18:22am

re: #8 Buck

What lower temperatures, Buck?

17 Kragar  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:18:35am

re: #14 jaunte

At -459F it will stop snowing.

Absolute zero will do that to you.

18 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:19:16am

re: #8 Buck

Is there any amount of cold temperatures that would mean something?

I mean An Inconvenient truth did hilight higher temperatures... at what point would lower temps mean anything?

Disprove to me that the greenhouse effect takes place and that we've got more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before and I'm open to your argument.

19 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:20:36am

re: #13 lawhawk

In the US, it's symptomatic of the jet stream being in the right place at the right time for storm development. Depending on the placement, the Middle Atlantic gets walloped, or it goes further north. The past few weeks, it's the Middle Atlantic.

Apparently the same jet stream is affecting Mongolia, Tibet, Britain, etc. There is always an explanation for colder weather, whereas warmer weather is always Global Warming.

Time magazine is not a science journal, I believe they were the one's hyping the Global Cooling fantasy in the 70's, with even less supporting research.

20 jdog29  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:21:32am

What if the core of the Earth is cooling and unless we set fire to every flammable object today we'll all freeze and die by the year 2150......///

21 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:21:56am

re: #19 Bagua

Apparently the same jet stream is affecting Mongolia, Tibet, Britain, etc. There is always an explanation for colder weather, whereas warmer weather is always Global Warming.

Time magazine is not a science journal, I believe they were the one's hyping the Global Cooling fantasy in the 70's, with even less supporting research.

Then follow the link to Jeff Masters' blog, which is the source for the article, if you want a more scientific explanation.

22 PhillyPretzel  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:23:26am

Anyone can say what ever they choose. I will still have to shovel that dang snow when the storm is over.

23 jdog29  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:23:51am

re: #20 jdog29

What if the core of the Earth is cooling and unless we set fire to every flammable object today we'll all freeze and die by the year 2150...///

How hot was the core of the Earth during the past decade compared to the trends over the last 3 million years? //

24 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:24:11am

re: #22 PhillyPretzel

Anyone can say what ever they choose. I will still have to shovel that dang snow when the storm is over.

Well if you wait "long enough" the problem will go away on its own, I'd wager by May at the worst....

25 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:24:23am

re: #23 jdog29

You sure are a fan of your own 'humor'.

26 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:24:33am

re: #21 Charles

Then follow the link to Jeff Masters' blog, which is the source for the article, if you want a more scientific explanation.

I will, thanks.

27 Kragar  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:25:08am

re: #20 jdog29

What if the core of the Earth is cooling and unless we set fire to every flammable object today we'll all freeze and die by the year 2150...///

Then we'll need Morgan Freeman and Hillary Swank to pilot a machine to the Earth's core and set off some nukes to jump start it.

28 PhillyPretzel  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:25:47am

re: #24 jamesfirecat

According to the city laws I have to clear my walkway within 24 hours or be subject to a fine.

29 jdog29  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:25:57am

re: #25 Obdicut

You sure are a fan of your own 'humor'.

:-D

30 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:26:33am

re: #9 lawhawk

For those hoping to rely on the NJ Transit website to figure out whether they're going to get around today with the blizzard, the site is down. "Emergency maintenance."

At the same time, it does answer the question of whether they can get around today.

Nope!

31 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:27:22am

re: #18 jamesfirecat

Disprove to me that the greenhouse effect takes place and that we've got more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before and I'm open to your argument.

yep, that's the sticky part right there.

32 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:27:24am

re: #18 jamesfirecat

Disprove to me that the greenhouse effect takes place and that we've got more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before and I'm open to your argument.

Carbon, or Carbon Dioxide? and what argument? I was asking a question.

Colder weather, which is measured by the temperature does not disprove AGW. I get it... However is there any number of colder weather periods that would be significant?

In the film Gore showed a graph of temperature records since 1880 showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record have all occurred in the last fourteen years.

Would cold years mean anything? Nothing at all? No matter how many?

33 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:29:26am

re: #32 Buck

Carbon, or Carbon Dioxide? and what argument? I was asking a question.

Colder weather, which is measured by the temperature does not disprove AGW. I get it... However is there any number of colder weather periods that would be significant?

In the film Gore showed a graph of temperature records since 1880 showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record have all occurred in the last fourteen years.

Would cold years mean anything? Nothing at all? No matter how many?

Figuring out the place at which a series of plotted lines changes the trend of a larger graph isn't rocket science. If there are enough cold years to change the trend, then it'll be so. It's just math.

34 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:29:41am

re: #28 PhillyPretzel

According to the city laws I have to clear my walkway within 24 hours or be subject to a fine.

Ahh, my bad didn't know.

35 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:30:18am

re: #32 Buck

Carbon, or Carbon Dioxide? and what argument? I was asking a question.

Colder weather, which is measured by the temperature does not disprove AGW. I get it... However is there any number of colder weather periods that would be significant?

In the film Gore showed a graph of temperature records since 1880 showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record have all occurred in the last fourteen years.

Would cold years mean anything? Nothing at all? No matter how many?

I mean carbon dioxide yes.

Do you know what the Greenhouse effect is?

Do you disagree with it?

36 freetoken  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:30:28am

re: #8 Buck

Is there any amount of cold temperatures that would mean something?

In the short term? No, none really.

Without getting into too long of a discussion (the gym is calling....), let us first look at what is meant by "temperature" and specifically what is meant by a global temperature.

What is usually referred to in discussing AGW in the common press, when "temperature" is used, is an average of the surface temperature measurements of the entire Earth.

However, "temperature" doesn't really give one very much of an idea about the state of the items that compose the "surface" of the Earth!

Global Warming is called "warming" because of energy balance, or energy flows, not temperature flow (if there even could be such a thing.)

Classic example is the El Nino which we are currently experiencing. Simply taking a temperature measurement of the surface of the entire globe a year ago or so would not have told one that under the surface of the mid Pacific ocean lay a large pool of relatively warm water that was about to surface, which would then give up some of its energy to the atmosphere.

Thus for climatological purposes "temperature" is only relevant on the long scale, one which can integrate the very numerous physical processes that occur on (or above, or below) the surface of the Earth.

Furthermore, "Climate Change" is a more accurate description of what we are doing; for example, human activities include those which tend to cause cooling also. However, since most fossil fuel burning in the world has come under sulfur emissions control, the cooling contributions of man have diminished compared to the warming contributions.

37 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:30:44am

re: #21 Charles

OK, I read it. He makes the same points I did; The snow is irrelevant, it is the temperature that counts. He also is only talking about a regional weather event in the East coast of the US, the current unexpectedly cold winter and heavy snow is a global event. It almost certainly will adjust the global temperature record down.

Advocacy and science are two separate things.

38 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:31:27am

re: #24 jamesfirecat

Well if you wait "long enough" the problem will go away on its own, I'd wager by May at the worst...

heh, i told my wife that constantly when we lived in Cleveland. my indifference to the amount of snow in the driveway never really did amuse her, although we only got stuck once as a result.

stuck once = easy price to pay for years of not shoveling...

39 williwonka  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:32:10am

Agreed the cold and snow do not disprove global warming. But they do not prove it and certainly do not prove that global warming is man made.

Find it strange that volcanic eruptions cause global cooling while man made emissions cause global cooling.

Having a court decide that Co2 is a polutant also makes the warming argument look less convincing.

40 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:32:52am

re: #37 Bagua

OK, I read it. He makes the same points I did; The snow is irrelevant, it is the temperature that counts. He also is only talking about a regional weather event in the East coast of the US, the current unexpectedly cold winter and heavy snow is a global event. It almost certainly will adjust the global temperature record down.

Advocacy and science are two separate things.

disagree. one year's temps have very little influence on the long-term global mean. a few weeks' temps have absolutely no influence on the long-term global mean.

41 jdog29  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:32:56am

re: #32 Buck

Carbon, or Carbon Dioxide? and what argument? I was asking a question.

Colder weather, which is measured by the temperature does not disprove AGW. I get it... However is there any number of colder weather periods that would be significant?

In the film Gore showed a graph of temperature records since 1880 showing that the ten hottest years ever measured in this atmospheric record have all occurred in the last fourteen years.

Would cold years mean anything? Nothing at all? No matter how many?

Manmade Climate change doesn't depend on the temperature fluctuating up and down. What is being stated as an undisputable fact is that the way humans are using the Earth's resources is CAUSING the extreme weather worldwide. It doesn't matter if it is blistering hot or mind numbingly cold.

42 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:34:03am

re: #19 Bagua

Can anyone explain why this comment deserves a downding?

43 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:35:13am

re: #39 williwonka

Agreed the cold and snow do not disprove global warming. But they do not prove it and certainly do not prove that global warming is man made.

Find it strange that volcanic eruptions cause global cooling while man made emissions cause global cooling.

Having a court decide that Co2 is a polutant also makes the warming argument look less convincing.

Volcanic eruptions produce soot (that black stuff you can find in a fireplace) get enough of it into our atmosphere and its so thick that sunlight has a harder time breaking through it, and thus it has a harder time reaching the earth and making it warm.

Carbon Dioxide on the other hand isn't as thick as soot, thus sunlight can get in, but it can't "get back out" and so it end up striking the Earth a second (or third, or fourth) time making it even hotter.

Why don't you consider consider Co2 to be a pollutant?

44 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:35:17am

re: #39 williwonka

Agreed the cold and snow do not disprove global warming. But they do not prove it and certainly do not prove that global warming is man made.

Find it strange that volcanic eruptions cause global cooling while man made emissions cause global cooling.

Having a court decide that Co2 is a polutant also makes the warming argument look less convincing.

don't make the mistake of allowing your opinion of current prescriptions (i.e. court decisions regarding CO2) to color your investigation into whether you believe the mountain of evidence supporting the basic theory of AGW.

and volcanic activity requires a discussion of particulate matter, which can behave differently WRT atmospheric effects based on its properties, IIRC.

45 Girth  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:35:22am

Some Republican mayor was on MSNBC a few minutes ago, and the first thing he said was to ask the anchor how she was enjoying all her global warming out east. Why don't you just start by saying, "Hi, I'm a dumbass!" instead?

46 jdog29  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:35:41am

re: #42 Bagua

Can anyone explain why this comment deserves a downding?

If you have to ask that deserves a downding in itself. Why do YOU expect people to agree with YOU?

47 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:35:50am

re: #35 jamesfirecat

I mean carbon dioxide yes.

Do you know what the Greenhouse effect is?

Do you disagree with it?

Greenhouse effect is what keeps the planet warm. Without it we would be as cold as space. I don't know if I can agree or disagree with an effect. But I think you are asking if I believe in it. Yes I believe in it.

48 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:36:03am

re: #40 Aceofwhat?

disagree. one year's temps have very little influence on the long-term global mean. a few weeks' temps have absolutely no influence on the long-term global mean.

Of course I am talking about the averaged temperatures on a yearly basis, each year of anomalous reading has an effect, this is beyond dispute. To say one anomalous season has "absolutely no influence" shows you do not understand the data sets.

49 webevintage  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:36:22am

I'm watching the webcam at Dupont Circle in DC and it looks like they had another massive twitter/facebook snowball fight.
[Link: www.trafficland.com...]

50 ED 209  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:37:20am

Excuse me while I run around in circles- "The world is changing, the world is changing!"

There, I don't feel better now.

51 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:37:34am

re: #46 jdog29

If you have to ask that deserves a downding in itself. Why do YOU expect people to agree with YOU?

I don't expect people to agree with me, I am asking that they explain why they find my statement wrong or offensive. I believe I know the answer but don't wish to mind read.

52 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:37:49am

OK, great, the weather's getting colder but the globe is getting warmer.
Perfect.

53 Oh no...Sand People!  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:38:25am

re: #52 Spare O'Lake

OK, great, the weather's getting colder but the globe is getting warmer.
Perfect.


At least it will be warm in my coffin when I die...I guess.

54 Varek Raith  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:39:03am
55 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:39:08am

re: #48 Bagua

Of course I am talking about the averaged temperatures on a yearly basis, each year of anomalous reading has an effect, this is beyond dispute. To say one anomalous season has "absolutely no influence" shows you do not understand the data sets.

On the contrary. Take a 100-year plot. Each year is the mean of 365 days. So we experience something on the order of a 20-day outlier and you think it'll affect the trend of a graph based on yearly means of 36,500 days?

It is you, i believe, who does not understand the difference between moving an average by an infinitesimal amount and moving the trend.

56 What, me worry?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:39:40am

When was the last time we had an earthquake in northern Illinois?

57 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:39:53am

re: #41 jdog29

Manmade Climate change doesn't depend on the temperature fluctuating up and down. What is being stated as an undisputable fact is that the way humans are using the Earth's resources is CAUSING the extreme weather worldwide. It doesn't matter if it is blistering hot or mind numbingly cold.

OK, I understand AGW Climate Change is real no matter what the climate does. This is inconvenient.

58 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:40:11am

re: #47 Buck

Greenhouse effect is what keeps the planet warm. Without it we would be as cold as space. I don't know if I can agree or disagree with an effect. But I think you are asking if I believe in it. Yes I believe in it.

Okay now imagine that the layer of gasses in out atmosphere which cause the Greenhouse effect is getting thicker.

Venus is further from the sun, but its got a hotter maximum surface temperature because of just how thick its atmosphere is with carbon dioxide.

Do you believe that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere these days?

59 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:40:54am

re: #51 Bagua

I don't expect people to agree with me, I am asking that they explain why they find my statement wrong or offensive. I believe I know the answer but don't wish to mind read.

I didn't downding, but there was a pungent odor of "waaah when it's cold but not when it's warm" followed by a blanket denial of the potential accuracy of the article based on its publisher.

that particular odor stings my nostrils, and stings others more than mine. so i didn't downding, but i think i get it...

60 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:41:10am

re: #56 marjoriemoon

When was the last time we had an earthquake in northern Illinois?

But was it a warm earthquake or a cold earthquake?

61 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:41:19am

re: #54 Varek Raith

I see what you did there...

Since you brought up Futurama let me post something relevant...

62 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:41:45am

re: #55 Aceofwhat?

On the contrary. Take a 100-year plot. Each year is the mean of 365 days. So we experience something on the order of a 20-day outlier and you think it'll affect the trend of a graph based on yearly means of 36,500 days?

It is you, i believe, who does not understand the difference between moving an average by an infinitesimal amount and moving the trend.

Exactly, one year data is one year's data point, whatever adjective one uses to describe it, your comment that it has "absolutely no influence" is incorrect. Take a look at the various Global Average Temperature sets and you will most certainly see a difference year to year and decade to decade.

63 Girth  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:42:10am

re: #56 marjoriemoon

When was the last time we had an earthquake in northern Illinois?

They're not unheard of. I grew up in central IL and I never experienced one but I remember some discussion when some people predicted one in the area.

64 lawhawk  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:42:37am

re: #58 jamesfirecat

Umm... Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, [Pluto]. Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth.

65 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:43:02am

re: #58 jamesfirecat


Venus is further from the sun,

Venus is further from the sun than what?

