The global warming lie

[Leah G.]

Ok, this article is a bit thick but I'm sure the egg heads on here will enjoy it. Basicly it says that we have been warming and now we probably going to go the other way due to the warming. It could be real quick but probably not tomorrow.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&...2&cid=10046

Edited December 23, 2008 by Hatch

[Mattshark]

I actually said that human presence on this planet is sub-microscopic.

That is a fact. Humanity constitutes approximately 6 to 7 trillionths of a percent of the planet's mass, and they constiutute a mere 8/1,000,000 of a percent of the mass of the atmosphere.

That's not only sub-microspcopic...it's virtually sub-atomic in scale.

However, when one considers the use of percentages and how significant they seem, it might be accurate to state that a 35% increase in CO2 levels is equally insignificant.

After all, what we're really talking about is an increse in CO2 from 280 PPM to 380 PPM...over some period of time. Your 35%.

What it actually means is that the percentage of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has increased from 28 to 38 / 1000 of a percent of the atmopshere.

The actual increase in atmospheric CO2 in real numbers is 1/100 of a percent of the atmopshere. 35% makes it sound far too ominous...and it works to influence people overtly.

Just a thought!

That is completely nonsense a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 is significant. You are talking about how much that CO2 makes up in the atmosphere, which is irrelevant and unrelated. It is the change in atmospheric CO2 that causes the issue, not the current ppm that CO2 makes up of the atmosphere. Such a large change is the important thing.

If you think a species who is capable of completely wiping this planet out is not capable of affecting the climate, I think you are extremely naive.

[Mattshark]

I said, I find sarcasm to be ignorant, and if the glove fits...

Now I see your ego is upfront and center looking to feed itself. I dont

care how smart you think you are. Apparrently not smart enough to realize its always about money.

Why is NASA not credible exactly? Are you joking? Go do your own homework and explain to me why they are so credible. Thus far with what I have read and learned about NASA. Is just how good they are with covering up the truth. Obviously you are a very single minded individual.

I just dont care for repeating myself over and over for an egotistical, closed minded individual who thinks he knows it all because science saids so. Unlike you I dont pretend to know it all. I just call it as I see it. No more or less. Being Open minded is always the best way to approach scientific matters.

Science has always been acceptable to manipulation due to $$$$$$$$$$$. That was my point from the beginning. But it seems your ego just couldnt let a fair and simple view fly. And I also get the feeling you are not so well read with regards to how the world works.

No being sceptical is always the best way to approach science. If you are not sceptical you are a bad scientist.

You have completely failed to back up your point, you have provided no evidence and I do not think you have any knowledge of science to make such a point.

[Mattshark]

Yes...

And here in Eastern PA, we've had 9 inches of snow and sleet and ice...this FALL! That includes the earliest snowfall we've experienced in decades (6" of it on NOV 20).

Right now, it's 12 degrees F...just ever so radically below nominal for this time of year.

It makes it difficult to fall into the hypothesis as fact of MMGW. Especially since the past two years have been demonstrably cooler. We haven't seen more than a handful of 90+ degree days in the summer here in two years, and no temperature above 93 has been recorded...which is wierd.

Sorry but that is weather not climate and this year was the 2nd lowest level of Arctic ice ever recorded. You are looking at short term temperatures not long term.

So how do respond to the papers I have posted MID, I notice you have not actually addressed them. How do you address the evidence of human influenced warming on every continent?

Oh wait it is just a weak hypothesis isn't it. Just a statistically significant one

No pattern their like.

Sorry but did you expect constant warming with every year getting warmer and a complete stop to snow?

[ShyByNature]

No being sceptical is always the best way to approach science. If you are not sceptical you are a bad scientist.

You have completely failed to back up your point, you have provided no evidence and I do not think you have any knowledge of science to make such a point.

Okay Mattshark. I didn't realize you and science had all the answers to the universe.

I also didnt realize to share an opinion in these forums you must have scientific evidence to back his or her opinion up. And the only thing I can see I failed at, is satisfying your narrow minded ego

[Leah G.]

Sorry but that is weather not climate and this year was the 2nd lowest level of Arctic ice ever recorded. You are looking at short term temperatures not long term.

So how do respond to the papers I have posted MID, I notice you have not actually addressed them. How do you address the evidence of human influenced warming on every continent?

Oh wait it is just a weak hypothesis isn't it. Just a statistically significant one

No pattern their like.

