Climate change ?

[zuben el genub]

The past is an indication of the future. Look at the Scablands in the NW. That was caused by an ice dam on one of those early lakes breaking.

I don't know what is used now, but years ago silver iodide was used to seed clouds. The rain/snow nucleus would form around the particle. Having more particulates in the air would urge this along. Maybe this is why the 2 rain delays in the ALCS last night. Denver has ozone warnings with the altitude.

Like you, I don't trust the ones trying to make a buck.

 

[zuben el genub]

Clear link between solar activity and winter weather revealed

The sun was about dead the past 2 years. I bought a solar scope years ago since we had nothing but cloudy nights. So I run into a sunspot minimum.
I check Spaceweather.com for activity.

 

[OutofDate1980]

Looks like ALEX and the fossil fuel industry will be throwing money at the AGW deniers in the House and Senate.layingball:

Global Warming: United Nations Climate Report Proves Earth Is Suffering | Politics News | Rolling Stone

"On September 27th, a group of international scientists associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will gather in an old brick brewery in Stockholm and proclaim with near certainty that human activity is altering the planet in profound ways. The IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report offers slam-dunk evidence that burning fossil fuels is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warn that sea levels could rise by almost three feet by the end of the century if we don't change our ways. The report will underscore that the basic facts about climate change are more established than ever, and that the consequences of escalating carbon pollution are likely to mean that, as The New York Times recently argued, "babies being born now could live to see the early stages of a global calamity.""

 

[copestag]

despite the fact that every single piece of evidence of man made global warming has been thoroughly disproven time and again...... they still keep at it

but once again...... why left facts get in the way of a good story for these extremists

 

[SiempreTuna]

despite the fact that every single piece of evidence against man made global warming has been thoroughly disproven time and again by reputable scientists ...... they still keep at it

Fixed that for you

The fact is that there's little doubt in the scientifc about global warming or the link with mankind. I heard an interesting statistic that in the last decade there have been around 9,000 peer reviewed papers about global warming, less than 1% of these claimed to disprove any element of it.

Don't believe everything the tin hat lobby have to say about all this - they tend to get the most basic things wrong, like not realising that in science, a theory is something that has been extensively tested and is still not disproved - basically, the pinnacle of scientific understanding.

 

[copestag]

again dont let the facts get in the way of a good story... dont you find it a bit odd that all of these "peer reviewed" studies have been proven incorrect and openly admitted to being wrong by their authors and the sky is falling crowd who hold them in the air?

the latest peer reviewed make believe story their passing around is we may be entering a several hundred year period of cooling... I guess the warming fable is old news..... since theres been no significant warming for nearly 2 decades

 

[sntaylor]

What do you class significant warming? In global terms only half a degree is significant and has had/having a massive effect on the polar ice caps, which had led to rising water levels elsewhere! Global warming is an accepted fact almost world wide and it only ever appears to be corporate big wig funded"scientists" that ever produce documentation to give the answers that those corporations wanna hear....cos strangely they don't give a damn about anything but making money and they don't want to have to change the way they blow out fumes etc!


I do accept that the world has over millions of years changed temperatures on its own, but the evidence suggests that we are speeding up this effect(wether heating or cooling or both) due to extra co2 emitions and having degraded the ozone layer.

 

[copestag]

CO2 levels have been much greater at lower temperatures in the past..... simply no correlation

we are in the midst of record polar ice caps in terms of area... and their thickness is the exact same as it was long before people started pretending there was man made warming

the only people who are claiming otherwise are those who wont get paid unless they reach a predefined conclusion

it has been shown time and again how they have manipulated the data to get the results that match what their funding requires

 

[Gmash]

Sound familiar?

But that's how the denier game works: They seize on small errors and
inconsequential factual inconsistencies in a piece of climate research and
use it to discredit the science and reassure people that climate change is
no big deal. In the 2007 Assessment, for instance, the authors and
reviewers overlooked a sentence that asserted Himalayan glaciers would
vanish by 2035 – an obvious misstatement, which deniers seized and used
to suggest that the entire assessment was bunk. "You didn't have to be a
scientist to know that's not true," says Watson. "It was simply an error
that slipped through, and deniers tried to use it to invalidate the findings
of the entire report." It's like finding a misspelling in the Manhattan
phone book and then declaring the whole book useless.