66 jaunte  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:43:11am

re: #64 lawhawk

I think he typed 'closer' but spelled it 'further.'

67 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:43:32am

re: #62 Bagua

Exactly, one year data is one year's data point, whatever adjective one uses to describe it, your comment that it has "absolutely no influence" is incorrect. Take a look at the various Global Average Temperature sets and you will most certainly see a difference year to year and decade to decade.

Tsk, tsk. I said "absolutely no influence" based on a few weeks' temps. I also said that one year's temps have very little influence on the long-term global mean.

reading = good

68 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:43:40am

re: #64 lawhawk

Umm... Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, [Pluto]. Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth.

Law, you are spoiling my fun...

[grin]

69 What, me worry?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:43:59am

re: #60 Spare O'Lake

But was it a warm earthquake or a cold earthquake?

hehe... I know nothing about the science. I read here and it's all Greek to me. But I've believe global warming is a real consequence and have for over 20 years. I believe humans have harmed the atmosphere and the environment and I believe we are in serious trouble if we don't do something. May even be in serious trouble if we do do something, I don't know.

70 Altermite  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:44:09am

re: #64 lawhawk

Umm... Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, [Pluto]. Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth.

Further than mercury, which it also has a higher surface temp than.

71 cliffster  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:45:20am

re: #66 jaunte

I think he typed 'closer' but spelled it 'further.'

I meant to say, "honey can you please pass the wheaties" but it came out, "you ruined my life, you bitch"

72 What, me worry?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:45:49am

re: #63 Girth

They're not unheard of. I grew up in central IL and I never experienced one but I remember some discussion when some people predicted one in the area.

I just glanced at some Illinois quake history. It's not common, but there seems like there was a decent amount of activity in the late 1800's.

[Link: earthquake.usgs.gov...]

73 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:45:53am

Something's happening here,
What it is ain't exactly clear...

74 lostlakehiker  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:45:57am

re: #7 Bagua

The harsh weather being experience in the US is not a regional phenomena, it is also occurring in Britain, Europe, Mongolia, China, Tibet, etc. The snow is irrelevant, it is the temperature that is indicative of warming or not. Once the numbers are in for the year, this will be included in the climate based global average temperature data sets.

The global average temperatures for 2009 were on the high side. see particularly global mean temp vs year and month

Note the red pixel for December 2009. Note also that the whole span of years 1980-2010 is reddish.

I can't find the link, but I saw a report on T.V. showing temperature anomalies for January 2010 globally. Most were on the high side, with cold regions over portions of the mid-latitudes N. hemisphere. (That's us.) The explanation given in the report was that the so-called "arctic oscillation" had weakened, with the result that the intensely cold arctic air was not penned up at the N. pole but was instead flowing south here and there. Naturally, that air was being replaced by air from somewhere not so far North, so over the arctic, temperatures are just frigid rather than their usual stunning cold.

link to PDF of research paper on this topic by Vavrus, Walsh, Chapman and Portis.

75 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:46:06am

re: #67 Aceofwhat?

Tsk, tsk. I said "absolutely no influence" based on a few weeks' temps. I also said that one year's temps have very little influence on the long-term global mean.

reading = good

Right but I wasn't asking how few would not influence, but how many would.

76 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:46:38am

re: #59 Aceofwhat?

I didn't downding, but there was a pungent odor of "waaah when it's cold but not when it's warm" followed by a blanket denial of the potential accuracy of the article based on its publisher.

that particular odor stings my nostrils, and stings others more than mine. so i didn't downding, but i think i get it...

Then you misunderstand. Time magazine is not a science journal, and my other statements are factual and accurate. This winters widespread global cool weather will almost certainly adjust the global temperature down for this year. As is clearly apparent in the charts looking at the Annual Mean and the 5-year Mean and the seasonal resolution.

77 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:46:49am

re: #64 lawhawk

Umm... Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus, [Pluto]. Venus is closer to the Sun than the Earth.

Sorry I'll admit I left something out.

Venus tends to have hotter surface temperatures than Mercury.

Now do you see my point?

78 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:49:27am

The Arctic sea ice extent is still below average.
[Link: nsidc.org...]

79 lostlakehiker  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:50:41am

re: #41 jdog29

Manmade Climate change doesn't depend on the temperature fluctuating up and down. What is being stated as an undisputable fact is that the way humans are using the Earth's resources is CAUSING the extreme weather worldwide. It doesn't matter if it is blistering hot or mind numbingly cold.

How exactly would extra CO2 cause numbing cold? This takes the meaning out of the word "cause". There has to be a logical chain linking cause and effect. Wearing your lucky sweater was not the cause of your run of luck in Vegas. And putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere does indeed cause a reduction in thermal re-radiation of heat to the night sky, which on the face of it ought to cause the earth to be warmer than it would otherwise be. But pray tell what is it about CO2 that can cause it to be colder?

Extra CO2 or not, the earth will generate weather, and weather includes extremes of weather from time to time.

80 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:50:43am

re: #74 lostlakehiker

Very funny, we linked to the same chart. GMTA.

And that is my point, we can only evaluate the unseasonable cold that the northern hemisphere is experiencing in terms of Global Warming when charted with all the available data sets. Each year of data adds to that data set and impacts the cumulative means and moving averages.

81 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:51:13am

re: #75 Buck

Right but I wasn't asking how few would not influence, but how many would.

see #33.

82 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:51:33am

re: #18 jamesfirecat

Disprove to me that the greenhouse effect takes place and that we've got more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before and I'm open to your argument.

Prove that carbon, and only carbon, is the cause of Global Warming and I'll stop making fun of people for calling climate change "Anthropogenic".

83 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:51:54am

re: #76 Bagua

Then you misunderstand. Time magazine is not a science journal, and my other statements are factual and accurate. This winters widespread global cool weather will almost certainly adjust the global temperature down for this year. As is clearly apparent in the charts looking at the Annual Mean and the 5-year Mean and the seasonal resolution.

it's pretty early in the year to make that assertion. why don't we wait and see?

84 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:52:54am

re: #42 Bagua

Can anyone explain why this comment deserves a downding?

That quote got a -2. That's funny.

85 LotharBot  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:52:56am

I always hate when people try to use current weather as "proof" either for or against climate change; the mathematician in me just gets riled up over it. This previous summer, when it was over 100 in Seattle for one day, all the hippies were screaming about how global warming was to blame. Now when we've got massive winter storms on the east coast, all the deniers are screaming about how global warming is a hoax. It's stupid on both sides. Granted, it's funny to shout "I blame Global Warming" when standing in waist-deep snow, but it's not really a valid argument.

As was mentioned earlier, "weather" is short-term; "climate" is long-term. A single weather event is statistically irrelevant. What matters are long-term trends or patterns -- the warming we've seen over the last 3 decades or so, and major shifts in weather that play out year after year. This storm is just one more data point to add to the set.

86 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:53:06am

re: #82 RogueOne

Prove that carbon, and only carbon, is the cause of Global Warming and I'll stop making fun of people for calling climate change "Anthropogenic".

It isn't. Particulate emissions are just as significant of a contributor.

Thanks, 3rd world countries!

87 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:53:37am

re: #85 LotharBot

i had a dog...and his name was BINGO

88 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:54:06am

re: #79 lostlakehiker

How exactly would extra CO2 cause numbing cold? This takes the meaning out of the word "cause". There has to be a logical chain linking cause and effect. Wearing your lucky sweater was not the cause of your run of luck in Vegas. And putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere does indeed cause a reduction in thermal re-radiation of heat to the night sky, which on the face of it ought to cause the earth to be warmer than it would otherwise be. But pray tell what is it about CO2 that can cause it to be colder?

Extra CO2 or not, the earth will generate weather, and weather includes extremes of weather from time to time.

The Extra CO2 isn't causing the numbing cold, the extra CO2 is making the air on average slightly warmer, and because its warmer it can hold more moisture (I've only been to Florida twice, but boy did I learn a thing or two about warm air and moisture while I was there!) and when that moist air with a lot of water in it suddenly runs into a cold front, which makes it chill, all there's more water to turn into snow.

Is that a nice chain of cause and effect for you?

89 really grumpy big dog johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:54:30am

Warming skeptics always get criticized for pointing out individual events and suggesting that they indicate the opposite of global warming, while those who support the theory point out individual events - or pairs of events - to suggest that global warming is indeed why these unusual events have occurred.

Examples:

Large chunk of Antarctic ice shelf calves off (at the end of the summer in that hemisphere)

Glacier in the Alps receding dramatically

Twin freak snowstorms hit the mid-Atlantic

Hurricane Katrina, and the string of strong hurricane seasons that included and preceded it

The list goes on and on... But don't dare to use single or paired events if you are somewhat skeptical of those who point to global warming as inevitable, and with resulting catastrophes almost unimaginable in scope. You will be laughed out of the forum.

90 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:54:49am

re: #82 RogueOne

Prove that carbon, and only carbon, is the cause of Global Warming and I'll stop making fun of people for calling climate change "Anthropogenic".

Are you saying that carbon isn't a cause at all?

91 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:55:38am

re: #83 Aceofwhat?

it's pretty early in the year to make that assertion. why don't we wait and see?

I agree, that is also my point and why I linked to the charts. We do not yet have that data.

92 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:57:45am

re: #77 jamesfirecat

Sorry I'll admit I left something out.

Venus tends to have hotter surface temperatures than Mercury.

Now do you see my point?

OK, so Venus has experienced a terrible Greenhouse effect (billions of years ago) that caused it to warm. And this was due to the population of Venus using the planet's resources.... Just kidding....relax...

I mean I have already agreed that an atmosphere would warm a planet, and Mercury has almost no atmosphere at all.

Now some people think that a thick opaque atmosphere would COOL a planet if it blocked the suns warming radiation from getting through...

This I do know. There is way more about those planets that we don't know, than what we do know.


Or maybe this is a bad example....?

93 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:58:19am

re: #89 really grumpy big dog johnson

Eh, maybe, but i mock them too. I'm with LotharBot. Weather is not climate, period. And that goes for folks on all sides. Katrina was no more related to global warming than snowpocalypse is related to a lack thereof.

94 subsailor68  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:58:49am

I'm no expert on this, but I think the issue isn't with CO2 per se, but the amount of CO2.

For example, after one beer I'm funny as hell. After a six-pack, not so much.

And that's about the extent of my knowledge on the subject.

;-)

95 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:59:07am

re: #84 RogueOne

That quote got a -2. That's funny.

It is very amusing. Downdings are normally for offensive comments, or in this case, when one is perceived as challenging faith in a belief system. No scientist would take an article in Time magazine seriously or criticise one for pointing out that it is not a science journal.

96 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:59:46am

re: #92 Buck

Different question. CO2 is transparent. On the topic of particulates, their opacity/reflective characteristics do need to be balanced against their capacity to keep warmth from escaping the atmosphere.

make sense?

97 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:00:35pm

re: #95 Bagua

It is very amusing. Downdings are normally for offensive comments, or in this case, when one is perceived as challenging faith in a belief system. No scientist would take an article in Time magazine seriously or criticise one for pointing out that it is not a science journal.

Nor would one disqualify such an article categorically because it happened to be published in Time magazine...

98 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:05:08pm

re: #92 Buck

OK, so Venus has experienced a terrible Greenhouse effect (billions of years ago) that caused it to warm. And this was due to the population of Venus using the planet's resources... Just kidding...relax...

I mean I have already agreed that an atmosphere would warm a planet, and Mercury has almost no atmosphere at all.

Now some people think that a thick opaque atmosphere would COOL a planet if it blocked the suns warming radiation from getting through...

This I do know. There is way more about those planets that we don't know, than what we do know.

Or maybe this is a bad example...?

It depends what that atmosphere is made up of.

CO2 makes for warming atmosphere because of the fact that the light packs enough energy to punch through it, but then after having some of its energy leached by earth, it can't punch it way back out and so it just ends up letting loose with whatever energy it has left on the planet it struck.

Volcanic ash on the other hand is made up of many different chemicals, but [Link: geology.com...] its well known that the stuff can cause eclipse like effects.

If there was enough ash for that eclipse like effect to last, then that's how you get "global cooling".

99 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:05:17pm

re: #97 Aceofwhat?

Nor would one disqualify such an article categorically because it happened to be published in Time magazine...

One would certainly be reasonable in noting that it was the same Time magazine hyping a new Ice Age on even less basis. This disqualifies Time magazine as a serious source of scientific news, and it most certainly is not a peer reviewed journal, or even a non-peer reviewed journal. It is a rag.

100 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:07:04pm

re: #99 Bagua

One would certainly be reasonable in noting that it was the same Time magazine hyping a new Ice Age on even less basis. This disqualifies Time magazine as a serious source of scientific news, and it most certainly is not a peer reviewed journal, or even a non-peer reviewed journal. It is a rag.

I object, your honor! This trial is a travesty. It's a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.
- Woody Allan

101 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:07:09pm

re: #97 Aceofwhat?

Nor would one disqualify such an article categorically because it happened to be published in Time magazine...

I used to be a regular reader... for decades I read it every week.

Then I started to notice that on subjects I knew something about, they were consistently wrong. For example was the time they did a cover story about the Internet (June 26, 1995)... Well, I said to myself, if they could get this story so wrong... what else did they get wrong. A few stories about Israel, and Arafat... and then suddenly I had doubt about everything else I read there.

and then I just stopped reading it.

102 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:07:11pm

re: #90 jamesfirecat

Until you can prove that the only reason the planet is warming is due to emissions caused by man then you shouldn't be calling it Anthropogenic. There are still too many variables we don't understand, contrary to persistent declarations that we know everything.

I posted this a couple weeks ago:
[Link: www.noaanews.noaa.gov...]


“Current climate models do a remarkable job on water vapor near the surface. But this is different — it’s a thin wedge of the upper atmosphere that packs a wallop from one decade to the next in a way we didn’t expect,” says Susan Solomon, NOAA senior scientist and first author of the study.

We learn new things everyday. The only way to prove that man made emissions are the cause of global warming is to disprove that anything else can possibly be the cause. We aren't anywhere near that point.

103 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:07:53pm

re: #99 Bagua

One would certainly be reasonable in noting that it was the same Time magazine hyping a new Ice Age on even less basis. This disqualifies Time magazine as a serious source of scientific news, and it most certainly is not a peer reviewed journal, or even a non-peer reviewed journal. It is a rag.

We're all better off evaluating each other and our sources on a case-by-case basis. Categorical disqualification of any but the most odious offenders will only diminish our capacity for constructive dialogue.

104 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:08:06pm

re: #99 Bagua

One would certainly be reasonable in noting that it was the same Time magazine hyping a new Ice Age on even less basis. This disqualifies Time magazine as a serious source of scientific news, and it most certainly is not a peer reviewed journal, or even a non-peer reviewed journal.

No, it doesn't. It shows that they printed something that was mistaken. That does not mean that everything they printed from then on was crap.

The article I posted cites a website run by a meteorologist who thoroughly backs up the points made by TIME with scientiic evidence. It's accurate information about a subject that's often distorted, including here at LGF.

