Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[theutvolunteers]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4[/youtube]

 

[508mikey]

no global warming -- it was El Nino again all along

 

[BartW]

Revenue neutral, huh? Allow me to educate you. Taxes are passed on to the consumer. There's no such as a corporate income tax, even though there is a corporate income tax. How? Those taxes are passed on to the consumer and shareholder. They actually pay the taxes. With a carbon "tax," we'll simply have much higher energy prices rather than an "incentive" (another government mandate) to lower our consumption of carbon-based energy. A carbon tax will do nothing more than raise the cost of living for the poor and the middle class. Coal gives us cheap, efficient energy. That's why the market demands it. Australia tried it and the Labor Party paid a heavy price for it. I hear those left-wing idiots are looking for new jobs.

Got it?

Revenue-neutral means the government raises the same amount of money. I never said the prices of goods wouldn’t increase. Obviously if energy costs increase the price of goods will increase. But a carbon tax will incentivize a reduction in carbon consumption. I don’t know how you could argue otherwise. And getting rid of the corporate income tax will eliminate that part of the price that's passed on to consumers. The carbon tax is a regressive tax, but there are ways to compensate lower income families.

All I’m saying is, of all the options big business, economists, and fiscal conservatives prefer the carbon tax. If you have a better idea let’s hear it.

Global warming is real and political action is inevitable. The only questions are how long will we wait, and what will we do?

Australia’s Liberal Party wants to replace the carbon tax with a direct-action carbon reductions scheme. I’d rather shrink the EPA than grow the EPA.

 

[BartW]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4[/youtube]

"The earth is big and old, therefore we can't affect it."

How naive

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Revenue-neutral means the government raises the same amount of money. I never said the prices of goods wouldn’t increase. Obviously if energy costs increase the price of goods will increase. But a carbon tax will incentivize a reduction in carbon consumption. I don’t know how you could argue otherwise. And getting rid of the corporate income tax will eliminate that part of the price that's passed on to consumers. The carbon tax is a regressive tax, but there are ways to compensate lower income families.

All I’m saying is, of all the options big business, economists, and fiscal conservatives prefer the carbon tax. If you have a better idea let’s hear it.

Global warming is real and political action is inevitable. The only questions are how long will we wait, and what will we do?

Australia’s Liberal Party wants to replace the carbon tax with a direct-action carbon reductions scheme. I’d rather shrink the EPA than grow the EPA.

No one is arguing that. It's just that we can't do anything about it. It's called nature. There's nothing unusual about the weather or global temperatures over the past 100 years.

 

[BartW]

No one is arguing that. It's just that we can't do anything about it. It's called nature. There's nothing unusual about the weather or global temperatures over the past 100 years.

Wrong. It's being caused by CO2 emissions. That isn't conjecture, it's a measurement.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Wrong. It's being caused by CO2 emissions. That isn't conjecture, it's a measurement.

That poster isn't far off. Manmade global warming is a scheme to institute a global business tax. It's nothing more than a redistributive scheme.

 

[BartW]

That poster isn't far off. Manmade global warming is a scheme to institute a global business tax. It's nothing more than a redistributive scheme.

:no:

What other conspiracy theories do you believe in? This conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense.

1. Climate scientists are typically paid 40-80k, with senior researchers breaking six figures. Not a bad salary, but not as much as academics in other physical sciences and not nearly as much as their contemporaries in the private sector. If climate scientists are in it for the money they're doing it wrong.

2. Climate scientists don't *need* global warming. Their salary doesn't depend on the outcome of their research. Projects are funded without knowing the outcome. And if global warming weren't real scientists would simply study something else.

3. If anyone could disprove AGW they would win a Nobel prize.

4. How is it exactly that global warming funnels money to brown people? The carbon tax is a regressive tax, meaning if anything it will be tougher on low income families and developing nations.

5. If it's a left-wing anti-business conspiracy, why do all those businesses and high profile conservative economists and politicians I've listed support the carbon tax?

 

[Gannon Goodson]

:no:

What other conspiracy theories do you believe in? This conspiracy theory doesn't even make sense.

1. Climate scientists are typically paid 40-80k, with senior researchers breaking six figures. Not a bad salary, but not as much as academics in other physical sciences and not nearly as much as their contemporaries in the private sector. If climate scientists are in it for the money they're doing it wrong.