 

[copestag]

I dont consider the fact it hasnt warmed in nearly 20 years to be an error....... Id consider that an abscence that completely discredits any make believe fairy tale you want to spout

 

[Gmash]

I dont consider the fact it hasnt warmed in nearly 20 years to be an error....... Id consider that an abscence that completely discredits any make believe fairy tale you want to spout

Very next paragraph:

The second issue that has come up is
the question of a "hiatus," or pause in
surface-temperature warming. Texas
Sen. Ted Cruz, winner of a climate-
denier award from Texas green groups,
recently proclaimed that "there has
been no recorded warming since 1998."
Not exactly, Ted. According to the IPCC
draft report, the rate of warming at the
planet's surface is lower over the past
15 years, but warming has not stopped.
In fact, since the 1950s, each successive
decade has been hotter than the last,
and the 2000s were the hottest decade
since modern record-keeping began in
1880. Scientists have a variety of
explanations for this, including the fact
that more heat is being transferred
deeper into the ocean and that volcanic
eruptions have blocked sunlight. "We
never expected warming to be linear,"
says Kevin Trenberth, senior scientist
at the Climate Analysis Section at the
National Center for Atmospheric
Research in Boulder, Colorado.

 

[SiempreTuna]

again dont let the facts get in the way of a good story... dont you find it a bit odd that all of these "peer reviewed" studies have been proven incorrect and openly admitted to being wrong by their authors and the sky is falling crowd who hold them in the air?

That is true of most papers that claimed to disprove significant aspects of global warming. I don't think that's strange as it's precisely how science works: you look at data, come up with a hypothesis to explain those data, test that hypothesis and publish your findings in a papers. Your peers then review your paper and others try to confirm or disprove your results.

Absolute truth is a religious idea not a scientific one: science is all about skepticism and improving understanding.

the latest peer reviewed make believe story their passing around is we may be entering a several hundred year period of cooling... I guess the warming fable is old news.....

Haven't heard that, but there have been worries that we might be about to enter another mini iceage since the 70s. That isn't related to weather but to changes in the earth's orbit.

since theres been no significant warming for nearly 2 decades

Not sure where you get that idea: last year was the hottest year on record across the globe.

it has been shown time and again how they have manipulated the data to get the results that match what their funding requires

That is certainly true of the global warming deniers: every claim made has been disproved. Often time and again. The problem is that it costs nothing to make this rubbish up but it is costly going through the existing literature to show that it has been disproved.

Frankly, I am the stage where I lump climate change deniers right alongside JFK, moon landing, extraterrestrials and other tin-foil hat conspiracy nuts: there's no real point engaging as they refuse to listen to the actual evidence, preferring misrepresentations, distortions and flat out lies that confirm their prejudices.

Personally, I would love it if global warming was wrong - it would be so much easier not to have to change. Sadly, the fact I would prefer it does not make it true.

 

[Gmash]

Don't forget evolution deniers, err..."intelligent design" proponents.

 

[Chiral]

I often hear this from AGW deniers. None have been able to answer this question. The United States isnt the only country in the world with climate scientists dont you think that if there were serious doubts regarding AGW that the other scientists would say something? Many of these countries have much to gain if it was all a hoax like China who will surpass us in the coming decades as the leading consumer of fossil fuels and thus C02 emissions. Tell me why scientists in all these other countries agree with the underlying science?

If there really were a rising global police state, a complicit media and a looming shadow wouldn't some intrepid young journalist have made a career exposing it by now?

 

[dibblebill]

Only in the movies. A guy over at Huffington Post made a point, though. Politicized science is always only half-researched.

I'm not denying the existence of climate change in the least, but we've only shown a correlation between CO2 (not C02 *twitch) and climate change, but that same correlation exists between gold prices and climate change. Increase in government expenditures (and debt) and climate change. Decrease in pirates roaming the oceans and climate change.

They have yet to prove causality, and haven't explained why results were falsified and altered for over two decades to match their model. Most scientific studies that receive more respect from their peers seek and find the causality, too. Sort of like this recent cigarette study in Italy- they ignored that 50% of the mothers who smoked came from a polluted industrial town, and did not review the air contents in that town to establish if that was the cause of the deaths or smoking was the cause.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Only in the movies. A guy over at Huffington Post made a point, though. Politicized science is always only half-researched.

I'm not denying the existence of climate change in the least, but we've only shown a correlation between CO2 (not C02 *twitch) and climate change, but that same correlation exists between gold prices and climate change. Increase in government expenditures (and debt) and climate change. Decrease in pirates roaming the oceans and climate change.