105 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:10:00pm

re: #102 RogueOne

Until you can prove that the only reason the planet is warming is due to emissions caused by man then you shouldn't be calling it Anthropogenic.

The science has already demonstrated that the massive amount of CO2 pumped into atmosphere by humanity is by far the most probably cause of AGW, to more than a 90% degree of certainty.

106 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:10:11pm

re: #99 Bagua

One would certainly be reasonable in noting that it was the same Time magazine hyping a new Ice Age on even less basis. This disqualifies Time magazine as a serious source of scientific news, and it most certainly is not a peer reviewed journal, or even a non-peer reviewed journal. It is a rag.

"if Time Magazine is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our press in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! "

Paraphrasing Otter - Animal House

107 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:10:22pm

re: #105 Obdicut

The science has already demonstrated that the massive amount of CO2 pumped into atmosphere by humanity is by far the most probably cause of AGW, to more than a 90% degree of certainty.

That's correct.

108 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:11:18pm

re: #102 RogueOne

I disagree in that i think it's enough to prove that man-made emissions are A cause of global warming. there may be other, but that doesn't mean we get a free pass.

we've greatly increased CO2 emissions and particulate emissions. we're a big player, at the very least.

109 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:12:37pm

re: #105 Obdicut

The science has already demonstrated that the massive amount of CO2 pumped into atmosphere by humanity is by far the most probably cause of AGW, to more than a 90% degree of certainty.

Don't forget that a good portion of the blame also goes to particulate emisssions. But that's man-made, too.

India's propensity for burning shit is just as bad as any other country's propensity for emitting CO2, if not worse. At least plants can breathe CO2...

110 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:12:38pm

re: #102 RogueOne

Until you can prove that the only reason the planet is warming is due to emissions caused by man then you shouldn't be calling it Anthropogenic. There are still too many variables we don't understand, contrary to persistent declarations that we know everything.

I posted this a couple weeks ago:
[Link: www.noaanews.noaa.gov...]

We learn new things everyday. The only way to prove that man made emissions are the cause of global warming is to disprove that anything else can possibly be the cause. We aren't anywhere near that point.

Do you believe in the greenhouse effect?

111 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:12:39pm

re: #107 Charles

That's correct.

Unfortunately, the IPCC AR4 also claimed 90% certainty on several matters that have been proven false and based upon advocacy groups, not peer reviewed science. Thus one must suspect their other claims.

112 LotharBot  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:12:43pm

re: #95 Bagua

It is very amusing. Downdings are normally for offensive comments, or in this case, when one is perceived as challenging faith in a belief system.

That's a discussion I'd love to have... why do you up/downding?

I give UPDINGS for:
- good, substantive arguments (even from the "other side")
- extremely funny posts
- answers to my questions

I give DOWNDINGS for:
- blatant trolling, including excessively off-topic statements
- flaming / insults / name-calling
- offensive comments (excessive swearing / crudeness, where "excessive" depends on the context)
- already-refuted arguments

I never give a downding for mere disagreement, nor an upding for mere agreement.

113 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:14:25pm

re: #112 LotharBot

That's a discussion I'd love to have... why do you up/downding?

I give UPDINGS for:
- good, substantive arguments (even from the "other side")
- extremely funny posts
- answers to my questions

I give DOWNDINGS for:
- blatant trolling
- flaming / insults / name-calling
- personally offensive comments


I never give a downding for mere disagreement, nor an upding for mere agreement.

edited to show my cards...

114 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:14:35pm

re: #106 Buck

"if Time Magazine is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our press in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen! "

Paraphrasing Otter - Animal House

Absolutely, the mass media is not the most reliable reporter of anything, especially science.

115 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:14:39pm

re: #105 Obdicut

The science has already demonstrated that the massive amount of CO2 pumped into atmosphere by humanity is by far the most probably cause of AGW, to more than a 90% degree of certainty.

A 90% certainty of an unknown is what? Unknown.

116 Political Atheist  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:15:17pm

Scientists and wine artisans agree. AGW is here.
[Link: www.azcentral.com...]

In France, the projected climate changes threaten the very definition of wine, says Bernard Seguin, a climatologist with the French National Agronomy Institute. Each one degree increase in temperature in France is equivalent to moving 200 kilometers (or 124 miles) north, he says. By the end of the century, with current warming predictions, the north coast of France will be experiencing weather that today is common for the south of France.

Up to this point, global warming has been a boon for France, Seguin says. Rising temperatures have produced wines with higher sugars and alcohol levels and lower acids that are very popular.

"Our weather now is perfect," says Jean-Guillaume Prats, the renowned chief executive of Chateau Cos d'Estournel, a second-growth Bordeaux house in St. Estephe. "Global warming has changed the style of wine we make to be a rounder, a more forward wine."

But Michel Chapoutier, a celebrated Hermitage producer in the northern Rhone, believes his wines' increased popularity has come at a price.

"I'm nervous about the future," Chapoutier says. "Yes, we have more and more good vintages now, but we have to choose between vegetal wines or ones that taste like jam."
SNIP

117 Aceofwhat?  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:15:19pm

re: #111 Bagua

Argh, i don't have the energy for this one today. It's someone else's turn.

118 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:16:35pm

re: #108 Aceofwhat?

I disagree in that i think it's enough to prove that man-made emissions are A cause of global warming. there may be other, but that doesn't mean we get a free pass.

we've greatly increased CO2 emissions and particulate emissions. we're a big player, at the very least.

That humanity can be a cause of global warming I'll buy, It's an easy cause/effect scenario. I have a problem with calling it "Anthropogenic Global Warming" when we can't possibly prove it at this stage in our understanding.

119 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:17:17pm

re: #111 Bagua

Unfortunately, the IPCC AR4 also claimed 90% certainty on several matters that have been proven false and based upon advocacy groups, not peer reviewed science. Thus one must suspect their other claims.

This is nonsense - another exaggeration in a long line of exaggerations. I know you'd like to promote the idea that the tiny problems found thus far completely invalidate the IPCC's work, but that's beyond silly.

120 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:17:46pm

re: #110 jamesfirecat

Do you believe in the greenhouse effect?

Well of course I do. What I don't believe is that our understanding of our planet has reached the stage where we know wtf we're talking about. If we did then that science piece I posted wouldn't have come as such a surprise.

121 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:17:51pm

re: #115 RogueOne

No, it's not. I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on this. Science works. When there is scientific consensus on a subject-- as there definitely is with AGW, then to protest that there is a slim chance that everyone might be wrong is silly. Of course it's possible they might all be wrong; there's also a slim chance that we're in The Matrix.

Given the greenhouse effect, and given that we are responsible for enormous amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, AGW is the basic assumption. There is no reason to hunt for other factors when you have a completely sufficient one that you know has occurred staring you in the face.

122 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:18:36pm

re: #112 LotharBot

That's a discussion I'd love to have... why do you up/downding?

I give UPDINGS for:
- good, substantive arguments (even from the "other side")
- extremely funny posts
- answers to my questions

I give DOWNDINGS for:
- blatant trolling, including excessively off-topic statements
- flaming / insults / name-calling
- offensive comments (excessive swearing / crudeness, where "excessive" depends on the context)
- already-refuted arguments

I never give a downding for mere disagreement, nor an upding for mere agreement.

Thanks, I agree on the downding part, though I am more liberal in my updings.

123 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:19:44pm

re: #120 RogueOne

Well of course I do. What I don't believe is that our understanding of our planet has reached the stage where we know wtf we're talking about. If we did then that science piece I posted wouldn't have come as such a surprise.

Do you believe that humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

124 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:20:08pm

re: #121 Obdicut

You're arguing "science works" like I'm somehow suggesting it doesn't. Nice try. What I said was our understanding, i.e. "science", isn't anywhere near complete. You want to argue that it doesn't matter if we fully understand or that all the evidence isn't in yet. I disagree.

125 Girth  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:21:34pm

re: #112 LotharBot

About the same as you, except I will upding for agreement, though I won't downding for disagreement.

My threshold for updinging is also much lower than that for downdinging. I'm much stingier with the minuses.

126 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:22:33pm

re: #119 Charles

This is nonsense - another exaggeration in a long line of exaggerations. I know you'd like to promote the idea that the tiny problems found thus far completely invalidate the IPCC's work, but that's beyond silly.

Well we disagree on this I suppose, but the list of serious errors now includes the Himalayan Glaciers, the Amazon, and Africa. All false data based upon non-peer reviewed science, all given with erroneous confidence levels. Numerous people, including strong advocates of Global Warming like the BBC and the Guardian are now demanding apologies and calling for Dr. Pachauri's resignation and a shake up of the IPCC to reform it.

127 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:22:51pm

re: #124 RogueOne

You're arguing "science works" like I'm somehow suggesting it doesn't. Nice try. What I said was our understanding, i.e. "science", isn't anywhere near complete. You want to argue that it doesn't matter if we fully understand or that all the evidence isn't in yet. I disagree.

But scientists disagree with you; they think that when you have a 90% probability on something as complex as climate change, you've done an excellent job. They'll keep tightening it up, but you'll notice that the certitude has grown over time-- a trend even more unlikely to reverse itself.

Again: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know that it causes warming. We have been pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the air for more than a century, let alone the various other ways we've affected the climate.

Can you provide a reason to believe that the huge amount of CO2 we've added is not causing warming? Because basic physics says that it is.

128 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:23:27pm

re: #113 Aceofwhat?

edited to show my cards...

I think the only downdings I've ever given have been to flouncers. Since I don't see them very often I bet I haven't given a grand total of 10 downdings.

129 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:24:52pm

re: #126 Bagua

Well we disagree on this I suppose, but the list of serious errors now includes the Himalayan Glaciers, the Amazon, and Africa. All false data based upon non-peer reviewed science, all given with erroneous confidence levels. Numerous people, including strong advocates of Global Warming like the BBC and the Guardian are now demanding apologies and calling for Dr. Pachauri's resignation and a shake up of the IPCC to reform it.

And the list of absolutely confirmed and exhaustively researched evidence in the IPCC's AR4 documents amounts to more than 3,000 pages, with many thousands of citations for scientific papers and studies.

You're promoting nonsense to suggest that the minuscule number of problems found are cause for significant doubt, in comparison to the vast amount of valid evidence.

130 [deleted]  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:25:02pm
131 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:26:59pm

re: #126 Bagua

Numerous people, including strong advocates of Global Warming like the BBC and the Guardian are now demanding apologies and calling for Dr. Pachauri's resignation and a shake up of the IPCC to reform it.

Didn't you just write this?

Absolutely, the mass media is not the most reliable reporter of anything, especially science.

But all of a sudden, because they agree with you on the IPCC, you cite them as authorities. Gotcha.

132 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:30:14pm

Well, that killed the thread...

133 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:32:31pm

re: #132 Buck

Well, that killed the thread...

I'm still waiting for RougeOne to tell me if he/she believes that humans have been producing large a mounts of C02 lately...

134 HypnoToad  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:32:51pm

In the past, I've been a skeptic of AGW. (mostly the "A" part.) I have never argued against the fact that the Earth has been in a warming trend, or that we are responsible for increased CO2 in the atmosphere. I had problems with the amount of the contribution to warming caused by CO2 alone as opposed to other factors, and have gotten downdinged for it. I have reconsidered based on ice loss data from the Grace gravity mission. (I've worked on that program as well as OCO) I accept that we have a significant effect on global warming, but still feel that many in the government are taking advantage of that to promote unnecessary tax schemes and restrictions on how we will live our lives. This is a worldwide problem that cannot be solved by only a few countries taking action, if it can be solved at all. We may just have to live with it.

135 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:32:59pm

re: #129 Charles

And the list of absolutely confirmed and exhaustively researched evidence in the IPCC's AR4 documents amounts to more than 3,000 pages, with many thousands of citations for scientific papers and studies.

You're promoting nonsense to suggest that the minuscule number of problems found are cause for significant doubt, in comparison to the vast amount of valid evidence.

I respectfully disagree; I am referring to major errors that appear in the far shorter and influential synthesis report under the direct responsibility of the IPCC Chair Dr RK Pachauri. They apply to the most alarming predictions dealing with crucial regions that have become "poster issues" to-wit, the Amazon, the Himalayan Glaciers and Africa. All false, all based upon advocacy reports, not peer reviewed science.

Also, I do not rely on the media for my information, they are playing catch up on this matter, as always. I can document the flaws I am talking about in the actual IPCC AR4.

Also, note that I have changed my opinion. Before this I too upheld the IPCC AR4 as a credible document. I now discover that I was mistaken.

136 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:33:28pm

re: #127 Obdicut

What would you expect them to say? I've had this argument before, scientists are no different than anyone else. They all have their biases built in, the longer they work in an area the more positive they become. People are people.

For example, In 1990 when I received my commission I was sent to a Army division HQ to work in the Intel shop until my clearance came through. I had Colonels and Majors, people who looked at the intel for decades, explain to me on an almost daily basis how the soviets were going to crush us because we were moving to a lighter style of force. In less than a years time the soviets were gone.

Maybe I'm overly skeptical but when someone tells me their 90% sure of something I know they can't possibly fully understand it sets off bells. Here's a question, if they know everything why do they continue to study? Where do all these new breakthroughs come from? Like I said, I take everything with a massive grain of salt. History is replete with situations where we were sure we knew what we were talking about and it turned out to be completely wrong.

I'm not denying the existence of warming, I just have a problem with declaring it's completely humanities fault when we can't possibly know that.

137 Spare O'Lake  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:34:11pm

re: #131 Charles

But all of a sudden, because they agree with you on the IPCC, you cite them as authorities. Gotcha.

After all, the IPCC is a United Nations Agency, so we better be very careful about questioning their credibility.

138 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:34:39pm

re: #136 RogueOne

What would you expect them to say? I've had this argument before, scientists are no different than anyone else. They all have their biases built in, the longer they work in an area the more positive they become. People are people.

For example, In 1990 when I received my commission I was sent to a Army division HQ to work in the Intel shop until my clearance came through. I had Colonels and Majors, people who looked at the intel for decades, explain to me on an almost daily basis how the soviets were going to crush us because we were moving to a lighter style of force. In less than a years time the soviets were gone.

Maybe I'm overly skeptical but when someone tells me their 90% sure of something I know they can't possibly fully understand it sets off bells. Here's a question, if they know everything why do they continue to study? Where do all these new breakthroughs come from? Like I said, I take everything with a massive grain of salt. History is replete with situations where we were sure we knew what we were talking about and it turned out to be completely wrong.

I'm not denying the existence of warming, I just have a problem with declaring it's completely humanities fault when we can't possibly know that.

Are you willing to admit that humanity has played a hand in it?

139 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:35:55pm

re: #133 jamesfirecat

I'm still waiting for RougeOne to tell me if he/she believes that humans have been producing large a mounts of C02 lately...

Have I not explained to your satisfaction that I don't believe science is witchcraft and that I understand the greenhouse effect?

Can you please prove to me that the only cause of the warming of the planet is due to emissions? Have we disproven every other possible factor? If so, you might want to read that NOAA piece I posted again.