Al Gore left government worth 2 million. Look at him now. There's a lot of money to be made pushing this lie, which is why they won't give up on it so easily. Manmade global warming has another 10 year run before everyone forgets about it and we move on to the next eco-scare, which will be ocean acidification.

2. Climate scientists don't *need* global warming. Their salary doesn't depend on the outcome of their research. Projects are funded without knowing the outcome. And if global warming weren't real scientists would simply study something else.

Yes, they do. Research grants are dependent on pushing this big lie. It's a cash cow for some universities.

3. If anyone could disprove AGW they would win a Nobel prize.

SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore | Climate Depot

4. How is it exactly that global warming funnels money to brown people? The carbon tax is a regressive tax, meaning if anything it will be tougher on low income families and developing nations.

I never said it funnels money to "brown people." It's a regulatory scheme. The ability to tax is the ability to control -- and that's what this big fraud is about: control.

5. If it's a left-wing anti-business conspiracy, why do all those businesses and high profile conservative economists and politicians I've listed support the carbon tax?

Because there are plenty of charlatans in the so-called conservative movement. Just because someone has an "R" by their name means nothing. Look at how many "conservatives" support things like the Department of Education. The manmade global warming tricksters are two things: jack and s***.

.

 

[BartW]

.

1. Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a politician. Climate scientists aren't getting rich off of global warming. Ocean acidification is another real observable effect of human CO2 emissions. Denying that is stupid but what should I expect. Par for the course in this thread.

2. No, grants are given without knowledge of the outcome. You honestly think results are pre-determined? That scientists are fabricating everything? Climate science doesn't get a disproportionate amount of funding. And you didn't address my point that, if global warming weren't real, scientists would simply study something else. They don't need global warming. You're speaking out of your arse.

3. That report is probably just as fraudulent as Fred Singer and co.'s Leipzig Declaration and similar lists from 'skeptic' websites. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have found that 97%+ of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming.

4. We need to control CO2 emissions. Even big oil agrees.

5. Whatever you say boss. That's a lot of undercover liberals.

Again, what other conspiracy theories do you believe in?

 

[T-TownVol]

Oh to be so young and so stupid.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

1. Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a politician. Climate scientists aren't getting rich off of global warming. Ocean acidification is another real observable effect of human CO2 emissions. Denying that is stupid but what should I expect. Par for the course in this thread.

2. No, grants are given without knowledge of the outcome. You honestly think results are pre-determined? That scientists are fabricating everything? Climate science doesn't get a disproportionate amount of funding. And you didn't address my point that, if global warming weren't real, scientists would simply study something else. They don't need global warming. You're speaking out of your arse.

3. That report is probably just as fraudulent as Fred Singer and co.'s Leipzig Declaration and similar lists from 'skeptic' websites. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have found that 97%+ of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming.

4. We need to control CO2 emissions. Even big oil agrees.

5. Whatever you say boss. That's a lot of undercover liberals.

Again, what other conspiracy theories do you believe in?

Blog: Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEPW_P7GVB8[/youtube]

 

[BartW]

Blog: Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEPW_P7GVB8[/youtube]

Another deflection.

Cook et al. arrived at 97% by reviewing abstracts in all the literature and separately by allowing authors to self-report their opinion. You can read it here. This figure agrees with multiple independent peer-reviewed studies. The consensus is real, no matter how much you deny it.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

I'm not watching 15 minutes of cooky conspiracy theory crap. If you think the video makes a legitimate scientific argument present it in your own words.

Oh to be so young and so stupid.

If I'm so stupid it should be easy for you and your 'skeptic' pals to call me out on my facts. So far no one has even tried to debate the science. Y'all just float from one denialist talking point to the next.

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Cook et al. arrived at 97% by reviewing all abstracts in the literature and also by allowing authors to self-report their opinion. You can read it here. This figure agrees with multiple independent peer-reviewed studies. The consensus is real, no matter how much you deny it.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% consensus result is robust

I'm not watching 15 minutes of cooky conspiracy theory crap. If you think the video makes a legitimate scientific argument present it in your own words.



If I'm so stupid it should be easy for you and your 'skeptic' pals to call me out on my facts. So far no one has even tried to debate the science. Y'all just float from one denialist talking point to the next.

Deny, deny, deny. Perhaps you should watch a real scientist in action rather than the railroad engineers and eco-fascists who peddle childish fantasies like manmade global warming.