They have yet to prove causality, and haven't explained why results were falsified and altered for over two decades to match their model. Most scientific studies that receive more respect from their peers seek and find the causality, too. Sort of like this recent cigarette study in Italy- they ignored that 50% of the mothers who smoked came from a polluted industrial town, and did not review the air contents in that town to establish if that was the cause of the deaths or smoking was the cause.

Maybe you should research the physical properties of CO2 and the like, to understand things a bit better. Right know, we are heating out planet and acidifying our oceans, because we can't even live within our means, let alone properly appropriate resources to take action.

 

[dibblebill]

Maybe you should research the physical properties of CO2 and the like, to understand things a bit better. Right know, we are heating out planet and acidifying our oceans, because we can't even live within our means, let alone properly appropriate resources to take action.

I am well aware of CO2's chemical properties, its dissolution rates, solubility, etc. However, I have also seen scientists present evidence that there are other causes than humans alone (operational word being alone). Cows, natural events, and volcanoes come to immediate mind, with the first being directly our fault. Everyone likes to talk about cars and power plants, but I never see talk of the larger contributors of various green house gasses.

 

[SiempreTuna]

Only in the movies. A guy over at Huffington Post made a point, though. Politicized science is always only half-researched

Quite - but in this case, the evidence is totally overwhelming

I'm not denying the existence of climate change in the least, but we've only shown a correlation between CO2 (not C02 *twitch) and climate change, but that same correlation exists between gold prices and climate change. Increase in government expenditures (and debt) and climate change. Decrease in pirates roaming the oceans and climate change

The same arguments have been used by the tabacco industry for decades in their campaign to deny the science linking smoking to the host of medical issues it causes.

You need to step back and look at the evidence rather than the groundless propoganda of those who believe their business model might be affected.

Re the frankly absurd idea that the entire scientific community conspired to 'invent' man made climate change, try applying Occam's razor, usually paraphrased as "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better" and consider, what is more likely: a global conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of scientist, politicians, activists etc etc or simply that the evidence supports the conclusion?

It's just like the idea of the moon landing being faked: if you actually think about it, faking the moon landings and having every one of the tens of thousands of people involved keep the secret for decades would have been an infinitely more complicated, expensive and technically demanding (faking low gravity without CGI, anyone?) than simply going to the moon.

They have yet to prove causality

That's precisely what the thesis is all about: an explanation of the mechanism that has produced the observations

and haven't explained why results were falsified and altered for over two decades to match their model

They haven't explained it because it wasn't done.

Most scientific studies that receive more respect from their peers seek and find the causality, too. Sort of like this recent cigarette study in Italy- they ignored that 50% of the mothers who smoked came from a polluted industrial town, and did not review the air contents in that town to establish if that was the cause of the deaths or smoking was the cause.

Wow! You also deny smoking is a health hazard?!

An views on the earth being flat

I never see talk of the larger contributors of various green house gasses

These things are part of pretty much every detailed discussion I've seen.

 

[dibblebill]

I haven't seen much talk of them on most message boards, and lately, all the focus has been on the pollution created by cars.

No, I did not deny the danger of smoking, and the causality of that has been proven again and again- but lawsuits keep them from outright saying that smoking causes cancer, much like there is a fairly high correlation between egg donation in women and some types of cancer, but money keeps it from being looked into. You have COMPLETELY overlooked the point of bringing that up in order to bring it in line with your argument. The point of that was that scientists are quite capable of (and frequently guilty of) leaving out other information, by intent or accident. In this case, they said that smoking was the complete cause of the SIDS... By doing a new type of thin-slice brain analysis. They didn't do any blood-work, examine other parts of the brain, etc., which fails to rule out a number of possibilities from the industrial town. I never said smoking wasn't dangerous. I am pointing out that a failure to look at parallel causes is a failing in your scientific experiment or study.

And so far as faking data, I was referring to those leaked e-mails a few years back regarding altered/selective data that was chosen carefully to support their climate models.

 

[LTek1]

And so far as faking data, I was referring to those leaked e-mails a few years back regarding altered/selective data that was chosen carefully to support their climate models.

You clearly have some science background. Read those emails, instead of the Cliff's Notes. You'll find very quickly that the exchanges were scientifically honest, and that lines were taken out of context by people who either didn't understand them, or who were counting on others not to.