140 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:37:04pm

re: #136 RogueOne

What would you expect them to say? I've had this argument before, scientists are no different than anyone else. They all have their biases built in, the longer they work in an area the more positive they become. People are people.

That's irrelevant; scientists may dig in their heels, but research proceeded unabated, and if a scientist takes a stand that's wrong, he just gets proven wrong. You seem to be intimating that the biases of scientists always corrupt research, which would mean we would never have gotten anywhere, scientifically. A scientists is someone who actually lets themselves be proved wrong by their own experiment-- which happens all the time in science. If you distort data, you will be exposed, and shamed.

Maybe I'm overly skeptical but when someone tells me their 90% sure of something I know they can't possibly fully understand it sets off bells.

How on earth can you think you know the subject well enough to say that? If a scientist tells you that there's a 90% chance a certain fuel/air mixture will ignite when a spark enters it, do you think the fact we still don't really understand the weak nuclear force matters?

I'm not denying the existence of warming, I just have a problem with declaring it's completely humanities fault when we can't possibly know that.

Do you see any irony in declaring yourself knowledgeable enough about climate science to make that statement?

141 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:37:26pm

re: #139 RogueOne

Have I not explained to your satisfaction that I don't believe science is witchcraft and that I understand the greenhouse effect?

Can you please prove to me that the only cause of the warming of the planet is due to emissions? Have we disproven every other possible factor? If so, you might want to read that NOAA piece I posted again.

I'm willing to admit that it might not all be CO2, are you willing to admit that CO2 plays a part, and we humans have been producing a lot of C02, ergo humans are at least partly to blame for this?

142 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:38:39pm

re: #139 RogueOne


Where do you get this 'did you disprove everything else yet?' meme from? Do you actually think that's how science works?

143 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:40:16pm

re: #133 jamesfirecat

I'm still waiting for RougeOne to tell me if he/she believes that humans have been producing large a mounts of C02 lately...

probably thought to be irrelevant...

large amounts? More than what? less than?

kinda vague...

144 Montaigne's Cat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:40:21pm

If the predictions of any theory are so mutable, then that theory cannot be disconfirmed or falsified.

145 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:40:26pm

re: #135 Bagua

I respectfully disagree; I am referring to major errors that appear in the far shorter and influential synthesis report under the direct responsibility of the IPCC Chair Dr RK Pachauri. They apply to the most alarming predictions dealing with crucial regions that have become "poster issues" to-wit, the Amazon, the Himalayan Glaciers and Africa. All false, all based upon advocacy reports, not peer reviewed science.

Again, you're promoting ideas that are not true.

The Himalayan glaciers ARE in danger. The Amazon rain forest IS in danger. And there are many, many climate change issues in Africa.

The fact that a very few statements in the report about these areas have been shown to be in error has absolutely no effect on the mountains of data that show the very real problems they face from AGW.

146 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:42:59pm

re: #135 Bagua

become "poster issues" to-wit, the Amazon, the Himalayan Glaciers and Africa. All false, all based upon advocacy reports, not peer reviewed science.

Well not actually false, just not properly peer reviewed. If removed, the rest of the report would still stand.

Unless we find a lot more... so that is a really good reason to keep looking, and adding to the list...

147 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:48:27pm

re: #145 Charles

Again, you're promoting ideas that are not true.

The Himalayan glaciers ARE in danger. The Amazon rain forest IS in danger. And there are many, many climate change issues in Africa.

The fact that a very few statements in the report about these areas have been shown to be in error has absolutely no effect on the mountains of data that show the very real problems they face from AGW.

Sorry, but you are misinformed. The Himalayan Glacier prediction has been proven false and the IPCC has already retracted it and apologised for it. There is no other data, all we can say for certain at this point is that we do not yet understand the Himalayan Glaciers and need more research. The part about the Amazon and Africa have also been recently proven false, I expect those sections will be withdrawn as well.

These are from the short and influential synthesis report, they are among the most alarming predictions in the entire AR4 and are often cited and highlighted. There are no mountains of data which uphold these items. They are false. With their removal, there is not much left to be alarmed about.

148 peter2feathers  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:48:45pm

Re: the IPCC report:
The part that makes the entire report subject to extreme scrutiny is the way some of the key authors admit to having fudged the facts in order to expedite their political cause-du-jour. That seems like a pretty damning admission to me.

biased Canuck, (global warming sounds good to me, the medieval warming period brought unprecedented prosperity for humankind)

149 Baier  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:48:55pm

re: #145 Charles

Again, you're promoting ideas that are not true.

The Himalayan glaciers ARE in danger. The Amazon rain forest IS in danger. And there are many, many climate change issues in Africa.

The fact that a very few statements in the report about these areas have been shown to be in error has absolutely no effect on the mountains of data that show the very real problems they face from AGW.

They had a great show on NOVA last night called Extreme Cave Diving. There are these water filled caves called "blue holes" in the Caribbean that are completely devoid of oxygen. They find all kinds of crazy well preserved artifacts in these caves. One of the things they did was take stalactite sample, and they cut it and discovered that global warming is often preceded by drought and it only takes about 50 years for a dry period to become a wet period. Faster than they had imagined. As to the cause of global warming, they don't get into it.

150 Sol Berdinowitz  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:50:32pm

AGW mania has hit.

Point is that Imhofe is too dense to understand the difference between weather and climate, too lame-brained to understand the concept of "global", and (this being a major weakness in the Republican party) too pusilanimous to miss a chance to have a pre-adolescent laugh at the expense Al Gore, even one that could well backfire on him and the party.

151 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:50:46pm

re: #147 Bagua

Sorry, but you are misinformed. The Himalayan Glacier prediction has been proven false and the IPCC has already retracted it and apologised for it. There is no other data, all we can say for certain at this point is that we do not yet understand the Himalayan Glaciers and need more research. The part about the Amazon and Africa have also been recently proven false, I expect those sections will be withdrawn as well.

Again, not true. Only one prediction about the Himalayan glaciers was shown to be incorrectly cited -- that they might disappear by 2035. The rest of the evidence about the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers is absolutely solid, and there's a LOT of it.

The same is true about the Amazon and Africa. In both cases, you're taking one tiny piece of data that's been shown to be in error, and trying to say this proves the whole thing wrong -- and it does not.

152 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:51:56pm

re: #143 Buck

probably thought to be irrelevant...

large amounts? More than what? less than?

kinda vague...

Are you saying that's what you believe or that's what you thing RougeOne would say?

153 KingKenrod  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:58:00pm

There's no way TIME is going to convince the average citizen that warmer weather = more intense cold-weather storms. They sound silly doing it and probably hurt more than help. It doesn't matter if they are 100% correct - most people don't look at scientific data & theory when forming opinions, they go by whatever seems to make sense.

There's no way the AGW debate is going to be won by looking at local or short-term weather trends, and every time it comes up on either side it just turns into a pathetic yeah-but contest.

154 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 12:59:58pm

re: #146 Buck

Well not actually false, just not properly peer reviewed. If removed, the rest of the report would still stand.

Unless we find a lot more... so that is a really good reason to keep looking, and adding to the list...

Yes false, in the case of the Amazon, the underlying report from the advocacy group was even misquoted, it referred to the sensitivity of clear cut parts of the Amazon forest, not the forest itself as reported in the IPCC AR4.

The Himalayan part was sourced to Dr. Hasnain who himself has said it was just speculation and appeared nowhere in his actual work. False.

The African part was a small report done by an advocate and carbon trader, it was also applicable to one country and only during drought years. The IPCC AR4 took this to mean the larger region and an overall effect. False.

So yes, not only not peer reviewed, but misquoted from the original sources. What remains is not at all alarming for those regions.

BBL

155 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:01:42pm

re: #154 Bagua

So yes, not only not peer reviewed, but misquoted from the original sources. What remains is not at all alarming for those regions.

And now you are posting complete falsehoods. This is simply not true at all. There is a vast amount of evidence that all of these areas are in serious danger from man-made climate change. It's nothing but sheer ignorance to claim otherwise.

156 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:02:01pm

re: #152 jamesfirecat

Are you saying that's what you believe or that's what you thing RougeOne would say?

I am just pointing out the FACT that you are ONCE AGAIN being too vague.

Carbon/Carbon Dioxide
Further from the sun (without stating further than what)
Yesterdays "Worse" (to whom, in what respect)
and that whole vague question you had yesterday... that was a good one.
and now the ever present "large amounts".

I mean the planet has warmed before (which is how we got out of the big ice age, and the little ice age). And we don't know if it was "large amounts" of CO2, or what caused the warming.

So maybe your question is does Rouge agree that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate more than scientists would expect to naturally appear?

Maybe...

Hey, don't misunderstand me. I fully understand now why you are in such a rush....So I am just making a suggestion.... to get you back on track...
No pressure...

157 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:05:01pm

re: #154 Bagua

Yes false, in the case of the Amazon, the underlying report from the advocacy group was even misquoted, it referred to the sensitivity of clear cut parts of the Amazon forest, not the forest itself as reported in the IPCC AR4.

The Himalayan part was sourced to Dr. Hasnain who himself has said it was just speculation and appeared nowhere in his actual work. False.

The African part was a small report done by an advocate and carbon trader, it was also applicable to one country and only during drought years. The IPCC AR4 took this to mean the larger region and an overall effect. False.

So yes, not only not peer reviewed, but misquoted from the original sources. What remains is not at all alarming for those regions.

BBL

Well... IT COULD BE TRUE... it just hasn't been studied properly yet. Even stuff that is misquoted might be something that just hasn't been proven YET. You know how it is.... just getting ahead of ourselves on a couple of points. Maybe just exaggerated... 20 years, 30 years... maybe it is 100 years....? Doesn't change the concept...

Lets keep looking... maybe there is more...Maybe not.

158 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:06:11pm

re: #157 Buck

Well... IT COULD BE TRUE... it just hasn't been studied properly yet.

Yes, it definitely has been studied properly, for many years by many thousands of people.

159 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:07:16pm

re: #158 Charles

Yes, it definitely has been studied properly, for many years by many thousands of people.

I just meant the claims that were found to "not be peer reviewed". I didn't mean the whole report.

160 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:07:47pm

re: #140 Obdicut

I don't know the subject well enough to say they're correct in their 90% assumption. What I do know is every couple of months we find out more stuff we don't know. When they stop learning new things so often I'll be more tempted to believe they know wtf they're talking about.

re: #142 Obdicut

The only way to prove "A" is the cause is to prove that the other variables "b", "c", and "d" can't be the cause. Like I said, we continually learn things we had no idea would be an effect. We don't even know, much less fully understand, what the other variables even are.

161 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:08:54pm

re: #151 Charles

Again, not true. Only one prediction about the Himalayan glaciers was shown to be incorrectly cited -- that they might disappear by 2035. The rest of the evidence about the retreat of the Himalayan glaciers is absolutely solid, and there's a LOT of it.

The same is true about the Amazon and Africa. In both cases, you're taking one tiny piece of data that's been shown to be in error, and trying to say this proves the whole thing wrong -- and it does not.

I'm not saying it makes the whole thing wrong, rather, that key parts of the synthesis are bogus.

The scientific data on the Himalayan Glaciers does not indicate retreat according to the most current data from the top expert. Those that suggest melting are speaking in terms of 300 to 3,000 years, not especially alarming.

For the Amazon and Africa the false data were the most alarming parts. Other parts are speaking of changes over centuries, not in our lifetime.

re: #155 Charles

And now you are posting complete falsehoods. This is simply not true at all. There is a vast amount of evidence that all of these areas are in serious danger from man-made climate change. It's nothing but sheer ignorance to claim otherwise.


I can document every single point when I return. Any remaining danger is over periods of 100 years or more. The predictions for 2035 and 2020 that appear in the IPCC AR4 and Synthesis report are false which I will be happy to support if you wish.

Thank you for letting me state my views.

BBl

162 peter2feathers  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:10:46pm

re: #158 Charles

Why would the authors knowoingly falsify their conclusions and use unvetted sources if the science is such a slam dunk? Sorry Charles, but my bull-ometer is still pegged on the AGW debate. Outside of the science on both swides of the debate, the politics and the UN participation makes it smell mighty fishy to me.
That said, clean energy and a responsible attitude to the environment are good things, but I feel like a I'm being scammed, which gets my back up.

163 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:11:41pm

I make no assertions regarding the validity or accuracy of this editorial piece at National Review.

The link is posted here simply for reference purposes.

Climate Götterdämmerung

164 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:12:36pm

re: #160 RogueOne

But science means we're continually learning new things, so your view would mean that it was precisely those areas that we studied the most that we would be able to say the least about. That makes no sense.

The only way to prove "A" is the cause is to prove that the other variables "b", "c", and "d" can't be the cause.

No, it's not. It doesn't stop at D-- that's an infinite set of other possible causes.

Have you read any of the sites that Charles links regularly on this subject, like [Link: www.skepticalscience.com...] or [Link: www.realclimate.org...]

165 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:13:50pm

re: #162 peter2feathers

Why would the authors knowoingly falsify their conclusions and use unvetted sources if the science is such a slam dunk? Sorry Charles, but my bull-ometer is still pegged on the AGW debate. Outside of the science on both swides of the debate, the politics and the UN participation makes it smell mighty fishy to me.
That said, clean energy and a responsible attitude to the environment are good things, but I feel like a I'm being scammed, which gets my back up.

No one says they knowingly did it...

166 libertyvillemike  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:15:47pm

You're right Charles - it's a moronic talking point. And stupidity on one side doesn't justify the stupidity on the other side - every heat wave is a result of global warming, every drought, every flood, every snow storm, etc. In my kids' school, a speaker actually connected the recent tsunami with global warming.

Unfortunately, El Nino had a huge influence on the American people for the CAGW camp, and a cold winter with lots of snow will influence them the other way. Welcome to the rule of the mob.

167 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:16:00pm

re: #156 Buck

I am just pointing out the FACT that you are ONCE AGAIN being too vague.

Carbon/Carbon Dioxide
Further from the sun (without stating further than what)
Yesterdays "Worse" (to whom, in what respect)
and that whole vague question you had yesterday... that was a good one.
and now the ever present "large amounts".

I mean the planet has warmed before (which is how we got out of the big ice age, and the little ice age). And we don't know if it was "large amounts" of CO2, or what caused the warming.

So maybe your question is does Rouge agree that humans are adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate more than scientists would expect to naturally appear?

Maybe...

Hey, don't misunderstand me. I fully understand now why you are in such a rush...So I am just making a suggestion... to get you back on track...
No pressure...

The "further" was a genuine mistake on my part I admit that.

The "carbon" I thought it was acceptable LGF shorthand to use "carbon" to mean "carbon dioxide" though I'll give you that Carbon monoxide is also a greenhouse gas, it just isn't as common because anyone who knows how to "read" (as in understand the concepts associated with) a periodic table could see why to the molecules involved CO2 would be a preferable set up to CO2 to insure each atom has a fuller outer electron shell.

As for humans generating large amounts of CO2, how does seven tons over the last century sound?