 

[BartW]

Deny, deny, deny. Perhaps you should watch a real scientist in action rather than the railroad engineers and eco-fascists who peddle childish fantasies like manmade global warming.

More deflections. I am a real scientist and work with real scientists.

Eco-fascists?

You mean carbon tax supporters like Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP, Shell, Statoil, Duke Energy, EDF Energy, Kodak, Fedex, Coca-Cola, Nike, L’Oreal, Wal-Mart, Dell, Apple, Microsoft, Google, General Electric, Walt Disney, ConAgra Foods, Wells Fargo, DuPont, Delta, Swiss Re, Munich Re, American Economic Association, World Coal Association, World Bank, IMF, Henry M. Paulson Jr. (a former Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration), Arthur B. Laffer (senior economic adviser to President Ronald Reagan), George Schultz (Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of State), N Gregory Mankiw (Harvard economist who was economic adviser to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign), Douglas Holtz-Eakin (chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors and economic adviser to John McCain’s campaign), and of course 97%+ of climate scientists and 100% of the world’s national scientific organizations?

 

[BartW]

Hey remember that time the Koch brothers accidentally funded a study that confirmed global warming?

Shout out to ya boi SV

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world's surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of "Climategate," a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

Yet he found that the land is 1.6 degrees warmer than in the 1950s. Those numbers from Muller, who works at the University of California, Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, match those by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

He said he went even further back, studying readings from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. His ultimate finding of a warming world, to be presented at a conference Monday, is no different from what mainstream climate scientists have been saying for decades.

What's different, and why everyone from opinion columnists to "The Daily Show" is paying attention is who is behind the study.

One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the tea party. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller said it makes sense to reduce the carbon dioxide created by fossil fuels. "Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world," he said.

Among many climate scientists, the reaction was somewhat of a yawn.

"After lots of work he found exactly what was already known and accepted in the climate community," said Jerry North, a Texas A&M University atmospheric sciences professor who headed a National Academy of Sciences climate science review in 2006. "I am hoping their study will have a positive impact. But some folks will never change."

 

[Gannon Goodson]

Hey remember that time the Koch brothers accidentally funded a study that confirmed global warming?

Shout out to ya boi SV

Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real

I almost stopped reading at "Koch brothers" (the Left's favorite villain), but then I saw the headline of the article, "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real." Well, no s*** Sherlock. Of course climate change is real. The climate is constantly changing. If we didn't have a single human being on the planet, the damn climate would still be changing. If anyone ever says climate change isn't real, I'd smack them in the face. It doesn't say much, though, considering it's from the Huffington Post -- but that's neither here nor there at the moment.

The issue is man's impact on climate, which is slim to none. Add the that the Alarmists doomsday predictions and you have special interest groups masquerading as scientific "consensus." If you're a real scientist as you claim, then you'd understand there's no such thing as "consensus" in the scientific community.

These are the semantics people like you use to confuse the public: climate change vs. global warming vs. 'anthropogenic' global warming. Of course the climate changes, and of course we go through periods of warming. What are we going to do about it? The simple answer is NOTHING.

I want you to answer one question: what would be the ideal amount of atmospheric composition, in terms of parts per million, of carbon dioxide to ensure your doomsday scenarios will never come to fruition? 375? 350? 300? Just make sure we don't go below 200 or we'd have no plants. :birgits_giggle::birgits_giggle:

 

[BartW]

I almost stopped reading at "Koch brothers" (the Left's favorite villain), but then I saw the headline of the article, "Richard Muller, Global Warming Skeptic, Now Agrees Climate Change Is Real." Well, no s*** Sherlock. Of course climate change is real. The climate is constantly changing. If we didn't have a single human being on the planet, the damn climate would still be changing. If anyone ever says climate change isn't real, I'd smack them in the face. It doesn't say much, though, considering it's from the Huffington Post -- but that's neither here nor there at the moment.

You missed the point. Every time real skeptics have tried to debunk climate scientists by replicating their work they’ve come to the same hockey-stick conclusion. True skeptics like Muller can be swayed by evidence. But no matter how much evidence there is deniers gonna keep denying.

The issue is man's impact on climate, which is slim to none. Add the that the Alarmists doomsday predictions and you have special interest groups masquerading as scientific "consensus." If you're a real scientist as you claim, then you'd understand there's no such thing as "consensus" in the scientific community.