Sorry but did you expect constant warming with every year getting warmer and a complete stop to snow?

Mattshark,

Could you please explain to those of us that are not scientists what this graph shows? Is this warming temperatures or ice melt or ozone or Co2 levels? Why are the years out of order? Non scientists are able to post here, right? I hope you don't mind explaining this graph, maybe you could explain the difference between climate change and weather to, it might help for people to understand that climate change effects the weather but the weather is not climate change only a symptoms of the over all problem and sometimes the symptoms don't make sense until the doctor tells you what they mean. I'm sure you can do a much better job than I just did.

Thanks

Hatch

[Mattshark]

Okay Mattshark. I didn't realize you and science had all the answers to the universe.

I also didnt realize to share an opinion in these forums you must have scientific evidence to back his or her opinion up. And the only thing I can see I failed at, is satisfying your narrow minded ego

You made claims, I have asked you to back them up. That is neither having all the answers or anything to do with my ego.

[Mattshark]

Mattshark,

Could you please explain to those of us that are not scientists what this graph shows? Is this warming temperatures or ice melt or ozone or Co2 levels? Why are the years out of order? Non scientists are able to post here, right? I hope you don't mind explaining this graph, maybe you could explain the difference between climate change and weather to, it might help for people to understand that climate change effects the weather but the weather is not climate change only a symptoms of the over all problem and sometimes the symptoms don't make sense until the doctor tells you what they mean. I'm sure you can do a much better job than I just did.

Thanks

Hatch

Hey mate, the graph shows the record global average temperatures with max and min level of anomaly on their too with 1998 being the warmest recorded. It also gives a useful comparison.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Mattshark

[Leah G.]

Hey mate, the graph shows the record global average temperatures with max and min level of anomaly on their too with 1998 being the warmest recorded. It also gives a useful comparison.

Thanks!

[Bearly]

Thank you kiethsco...

Humanity does indeed have an effect on its LOCAL ENVIRONS. That is an issue worth adrerssing. However, there is nothing indicating that the CO2 levels in any major city are having any effect on the GLOBAL climate. They are definitely having an effect on small local environments (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Dallas, etc...), and we should be doing something for the sake of the people who populate those concentrated areas of humanity en masse, but to extend that obvious abberation into the global climate is tandamount to saying that a pimple on your back is going to kill you.

Global CO2 levels have increased also, it is not just a local event, I was too lazy to dig up references earlier, but here is one of many, good old wiki, showing a steady increase in CO2 since 1960 alone, from 312 to 382 ppm as measured from Mauna Lao Hawaii. So it is not just industrial centers that are experiencing increases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

[Bearly]

Actually water vapor is 80 times more efficient as a greenhouse gas than CO2. As the Earth gets hot water evaporates from the oceans causing clouds that block sunlight thereby causing the Earth to cool back down on its own. Water molecules are larger than CO2 molecules and that is why they are more efficient. An inversion holds clouds close to the ground trapping the heat in temporarily. The elite want a carbon tax so they can control our energy supply and get paid for nothing, like insurance. I give Matt credit for this one. Good job!

As water vapor increases, there is no guarrentee that the extent of increase in cloud formation will be great enough to cool the Earth substantially, or to an extent that will counter the increase in temperature from the water vapor. I have experienced many hot, humid days with no clouds in sight. Clouds are formed when the air temperature is cooled below the dew point. So the air must be cool for cloudes to form.

Most scientists are worried about a positive feedback, the warmer air from increased water vapor causes more water vapor, which in turn causes higher temperatures.

[MID]

Global CO2 levels have increased also, it is not just a local event, I was too lazy to dig up references earlier, but here is one of many, good old wiki, showing a steady increase in CO2 since 1960 alone, from 312 to 382 ppm as measured from Mauna Lao Hawaii. So it is not just industrial centers that are experiencing increases.

That's not what I was talking about in my post. That is well established, Bearly...(the increase in atmopsheric CO2). It's generally a result of warming, not a cause...

I was discussing effects locally as opposed to globally, and the relative importance, as well as the relative effectiveness of man on influencing them.

[MID]

That is completely nonsense a 35% increase in atmospheric CO2 is significant. You are talking about how much that CO2 makes up in the atmosphere, which is irrelevant and unrelated. It is the change in atmospheric CO2 that causes the issue, not the current ppm that CO2 makes up of the atmosphere. Such a large change is the important thing.