[Link: www.strom.clemson.edu...]

168 peter2feathers  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:17:41pm

re: #165 Buck

No one says they knowingly did it...

Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the IPCC’s report’s chapter on Asia, said:
‘We knew the WWF report with the 2035 date was “grey literature” [material not published in a peer-reviewed journal].
‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

169 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:18:02pm

re: #167 jamesfirecat

The "further" was a genuine mistake on my part I admit that.

The "carbon" I thought it was acceptable LGF shorthand to use "carbon" to mean "carbon dioxide" though I'll give you that Carbon monoxide is also a greenhouse gas, it just isn't as common because anyone who knows how to "read" (as in understand the concepts associated with) a periodic table could see why to the molecules involved CO2 would be a preferable set up to CO2 to insure each atom has a fuller outer electron shell.

As for humans generating large amounts of CO2, how does seven tons over the last century sound?

[Link: www.strom.clemson.edu...]

Sorry did I say 7 tons in the last century, I meant about seven tons per year a decade ago....

170 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:18:13pm

re: #166 libertyvillemike

You're right Charles - it's a moronic talking point. And stupidity on one side doesn't justify the stupidity on the other side - every heat wave is a result of global warming, every drought, every flood, every snow storm, etc. In my kids' school, a speaker actually connected the recent tsunami with global warming.

Unfortunately, El Nino had a huge influence on the American people for the CAGW camp, and a cold winter with lots of snow will influence them the other way. Welcome to the rule of the mob.

There's no need to be angry. And I'm not clear exactly which mob is ruling this debate, anyway.

171 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:18:21pm

re: #167 jamesfirecat

Seven tons sounds very small. Seven billion sounds much larger, which is what the number actually is. And it's per year, not per century.

In the past two hundred years, it's two-hundred-seventy gigatons.

172 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:18:37pm

re: #169 jamesfirecat

Dude, read your own links better.

173 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:21:16pm

re: #167 jamesfirecat

As for humans generating large amounts of CO2, how does seven tons over the last century sound?

Incredibly vague again....

Seven tons over 100 years MIGHT be a large amount... I don't know. I remember China being responsible for 6,103,493,000 metric tons in one year 1996....

So Seven tons seems small....

174 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:22:11pm

re: #164 Obdicut

But science means we're continually learning new things, so your view would mean that it was precisely those areas that we studied the most that we would be able to say the least about. That makes no sense.

No, it's not. It doesn't stop at D-- that's an infinite set of other possible causes.

Have you read any of the sites that Charles links regularly on this subject, like [Link: www.skepticalscience.com...] or [Link: www.realclimate.org...]

You're making my point for me, thank you. Unless all the variables are known you cannot have a 90% degree of certainty. 90% of unknown is still unknown.

175 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:23:07pm

re: #171 Obdicut

Seven tons sounds very small. Seven billion sounds much larger, which is what the number actually is. And it's per year, not per century.

In the past two hundred years, it's two-hundred-seventy gigatons.

Seven billion tons per year?

Excuse me for doubting your figures, but that's more than a ton per person on this planet, or more than 5.5 pounds per person per day.

That's just not possible.

176 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:23:13pm

re: #174 RogueOne

I'm sorry, but I can't do anything to correct that belief of yours. I'm stumped. According to you, we literally can't compute the probability of anything, since we never know all the variables.

I'm sorry.

177 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:24:04pm

re: #169 jamesfirecat

Sorry did I say 7 tons in the last century, I meant about seven tons per year a decade ago...

"Present emissions are almost 7 billion metric tons (Gton) per year?"

Is that what you meant?

178 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:26:33pm

re: #175 really grumpy big dog Johnson

Personal incredulity doesn't actually count as an argument. If you can dispute the linked paper, do so.

179 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:26:46pm

re: #177 Buck

"Present emissions are almost 7 billion metric tons (Gton) per year?"

Is that what you meant?

Yes that's what I was trying to say.

That's about 1% of the amount of total CO2 in our atmosphere ever year.

Luckily the earth absorbs a fair amount of what we produce, but far from all of it...

180 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:27:11pm

The number I've seen is that humans produce about 26 billion metric tons of CO2 each year.

181 RogueOne  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:27:49pm

re: #176 Obdicut

That's close to my point. I know the planet is warming, I know the cause/effect of particulates, and I know our measurements get more and more accurate. I also know there are too many variables that we cannot even consider, because we don't understand them, to declare that GW is fully anthropogenic.

I gotta run Obdi, good chat.

182 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:28:41pm

re: #180 Charles

The number I've seen is that humans produce about 26 billion metric tons of CO2 each year.

That's fine, I was using james' link.... Trying to help him out...

183 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:28:57pm

re: #180 Charles

The number I've seen is that humans produce about 26 billion metric tons of CO2 each year.

Well the source I found via google was taking numbers from 10 years ago, and so I wouldn't be surprised if they continued to increase.

184 LotharBot  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:29:35pm

re: #175 really grumpy big dog Johnson

more than 5.5 pounds per person per day.

That's just not possible.

A gallon of gasoline weighs about 6 pounds, over 5 of which are Carbon. When it burns, the carbon combines with oxygen from the atmosphere to make CO2 -- close to 20 pounds per gallon of gasoline.

So for each person to be responsible for 5.5 pounds of CO2 per day, each person would only have to burn about 1/4 of a gallon of gasoline, or the equivalent. Driving to work, generating electricity, getting products you buy to the store... those all contribute. 5.5 pounds per day is high for people in undeveloped countries, but those of us in the developed world probably blow it away by the end of breakfast.

185 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:29:36pm

re: #180 Charles

It also varies if you're talking about the weight of the CO2 versus just the C-- both are used a measures, but CO2 is much much heavier than C.

re: #181 RogueOne

Nobody is claiming that it's 'fully anthropogenic'. What's being argued is that the massive amounts of CO2 we've put into atmosphere are forcing warming, as basic physics predicts and empirical evidence confirms.

186 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:29:57pm

re: #181 RogueOne

That's close to my point. I know the planet is warming, I know the cause/effect of particulates, and I know our measurements get more and more accurate. I also know there are too many variables that we cannot even consider, because we don't understand them, to declare that GW is fully anthropogenic.

I gotta run Obdi, good chat.

I have one big question for you "what does it matter if its not entirely anthropogenic" are you just being anti-semantic to make a point? Or do you feel that if its not 100% human caused we don't have to worry about it as much?

187 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:32:55pm

A quick fact from Wikipedia: human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.

35% is a huge increase when you're talking about the entire atmosphere of the planet.

188 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:34:18pm

re: #187 Charles

A quick fact from Wikipedia: human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.

35% is a huge increase when you're talking about the entire atmosphere of the planet.

Well can't get much more unvauge than that. Buck would you consider a 35% increase in CO2 in our atmosphere "A lot"?

189 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:35:25pm

re: #186 jamesfirecat

I have one big question for you "what does it matter if its not entirely anthropogenic" are you just being anti-semantic to make a point? Or do you feel that if its not 100% human caused we don't have to worry about it as much?

If, for example, a greater effect on GW is.... oh say... the Sun. And no matter what we do, we can't change the Sun.... then we need to know that BEFORE we start stringing up SUV owners... Right? Or if it is just a natural cycle that is just sooo long we can't recognize it due to a lack of VERY long term data (millions of years).

I am not saying that this is the case. I am sure that Scientists have ruled out the sun, and almost everything else that we can't control.... but I just want to point out that it is more than just semantics.

190 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:37:21pm

re: #189 Buck


I am not saying that this is the case. I am sure that Scientists have ruled out the sun, and almost everything else that we can't control... but I just want to point out that it is more than just semantics.

Great. So since they have, indeed, 'ruled out' (or rather, they always factored solar irradiance into their equations) the sun as the forcer, and since they are stating very, very clearly that AGW is real and occurring, what exactly is your disbelief founded in?

191 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:38:45pm

Since CO2 weighs more than air, and since we've added so much of it to the atmosphere, why are we still here...

And not dead?

(I suppose this doesn't count either.)

192 ryannon  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:38:45pm

Free feature-length Zionist Commie Illuminati propaganda color movie: Home, by Yann Arthus Bertrand. A bunch of sentimental clap-trap about Gaia, but pretty images and tons of belly-laughs at the obvious disinformation fail.

193 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:40:29pm

re: #191 really grumpy big dog Johnson

What is 'air'?

194 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:42:07pm

re: #191 really grumpy big dog Johnson

Since CO2 weighs more than air, and since we've added so much of it to the atmosphere, why are we still here...

And not dead?

(I suppose this doesn't count either.)

Chewbacca Defense!

[Link: tvtropes.org...]

195 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:48:12pm

re: #188 jamesfirecat

Well can't get much more unvauge than that. Buck would you consider a 35% increase in CO2 in our atmosphere "A lot"?

Well, you were using the term large... but it would matter what thefirst number was. A 35% increase in my salary would be large... but a 35% increase in my daughters allowance would be small.

The normal atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 0.038%. Is 135% of 0.038% a lot? I don't know. It might be if it was in my room... but on a planetary scale?... I mean it is a really big planet....maybe that increase is good for the forests, and plants... and they thrive and automatically control it. Crazier stuff has happened in Nature...

Maybe there have been fluctuations like that for millions of years.

Anyway... I am just saying things like "humans have been producing large a mounts of C02 lately..." might be a bit vague... Large amounts...7 tons, you might want to take more time to compose yourself. If you don't get an answer it just might be because the question is too open..

Again, I understand. Just making a suggestion to help you out.

196 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:50:11pm

re: #190 Obdicut

Great. So since they have, indeed, 'ruled out' (or rather, they always factored solar irradiance into their equations) the sun as the forcer, and since they are stating very, very clearly that AGW is real and occurring, what exactly is your disbelief founded in?

Which disbelief is that? I am not here for an argument.... I am here for hitting on the head lessons...

197 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:50:20pm

re: #195 Buck

Well, you were using the term large... but it would matter what thefirst number was. A 35% increase in my salary would be large... but a 35% increase in my daughters allowance would be small.

The normal atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 0.038%. Is 135% of 0.038% a lot? I don't know. It might be if it was in my room... but on a planetary scale?... I mean it is a really big planet...maybe that increase is good for the forests, and plants... and they thrive and automatically control it. Crazier stuff has happened in Nature...

Maybe there have been fluctuations like that for millions of years.

Anyway... I am just saying things like "humans have been producing large a mounts of C02 lately..." might be a bit vague... Large amounts...7 tons, you might want to take more time to compose yourself. If you don't get an answer it just might be because the question is too open..

Again, I understand. Just making a suggestion to help you out.

I'll bare that in mind.

Further more here would be the next part of my argument.


1) Do we see any reason to suspect that this trend of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to stop?

2) At what levels does it become dangerous, and I think Charles did a pretty good post on that a while back...

198 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:50:20pm

re: #195 Buck

Again, I understand. Just making a suggestion to help you out.

Oh, don't be coy.

199 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 1:52:28pm

re: #198 Obdicut

Oh, don't be coy.

Please? May I?

200 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:04:56pm

re: #197 jamesfirecat

I'll bare that in mind.

Further more here would be the next part of my argument.

1) Do we see any reason to suspect that this trend of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to stop?

2) At what levels does it become dangerous, and I think Charles did a pretty good post on that a while back...

ANY REASON? Well, lets see. Remembering that you are only asking about Carbon Dioxide...Carbon Dioxide is present in water in the form of a dissolved gas. It is absorbed and released in water. 2/3rds of our planet is water. The other third is almost half vegetation which converts carbon dioxide and light energy into various other things.

Do I think that these sources MIGHT feed from the additional CO2 and balance the greater output? Yes.

Remember you asked if I saw ANY reason to _suspect_ it. Really very open question...

Nature has developed mechanisms to regulate itself in the past. We can only study the small scale examples, but just because we don't understand the large scale versions, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Now please everyone, don't downding me for making this supposition. It is only an answer to a direct question.... Not putting down anyone... not saying anything about anyones citizenship....

201 bosforus  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:05:09pm
TIME: Why Cold Weather Doesn't Disprove Global Warming


The article aside, the word "winter" never crosses these people's minds?

202 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:08:52pm

re: #201 bosforus

The article aside, the word "winter" never crosses these people's minds?

Sure, but in their defense, a warmer summer would be used to argue the other side.

203 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:16:18pm

re: #200 Buck

ANY REASON? Well, lets see. Remembering that you are only asking about Carbon Dioxide...Carbon Dioxide is present in water in the form of a dissolved gas. It is absorbed and released in water. 2/3rds of our planet is water. The other third is almost half vegetation which converts carbon dioxide and light energy into various other things.

Do I think that these sources MIGHT feed from the additional CO2 and balance the greater output? Yes.

Remember you asked if I saw ANY reason to _suspect_ it. Really very open question...

Nature has developed mechanisms to regulate itself in the past. We can only study the small scale examples, but just because we don't understand the large scale versions, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Now please everyone, don't downding me for making this supposition. It is only an answer to a direct question... Not putting down anyone... not saying anything about anyones citizenship...

So you're suggesting that nature might kick in and start creating a lot more water dwelling plants to absorb the excess carbon in the atmosphere?

Wonderful, plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere and plenty of chemicals in the water from our other forms of pollution, Red Tides here we come!

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

204 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:16:55pm

re: #200 Buck

2/3 of the planet is not goddamn water. Jesus.

205 cgn38navy  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:17:44pm

Okay. Okay.
How many years of record snow and record cold temperatures would it take to prove that warming (and cooling) is cyclic? Just judging from the data and arguments put forth in this blog alone, if we had 30 years of lower temps, then Al Gore would cry uncle? What about 20 years? What about 10?

206 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:19:26pm

re: #205 cgn38navy

This is not about Al Gore. It's about a consensus of climate scientists.

207 cgn38navy  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:19:32pm

Loved that Al Gore line and couldn't resist. Credit to Senator Jim Demint.

208 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:19:41pm

re: #205 cgn38navy

Okay. Okay.
How many years of record snow and record cold temperatures would it take to prove that warming (and cooling) is cyclic? Just judging from the data and arguments put forth in this blog alone, if we had 30 years of lower temps, then Al Gore would cry uncle? What about 20 years? What about 10?

I invite you to disprove the greenhouse effect, or that humanity has been increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere just like everyone else present.

209 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:22:10pm

re: #203 jamesfirecat

So you're suggesting that nature might kick in and start creating a lot more water dwelling plants to absorb the excess carbon in the atmosphere?

Wonderful, plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere and plenty of chemicals in the water from our other forms of pollution, Red Tides here we come!

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

From you limited understanding of the process, I can see where you would get that conclusion.

210 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:24:06pm

re: #204 Obdicut

2/3 of the planet is not goddamn water. Jesus.

hehehe... you got me... I should have said 2/3rds of the planet is UNDER water... I didn't mean composed of water...

211 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:24:24pm

re: #209 Buck

From you limited understanding of the process, I can see where you would get that conclusion.

Well how do you see nature valiantly rising to our defense to keep the level of C02 in our atmosphere under control?