Dumb. There’s a consensus about a great many things. Every piece of technology you own is based on one or more scientific consensuses.

These are the semantics people like you use to confuse the public: climate change vs. global warming vs. 'anthropogenic' global warming. Of course the climate changes, and of course we go through periods of warming. What are we going to do about it? The simple answer is NOTHING.

The popular denialist talking point that scientists backtracked from “global warming” to “climate change” is false. They are two different but related phenomena. Global warming refers to the increase in global average temperature. Climate change refers to the changes in precipitation patterns, heat distribution, extreme weather, etc. resulting from that global temperature increase. Both terms have been used for decades. I use climate change, global warming, and anthropogenic global warming interchangeably because they all describe the same problem.

I want you to answer one question: what would be the ideal amount of atmospheric composition, in terms of parts per million, of carbon dioxide to ensure your doomsday scenarios will never come to fruition? 375? 350? 300? Just make sure we don't go below 200 or we'd have no plants. :birgits_giggle::birgits_giggle:

There is no “ideal” temperature or CO2 concentration, but if we are approaching 1000 ppm by the end of this century we’ll be in big trouble. Moreso than the absolute change it’s the rate of change that’s threatening. Ecosystems can’t keep up.

Today's warming and CO2 increase are not part of a natural cycle. Since our current interglacial peaked ~10,000 years ago Earth has slowly been cooling. We should be entering the next ice age soon.
Look:

 

[Gannon Goodson]

You missed the point. Every time real skeptics have tried to debunk climate scientists by replicating their work they’ve come to the same hockey-stick conclusion. True skeptics like Muller can be swayed by evidence. But no matter how much evidence there is deniers gonna keep denying.



Dumb. There’s a consensus about a great many things. Every piece of technology you own is based on one or more scientific consensuses.



The popular denialist talking point that scientists backtracked from “global warming” to “climate change” is false. They are two different but related phenomena. Global warming refers to the increase in global average temperature. Climate change refers to the changes in precipitation patterns, heat distribution, extreme weather, etc. resulting from that global temperature increase. Both terms have been used for decades. I use climate change, global warming, and anthropogenic global warming interchangeably because they all describe the same problem.



There is no “ideal” temperature or CO2 concentration, but if we are approaching 1000 ppm by the end of this century we’ll be in big trouble. Moreso than the absolute change it’s the rate of change that’s threatening. Ecosystems can’t keep up.

Today's warming and CO2 increase are not part of a natural cycle. Since our current interglacial peaked ~10,000 years ago Earth has slowly been cooling. We should be entering the next ice age soon.
Look:

First, it's not a problem. Second, we won't be in trouble if CO2 reaches 1,000 ppm by the end of the century. It's been tested at 12,000 ppm before it produces breathing problems. Third, all the graphs you posted using climate models are incorrect. All the climate models have been wrong. Wait, I shouldn't "all." About 95% of them, according to Dr. Roy Spencer, have been wrong. And lastly, we will enter a mini ice age soon, whether atmospheric CO2 is 300, 400, 500, 600, or 1,000 ppm. It will happen.

 

[BartW]

First, it's not a problem. Second, we won't be in trouble if CO2 reaches 1,000 ppm by the end of the century. It's been tested at 12,000 ppm before it produces breathing problems. Third, all the graphs you posted using climate models are incorrect. All the climate models have been wrong. Wait, I shouldn't "all." About 95% of them, according to Dr. Roy Spencer, have been wrong. And lastly, we will enter a mini ice age soon, whether atmospheric CO2 is 300, 400, 500, 600, or 1,000 ppm. It will happen.

Not sure if serious... breathing problems aren't what scientists are worried about. My plots (except A1B) are measurements not models. Roy Spencer has said plenty of dumb stuff. He's also a creationist. If radiative forcings from greenhouse gases outweigh decreases in insolation Earth will not cool, it will continue to warm. What do you base your lulzy prophecy on? Gut feeling?

 

[Obsessed]

Hey Bart. I need your scientific opinion on this please:

Crime, weather, and climate change


This paper estimates the impact of climate change on the prevalence of criminal activity in the United States. The analysis is based on a 30-year panel of monthly crime and weather data for 2997 US counties. I identify the effect of weather on monthly crime by using a semi-parametric bin estimator and controlling for state-by-month and county-by-year fixed effects. The results show that temperature has a strong positive effect on criminal behavior, with little evidence of lagged impacts. Between 2010 and 2099, climate change will cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft in the United States.

