RIP AGW

[brenthutch 444]

What ever happend to global warming...oh yah...science.

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Energy/17nov/Lindzen_Testimony.pdf

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Not to beat a dead horse, but it is just too much fun to rub it is the faces of the uneducated.

[firemedic 7]

I don't know what happened to it but damn, I need a hot cocoa and my slippers.



PSA "Have you hugged your trees today?"

[quade 4]

Richard S. Lindzen has been an AG denier for at least a decade.

One of the prime arguments some people have against Al Gore is they believe he will become wealthy somehow due to his stance and therefore has a vested interest in promoting the idea of AGW.

Richard S. Lindzen on the other hand has absolutely taken money from ExxonMobile and OPEC for voicing his opinions.

Sources, and who pays for them, matter.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Lindzen

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[juanesky 0]

Sure, we all know only his side has taken money. It's all good in the IPCC and Univ. of East Anglia we all know they are basing their work in sound scientific research.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[brenthutch 444]

Try to play the ball, not the player. Deal with the science and the math.... oh never mind.

Dude you are on the wrong side of this; even Tom Friedman; the author of "Hot Flat and Crowded" conceded that the science on the "hot" part of his thesis is less that robust. One of the lead authors of the latest IPC reports has conceded that "Climate Change" has less to do with climate, and more to with redistribution of wealth.


[url] http://thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/europe-mainmenu-35/5253-un-official-admits-cap-and-trade-is-wealth-redistribution[/url]

That is why climate change was so irresistible to the left/progressives’/liberals. It is the perfect storm. The confluence the evils of humanity, corporations, capitalisms and Western civilization, with the means of controlling the aforementioned. Left wing crack.

[quade 4]

Are you writing ironically on purpose?

Quote

Try to play the ball, not the player.

Then a couple of sentences later;

Quote

That is why climate change was so irresistible to the left/progressives’/liberals. It is the perfect storm. The confluence the evils of humanity, corporations, capitalisms and Western civilization, with the means of controlling the aforementioned. Left wing crack.

Brilliant.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

Is that all you got???

[quade 4]

Quote

Is that all you got???

Nope.

What I DO have is the ENTIRE hearing.
http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2947

Why don't you read all of that rather than just the one that has been cherry picked and get back to me.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Why don't you read all of that rather than just the one that has been cherry picked and get back to me.

Uhhh... some of those people who testified have PH.D. after their name. They must be (GASP) liberals and we know how they argue! By god, why listen to a bunch of scientist (who have nothing better to do all day, but to study the environment) when the only true source of knowledge is Rush Rimjob (it snowed today! PROOF that there is no global warming) and the bible (science does not exist and God can prove it.)

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 3,120]

>What ever happend to global warming...

Hmm, let's see:

==============
2010 tied with 1998 as warmest year on record

Based on data from January through October, 2010 is tied with 1998 as the warmest year on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

Through October, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 58.53 degrees. This value is 1.13 degrees above the 20th-century average.

Records go back to 1880.

With only a few exceptions, the warmth has been present over nearly the entire surface of the Earth in 2010, especially over North America, Africa and the Middle East (see map).

The warmth is occurring despite the cooling effects of La Nina, a periodic lowering of sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean.

According to the Climate Prediction Center, moderate La Nina conditions continued in October. La Nina is expected to strengthen and last at least into the Northern Hemisphere spring of 2011.
================

Don't you hate it when science interferes with a perfectly good denier rant?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>What ever happend to global warming...

Hmm, let's see:

==============
2010 tied with 1998 as warmest year on record

Based on data from January through October, 2010 is tied with 1998 as the warmest year on record, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

Through October, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 58.53 degrees. This value is 1.13 degrees above the 20th-century average.

Records go back to 1880.

With only a few exceptions, the warmth has been present over nearly the entire surface of the Earth in 2010, especially over North America, Africa and the Middle East (see map).

The warmth is occurring despite the cooling effects of La Nina, a periodic lowering of sea-surface temperatures in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean.

According to the Climate Prediction Center, moderate La Nina conditions continued in October. La Nina is expected to strengthen and last at least into the Northern Hemisphere spring of 2011.
================

Don't you hate it when science interferes with a perfectly good denier rant?

Changing the data to fit the theory isn't science, it's propaganda.

Given the continuing errors in the temperature databases, I think I'll take those "predictions" with several grains of salt.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

I'll take those "predictions" with several grains of salt.

That salt you artificially add eventually makes its way into the water cycle. The resulting increased salinity of the water decreases its freezing point. Which allows it to transfer more of its thermal energy to the air. Which contributes to global warming. It also keeps more water in the Great Lakes un-frozen in the winter, to evaporate into the winds sent over by the damned Canucks, exacerbating "lake effect" blizzards. So you're really fucking people over.

[brenthutch 444]

What does your post have to do with AGW? (If you need me to explain what the A means, let me know)

Read the post before you respond. It makes you look silly when you dont, and that makes me sad.

[billvon 3,120]

>What does your post have to do with AGW?

There are three components to AGW.

The first is the increase in CO2 in our atmosphere that we are responsible for. No one sane disputes this.

The second is that, taken by itself, an increase in CO2 results in a stronger greenhouse effect. Very few people doubt this, since it's easy to demonstrate in a lab.