212 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:25:23pm

re: #205 cgn38navy

Okay. Okay.
How many years of record snow and record cold temperatures would it take to prove that warming (and cooling) is cyclic? Just judging from the data and arguments put forth in this blog alone, if we had 30 years of lower temps, then Al Gore would cry uncle? What about 20 years? What about 10?

If the planet climate turned around, he would say that he saved the planet... he (and all the scientists) get to be right either way...

213 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:27:16pm

re: #210 Buck

And it's completely irrelevant, as was most of your rambling-ass post.

214 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:29:23pm

re: #211 jamesfirecat

Well how do you see nature valiantly rising to our defense to keep the level of C02 in our atmosphere under control?

I was very clear on that. Reread my post and concentrate on the part where I say:

Nature has developed mechanisms to regulate itself in the past. We can only study the small scale examples, but just because we don't understand the large scale versions, doesn't mean they don't exist.

AGAIN, before you all down ding me, I am only answering the question "Do we see any reason to suspect that this trend of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to stop?"

Any reason to suspect.... and my answer is that nature has corrected inbalances before without our help, and (I have reason to suspect) MIGHT again.

215 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:30:29pm

re: #214 Buck

AGAIN, before you all down ding me, I am only answering the question "Do we see any reason to suspect that this trend of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to stop?"

Any reason to suspect... and my answer is that nature has corrected inbalances before without our help, and (I have reason to suspect) MIGHT again.

Nature has develope mechanisim to regulate itself in the past all right, but do you think it'll regulate itself to the degree and quick enough that we'll enjoy the experience, assuming we're still around to talk about it?

216 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:31:08pm

re: #213 Obdicut

And it's completely irrelevant, as was most of your rambling-ass post.

couldn't help yourself... you had to downding...

217 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:32:04pm

re: #215 jamesfirecat

Nature has develope mechanisim to regulate itself in the past all right, but do you think it'll regulate itself to the degree and quick enough that we'll enjoy the experience, assuming we're still around to talk about it?

I have reason to suspect so, yes.

218 bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:32:50pm

re: #211 jamesfirecat

Well how do you see nature valiantly rising to our defense to keep the level of C02 in our atmosphere under control?

Actually, there are well established CO2 sinks in nature, prominent of which are the oceans, vegetation, and the soil. So yes, nature does "valiantly" rise to our defence in this instance, as is well known, but poorly understood on a systemic level.

It is also highly likely that the Anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 will in fact top out and reduce, as Fossil fuels are likely limited in quantity on a cost adjusted basis contrasting their extraction with alternatives under development. It is impossible to claim that humans will still be reliant on fossil fuels in 100 years, as technology may have long delivered a more economical alternative by then.

219 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:33:29pm

re: #217 Buck

I have reason to suspect so, yes.

I'd rather not base our species chances for survival on your beliefs.

220 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:34:03pm

re: #219 jamesfirecat

I'd rather not base our species chances for survival on your beliefs.

Hey, you asked me.... I didn't ask you.

221 Obdicut  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:34:15pm

re: #214 Buck

Nature doesn't 'correct' imbalances, dude. There's no 'imbalance' according to nature. Nature is fine with CO2 increasing. It'll drive a lot of species into extinction, but a lot will thrive.

It's humans, who have trillions of investment in the current climate state of the world, who are going to get royally fucked.

Nature often 'corrects' by letting 95% of the species on earth die.

222 Buck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:36:05pm

re: #221 Obdicut

Nature doesn't 'correct' imbalances, dude. There's no 'imbalance' according to nature. Nature is fine with CO2 increasing. It'll drive a lot of species into extinction, but a lot will thrive.

It's humans, who have trillions of investment in the current climate state of the world, who are going to get royally fucked.

Nature often 'corrects' by letting 95% of the species on earth die.

Yep, that is one way to think about it... No doubt about it.

223 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:38:05pm

re: #220 Buck

Hey, you asked me... I didn't ask you.

If the worst counter argument my opponent can come up with is "I believe that nature will fix things for us" I think I'll do all right.

224 I Am Kreniigh!  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:38:54pm

There's an editorial cartoonist named Wayne Stayskal in Tampa who does the same global warming joke a few times a month -- it's cold out, so global warming is a hoax, but some 'believer' insists on going out in the snow in shorts. That sort of thing. For a while he was doing them almost weekly, but he's given it a rest lately.

Tampa, yeah. Florida. Right where you wanna be when climate change gets bad.

225 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:43:21pm

re: #215 jamesfirecat

Nature has develope mechanisim to regulate itself in the past all right, but do you think it'll regulate itself to the degree and quick enough that we'll enjoy the experience, assuming we're still around to talk about it?

None of us here will be alive to either suffer or benefit. We are talking about effects that are likely centuries in the future, if ever. It is questionable whether we will even fully understand the climate sufficiently to make accurate impact predictions within our lifetimes.

All the short term alarmist predictions have fallen by the way side and shown to be false, the next markers are at minimum 100 years out. Think of the state of technology and industry at the turn of the last century when horses were still the main form of transportation and the Model-T ford was still on the drawing board.

This idea that we have a crisis needing radical changes immediately is hype and alarmism. What we need to do is improve our knowledge over the next decade so we can establish if there is any actual problem to attend to take action on. Putting the cart before the horse in common in politics and the media, but it is generally a mistake with science and engineering.

226 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:46:59pm

re: #225 Bagua

None of us here will be alive to either suffer or benefit. We are talking about effects that are likely centuries in the future, if ever. It is questionable whether we will even fully understand the climate sufficiently to make accurate impact predictions within our lifetimes.

All the short term alarmist predictions have fallen by the way side and shown to be false, the next markers are at minimum 100 years out. Think of the state of technology and industry at the turn of the last century when horses were still the main form of transportation and the Model-T ford was still on the drawing board.

This idea that we have a crisis needing radical changes immediately is hype and alarmism. What we need to do is improve our knowledge over the next decade so we can establish if there is any actual problem to attend to take action on. Putting the cart before the horse in common in politics and the media, but it is generally a mistake with science and engineering.

What degree of certainty do you desire and how much are you okay with the government spending to achieve it?

227 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:53:18pm

And now for some truth and some science.

1. It is a fact that warmer water gives off more water vapor.

2. It is a fact that when great masses of water vapor get hit with cold arctic air in winter, there will be a great deal of precipitation.

3. What the deniers are claiming as proof against AGW is actually evidence of it.

Consider Baltimore, Washington and southern areas hit with more snow than in the north. Like in PA and NY.

This is not an accident. This is not a mystery. Baltimore, on the Chesapeake, and DC in a swamp are humid at the best of times. But with the warmer mid Atlantic, these low lying and by the water areas, have massive amounts more water vapor in winter than usual and hence there is a much more significant storm.

A few degrees makes a huge difference.

Do not believe the fools and liar on this blog, or anywhere who tell you that the effects of AGW are in some distant future. We are feeling them now, and I assure you that DC and Baltimore are currently shut down by these storms.

However, storms are going to get more and more frequent and they will have greater intensity. This is the science.

It gets vastly worse from here if we do not change course. It gets vastly worse in our lifetimes.

It gets intolerable in the 100 years.

228 ExCamelJockey  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:58:09pm

Pot, meet kettle.

One of the most ignorant talking points promoted by climate alarmists is that extreme weather is caused by global warming.

"We’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming."
-Al Gore on the Myanmar cyclone.

"THE HURRICANE that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming."
Katrina's real name

I'll give Danny Glover a pass on the Haiti earthquake and write it off to dementia.

229 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 2:58:27pm

Further the entire notion that we will not be alive to reap the benefits or detriments of AGW, "so who cares", is utterly immoral and evil. There is an issue of keeping our civilization intact and preventing the deaths of billions. To not care because you would rather burn oil and coal, than switch over to cleaner energy sources is the worst and most selfish thing I have ever heard. It condemns our society and our children to privations and horrors of biblical magnitude.

The science has not fallen by the wayside. That is a lie.

The evidence is stronger than ever. In fact Baltimore got five feet of snow as evidence of it.

Do not let yourself be fooled by the non scientists who have no proof, no data and no ability to open their eyes.

This is real and this is now. It is getting worse and the science tells us it will get vastly worse.

230 Varek Raith  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:00:21pm

re: #228 ExCamelJockey

Gee, showing up on a dead thread, where you believe no one will notice...
:P

231 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:01:26pm

re: #228 ExCamelJockey

So seriously read my 227 about increased water vapor. This is actually pretty easy to understand and then you won't have to parrot false talking points you read from the ignorant and the stupid.

232 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:04:39pm

re: #226 jamesfirecat

What degree of certainty do you desire and how much are you okay with the government spending to achieve it?

I'm happy to see funding increase for increasing our knowledge of Climate Science, and I'm happy to see the government provide that, as that is the sort of area I believe the government has a competence.

As to what degree of certainty? Ask me that when the AR5 is issued in 2014, until then I do not support any mitigation other than increasing research.

I also support some government funding for alternatives research, but not subsidy.

I approve of government subsidy of nuclear electricity plants, as it is a proven and economically realistic alternative.

As far as COP15 and Can and Trade, those should be shelved for a variety of reasons, regardless of to what extent you have faith in the theory of AGW, they will not help either way.

233 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:07:12pm

re: #232 Bagua

I'm happy to see funding increase for increasing our knowledge of Climate Science, and I'm happy to see the government provide that, as that is the sort of area I believe the government has a competence.

As to what degree of certainty? Ask me that when the AR5 is issued in 2014, until then I do not support any mitigation other than increasing research.

I also support some government funding for alternatives research, but not subsidy.

I approve of government subsidy of nuclear electricity plants, as it is a proven and economically realistic alternative.

As far as COP15 and Can and Trade, those should be shelved for a variety of reasons, regardless of to what extent you have faith in the theory of AGW, they will not help either way.

Remind me to talk to you again in four years then.

234 bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:09:06pm

re: #233 jamesfirecat

Remind me to talk to you again in four years then.

It's a deal.

235 bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:13:30pm

Also, don’t listen to hysterical false scientists who lie and exaggerate and distort the data to suit their personal beliefs. If they assert that everyone who doubts their nonsense is stupid, lying, immoral or evil, that should be your first clue that you are dealing with a religious fanatic, not a scientist.

236 imploder  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:21:28pm

re: #187 Charles

A quick fact from Wikipedia: human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation have caused the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to increase by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.

35% is a huge increase when you're talking about the entire atmosphere of the planet.

But, Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. An increase of 35% is infinitesimally small in the context of the .0360% of the atmosphere the CO2 comprises.

There was a period on earth (the Ordovician Ice Age during the mid-Carboniferous period) when C02 was 12 times what it is today, and yet the earth was in a deep freeze. How can this be if greenhouse theory is correct? I'm not saying that climate does not change, only that we (as in mankind) is in no way in dominion over the manifold factors that could cause the climate to shift.

Certainly the science is not settled.

237 Feline Fearless Leader  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:23:37pm
238 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:25:35pm

re: #236 imploder

But, Carbon Dioxide is a trace gas in the atmosphere. An increase of 35% is infinitesimally small in the context of the .0360% of the atmosphere the CO2 comprises.

There was a period on earth (the Ordovician Ice Age during the mid-Carboniferous period) when C02 was 12 times what it is today, and yet the earth was in a deep freeze. How can this be if greenhouse theory is correct? I'm not saying that climate does not change, only that we (as in mankind) is in no way in dominion over the manifold factors that could cause the climate to shift.

Certainly the science is not settled.

Simple answer for your statement, C02 is not the only factor in out atmosphere that effects the temperature of the earth.

Do you really dispute the idea of green house gasses?

239 imploder  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:27:47pm

re: #238 jamesfirecat

I dispute the conventional wisdom of it, yes. We're talking an order of magnitude that cannot be ignored. This period of the Earth (Quartennary) finds the globe relatively starved of CO2 when compared to its history.

240 Varek Raith  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:28:39pm

re: #236 imploder

什么
Wat
Ce qui
Was
Τι
Che cosa
Nante
Which all translates to;
What????

241 Varek Raith  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:30:02pm

re: #239 imploder

Wow...umm...wow.

242 imploder  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:30:06pm

re: #240 Varek Raith

Puedo responderles en Espan~ol si prefieren.

243 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:30:40pm

re: #239 imploder

I dispute the conventional wisdom of it, yes. We're talking an order of magnitude that cannot be ignored. This period of the Earth (Quartennary) finds the globe relatively starved of CO2 when compared to its history.

Well then thank you for clearing that up.

244 Varek Raith  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:32:10pm

re: #242 imploder

Puedo responderles en Espan~ol si prefieren.

Why? It'll still be wrong.
;)

245 iceweasel  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:50:13pm

re: #235 bagua

I see what you did there.
Uncool.

246 Unakite  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 3:51:36pm

re: #227 ludwigvanquixote

And now for some truth and some science.

1. It is a fact that warmer water gives off more water vapor.

2. It is a fact that when great masses of water vapor get hit with cold arctic air in winter, there will be a great deal of precipitation.

3. What the deniers are claiming as proof against AGW is actually evidence of it.

Consider Baltimore, Washington and southern areas hit with more snow than in the north. Like in PA and NY.

This is not an accident. This is not a mystery. Baltimore, on the Chesapeake, and DC in a swamp are humid at the best of times. But with the warmer mid Atlantic, these low lying and by the water areas, have massive amounts more water vapor in winter than usual and hence there is a much more significant storm.

A few degrees makes a huge difference.

Do not believe the fools and liar on this blog, or anywhere who tell you that the effects of AGW are in some distant future. We are feeling them now, and I assure you that DC and Baltimore are currently shut down by these storms.

However, storms are going to get more and more frequent and they will have greater intensity. This is the science.

It gets vastly worse from here if we do not change course. It gets vastly worse in our lifetimes.

It gets intolerable in the 100 years.

This is a very interesting comment. Much of this thread has discussed how individual weather events are not proof of global warming one way or the other (even though both sides make the claim). Your comment implies that these recent storms are in fact (or at least could be) caused by global warming.

247 robdouth  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:11:38pm

re: #227 ludwigvanquixote

I think this is the reason you see people making the foolish points against AGW by citing weather. Unfortunately people pointed (used to be worse, it's cleaning up significantly on the pro-science side) to hurricanes and isolated storms or the slight increase of weather events (not climate events) as some kind of anecdotal evidence for AGW. I agree with Charles that it's foolish, but the blame for that belongs on those people who pointed at every heat-wave as a proof of global warming, or those who said Katrina was the direct result of global warming. I know they meant well and wanted to create awareness for the effects of AGW, but they hurt the cause of rational scientific results being the main debating tool for prooving AGW. They set back the cause, and opened the door for every record low temperature to be cited as evidence against warming.

248 robdouth  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:16:15pm

re: #245 iceweasel

If he's making a snide comments about AGW supporting scientists, it's not cool, but as a general non-sequitir statement it's reasonable. The problem is, it seems a little too fishy to be the latter. If the statements about manipulating science were to show up on a creationism thread, while not directly attributed to creationism, his recs would blow up.