 

[Sandvol]

You missed the point. Every time real skeptics have tried to debunk climate scientists by replicating their work they’ve come to the same hockey-stick conclusion. True skeptics like Muller can be swayed by evidence. But no matter how much evidence there is deniers gonna keep denying.



Dumb. There’s a consensus about a great many things. Every piece of technology you own is based on one or more scientific consensuses.



The popular denialist talking point that scientists backtracked from “global warming” to “climate change” is false. They are two different but related phenomena. Global warming refers to the increase in global average temperature. Climate change refers to the changes in precipitation patterns, heat distribution, extreme weather, etc. resulting from that global temperature increase. Both terms have been used for decades. I use climate change, global warming, and anthropogenic global warming interchangeably because they all describe the same problem.



There is no “ideal” temperature or CO2 concentration, but if we are approaching 1000 ppm by the end of this century we’ll be in big trouble. Moreso than the absolute change it’s the rate of change that’s threatening. Ecosystems can’t keep up.

Today's warming and CO2 increase are not part of a natural cycle. Since our current interglacial peaked ~10,000 years ago Earth has slowly been cooling. We should be entering the next ice age soon.
Look:

How you can continue to put those lies on the board is beyond me? You have no shame. You call yourself a scientist.

VOSTOK ice core

 

[Sandvol]

Not sure if serious... breathing problems aren't what scientists are worried about. My plots (except A1B) are measurements not models. Roy Spencer has said plenty of dumb stuff. He's also a creationist. If radiative forcings from greenhouse gases outweigh decreases in insolation Earth will not cool, it will continue to warm. What do you base your lulzy prophecy on? Gut feeling?

Anything anyone says you disagree with is dumb. What's wrong with being a creationist? You have a better explanation. But, I don't believe he is. Someone who is skeptical about Darwinism (talk about far-fetched) is not a Creationist. Also, you're starting to reference Muller now? He also stated that Mann's work is a disgrace and he would never reference or refer to their work.

P.S.-Sandvol-Proud member of Denier's Club

 

[Sandvol]

Climatic Change
March 2014
Linking two centuries of tree growth and glacier dynamics with climate changes in Kamchatka

Jiri Dolezal,
Jan Altman,
Valentina P. Vetrova,
Toshihiko Hara



Abstract

Glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. For the majority of alpine and arctic areas, however, the lack of meteorological data over a long period makes it difficult to build long-term climate and glacial fluctuation relationships, emphasizing the importance of natural proxy archives. Here we use the 230-year record of stem radial growth of birch trees (Betula ermanii) from the treeline forests above the receding glaciers in eastern maritime Kamchatka to analyse temporal variations of climate as well as glacial advance and retreat. Glaciers in Kamchatka Peninsula represent the southern limit of glaciation in far eastern Eurasia, which makes them prone to global warming. Using instrumental climate data (1930–1996) from local meteorological stations, we find that the July temperature had most prominent positive impact on birch growth. On the contrary, smaller ring increments are associated with the positive summer and net annual ice mass balance of Koryto Glacier. The prevailing trend of higher summer temperatures and lower snowfall over the past 70 years has enhanced tree growth while causing the glacier’s surface to lower by about 35 m and its front to retreat by about 490 m. Assuming these same relationships between climate, tree growth, and glacier mass balance also existed in the past, we use tree rings as a proxy record of climatically induced temporary halts in the glacier’s retreat over the past two centuries, which in total was over 1,000 m. Both direct observations and tree ring proxies indicate several prolonged warm periods (1990s, 1960s, 1930–1940s, 1880–1900s) interspersed with cooler periods (1984–1985, 1970–1976, 1953–1957, 1912–1926, 1855–1875, 1830–1845, 1805–1820 and 1770–1780) when the glacier re-advanced, creating several consecutive terminal moraine ridges. We conclude that birch tree-rings are suitable for assessing tree growth/climate/glacial relationships over a longer timescale in maritime Kamchatka.

 

[Sandvol]

"Dumb. There’s a consensus about a great many things. Every piece of technology you own is based on one or more scientific consensuses."

You ignorant statist. Those technologies are based upon models that actually work. Not ones that don't work.