If you think a species who is capable of completely wiping this planet out is not capable of affecting the climate, I think you are extremely naive.

Your zeal is admirable.

You might realize that an increase in CO2 is a by-product of warming...and that CO2 has been increasing by miniscule amounts for a very, very long time, as warming has been occurring for millenia. Certainly, we've added a tiny bit to the atmosphere as well...but contributing a fraction to a component of the atmosphere which constitutes 0.038% of it, and stating uncategorically that that miniscule percentage is catastrophic, is the height of human folly.

This species has absolutely no capability of WIPING THIS PLANET OUT Matt. This species has the capability of wiping ITSELF OUT, and therein lies the difference.

The Earth could care less if we wipe ourselves out. It will remain and recover from anything we can dish out in our relative puniness. And it doesn't care if we're here or not.

The idea that the planet can be wiped out by US is a reflection of my main premise in this whole MMGW effect---over-inflated human self-importance.

We could annihilate ourselves tomorrow in a nuclear holocaust. The Earth would still be here...and would recover herself, and never care about us...

We have considerations to consider, certainly. But they pertain to OUR survival, in certain areas...not the planet's.

[MID]

Sorry but that is weather not climate and this year was the 2nd lowest level of Arctic ice ever recorded. You are looking at short term temperatures not long term.

So how do respond to the papers I have posted MID, I notice you have not actually addressed them. How do you address the evidence of human influenced warming on every continent?

Oh wait it is just a weak hypothesis isn't it. Just a statistically significant one

No...I have looked at exceedingly long term temperatures. It's obvious that we haven't warmed significantly in 10,000 years, and that the cyclical ebbs and flows of global temperature are regular, and repeated, and that we will soon (geologically speaking) be cooling.

I don't respond to the papers you posted, because as I said, you will be able to produce arguments for as well as I can produce more resonable papers that respond against.

It will go on until the nonsense is finished running its course.

There is absolutely nothing but human folly involved in promoting this exceedingly recent craze of pseudo science, Matt. It's a brand new argument. One which has been promoted by political agendae and decidedly bad if not completely falsified "science" in some cases.

The papers you posted?

You dismissed, out of hand, the Minority Report, which was a compilation of hundreds of scientists, including the most prominent in climatology we have... positions claiming the contrary of the U.N report...you never even adressed it. You simply called it crap. Hundreds of pages of crap.

Case closed, I should think. The argument is a waste of time.

You're mired in your perceptions of the overt self-importance of humanity which today seems to extend to a planetary scale! A ludicrous and untenable position.

As I've said before, the hypothesis is valid. However, it's just an hypothesis, and nothing more. Decades of work need to be done yet to determine whether our miniscule contribution to an already miniscule percentage of CO2 in our atmnosphere actually is having any effect at all on global climatology---despite observations of ice cap melting, etc....which has happened before, and we have no idea if what we see now is aberrant at all.

I personally think the entire proposition is untenable. I am not alone. The majority of prominent climatologists share the same position. You dismiss that as crap, but then again, I told you so! Politics is a nasty, underhanded game. It can effect even the best people, and in many cases concerning this situation it has.

You yourself have confirmed my initial premise. You are ignoring what I've said, asking me about skewed "scientific" reports confirming an hypothesis as theory, and have out of hand dismissed legitimate work showing the contrary to be in fact true.

To hell with carbon footprints, carbon credits, and all that other ridiculous nonsense. Humanity needs to address prominent real problems and do it now:

We need alternatives for the future vis-a-vis energy.

We need to clean up our major population centers.

We need to provide energy for our population that makes sense now, and for the future.

Restricting energy production by the means we know how right now is not the way to do that, because we're talking business here---and the people who provide the current energy needs are the ones who will, if given the chance, provide better alternatives for the future...the ONLY ONES WHO CAN DO SO.

But they have to have the impetus and the finances to invest in that. Right now, they don't. And the most astutely manged energy companies aren't doing it because they know where their bread and butter lie--in oil! Let them drill, let them produce, and you'll see the change you want. Don't, and you'll see no changes for the forseeable future.

The MMGW craze is about limiting our abilities to develop the "clean" alternatives which will serve our future health and well-being. It has nothing to do with the planet---it has to do with us...our survival, our well being.

MMGW is a non-scientific political ruse, designed for the benefit of a radical agenda of large government, power and control. It has nothing to do with the planet, nor any concern with humanity's future. It has to do with their future as a political power....

[Lumens]

good on ya hatch..

[Mattshark]

No...I have looked at exceedingly long term temperatures. It's obvious that we haven't warmed significantly in 10,000 years, and that the cyclical ebbs and flows of global temperature are regular, and repeated, and that we will soon (geologically speaking) be cooling.

I don't respond to the papers you posted, because as I said, you will be able to produce arguments for as well as I can produce more resonable papers that respond against.

It will go on until the nonsense is finished running its course.

There is absolutely nothing but human folly involved in promoting this exceedingly recent craze of pseudo science, Matt. It's a brand new argument. One which has been promoted by political agendae and decidedly bad if not completely falsified "science" in some cases.

The papers you posted?

You dismissed, out of hand, the Minority Report, which was a compilation of hundreds of scientists, including the most prominent in climatology we have... positions claiming the contrary of the U.N report...you never even adressed it. You simply called it crap. Hundreds of pages of crap.

Case closed, I should think. The argument is a waste of time.

You're mired in your perceptions of the overt self-importance of humanity which today seems to extend to a planetary scale! A ludicrous and untenable position.

As I've said before, the hypothesis is valid. However, it's just an hypothesis, and nothing more. Decades of work need to be done yet to determine whether our miniscule contribution to an already miniscule percentage of CO2 in our atmnosphere actually is having any effect at all on global climatology---despite observations of ice cap melting, etc....which has happened before, and we have no idea if what we see now is aberrant at all.

I personally think the entire proposition is untenable. I am not alone. The majority of prominent climatologists share the same position. You dismiss that as crap, but then again, I told you so! Politics is a nasty, underhanded game. It can effect even the best people, and in many cases concerning this situation it has.

You yourself have confirmed my initial premise. You are ignoring what I've said, asking me about skewed "scientific" reports confirming an hypothesis as theory, and have out of hand dismissed legitimate work showing the contrary to be in fact true.

To hell with carbon footprints, carbon credits, and all that other ridiculous nonsense. Humanity needs to address prominent real problems and do it now:

We need alternatives for the future vis-a-vis energy.

We need to clean up our major population centers.

We need to provide energy for our population that makes sense now, and for the future.

Restricting energy production by the means we know how right now is not the way to do that, because we're talking business here---and the people who provide the current energy needs are the ones who will, if given the chance, provide better alternatives for the future...the ONLY ONES WHO CAN DO SO.

But they have to have the impetus and the finances to invest in that. Right now, they don't. And the most astutely manged energy companies aren't doing it because they know where their bread and butter lie--in oil! Let them drill, let them produce, and you'll see the change you want. Don't, and you'll see no changes for the forseeable future.

The MMGW craze is about limiting our abilities to develop the "clean" alternatives which will serve our future health and well-being. It has nothing to do with the planet---it has to do with us...our survival, our well being.

MMGW is a non-scientific political ruse, designed for the benefit of a radical agenda of large government, power and control. It has nothing to do with the planet, nor any concern with humanity's future. It has to do with their future as a political power....

So you are accusing NASA, NOAA, UEA CRU, Met Office and the NSIDC as well as the most prestigious science journals, Science and Nature, of a conspiracy as well as at least every European climatology department and the vast majority of US depts as well as every major scientific institute in the world and science magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American and Nat Geo.

So if you want to make a massive claim (which counters you claims about NASA in the UFO section btw) then feel free to back it up. Because you have failed to comment on any actual science what so ever or post any evidence.

Have you read that minority report? I have it uses web based news sites as a source. It uses incorrect equations. It is mainly quotes as well. The head of the minority has also lied in congress about data. So why should I accept it over scientific data.

Sorry but you have failed to make a single worthwhile arguement or present any evidence and you have out right refused to even acknowledge real scientific work in the best journals around.

Edited December 24, 2008 by Mattshark

[MID]

Sorry but you have failed to make a single worthwhile arguement or present any evidence and you have out right refused to even acknowledge real scientific work in the best journals around.

Yes, I can see that.

Perhaps you haven't realized what I've said about these things previously. Your lathered position regarding this has made you ignore my main points.

It is pointless to list link after link after link of opposing viewpoints. The argument is circular and will continue unabated.

I'll tell you what.

You may adhere to your position, and believe that in a couple of decades that mankind's influence on this planet will have caused massive climatological change which will cause all sorts of hell on this planet, something that the planet's own activities vis-a-vis greenhouse gas expulsions, which dwarf humanity's, can't do. Buy your carbon credits, pay higher taxes, completely fail to produce genuine energy independence and provide the advanced energy sources for our future health and well being...and preach doom and gloom.

For my part, I will simply watch the planet do it's natural thing...and perhaps, in 20 years, if Greenland has melted and half of New York City is underwater, you can say, "I told you so!"

However, if the reverse is the case...which is highly likely, I won't say a word!

I'll just smile.

[Mattshark]

Yes, I can see that.

Perhaps you haven't realized what I've said about these things previously. Your lathered position regarding this has made you ignore my main points.

It is pointless to list link after link after link of opposing viewpoints. The argument is circular and will continue unabated.

I'll tell you what.

You may adhere to your position, and believe that in a couple of decades that mankind's influence on this planet will have caused massive climatological change which will cause all sorts of hell on this planet, something that the planet's own activities vis-a-vis greenhouse gas expulsions, which dwarf humanity's, can't do. Buy your carbon credits, pay higher taxes, completely fail to produce genuine energy independence and provide the advanced energy sources for our future health and well being...and preach doom and gloom.

For my part, I will simply watch the planet do it's natural thing...and perhaps, in 20 years, if Greenland has melted and half of New York City is underwater, you can say, "I told you so!"

However, if the reverse is the case...which is highly likely, I won't say a word!

I'll just smile.

Believe me, I would prefer your scenario of natural change.

[MID]

Believe me, I would prefer your scenario of natural change.

We'll just have to wait and see, I think Matt.

[Mattshark]

We'll just have to wait and see, I think Matt.

Yes.

Doesn't mean we should not change or patently unsustainable practices.

[Leah G.]

Ok then, Merry Christmas! Agree to disagree.

[ShyByNature]

You made claims, I have asked you to back them up. That is neither having all the answers or anything to do with my ego.

James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is widely respected as one of the world's leading climate scientists. He says the public is being lied to and duped by special interest groups about the severity of the threat that global warming poses. He also claims that policy makers and big oil executives are sacrificing public interest to line their own pockets. Rest of the Article.

This just be one of many distinguished persons making the exact same point as I am. My point being, the information is out there to back up my claims. Its just narrow closed minded people such as yourself, dont want to see the real truth.

It was your ego that wouldnt let a fair based point of view fly....Yes it has everything to do with your ego Joe

Edited December 25, 2008 by ShyByNature

[Cimber]

James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is widely respected as one of the world's leading climate scientists. He says the public is being lied to and duped by special interest groups about the severity of the threat that global warming poses. He also claims that policy makers and big oil executives are sacrificing public interest to line their own pockets. Rest of the Article.

This just be one of many distinguished persons making the exact same point as I am. My point being, the information is out there to back up my claims. Its just narrow closed minded people such as yourself, dont want to see the real truth.

It was your ego that wouldnt let a fair based point of view fly....Yes it has everything to do with your ego Joe

Wait. Maybe, since I haven't participated in this thread, I am not exactly sure of your position on the matter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but what exactly was the point he and you are both making? I see no correlation. Did you actually read the article!? Perhaps you need to go past the first paragraph.

It seems to me, when reading your previous posts, that Hansen and you are on opposite ends of the spectrum when dealing with Global Warming.

Edited December 25, 2008 by Cimber

[MID]

Yes.

Doesn't mean we should not change or patently unsustainable practices.

I don't think there's actually any argument concerning current practices, and the need for future alternatives. There's likely arguments to be made for the sustainability of certain practices, but overall, we pay an awful lot of lip-service to alternative, and cleaner energy for the future, and we don't take the prudent steps neccesary to actually get the ball rolling on their development and implementation.

It's all politics, with a hefty dose of business thrown in.

Quite frankly, I think the major inhibiting factor is environmental extremism and the Congress of the United States, a body who has kowtowed to the former for well over a generation.

Real alternatives involve ignoring the former and relplacing the latter in my view.

[Kyle O'Brian]

I don't know if climate change is real or not and frankly, I don't care. The truth is, whether or not global warming is happening, we need to take better care of our Earth. People are lazy and stupid, and they won't care until someone tells them that they are on the brink of destruction. Climate change makes for an effective push in the right direction to get people to take care of the planet.