249 iceweasel  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:19:58pm

re: #248 robdouth

If he's making a snide comments about AGW supporting scientists, it's not cool, but as a general non-sequitir statement it's reasonable. The problem is, it seems a little too fishy to be the latter. If the statements about manipulating science were to show up on a creationism thread, while not directly attributed to creationism, his recs would blow up.

He's baiting another poster here who he has previously accused of not being a real scientist, among other even worse accusations and slurs.
And yes, the shit that gets flung in AGW threads would immediately be beaten down on a creationist thread. There's quite a bit of overlap in the two camps-- it's just that the anti-science folks here now have learned not to do that about creationism.

This particular person however is not, I believe, any sort of creationist. The 'uncool' is about his continuing slander of another poster.

250 robdouth  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:23:22pm

re: #43 jamesfirecat

I think the better argument is to explain why CO2 is a pollutant. Considering the change was from status quo of it not being one, the onus for explanation is on those who think it's a good idea to change it's status to pollutant. Unfortunately I think moves like calling CO2 a pollutant do too much to politicize it and take it out of the sphere of science. It becomes the butt of jokes, and begs idiotic responses like "Co2 helps plants grow, how can it be a pollutant." and some such nonsense. It's too convoluted because the explanation of why CO2 could be considered a pollutant above a certain point is far more complex than say an actual pollutant which is unhealthy at any levels, but is far worse at higher levels. Given there is safe levels of CO2, it's misleading to call it a pollutant because calling it a pollutant makes it seem like there is nothing good about CO2 or that it's dangerous in any context, when it's very helpful in some contexts.

251 robdouth  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:24:40pm

re: #249 iceweasel

well that's a horse of a different color. If it's being used specifically to bait someone, that's crap. I always try to give the benefit of the doubt, but a pattern of idiocy is evidence enough for me.

252 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:30:57pm

re: #246 Unakite

Let me reply seriously to your comment. This is actually important and a lot of lizards on this thread seem to be a little confused by it.

So first off, it is absolutely correct that weather is not climate and that individual weather events in of themselves do not constitute proof for or against AGW.

There are simply too many confounding factors when talking about an individual event.

However, climate science is about the trends.

We predict that there will be more and more storms of greater magnitude for a period. We can not predict that there will be such and such a storm on such and such a day, however, we know for a fact that there are going to be more and bigger ones over the long term.

The fact that for a period of time the north east would have harsher winters due to the warming shifting ocean currents has been predicted for some years and has been discussed here by me many times. This is not new.

The science behind it as a trend is actually simple. More water vapor in the air means more intense storms when bodies of hot and cold air collide. Shifting currents means more warm water amongst many other things.

The analogy is like cigarettes and lung cancer. Someone who smoked as an individual, may have gotten cancer from something else. There are too many confounding factors when you talk about an individual case. However, over the trend of looking at many smokers, it becomes clear that the there will be more cancer. The science there is simple too. Cigarettes have many chemicals in them that cause mutations. the mutations accumulate and the more one smokes the more chance one has for a cancerous mutation.

So again, there are more hurricanes and blizzards as a trend. They are more intense and more frequent and the winters in the Eastern US will get colder overall. This is what was predicted, and this is what we are seeing.

253 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:33:04pm

re: #249 iceweasel

He's baiting another poster here who he has previously accused of not being a real scientist, among other even worse accusations and slurs.
And yes, the shit that gets flung in AGW threads would immediately be beaten down on a creationist thread. There's quite a bit of overlap in the two camps-- it's just that the anti-science folks here now have learned not to do that about creationism.

This particular person however is not, I believe, any sort of creationist. The 'uncool' is about his continuing slander of another poster.

Well that and as usual, he comes out with strong blanket calims about the science, but never a single paper or journal article or bit of data to back up his wild claims. He then goes on to arrogantly presume that he knows what science is - in the absence of data, which is where science begins and ends - and gets pissy and calls others false, while pretending falsely to be reasonable.

254 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:33:54pm

re: #250 robdouth

I think the better argument is to explain why CO2 is a pollutant. Considering the change was from status quo of it not being one, the onus for explanation is on those who think it's a good idea to change it's status to pollutant. Unfortunately I think moves like calling CO2 a pollutant do too much to politicize it and take it out of the sphere of science. It becomes the butt of jokes, and begs idiotic responses like "Co2 helps plants grow, how can it be a pollutant." and some such nonsense. It's too convoluted because the explanation of why CO2 could be considered a pollutant above a certain point is far more complex than say an actual pollutant which is unhealthy at any levels, but is far worse at higher levels. Given there is safe levels of CO2, it's misleading to call it a pollutant because calling it a pollutant makes it seem like there is nothing good about CO2 or that it's dangerous in any context, when it's very helpful in some contexts.

Ahem

[Link: www.google.com...]

"A foreign substance that makes something dirty, or impure, especially with waste from human activities"

When we introduce massive amounts of CO2 into ecosystems we see animals dieing because of it.

How does CO2 not fit the above definition?

Or maybe this one?

pollutants - unwanted chemicals or other materials found in the air. Pollutants can harm health, the environment and property. ...

Though to be fair here's probably what you were getting at...

"Strictly, too much of any substance in the wrong place or at the wrong time is a pollutant. More specifically, atmospheric pollution may be defined as the presence of substances in the atmosphere, resulting from man-made activities or from natural processes that cause adverse effects ..."

255 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:46:04pm

re: #249 iceweasel

No, what is uncool is that you do not notice that I was baited first, which is typical of you.

256 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:46:49pm

re: #253 LudwigVanQuixote

Of course that is utterly false, but it is pointless trying to reason with you as you are so emotional and unbalanced by anger.

257 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:50:30pm

re: #256 Bagua

Of course that is utterly false, but it is pointless trying to reason with you as you are so emotional and unbalanced by anger.

Excuse me, you claimed incorrectly that the science was a lie, with no data to back yourself or your ridiculous false claims up. You spout nonsense without evidence and get pissy when called on it. You then get all passive aggressive and claim that I am unbalanced by anger. Not at all. YOu are too pathetic to be angry at.

The rules are simple.

You made several false claims.

You have no data to back yourself up with.

You do not get to claim any science or reasonability at all in your shenanigans.

Past that, you have been told not address me.

258 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:52:09pm

re: #248 robdouth

If he's making a snide comments about AGW supporting scientists, it's not cool, but as a general non-sequitir statement it's reasonable. The problem is, it seems a little too fishy to be the latter. If the statements about manipulating science were to show up on a creationism thread, while not directly attributed to creationism, his recs would blow up.

I was specifically referring to Ludwig's baiting by referring to me as 'fools and liar on this blog'. He is unable to discuss AGW without resort to insults and anger, typical of an unbalanced fanatic. There are dozens of prior threads which demonstrate this conclusively. If he had ignored me and not started, I would not have responded in kind.

259 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:55:42pm

re: #257 LudwigVanQuixote

Excuse me, you claimed incorrectly that the science was a lie, with no data to back yourself or your ridiculous false claims up. You spout nonsense without evidence and get pissy when called on it. You then get all passive aggressive and claim that I am unbalanced by anger. Not at all. YOu are too pathetic to be angry at.

The rules are simple.

You made several false claims.

You have no data to back yourself up with.

You do not get to claim any science or reasonability at all in your shenanigans.

Past that, you have been told not address me.

Ludwig,

I'm always ready to have a sensible discussion about our divergent points of view if you are willing to put aside the insults. I can support every assertion I make, your denial notwithstanding. Beyond that, I would have been happy to ignore you, but you were obviously taking a swipe at me above.

For my part, I don't enjoy the hostility at all an apologise for adding to it, but it is your choice moving forward. We can either have civil discussions or ignore each other and make separate points, but don't take thinly veiled swipes at me and expect me not to answer.

260 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 4:57:51pm

I am entertained by whiny deniers who ignore the part about them calling the science a lie. It ignores the lie they told when you said that the evidence for AGW has been disproves or gone away. It ignores all of your lies.

As usual, how can one expect science from one who can not even look at evidence from his own hand not an hour old?

Again. Real science has facts, data, mechanisms and mathematics behind it. It is written up by actual scientists in actual journals. It is not the ravings of pundits or blog losers.

261 [deleted]  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 5:01:12pm
262 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 5:01:21pm

re: #257 LudwigVanQuixote

I'll make this one limited exception.

Excuse me, you claimed incorrectly that the science was a lie, with no data to back yourself or your ridiculous false claims up.

I've never made that claim, that is false.

You spout nonsense without evidence and get pissy when called on it. You then get all passive aggressive and claim that I am unbalanced by anger. Not at all. YOu are too pathetic to be angry at.

Dozens of prior threads prove you become unbalanced with anger, I am only one person who your direct this anger towards.

The rules are simple.

You made several false claims.

You can not cite a single false claim I have made, nor have you ever. You just keep repeating this with zero back-up.

You have no data to back yourself up with.

Again, you are never able to point to these imaginary 'false claims' you go on about. I don't start ignoring you until you start the insults. Debate in a civil manner and you may be proven right, but to date, that has not occurred.

You do not get to claim any science or reasonability at all in your shenanigans.

I say the same to you.

Past that, you have been told not address me.

Again, then don't bait me with insults directed at me. I'll address whom I please otherwise, but would be happy to ignore you on a personal level considering your behaviour. Your choice, really.

263 Unakite  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 5:02:47pm

re: #252 LudwigVanQuixote

Let me reply seriously to your comment. This is actually important and a lot of lizards on this thread seem to be a little confused by it.

So first off, it is absolutely correct that weather is not climate and that individual weather events in of themselves do not constitute proof for or against AGW.

There are simply too many confounding factors when talking about an individual event.

However, climate science is about the trends.

We predict that there will be more and more storms of greater magnitude for a period. We can not predict that there will be such and such a storm on such and such a day, however, we know for a fact that there are going to be more and bigger ones over the long term.

The fact that for a period of time the north east would have harsher winters due to the warming shifting ocean currents has been predicted for some years and has been discussed here by me many times. This is not new.

The science behind it as a trend is actually simple. More water vapor in the air means more intense storms when bodies of hot and cold air collide. Shifting currents means more warm water amongst many other things.

The analogy is like cigarettes and lung cancer. Someone who smoked as an individual, may have gotten cancer from something else. There are too many confounding factors when you talk about an individual case. However, over the trend of looking at many smokers, it becomes clear that the there will be more cancer. The science there is simple too. Cigarettes have many chemicals in them that cause mutations. the mutations accumulate and the more one smokes the more chance one has for a cancerous mutation.

So again, there are more hurricanes and blizzards as a trend. They are more intense and more frequent and the winters in the Eastern US will get colder overall. This is what was predicted, and this is what we are seeing.

I updinged you and thank you for a serious reply. There can be agreement on the general science and disagreement and certain details. That's called interpretation and some people interpret the data differently.

264 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 5:03:49pm

re: #261 LudwigVanQuixote

Do not address me. Do not lie about the science. Do not make false blanket statements. Do not enter into a science discussion without facts and data that you actually understand. Do not pretend to know science.

Do not be so rude arrogant and cowardly.

No one is fooled by your games.

Let me repeat because you really are too stupid to get it.

You lie about something that will kill billions. You call that alarmist and false and call actual scientists names in a pissy fit when you are called on it. You then, in a cowardly and unmanly manner try to make yourself sound all reasonable.

You are a fraud.

You are a liar.

You are scum.

I detest you.

Do not talk to me.

Douchebag.


Typical. Immediate confirmation of my assertion that you are unbalanced emotionally and quite hysterical.

You lack the professional ethics to be a scientist or an educator, as you prove with your own words.

265 Bagua  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 5:05:06pm

I see the dingbat sycophants are active, as usual, how amusing.

266 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 5:05:08pm

re: #263 Unakite

I updinged you and thank you for a serious reply. There can be agreement on the general science and disagreement and certain details. That's called interpretation and some people interpret the data differently.

Thank you for the upding.

However, there really is no room for interpretation on the following facts:

1. Warmer water means more water vapor.

2. Water vapor when hit with cold air precipitates.

267 Unakite  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 5:10:22pm

re: #266 LudwigVanQuixote

Thank you for the upding.

However, there really is no room for interpretation on the following facts:

1. Warmer water means more water vapor.

2. Water vapor when hit with cold air precipitates.

Yes, and I didn't question those facts. Although I'm not in D.C. (or Philadelphia or New York), I have experienced the results of a warm, moist air mass encountering cold air mass.

268 mvanvleck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 6:05:05pm

re: #43 jamesfirecat

"why don't you consider CO2 a pollutant?"
Simply put, C02 is the basis of carbon-based life on this planet. Without CO2, all the plants would die. Animals, ourselves included, exhale CO2 and could not live without doing so. The only other product of complete combustion is H20 which is several thousand times as potent a greenhouse gas as C02. If C02 is a pollutant, than water is certainly far more dangerous. When the weatherman predicts the nightly low temps he uses cloud cover (water vapor) as the most significant variable. More water vapor yields higher temps and vice-versa. Never will you here the weatherman say "tonight the atmospheric C02 is up to 263 ppb from 258 ppb this afternoon....I'm predicting that will contribute to unseasonably warm temps this evening. Sulfur dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Mercury, Cadmium....all polutants. C02 is the backbone of life.

269 mvanvleck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 6:16:32pm

re: #58 jamesfirecat

Venus is actually the second planet in the solar system and is roughly 42,000,000 km closer to the sun......

270 worknhard  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 6:19:09pm

Why is it that when there is record breaking high temperatures in the summer the AWG alarmists claim it's because of climate change, But when AWG skeptics say that cold and snowy winters dispute AWG the alarmists say that it's just localized weather and/or proof of climate change?

Everything is proof of AGW.

271 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 6:24:21pm

re: #270 worknhard

Why is it that when there is record breaking high temperatures in the summer the AWG alarmists claim it's because of climate change, But when AWG skeptics say that cold and snowy winters dispute AWG the alarmists say that it's just localized weather and/or proof of climate change?

Everything is proof of AGW.

Well as was explained many times here...

Warmer water in the oceans means more water vapor which means more severe storms when that water vapor gets hit by cold air.

Everything is proof for warming because...

1. The warming is everywhere. It is a global problem and there is endless evidence for it.

2. The science is clear and the deniers are betting against the data, the evidence and the science. That was a bad bet for the pope when faced with Gallilleo and it is a bad bet for you too.

272 mvanvleck  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 6:26:31pm

re: #101 Buck

"any similarity between the news report of what happened and what actually happened is purely coincidental."

273 worknhard  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 6:36:17pm

re: #271 LudwigVanQuixote

OK, where is all this "endless evidence" that "the warming is everywhere"?

Tell that to all of the death and destruction of wildlife in Florida.

Where is all this "science is clear"?

I don't think it's clear one way or the other yet. Politics has clouded the issue and made it impossible to make a sound and reasoned judgment.

274 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 6:39:46pm

re: #273 worknhard

OK, where is all this "endless evidence" that "the warming is everywhere"?

Tell that to all of the death and destruction of wildlife in Florida.