The third is that the climate is indeed warming, which my post demonstrated. Many (like our very own MnealTX) continually post quibbles about this data point or that data point, but the data overall are overwhelming, and leave little doubt that the climate is indeed getting warmer.

Note that none of these are disputed by the paper you yourself posted.

So your question "What ever happend to global warming" has a simple answer - nothing. It's still here and still happening, as the paper you posted demonstrates.

[brenthutch 444]

There is a breakdown in causality between points two and three. (you mix up cause and effect) And an overestimation of the greenhouse effect in point two. (You fail to recognize the logarithmic drop-off in the effect of co2 on the atmosphere).

Using your “logic” I could state:

Dogs give off heat. This is an irrefutable fact and is not questioned by anybody.
There are more dogs in the world that at any time. Again an irrefutable fact.
The planet is warming

#dogs x heat produced by dogs = global warming

[billvon 3,120]

>There is a breakdown in causality between points two and three.

Correct. Which is why I did not state there was a causal link. It is merely strong evidence that there IS a causal link.

>Dogs give off heat. This is an irrefutable fact and is not questioned by
>anybody. There are more dogs in the world that at any time. Again an
>irrefutable fact. The planet is warming.

All of those are true.

Now, if you did the math and determined that the additional dogs were contributing between 1.6 and 2.4 watts of heat per square meter, that argument could serve as support of the theory that "dogs cause global warming." Do you have such support?

Let's take another example. You own several garages. Your policy is to store oily rags in a bin next to the heater. After several fires you investigate and notice:

1) The fires seem to start near the heater where the bin normally is
2) Other people have observed that oily rags stored near heaters will often burst into flames
3) The more full the bin of oily rags, the more likely a fire is to start

Of course, there is no ironclad causal connection that you can make between the storage of oily rags near the heater and fires that destroy your garages. It could be the concrete catching fire (which can happen with oily concrete in a high oxygen environment) or it could be lightning striking your garage in every case (since clear-sky lightning has been observed in the past.)

Still, it would be wise to be a little more careful with your oily rags.

>And an overestimation of the greenhouse effect in point two. (You fail
>to recognize the logarithmic drop-off in the effect of co2 on the
>atmosphere).

Why do you think that?

[billvon 3,120]

>Dude you are on the wrong side of this

I think it's pretty clear that you are; indeed. you're sort of having the wrong debate. It's really not over the science - that's pretty settled. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to warming: it should.

It's about how much warming there will be, and what to do about it.

[brenthutch 444]

I never questioned whether co2 was increasing; it is. I never stated that co2 was not a greenhouse gas, it is.
I question the green jobs panacea, the "settled science" of An Inconvenient Truth, Michael Mann's hocky stick graph, the notion that we can save the planet if we just buy a Prius, recycle, and tax carbon. I question the caterwauling about polar bears and SUVs.
The answer to how much warming there will be and what to do with it is: Very little and nothing.

[quade 4]

Quote

The answer to how much warming there will be and what to do with it is: Very little and nothing.

A foolish idea gambling with the future of human civilization.

While it may be true the earth won't go into some sort of runaway thermal increase, just a minute change of overall temperature can have drastic consequences when it comes to growing seasons. A minor temperature increase could have devastating effects on world wide crop production.

The problem there is that it's estimated that the world will need to produce 50% more food, energy and water by 2030 to account for current population growth. That's only 20 years from now. Not some time in the far off and distant future where we can say "Fuck it; I'll be dead by then."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/18/perfect-storm-john-beddington-energy-food-climate
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7951838.stm
http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1017966.shtml

You think it's fun starting wars over oil? Wait until a global fight breaks out over food production.

It's a global security threat. Even the DoD considers it to be an issue.

Look at the bigger picture and the subtler effects. Even if we ultimately can't stop the planet from warming, we should take whatever steps we can to slow it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[TrophyHusband 0]

Quote

A minor temperature increase could have devastating effects on world wide crop production.

Wouldn't this help solve the population explosion issue? I don't see the problem.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One of the prime arguments some people have against Al Gore is they believe he will become wealthy somehow due to his stance and therefore has a vested interest in promoting the idea of AGW.

Well, there's no question that he gained and will continue to gain wealth from the movement.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

One of the prime arguments some people have against Al Gore is they believe he will become wealthy somehow due to his stance and therefore has a vested interest in promoting the idea of AGW.

Well, there's no question that he gained and will continue to gain wealth from the movement.

Ok, but if you're going to discount his words because of it, you also have to discount Richard S. Lindzen's words as well. To do otherwise would be hypocritical.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

What you fail to understand is that a warmer, wetter world with more co2 will provide more food. Let me pose this quarry, What is the worlds largest desert?

[quade 4]

Quote

What you fail to understand is that a warmer, wetter world with more co2 will provide more food.

Not in this lifetime it wouldn't. Maybe after a few centuries of plant migration which would allow for some top soil to build in the desert areas of today, but certainly not in 20 years.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,120]

>The answer to how much warming there will be and what to do with it is:
>Very little and nothing.

Cool, so you agree that our emissions of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are warming the planet. Looks like your proclamation of the death of AGW was a little premature, then - since you yourself believe it to be alive.