ARS on Twitter
RSS
Around the Blogs, etc.
Posted by Bigfoot on January 28th, 2009
Right on time. Al Gore arrives in Washington, DC to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations committee, and is greeted by snow and ice. As Hooda Thunk correctly puts it:
OK, so DC considers an accumulation of 2-4 inches as a “snow storm.” I know some people in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Ohio that would consider that a “dusting.” Semantics aside, the way DC’s, Maryland’s, and Virginia’s snow removal handles it, 2-4 inches is a snow storm here.
I realize, of course, that the simultaneous arrival of winter weather and Al Gore is a coincidence. A day or two of snow and ice doesn’t tell us very much about whether his views on global warming/climate change are correct. After all, it wasn’t anything like what he faced in 2004, when he gave a speech in New York.
From Just A Grunt at Lighthouse On The Right, John Murtha’s constituents give their $0.02 about hosting the Gitmo detainees.
From Stix, the statue that the MSM won’t tell you about.
From Willisms, some information that Duncan will appreciate. Only one state added private-sector jobs in 2008.
Madmood Imadimwitjob has a message for President Obama. As I’ve asked before, still looking forward to those no-preconditions-necessary talks, Mr. President?
And finally, a web page intended to answer the question, “Has the Large Hadron Collider destroyed the earth yet?” I believe it could also be used to tell your congresscritters if you want them to enact the proposed “stimulus” package.
January 28th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
How dare anyone confront Algore and his fanatic socialist proponents/worshippers with facts?!? Besides, the cooling trend over the past decade just goes to show the validity of MMGW, dontcha know?
If this were the Thirteenth century Algore would eventually end up roasted on some glutton’s table, with an apple stuck in his unshuttable noise maker. That’s what they did to pigs back then, isn’t it?
January 28th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Thanks for the link.
I do not know if the winter storms and the Goracle preaching form the BOok of Manbearpig is a coincidence. Anytime the Goracle gives a sermon about Manbearpig, Old Man Winter shows his face and we are hit with snow and ice.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Carlos, if Gore had been around when the Medieval Warm Period gave way to the Little Ice Age, I’m sure he would have found a way to blame it on human activity. Soot from all those cooking fires used to roast pigs, maybe.
Stix, just passing on the info about the statue, as your posts requests. The phenomenon you’ve noted is called the “Al Gore Effect”. Maybe someday he’ll get a clue and schedule his sermons in summer, but I’m not betting on it.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Carlos:
What “facts” are you saying Gore has been confronted with? Before you get too carried away about this latest “cooling trend”, you may want to research El Nino and La Nina events, and they’re roles in recent annual temperatures. By the way, if you don’t think human activity is primarily to blame for recent warming, what do you propose has been the primary driver?
Bigfoot:
Or it could be that he understands the difference between weather and climate.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Reasic, as I said in the original post, winter weather arriving on the same day as Gore says little if anything about whether he’s correct. In other words, I, too, understand the difference. However, the warning that weather is not the same thing as climate seems to appear from Gore’s side only to warn skeptics who notice usually cold weather. No such caution seems to occur when one of Gore’s believers claim some specific weather event as evidence of manmade global warming.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Bigfoot,
Maybe you should look harder:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181
Those who know what they’re talking about will tell you that no specific weather event can be linked to global warming with any certainty.
However, the when record temperatures or droughts do occur, the question will continue to surface, as a warmer planet is predicted to bring about certain changes in local weather patterns. I believe it is too early to really attribute anything, but we will definitely begin to see attributable problems if the planet warms another couple of degrees.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Reasic, the joking I see here about weather events disproving GW is just the counterpart to breathless news stories about how other weather events demonstrate GW. It’s just humorous push-back; we know the difference between weather and climate – and I know you know there’s a difference to. So let’s all respect each other’s intelligence.
However, the end of your last comments gets a bit on thin ice. It is true that if GW is true, we should see certain events (though see my next paragraph about the evanescence of GW predictions). However, the hazard is going the other direction – and arguing that the occurrence of the events validates GW as it’s cause. Certainly you know that correlation does not demostrate causality – and right now, there are still too many confounding variables to give a very high independent r-value to CO2 increase.
However, prediction has been a weak suit of the global warming theorists in that the attempt to verify these predictions looks more like the recount in the Washington state governor’s election in 2004 (or what’s going on in MN). The target keeps moving – or as I periodically read in press reports, GW becomes a theory of everything and beyond falsification. Graphs and measurements become “refined” and the changes all end up coming more into accord with GW (like the above mentioned elections); because the adjusters know the endpoint they’re looking for, they are prone to end up (perhaps intentionally, more likely unconciously) biasing the adjustments to fit what they know should be the outcome.
I’m not going to take a adamant line that GW isn’t happening, but given the magnitudes that we might be seeing, I would certainly not rank it that high on the list of the world’s problems compared to those many issues that could kill millions within the next few months to years.
January 29th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Reasic, thanks for the info. So apparently there IS some caution out there. But when global warming is cited as a reason for many different effects, including opposites (e.g., both floods and droughts), such cool heads (pardon the pun) seem to be short supply. As reported in the Telegraph:
Although it’s fair to say that Mr. Gunter employs some humorous exaggeration about environmentalists “shrieking”, he seems to have noticed the same lack of caution that I have.
All I’m saying is that talking about global warming when it’s cold outside does look a bit odd, even if there’s little if any significance to it.
As for substantive evidence that Gore might be wrong, there seems to be more than just the odd cold day here or there. Most of this information was reported during the winter of 2007-08, even before 2008 became recognized as an unusually cold year.
January 29th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Civil Truth,
You’re right, but we cannot base what to do on the severity of the problem now. The planet is currently out of balance. There are still long-term feedbacks which have to neutralize, so even if we stopped all CO2 emissions now, we’d still see an additional increase in temperatures. Therefore, activists who understand the potential future threat simply realize the need to act now to prevent that threat. If we wait until we are already seeing significant changes in climate and sea level, it’ll be too late.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
What about Mother Nature?
Since we have NO data from the old days, we cannot assume man is causing global warming. For all we know, this could be a normal earthly pattern. I’m a skeptic and we need more people to be so…without the hard data there is NO way to properly assess this. Period. Therefore, we should collect data for future use and stop trying to bring mankind back to the CaveMan days. Okay that was a bit over the top but there are some who think this is the ONLY way. Then we have hypocrites who demand we all buy carbon credits yet who live outrageous luxury lives flying in fancy jets…creating more problems according to themselves. (AlBore)
And, a lot of folks are making a lot of money on all this. We can’t discount that. (AlBore)
When the GW hysterics start living that they preach, maybe others will take a more serious look. Until then, it’s considered a fringe element to many people. What is your lifestyle Reasic? Do you live in a cave home that doesn’t emit any environmentally harmful gasses? Do you bike to and from work every day? Are you a pure vegan who refuses to eat meat because, you know, the cow farts harm the atmosphere after all…do you drive a hybrid vehicle and never ever fly in a plane? If you can’t answer yes to every one of these, you need to STFU. Cause you are a hypocrite.
January 29th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
How timely.
http://snipurl.com/azc9j
January 29th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
I take it you’ve never heard of paleoclimatology. What exactly are the “old days”, anyways? What time period are you referring to that we have NO data for, and how does that disprove anthropogenic climate change? I’ll give you a brief explanation of how we could still know that man is at least mostly responsible:
1. We know that CO2 concentrations have increased from human activity:
Since the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has risen dramatically. It is now higher than it has been at any point in the past 650,000 years. Scientists have verified that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is from human activity by studying the isotopes of carbon in the molecules. Carbon dioxide emissions from human activity contain a different carbon isotope than that of naturally occurring CO2.
2. We know that carbon dioxide traps heat:
We also know, via basic atmospheric physics, that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means that it absorbs long wave infrared light, which vibrates the molecule, releasing energy as heat. So, the Sun emits short wave IR at the earth, which is absorbed, and then excess IR is re-emitted back to space as long wave IR, which is trapped by greenhouse gases, warming the earth. Without this greenhouse effect, our planet would be a block of ice. So, the more greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide), the more heat is trapped in.
3. The amount of heat resulting from increases in carbon dioxide concentrations has been quantified:
Through scientific research, scientists have determined that the doubling of CO2 concentrations would result in an increase of 3 degrees Celsius, or 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (including the effects of short-term feedbacks). This has been verified by several independent studies.
4. We also know that the Sun is not a primary cause of recent warming:
In recent decades, we have witnessed a warming in the lower troposphere, while at the same time, the stratosphere has cooled. This is an expected reaction to an increase in the greenhouse effect. However, if an increase in solar irradiance were the cause, we would expect to see a uniform warming through the atmosphere. You can also do a simple calculation of the solar output from the Sun to disprove this, but I won’t go there now.
So, if more CO2 causes warming and CO2 concentrations have increased as a result of human activity, is it not then reasonable to conclude that human activity is primarily to blame. Keep in mind that I haven’t even scratched the surface on the science of climate change. There is much more information out there than you make it seem.
True “skeptics” are skeptical of everything, not simply that with which they disagree. I assume, then, that you have sought out rebuttals to your skeptical arguments from the AGW crowd? Or at least have looked through the IPCC report?
This is untrue. It is a common misconception among conservatives that Al Gore personally benefits from some devious scheme to sell carbon credits.
Okay, smart ass. First of all, I didn’t “preach” anything, did I? I haven’t told ANYONE to go live in a cave or bike to work, so maybe you should STFU, and instead, learn a little bit about what the hell you’re talking about before you go making a fool of yourself. I have made small personal changes, but the only way to make real change is through change at the macro level. We need a change to renewable energy sources, better fuel efficiency, and more sustainable land development and building standards, for starters. I’m not asking you to live in a cave, so me not doing so doesn’t make me an f’ing hypocrit. All I’m asking is that you consider ALL the evidence that is available to you BEFORE you make up your mind on the subject. Then, make up your mind based on an objective weighing of the evidence laid out before you, rather than on whether I live in a cave or not.
January 30th, 2009 at 1:21 am
Raven:
“Since we have NO data from the old days….”
We do have climate data from the old days. The very old days. CO2 levels from 10,000 years ago have been collected from core ice samples in the polar caps since the 1960’s (why do you think we have bases in the North and South Pole).
I love when people call themselves a “skeptic” when really they just refuse to read : )
January 30th, 2009 at 1:26 am
I’m with Reasic when he says people should read the facts before they speak. The only thing I would add to Reasic comments is that people should be reading journals from scientific sources. Take a peep at the manuscripts in PubMed, Ovid, Lancet, Nature, Science Direct….ect. I respect blog news, but it only amounts to second had sources. If you want first hand facts you have to read the original scientific data, not someone’s interpretation of it.
January 30th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Reasic said:
I have made small personal changes, but the only way to make real change is through change at the macro level. We need a change to renewable energy sources, better fuel efficiency, and more sustainable land development and building standards, for starters.
Macro level? Oh puleeze. Don’t ever expect me to respect or believe even one of your rants; I have little time for those who preach one thing yet live another. I bet I live a more environmentally friendly lifestyle than you- and I do not believe man has caused GW.
Hyprocrite. Plain and simple. If you’re not willing to sacrifice, then you are a hypocrite.
Old days isn’t 50 yrs ago…or 100 yrs ago…I was thinking more in terns of tens of thousands of yrs, and millions. There is no date, hard core day-to-day record of temps, storms, trends, and so on. We have no way to know, for sure without any doubt, that the current weather trends are truly extreme or just. mother. nature. doing. her. thing. Unless you all can cough up data from tens of thousands and millions of yrs ago- your arguments are meaningless. Not to just me.
January 31st, 2009 at 12:07 pm
How presumptuous of you. Besides, as I said, did I preach to anyone here about what to do about global warming? NO! And yet, you continue with this asinine argument about hypocrisy. We can’t possibly agree on what to do about climate change unless we first agree on the problem itself. You won’t agree to doing ANYTHING on ANY level, if you don’t even agree that the problem exists.
First of all, you don’t know me. Secondly, I just love how you think I have to live the life that YOU think I should live in order to prove to you that global warming is anthropogenic. What a convenient argument for someone who doesn’t know the first thing about climate science.
Right… We don’t know the exact temperature a million years ago, so there’s no way to prove anything, so let’s just continue business as usual. I’d like to see you try to get THAT profound theory through scientific peer-review.
Nice effect with the periods. I find it intriguing that you are so content with a lack of understanding. Regardless whether it’s due to human activity or “just mother nature doing her thing”, there is a scientific explanation for the processes involved. So, whether you like it or not, there is also a burden of proof on you to prove your point scientifically. So, if you don’t think human activity is primarily to blame, what specifically do you propose is the primary culprit?
Now, it is true that IF this were simply a natural process, there would be no need for alarm. The planet has a natural carbon cycle, in which it keeps itself in balance. However, currently, human activity has resulted in an excess amount of carbon dioxide emissions, which has thrown the planet’s equilibrium out of balance. Therefore, it is imperative that we actually strive to understand the problem, rather than just assuming everything’s okay, because that’s what is politically and economically expedient.
I agree with you: “I’m a skeptic and we need more people to be so…” However, I think this means that we must strive to understand the climate, rather than just simply assume that mother nature is doing her thing. So, why don’t you prove your supposed “skepticism” and explain to me what alternative process you believe has caused our recent warming?
January 31st, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Raven:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
The ice records for CO2 go back over 750,000 years and have been collected since the 1960’s.
Considering that humans have only been around for about 400,000 years (and that’s a very, very LIBERAL guess. Ha-ha) the set-up for a great scientific study is pretty profound. Did humans have an affect on CO2 levels over time? The ice records show CO2 trends before and after humans came into being. If there is a faster trend in rising CO2 levels after humans hit the scène then you know we are a principle cause of global warming.
So now that I have provided you with evidence of global warming how about you and I go hunt down Al Gores autograph : )
January 31st, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Reasic, I don’t find the ice core data particularly germane to the GW debate, except to indicate what the pre-human boundaries on temperature and CO2 levels have been. At least from what I’ve read, CO2 is a trailing indicator in these cores – that is, the warming occurred first, and the CO2 rises later (approx 800 years later, if I recall) – degassing from warming ocean water?
In any case, since the GW debate is over whether CO2 from human activity is triggering a harmful temperature rise, data from an era where temperature drives CO2 doesn’t cast light on current mechanisms.
The main problem I have with the data sets is that the errors in the multiple measurement that are taken, the assumptions behind the averaging process and filling in of non-data areas, and the compounding of error by these averaging into a single data point involves too much noise to discern a signal. And then when you go back historically, we don’t have that many years before we have to go with sparser data or even surrogate data – which then requires even a lot of hindcasting assumptions to try to create a past temperature average.
Not to mention the issue of cycles of the 20-80 year range. We did have a cooling in the 70’s (which the GW people ascribe to sulfur – from dirty coal I think) and interestingly, we’re seeing another recent temperature dip, which I wonder if it relates to China’s coal burning, which isn’t likely to decrease much and probably will continue to increase. At my understanding is that much or most of the Arctic changes are from albedo/particulates and water currents rather than purely air temperature-induced changes.
With all the handwaving going on with the current data, your argument basically comes back to a) CO2 is increasing, 2) this is creating imbalance which is bad karma, 3) we need to do something now at all costs because we have to atone and “rebalance” – which is an argument you’re entitled to make, but please don’t base it on science.
And I would challenge the assumption that the current temperature should hold a privileged position; history indicates that warmer eras have been better for civilizations and colder periods lead to misery and wars and societal breakdowns. So I’m not sure that I accept the imbalance argument – indeed increasing CO2 may be what’s going to keep us out of a new ice age.
In any case, I’d much prefer to spend our limited national resources to protect us from a terrorist attack (and imagine the carbon footprint and environmental imbalance of a urban nuclear device). And the surveys where experts prioritize human problems put GW near the bottom of the list. So appeals to authority aren’t going to go too far with me.
So I’d certainly like to continue to see research going on. But I’m not going to heed alarmists with an agenda, especially those who want to guilt trip the U.S. into futile unilateral action.
February 1st, 2009 at 12:53 am
Raven and CT:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Paleoclimatology_IceCores/
The ice records for CO2 go back over 750,000 years and have been collected since the 1960’s.
Considering that humans have only been around for about 400,000 years (and that’s a very, very LIBERAL guess. Ha-ha) the set-up for a great scientific study is pretty profound. Did humans have an affect on CO2 levels over time? The ice records show CO2 trends before and after humans came into being. If there is a faster trend in rising CO2 levels after humans hit the scène then you know we are a principle cause of global warming.
So now that I have provided you with evidence of global warming how about you and I go hunt down Al Gores autograph : )
February 2nd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
CT,
Thanks for your intelligible response. At least you’ve referenced some scientific topics, which is much more than most “skeptics” I’ve come across. I’m busy right now, but I’ll work up a response for you.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:21 pm
CT,
Sorry in advance for the length:
You’re right. Ice core studies have found that during glacial terminations, carbon dioxide concentrations rose well after temperatures, because the warmer temperatures caused the oceans to warm, which caused a subsequent release of carbon dioxide. There are two very important points that are often missed by “skeptics” who use this as evidence against global warming: this study does not disprove the fact that carbon dioxide is a heat-trapping greenhouse gas, and that human activity is the source of the majority of the excess carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. If we had a warming event that began 800 years prior to this recent increase in CO2 concentrations, you might have a point, but this is not the case.
The facts are that we know, thanks to studies of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere (and the fact that CO2 levels are higher than ever in the last 650,000 years), that human activity is primarily responsible for the unprecedented increase in CO2 concentrations, and also that a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would result in an increase in global temperatures of about 3 degrees celsius, or 5.4 degrees fahrenheit, including short-term feedbacks.
Again, this is a false dilemma. The fact that temperature at one time caused an increase in CO2 concentrations does not negate the proven fact that CO2 also increases temperature, especially in a situation in which CO2 was pumped into the atmosphere first, and there is not an abundance of CO2 stored in cold oceans, waiting to be degassed.
So, are you also questioning the fact that the planet has warmed? I thought most “skeptics” had already laid that one to rest.
1. My understanding is that the current “dip” is more a result of a historically strong El Nino event in 1998, followed by moderate La Ninas afterward. Of course, as with everything else climate related, there are many factors at play, so I’m not going to discount the possibility of China’s development or a decrease in solar output as having played a role.
2. The same goes for Arctic changes — there are many factors at play. The overall downward trend is an indicator of global warming, but variations in the trend, such as the 2007 anomaly, are definitely evidence that other factors are at play, such as thinner sea ice, higher Arctic atmospheric pressures, and unusually warm air.
This is not at all my argument. We can’t possibly come to an agreement on anything, if you’re just going to intentionally misrepresent my arguments to make them look ridiculous. That’s dishonest. So, I’ll start over for you (please no alterations of your own):
1. CO2 concentrations have risen in recent years to unprecedented levels in the last 650,000 years.
2. This increase is almost entirely due to CO2 emissions from human industrial activity.
3. Contributions to recent warming have been quantified, and carbon dioxide has been found to have played the greatest role.
(a) In addition, detection and attribution studies have found that warming trends in various levels of the atmosphere are as would be expected with an increase in the greenhouse effect.
4. Since carbon dioxide is the primary climate forcing causing recent warming and humans are responsible for recent increases in the atmosphereic content of CO2, humans are therefore responsible for the majority of recent warming.
5. Since humans are primarily responsible for recent warming, continued emissions increases will result in further warming of the planet.
6. As the planet continues to warm unabated, problems will develop from sea level rise,
drought, and snow cap melt, among other things. (http://www.gtp89.dial.pipex.com/spm.pdf — IPCC WGII)
7. Mitigation efforts are needed in order to keep the planet from warming to an unsustainable level, thereby avoiding the consequences laid out in the IPCC report above.
Much of the “evidence” you’re referring to is anecdotal (freezing of the thames, vineyards in northern europe, etc.). Sure, there are some areas that may be slightly better off, while others will struggle, but a slightly better crop in a mid-latitude range doesn’t quite offset the extinction of 30% of species, the bleaching of most corals, increased occurances of wildfires and flooding, and lower productivity of cereals. You can paint it as rosey as you like, but claiming that global warming would actually be better overall shows a clear lack of understanding of the threat.
Besides, by your reasoning, countries in higher latitudes should have more conflict and misery than those nearer the equator. I’d be interested to see some scientific explanation of this supposed correlation.
This is another false dilemma. I believe we can address global warming along with terrorism and any of the many other threats we face right now.
We should probably keep the debate on the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming anyway. How can you and I possibly agree on what to about a problem that you don’t even agree exists? It’s fairly obvious that you’re not going to want to spend any resources on fighting global warming if you don’t fully understand it. So, that’s a waste of time.
Well, I’m not sure what to say about that. Research is certainly going on, but the problem
is, most “skeptics” ignore it. I understand you’re not for doing anything to combat climate change yet, but as I said before, you need to better understand the threat first.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Reasic, thank you for your thorough response. I think it would be best to take further conversation off-line, to allow a more deliberate exchange and to avoid taking up more bandwidth here. I will e-mail you promptly.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:12 am
Yet you have admitted, Reasic, that, like most of the AGW believers, you have done almost nothing to mitigate and reduce your carbon footprint. Al Gore doesn’t. The UN IPCC folks don’t. Ban Ki-Moon doesn’t. James Hansen doesn’t. The Hollywood stars that back AGW do not. The Live Earth concerts didn’t. The folks on Capital Hill don’t. Obama doesn’t. So, if you are unwilling to practice what you preach, why should we think that this is anything other then a farce?
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
PS: your little follow the numbers list is cute, but fails to take into account historical and current evidence. You claim “2. This increase is almost entirely due to CO2 emissions from human industrial activity.” Yet, we did not have that much industrial activity during the latter half of the Little Ice Age. What brought us out of it? Nor did we have it during the Global Climate Optimum. There were very few cars during the latter half of the 1800’s and early 1900’s, yet, CO2 rose. Why?
There was a huge rise in temps during the 1930’s, yet, cars were not that prevelant. And then a dip during the 40’s and 50’s, despite an expanding industrial base. Why?
What you have done, Reasic, is simply start with the proposition that Mankind is at fault, and made your theory fit the bill. You ignore historical precedent, you ignore current science, you ignore natural processes. Why?
And, again, if this is so important to you, why do you not change your lifestyle?
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Teach,
I have listed for you some of the things my family does. If you don’t feel that it’s enough, then that’s your prerogative. This argument is ridiculous. You put an unreasonable burden on me and others to prove a point that can be proven through science. I shouldn’t have to live in a cave for you to be able to understand climate science, especially considering the fact that no one is asking you to live in a cave.
I love how you make these vast generalizations about people, as if you know for a fact that each and everyone of them does absolutely nothing. Al Gore is a good example of how ridiculous your argument is. I can tell you, for instance, that he does everything possible to reduce his carbon footprint, given his circumstances, and then eliminates the rest of it through carbon offsets. But that’s not going to be good enough for you. You’ll want him to give up his large home to live in a cave, never fly or drive anywhere, etc. This is just stupidity. Sure, we can all make small sacrifices, but no one is asking for anyone to give up everything. Those ludicrous demands are coming from you and others so that you can make this “hypocrisy” argument.
I’ve also tried to explain to you that the changes that will be most beneficial will have to come from a completely different approach to how we generate power. No, we can’t eliminate coal power immediately, but a gradual switch to renewable energy sources would go a long way in reducing our carbon emissions.
So, to recap:
1. Don’t make generalizations. If you don’t think someone’s doing something, prove it.
2. Your requirements are bogus. If no one’s asking YOU to live in a cave, then the fact that someone else doesn’t, does not make them a hypocrit.
3. This argument completely misses the changes that ARE being pursued.
4. I think it speaks volumes that you continue to ignore scientific topics, and instead, choose to engage in this gossip about what certain people are doing in their personal lives. This is like tabloid-level coverage of climate science. I have become convinced based on scientific evidence. If you’re comfortable with gossip as the basis of your argument, that’s your business, but it’s certainly not going to persuade anyone with the ability to think critically.
February 3rd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Teach,
LOL!! Please, please, try to learn about this before you continue to embarrass yourself. You’re right that there were no cars, but the first rise in carbon dioxide concentrations was from coal:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Global_Carbon_Emission_by_Type_to_Y2004.png
You should study up on the Industrial Revolution and steam power.
The dip in the 40’s and 50’s was mostly due to the increase of aerosols in the atmosphere, which reflect infrared light. Aerosols were found to cause acid rain and to deteriorate the ozone layer, so they were banned, after which temps rose again.
Are you SERIOUS?! You think I ignore science? You have YET to answer MY questions to you about your misinformed ideas on climate change. You claim that I ignore science, and yet YOU have claimed that the Sun is mostly responsible for recent warming, despite the fact that the stratosphere has been cooling. You claim that I ignore science, and yet YOU have claimed that water vapor is a more important greenhouse gas, despite the fact that it is a feedback due to its very short atmospheric lifetime. Let’s be real here, Teach. You have NO idea what you’re talking about. All you do is spread misinformation and confusion on the subject, all the while ignoring any scientific arguments that are presented to you. You prefer to base your understanding of climate science on gossip about what people do in their personal lives, rather than on scientific research. If ANYONE ignores science, it’s YOU.
So, if you want to get serious and actually have an intelligent scientific discussion on climate change, let’s start with the basics. What has caused recent warming? I say there are many factors, but that an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations has played the most dominant role, with carbon dioxide being the primary driver among them. Now, you give your proposal, and let’s compare the scientific evidence that supports our respective cases.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Really? So, you want the draconian measures to just be on everyone else, right? Why am I not surprised. This is typical. You talk the talk, but won’t walk the walk. If you aren’t willing to stand up for your beliefs and act on them, then there must be some ulterior motive, or, you are just full of sh*t, like most of the rest of the AGW believers who show at at AGW meetings driving SUVs, and your president who cranks up the thermostat at the White House.
All you are doing is spouting tired dogma blaming mankind for something that is mostly natural, and always has been. You want it to be Man’s fault, for some reason. Why is that?
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:36 pm
What “draconian measures” are you referring to here? Let’s be specific, shall we?