Where is all this "science is clear"?

I don't think it's clear one way or the other yet. Politics has clouded the issue and made it impossible to make a sound and reasoned judgment.

Really... you could look at actual science papers with the data and the evidence you know? Then you would know for yourself.

Try this to start. It is a complete freshman level course on the subject from UCSD. It will take you about four hours to read all the discussions.

[Link: earthguide.ucsd.edu...]

275 worknhard  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 6:46:53pm

re: #274 ludwigvanquixote

Thanks for directing me to a biased site who is politically motivated to push the AGW agenda. Where's the real hard core data? I'd like to know. Really.

276 freetoken  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 6:49:09pm

re: #275 worknhard

Thanks for directing me to a biased site who is politically motivated to push the AGW agenda. Where's the real hard core data? I'd like to know. Really.

If you really wanted to know, you could find online more information about climate than you could possibly consume.

If you really wanted to know....

277 worknhard  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 7:03:15pm

re: #276 freetoken

Why don't you address the fact that I was directed to a source that was biased toward AGW. Give me some unbiased links to the "endless evidence" of "warming everywhere". When ever someone asks where is all of this evidence, the reply is all way's go on line and find all the information "you could possibly consume".

Where is it?

278 Charles Johnson  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 7:07:20pm

re: #268 mvanvleck

Another sleeper awakes.

279 freetoken  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 7:14:49pm

re: #277 worknhard

You're old enough to feed yourself.

Frankly, though, if you are unwilling to listen to what university scientists who work in the field (such as those to which LVQ directed you) then it is unlikely that you will listen to anyone who actually knows about that of which they are writing.

280 amrafel  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 9:10:06pm

According to DirectorBlue, the folks at Time magazine changed their headlines from: "Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change" to "Another Blizzard: What Happened to Global Warming?"
See: [Link: directorblue.blogspot.com...]

The argument that a severe winter is proof that global warming is false is indeed stupid. However, I've seen several GW defenders go far as to say that a mild winter is proof of global warming (or even that a bad winter is proof of global warming. Fortunately, the Time article points this out when it says, "Ultimately, however, it's a mistake to use any one storm — or even a season's worth of storms — to disprove climate change (or to prove it; some environmentalists have wrongly tied the lack of snow in Vancouver, the site of the Winter Olympic Games, which begin this week, to global warming)." Mr. Johnson, if I've missed your criticism of such environmentalists, I apologize, but I look forward to seeing them.

281 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:25:39pm

re: #269 mvanvleck

Venus is actually the second planet in the solar system and is roughly 42,000,000 km closer to the sun...

Dude, did you bother to read the thread where I talked about how I meant to say that Venus is further from the sun than Mercury but has a hotter surface temperature?

282 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:28:51pm

re: #268 mvanvleck

"why don't you consider CO2 a pollutant?"
Simply put, C02 is the basis of carbon-based life on this planet. Without CO2, all the plants would die. Animals, ourselves included, exhale CO2 and could not live without doing so. The only other product of complete combustion is H20 which is several thousand times as potent a greenhouse gas as C02. If C02 is a pollutant, than water is certainly far more dangerous. When the weatherman predicts the nightly low temps he uses cloud cover (water vapor) as the most significant variable. More water vapor yields higher temps and vice-versa. Never will you here the weatherman say "tonight the atmospheric C02 is up to 263 ppb from 258 ppb this afternoon...I'm predicting that will contribute to unseasonably warm temps this evening. Sulfur dioxide, Nitrogen Dioxide, Mercury, Cadmium...all polutants. C02 is the backbone of life.

Dude, did you read the post I made where I gave various ways of describing what a pollutant is?

And if C02 is the backbone of life, you're welcome to have every bit of it that I exhale.

283 jamesfirecat  Wed, Feb 10, 2010 11:37:58pm

By the way "Skandal" I don't bite, you can come out and tell me why I'm wrong rather than just down dinging me.

284 jmmejzz  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 4:05:59am

Pretty lame using "Time" as a reference for anything serious.

285 Right Brain  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 5:54:26am

"Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?"

Richard Pryor

286 Jimbouie  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 6:40:09am

re: #23 jdog29

How hot was the core of the Earth during the past decade compared to the trends over the last 3 million years? //

Several million degrees, according to climate prophet Algore.

287 MKELLY  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 6:54:50am

re: #274 ludwigvanquixote

The below is a quote from the first paragraph about carbon dioxide of the link. It is false. Water vapor has the highest concentration. If what you want us to read cannot get a simple thing like this right why should we trust the remainder of the link.

Since carbon dioxide has the highest concentration of all the greenhouse gases and is the most likely to cause us problems in the very near future, it is the greenhouse gas that has received the most attention in the debate over global warming.

288 Peter2Feathers  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 8:18:06am

Hellooo. Anybody out here still? I guess the skeptics win then (according to the Chewbaccca Defense). LOL. Just stirring things up.

289 fullroller  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 8:48:12am

I just don' get it...
Several yars ago, the increase in hurricanes was due to global warming.
Two years later, the lack of hurricanes was due to global warming.
The dry and warmer conditions in the northeast over that last few years were due to global warming.
And now, a reversal of those conditions are due to global warming.

You guys can't have it both ways! It just doesn't pass the smell test!

290 Buck  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 8:50:38am

re: #223 jamesfirecat

If the worst counter argument my opponent can come up with is "I believe that nature will fix things for us" I think I'll do all right.

That is not what I said. But thank you for showing how you RUSH, and once again fail to actually understand.

You asked if I could see any reason to suspect that this trend of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to stop. I answered yes, and I gave a reason for my suspicion. We know very little about the biosphere we call earth. It has adapted to changes before, and I have reason to suspect it will again.

291 Buck  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 9:11:13am

re: #282 jamesfirecat

Dude, did you read the post I made where I gave various ways of describing what a pollutant is?

And if C02 is the backbone of life, you're welcome to have every bit of it that I exhale.

CO2 is not a "foreign substance" in the atmosphere. In fact the whole greenhouse effect is about having CO2 in the atmosphere.

Nor is CO2 an "unwanted chemical(s) or other material(s) found in the air".
Again, we depend on it.

Now maybe the definition of CO2 is a pollutant,
"Strictly, too much of any substance in the wrong place or at the wrong time" might work for you, but it is once again incredibly vague and open.
It convenient, as it can be anything...

I am against di-hydrogen Oxide. It is a chemical that causes deaths in humans (when there is too much of it) all the time.... It is used as a flame retardant AND they use it as an industrial cleanser in most restaurants....

292 freetoken  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 9:14:41am

They never fail to come out of the woodwork on topics like these. If Charles could only put his formula in a can he could give these guys a run for the money.

293 joest73  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 10:15:22am

You can't fault the growing number of people that aren't buying into
the global warming....climate change theory.

How have scientists shifted to predicting the next ice age in the 70's to global warming in the 80's and 90's to the catch-all term climate change this last decade?

Sure it is silly to look out the window and say that what you see out the window is proof that global warming doesn't exist. Maybe..just maybe the short period of time that scientists have collected data on the global warming theory is no more valid that the person looking out the window...

I for one don't want our economy turned upside down yet for what many still aren't sure is as dire a situation as the alarmists have proclaimed.

294 fullroller  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 11:13:22am

re: #293 joest73

Wow, 2 down-dings for a reasoned, well thought out response. Unbelievable what these people will stoop to. Remembver, "the debate is over!" - algore...

295 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 1:45:53pm

re: #294 fullroller

re: #293 joest73

re: #291 Buck

Repeating the same old canards, that were debunked here and a dozen other places does not make them any more correct.

The reason that water vapor is not listed as a GHG in these discussions is not that it is ignored. It is because water precipitates whereas things like methane and CO2 stay in the air for years or even centuries. Water is a feedback not a forcing.

Read the science and understand it for once. This has been explained many many times.

The site that was called biased - is an online course from a major research center into the field put together by two professors who are active researchers in the field. The only bias is towards the truth. When one makes a political stand based on bad science, they become shocked that the truth develops a "liberal" bias.

Read the science and understand it for once. This has been explained many many times.

The canard that CO2 is good for you and not a pollutant is a remarkable oversimplification to the point of stupidity. Water is good for you - unless you are drowning. Any substance in the wrong quantity or circumstance can be lethal. That includes oxygen and nitrogen as well.

Read the science and understand it for once. This has been explained many many times.

Finally, there is no "debate" there are no two sides between politically motivated ignorance and pseudo science on the one side and actual science with data, facts and mathematics on the other. The denier side is not equal. It is the height of arrogance for a bunch of untrained folks from the web to dare to presume that they, or whatever right wing propaganda blog put out by other non-scientists is somehow equal to actual science or that they deserve to be seen as equally rational in something that is not yet settled. They deserve only the exact same response as flat earthers and anti-evolutionists.

The arrogance of this is endlessly insulting. One does not walk into an operating room and tell the surgeon how to cut if one is not a surgeon themselves. This is because lives are at stake and you don't let some web fool tell you that for political reasons the preferred treatment for back ache is leg amputation. In the case of AGW, billions of lives are at stake as well as our entire civilization as we know it.

296 cgn38navy  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 1:53:32pm

re: #207 cgn38navy

re: #206 Obdicut

Seriously? You down dinged me for a humorous comment? You take yourself and your science way too seriously. Again I am reminded of South Park - otters of science.

297 cgn38navy  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 1:59:16pm

re: #295 LudwigVanQuixote

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Actually, there is a debate. And I would walk into an emergancy room and tell a surgeon not to do something if I felt strongly enough about it. Especially if I didn't think it was an actual emergancy.
Try not to get emotional.

298 MKELLY  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 2:01:14pm

re: #295 LudwigVanQuixote

Due to the presence of certain “greenhouse gases” that trap heat, like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and CFC’s, the atmosphere retains the sun’s radiation and warms up the planet.

This is a qoute from your link. Now you say water vapor is not a green house gas but a forcing agent. They say it is a green house gas. Which is it?

299 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 2:02:32pm

re: #297 cgn38navy

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Actually, there is a debate. And I would walk into an emergancy room and tell a surgeon not to do something if I felt strongly enough about it. Especially if I didn't think it was an actual emergancy.
Try not to get emotional.

Right... the false list of many non scientists and many others who did not agree to have their names put on it, published by a political action group.

That utter garbage has been exposed here a dozen times and yet you still breathlessly bring it as if you have something. It is no different that the false list of "scientists" who oppose evolution.

It's at this point that I have to ask what motivates someone like you. You have been here a long time. You know that what you bring is a lie. Yet, you still bring it.

Why would you do something so dishonest and stupid?

300 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 2:07:00pm

re: #298 MKELLY

Due to the presence of certain “greenhouse gases” that trap heat, like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and CFC’s, the atmosphere retains the sun’s radiation and warms up the planet.

This is a qoute from your link. Now you say water vapor is not a green house gas but a forcing agent. They say it is a green house gas. Which is it?

Ohhh you are an idiot. Of course it absorbs IR and acts as a GHG.

The point is that it is a forcing agent and a response to warmer temperatures. It is a feedback. It is not a primary driver. You played fast and loose with the language of the site by cherry picking the site before when you bitched about talking too much about CO2. I explained why for about the tenth time to you.

Now you have the balls to pull this shit.

Why are you purposefully being so stupid, willfully blind and insulting? Your word games are not science. Your bullshit is not science and you arrogant and presumptive attitude of looking for false gotchas, rather than the actual science itself is obnoxious.

Read the science. Learn the science. Then you will not say such stupid things.

301 cgn38navy  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 2:31:16pm

re: #299 LudwigVanQuixote

That list hasn't been proven anything to my satisfaction. Just because YOU say they aren't scientists doesn't make it so, despite your name calling and arrogance. I still don't believe that the sky is falling and I haven't been convinced otherwise. I've been here a while because there used to be honest debate here and the people and posts here used to be concerned about the same things I'm concerned about and I thought this place was pretty moderate. As far as me being dishonest and stupid, well, I guess you know it all, don't you? Good for you, smart guy.

302 rjpv  Thu, Feb 11, 2010 8:32:06pm

Good point, Charles. Have you noticed how every winter global warming is disproven, and then every summer it will kill us all in a matter of years?

303 MKELLY  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 7:12:11am

re: #300 LudwigVanQuixote

Ohhh you are an idiot. Of course it absorbs IR and acts as a GHG.

The point is that it is a forcing agent and a response to warmer temperatures. It is a feedback. It is not a primary driver. You played fast and loose with the language of the site by cherry picking the site before when you bitched about talking too much about CO2. I explained why for about the tenth time to you.

Now you have the balls to pull this shit.

Why are you purposefully being so stupid, willfully blind and insulting? Your word games are not science. Your bullshit is not science and you arrogant and presumptive attitude of looking for false gotchas, rather than the actual science itself is obnoxious.

Read the science. Learn the science. Then you will not say such stupid things.

So it is a GHG. Then I was correct about your link stating falsely that CO2 has the highest concentration of the GHG's. When in fact it is water vapor.

The point was to show you that your links are not very useful if they don't have facts, are inconsistant (as I demonstrated with this one), and use language that is against the laws of physics, like "trap heat". As a physicist you know that is impossible.

You've never explained anything to me ten times. I have never insulted you nor anyone else so retract your statement. As a retired naval officer and a Mason that is against what I hold as honorable.

Let's you and I debate man made global warming.

304 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Feb 12, 2010 2:26:23pm

re: #303 MKELLY

Then don't dishonor either the navy or the masons with such foolish word games.

For the eleventh time:

Water vapor s not treated as a GHG like CO2 or the others because it precipitates out of the atmosphere if it gets cold. Once it does that, it is not contributing to the warming. CO2 is up there for centuries warming the planet whether the planet is hot or cold.

Warmer temperatures caused by more CO2 mean more water vapor. It is a feedback and not a forcing as a driver. Therefore, it is not listed as a GHG like CO2 because when we talk about GHG, we are talking about drivers and forgings.

If you ever took the time to honestly and legitimately read the science more than a paragraph at a time for some false sense of "gotcha" which you never actually have, you would understand that and not say such obnoxious things over and over.

Read the science and stop wasting my time.

Billions of lives are at stake and you think that by dishonoring the Navy and the Masons by being an obnoxious, stupid prat, you are being helpful or clever.

305 nopeace4traitors  Sat, Feb 13, 2010 8:30:01pm

Am I the only one who sees the big pic here? A site that regularly attacks ignorant religious zealots (rightly) is 100% behind a quasi religion that calls heretics "deniers", warns of the impending doom of mankind unless salvation isn't purchased in the form of carbon credits ect, holds an increasingly suspect UN document up as the one TRUE WORD with which to smite the non believers (IPCC said it, I believe it, end of discussion!)

As for this tit for tat childishness about snow storms and hurricanes ect...why not just come right out and give the new religion a name? that way we can forego all this and just attribute every weather incident to the hand of the Lord Almighty CLIMATE! PBUH

If only we hadn't invented fire and pointy sticks, the mammoth would still roam free across a frozen North American continent. Shame on us for ending the ice age. SHAME ON US!


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh