Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#2,351
#2,351
I'm actually interested in speeding up the process.

Bring on the calamity that is global warming.
 
#2,352
#2,352
BartW said:
You seem like an honest skeptic so I’ll address your position point by point. You are correct that climate is cyclical. However, we are not supposed to be on a warming trend. Our current interglacial peaked about 10,000 years ago, and ever since temperatures have slowly been dropping (we’re scheduled to enter the next ice age soon). Temperatures have risen 1.5 C since pre-industrial times. For perspective, the last ice age was only 4-5 C colder than today. The range of global average temperatures between the hottest interglacial and coldest ice age is about 10 C. Scientists predict temperatures will increase another 3 – 4.5 C by the end of this century. Here are some figures I posted earlier:



Additionally, we know the rise in temperatures is mostly due to greenhouse gas emissions from (among several independent lines of reasoning) spectroscopic measurements of radiation leaving the earth’s surface and radiation leaving the atmosphere:



And the notion that climate scientists need global warming to get their paycheck is false. If there wasn’t strong evidence that AGW is a threat nobody would be studying it. These scientists would simply be studying something else. Earth scientists aren’t paid any more than academics in other physical sciences. And earth scientists in academia are paid far less than their contemporaries in the private sector. The implication of climate scientists being paid under the table to falsify their data is that of a global science conspiracy theory.

Al Gore is not a scientist, he ‘s a politician and a moron. I’m sorry if his documentary is your impression of the science. The science is robust. There is a 97%+ consensus among climate scientists that human emissions are causing global warming. I'm a libertarian geoscientist and I wish it weren't true, but it is. The reality of AGW is a widely accepted fact in the scientific community.
Click to expand...

100% of whose very existence is justified by the theories that you propose. If I were a new car salesman, I'd tell everyone that used cars were bad for the environment. You can throw up all of the graphs that you choose to, but I'm sticking with the facts. Scientists like to scare us so they can get paid. What happened to the hole in the ozone layer that was supposed to doom us?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,353
#2,353
UGADawg4Life said:
100% of whose very existence is justified by the theories that you propose. If I were a new car salesman, I'd tell everyone that used cars were bad for the environment. You can throw up all of the graphs that you choose to, but I'm sticking with the facts. Scientists like to scare us so they can get paid. What happened to the hole in the ozone layer that was supposed to doom us?
Click to expand...

I'm telling you the facts. Climate scientists don't need global warming. If it weren't real they would study something else. Climate scientists are in no way getting rich off of global warming.

The ozone layer is recovering since the bans on CFCs

Hole In Ozone Layer Expected To Make Full Recovery By 2070: NASA
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,355
#2,355
UGADawg4Life said:
100% of whose very existence is justified by the theories that you propose. If I were a new car salesman, I'd tell everyone that used cars were bad for the environment. You can throw up all of the graphs that you choose to, but I'm sticking with the facts. Scientists like to scare us so they can get paid. What happened to the hole in the ozone layer that was supposed to doom us?
Click to expand...

They claimed victory on that one.
They saved us from nothing woo hoo
 
#2,357
#2,357
BartW said:
Yeah, yeah, any scientific finding that conflicts with industrial interests is a conspiracy. Give me a break
Click to expand...

we are all sociopaths with a secret agenda to make up things that waste billions of dollars to keep our jobs. you didn't hear? we could only milk evolution for so long before we had to make something else up to push our liberal agenda even though you claimed to be libertarian and i don't like politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,361
#2,361
Sandvol said:
Redeux
Click to expand...

In 1990 there were no quantitative large-scale temperature reconstructions available. This curve was based on one study's results, which estimated climate history for central England. And the dates only go to 1970. Since then we've warmed another 0.6 C, which puts us well above the medieval warm period.

There were still plenty of skeptics in the scientific community in 1990. Now there aren't. Science has advanced in the past 24 years.

Are you ever going to try to counter anything I say, or are you just going to keep copypasting misleading crap from your little 'skeptic' website?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,366
#2,366
I'm sure ignorance is bliss. I've been more than willing to honestly and politely discuss the science (and the politics). Your refusal to even engage in discussion means you're willfully ignorant. Willful ignorance is a sin.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa, I-II, q. 76, a. 1, a. 3, Whether ignorance can be the cause of sin?: “It is clear that not every kind of ignorance is the cause of a sin, but that alone which removes the knowledge which would prevent the sinful act. …This may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is *bound and able to know.”

*Catholics are bound (required) to learn and know their Faith. A sin against faith (often caused by willful ignorance) is the gravest of all sins according to St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Augustine, Cited by St. Thomas, characterizes sin against faith in these words: Hoc est peccatum quo tenentur cuncta peccata. "This is the sin which comprehends all other sins."

St. Thomas says: "The gravity of sin is determined by the interval which it places between man and God; now sin against faith, divides man from God as far as possible, since it deprives him of the true knowledge of God; it therefore follows that sin against faith is the greatest of all sins."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,367
#2,367
BartW said:
I'm sure ignorance is bliss. I've been more than willing to honestly and politely discuss the science (and the politics). Your refusal to even engage in discussion means you're willfully ignorant. Willful ignorance is a sin.
Click to expand...

Who's ignorant? No, you're just a sociopathic loon.
 

Attachments

  • Mangini-2005.gif
    Mangini-2005.gif
    42.2 KB · Views: 1
#2,368
#2,368
Sandvol said:
Who's ignorant? No, you're just a sociopathic loon.
Click to expand...


Another figure from a paper you didn't read. Heck you didn't even read the abstract this time. This is one reconstruction at high altitudes in central Europe. You can bet it was considered by the IPCC, as is all the scientific literature. Again, I doubt the authors appreciate you and your 'skeptic' website misrepresenting their work to cast doubt on AGW. Here's the actual figure.

fig3.jpg


You are being willfully ignorant. If you're not, counter a single claim I've made in this thread. If you won't respond to the content of my posts there's no reason for me to continue addressing yours.

af65cc5e54eec60146ff5a60e9270377ef217dc600262371b288bf4d59076429.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,369
#2,369
BartW said:
I'm telling you the facts. Climate scientists don't need global warming. If it weren't real they would study something else. Climate scientists are in no way getting rich off of global warming.

The ozone layer is recovering since the bans on CFCs

Hole In Ozone Layer Expected To Make Full Recovery By 2070: NASA
Click to expand...

When I fly, and reach 30,000 ft. And look down, I realize that all those little cities down there don't have much effect up here. The volume of "up here" is just too great. I appreciate your passion. I'm just not buying in on global warming, especially since I have to keep buying more and more electricity and firewood to stay warm. How can you keep touting global warming when we're having record low temps? It's a cycle? Yea, exactly!
 
#2,370
#2,370
I do think researchers lose the big picture of how shifting to "green technology" is inefficient (non-baseload) and expensive. Those things matter to the little guy who has an electric bill. It also matters when you compare our energy usage, to the really dirty plants in China or India or wherever (although China is going heavy on nuclear). You make us less competitive energy wise, and there goes our jobs.

And the expensive thing shouldn't be questioned. When you have to propose a "tax" to get what you want, then it's expensive. And molten salt solar storage is about the only solution for non-intermittent supply, and that has a pretty bad ROI for a relatively short life span (molten salt isn't nice on materials).

So that's the near term picture. It seems like the whole argument hinges on this being catastrophic change. That way the long term clearly outweighs the short term. Maybe that is the case, I just don't follow the research. If that's the case, we should look at nuclear. Maybe that's why nobody trusts environmentalists.
 
#2,371
#2,371
Hey Bart, I just saw on your profile that you graduated in 2013. Did you double in physics and geology?
 
#2,372
#2,372
UGADawg4Life said:
When I fly, and reach 30,000 ft. And look down, I realize that all those little cities down there don't have much effect up here. The volume of "up here" is just too great. I appreciate your passion. I'm just not buying in on global warming, especially since I have to keep buying more and more electricity and firewood to stay warm. How can you keep touting global warming when we're having record low temps? It's a cycle? Yea, exactly!
Click to expand...

Again, healthy skepticism is encouraged. I don't imagine I'll change your mind with a messageboard post or two but I will address your misunderstandings. Perhaps if you stick around long enough you may at least reevaluate your convictions.

CO2-Emissions-vs-Levels.gif


Humans presently emit 29 gigatons of CO2 each year. We've emitted nearly twice as much CO2 as the change in atmospheric concentration (280 to 400 ppm). Another effect "up there" is stratospheric cooling, one of many independent predictions of AGW that turns out to be true.

Stratospherictemp_1958-2012_radiosondes.png


And just because the weather is occasionally cold outside doesn't mean the climate isn't warming. Outside the eastern US this has been one of the warmest winters on record.

cold.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,374
#2,374
Weezy said:
I do think researchers lose the big picture of how shifting to "green technology" is inefficient (non-baseload) and expensive. Those things matter to the little guy who has an electric bill. It also matters when you compare our energy usage, to the really dirty plants in China or India or wherever (although China is going heavy on nuclear). You make us less competitive energy wise, and there goes our jobs.

And the expensive thing shouldn't be questioned. When you have to propose a "tax" to get what you want, then it's expensive. And molten salt solar storage is about the only solution for non-intermittent supply, and that has a pretty bad ROI for a relatively short life span (molten salt isn't nice on materials).

So that's the near term picture. It seems like the whole argument hinges on this being catastrophic change. That way the long term clearly outweighs the short term. Maybe that is the case, I just don't follow the research. If that's the case, we should look at nuclear. Maybe that's why nobody trusts environmentalists.
Click to expand...

I agree that nuclear is our best option
 
#2,375
#2,375
Sandvol said:
And,
in good company. I am officially a global warming denier and I wear it as a badge of honor you sociopath:

WSJ: "Warren Buffett, Climate-Change Denier"
Click to expand...

What Warren Buffett Really Thinks About Climate Change

“Though it's difficult to say with any certainty what the famed investor and CEO of Omaha, Neb.-based Berkshire Hathaway Inc. thinks on the topic, he has dropped hints in recent years that he agrees with the science behind human-caused global warming.

In a 2009 New York Times op-ed, Buffett wrote that "doubling the carbon dioxide we belch into the atmosphere may far more than double the subsequent problems for society. Realizing this, the world properly worries about greenhouse emissions." But that hasn't stopped many observers from portraying his comments in the "Squawk Box" interview as a smackdown of climate change and its impact on natural disasters”

"I calculate the probabilities in terms of catastrophes no differently than a few years ago," Buffett replied. Though as co-host Joe Kernan was speaking over him, he added this qualifier: "That may change in 10 years."

Buffett is famous for being very careful when discussing investing publicly (and for refusing to make predictions about the future), so this caveat quite possibly was no accident. Even so, it's important to note that catastrophic severe weather events are far from the only things that will be impacted by climate change.
It's important to note that Buffett's point of view concerns only the recent business performance of his company, says Paul Walsh, vice president for weather analytics at The Weather Company, the parent of The Weather Channel.

"Warren is speaking in terms of recent history and he's not making a specific commentary on climate change or the future state of climate/weather related risk," said Walsh. "He's not in the business of making scientific predictions – his point-of-view is actuarial and financial."

Climate change: what Warren Buffett could learn from Bill Gates
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top