 

[dibblebill]

You clearly have some science background. Read those emails, instead of the Cliff's Notes. You'll find very quickly that the exchanges were scientifically honest, and that lines were taken out of context by people who either didn't understand them, or who were counting on others not to.

I'll try to find a still-functioning link to the entire e-mails, in that case, and re-read them. I'm willing to entertain that my fact sources may be wrong. If you've got a link to them ready to go, PM it to me- if not, I'll be exercising my Google Fu today

 

[SiempreTuna]

No, I did not deny the danger of smoking, and the causality of that has been proven again and again- but lawsuits keep them from outright saying that smoking causes cancer, much like there is a fairly high correlation between egg donation in women and some types of cancer, but money keeps it from being looked into. You have COMPLETELY overlooked the point of bringing that up in order to bring it in line with your argument

My bad - I guess I missed the point there.

I believe that particular argument was won in the last millenium: after decades of lies and obfiscation, the world's biggest tabacco company admitted the link in court in 1999.

Only took them about 80 years* to stop denying the truth: wonder how it'll be before the CO2 producers accept reality ..


* I'd argue even longer: Queen Victoria was agin it and cigarettes were known as 'coffin nails' in WWI. There may not have been scientific studies, but the ill affects of smoking were widely appreciated.

The point of that was that scientists are quite capable of (and frequently guilty of) leaving out other information, by intent or accident

That's why we have peer reviews: to spot oversights and recommend further experiment or changes to the interpretation of results.

I read somewhere that there have been around 9,000 peer-reviewed papers on climate change with only a handful challenging aspects of climate change. It's a given that no study can be 100% comprehensive, but when you have so many over such a long time (climate change has been a concern for over 30 years), I think the evidence is pretty much indisputable.

And so far as faking data, I was referring to those leaked e-mails a few years back regarding altered/selective data that was chosen carefully to support their climate models.

As LTek1 says, that was yet another case of people with an axe to grind taking things totally out of context and distorting what was said: the discussion that was leaked was not about faking data but about whether a scientist was obliged to waste yet more time responding to accusations and demands for yet more data and yet more explanations from reality deniers instead of getting on with his research.

No data was altered: it was things like standard statistical methods being applied to data to do things like exclude outliers and smooth trends (don't ask me what - way beyond me). These had been explained in the paper but the deniers kept demanding more information and explanation.

There were a couple of investigation and the scientists involved were completely exonerated. Naturally, that didn't make front page news (particularly not in the denier media) as 'No Scandal After All' ain't much of a headline.

 

[dibblebill]

Downloading the emails now, to make my assessment.

 

[dibblebill]

I've been reading handfuls of them, especially full-length versions and responses of the most criticized mails. Does seem they were largely taken out of context. I'll have to vet my sources more carefully next time.

I normally don't venture into scientific debate, its not my strong point and I don't enjoy it as much as ethics, morality, or religion (it also doesn't help that I no longer have direct access to JSTOR and other repositories of scholarly articles :<)

One thing I've been reading about that may help quite a bit is methane capture and re-use. A local company in my area set up shop (pharmaceuticals company) on a local landfill, and are using methane exhaust pipes to power their facility, burning it off for electricity. This is generating Carbon Dioxide, but from what I understand, methane is more thermally damaging to our atmosphere short-term and long-term (if released continuously, as cows and landfills do) than CO2.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I've been reading handfuls of them, especially full-length versions and responses of the most criticized mails. Does seem they were largely taken out of context. I'll have to vet my sources more carefully next time.

I normally don't venture into scientific debate, its not my strong point and I don't enjoy it as much as ethics, morality, or religion (it also doesn't help that I no longer have direct access to JSTOR and other repositories of scholarly articles :<)

One thing I've been reading about that may help quite a bit is methane capture and re-use. A local company in my area set up shop (pharmaceuticals company) on a local landfill, and are using methane exhaust pipes to power their facility, burning it off for electricity. This is generating Carbon Dioxide, but from what I understand, methane is more thermally damaging to our atmosphere short-term and long-term (if released continuously, as cows and landfills do) than CO2.

Well, clearly you accept that it's happening, you just wonder how much we are responsible. Which is an improvement I suppose.

Anyway, methane does not tend to stay as long in the atmosphere as CO2, the CO2 we put up now will be around for quite a long time, that's the issue. And of course, most of it is busy acidifying our oceans.