Are you tired of posting the same old fabricated nonsense link over and over again. Everyone else is totally aware that you do not 'get it' - the fact that there is no 97% consensus and trying to say that man's activities is responsible for warming over the last fifty years is pure nonsense with no supporting evidence.
Global warming LOL (part 3) -Scientist admit they were wrong
- Thread starter John_Wensink
- Start date
Are you tired of posting the same old fabricated nonsense link over and over again. Everyone else is totally aware that you do not 'get it' - the fact that there is no 97% consensus and trying to say that man's activities is responsible for warming over the last fifty years is pure nonsense with no supporting evidence.
Yes there is. Are you retarded? Can you read? Fabricated nonsense? You are retarded aren't you? Have you had a stroke or something.
Every science organization in the world. Do you know what that means? It means you are wrong, retard.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/glo...ntermediate.htm
That a 40% increase in the earth's most important long term greenhouse gas has caused temps to rise is a concept that a ten year old can understand.
But incredibly republicans can't. Perhaps the single best indication of how fucking stupid they are.
National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summarized below:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points9; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]
"Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming."[7]
"[...] the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time"[8]
"The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources)"[9]
No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points9; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.
"Throwing money" isn't honestly supposed to stop/fix anything. It's just the thinly veiled excuse to take money from one person and give it to another.
Man's influence probably does have an effect. cutting down rain forests, planting crops, urbanization near what were once remote temperature sensors... thereby increasing temps near those sensors.
What we don't know is if man made Co2 which is just a fraction of one percent of greenhouse gases warms or cools the earth.
Because the recent science from NASA shows greenhouse gases repel solar heating.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
âCarbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,â explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABERâs principal investigator. âWhen the upper atmosphere (or âthermosphereâ) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.â
What we don't know is if man made Co2 which is just a fraction of one percent of greenhouse gases warms or cools the earth.
Because the recent science from NASA shows greenhouse gases repel solar heating.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
âCarbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,â explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABERâs principal investigator. âWhen the upper atmosphere (or âthermosphereâ) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.â
The question of the importance of man's activities is where the uncertainty lies. Contrary to what you believe, there is not unanimity among they experts. Some are certain and some are not. That makes it an unsettled issue. Scientific questions are never properly settled by consensus anyway. Relativity theory wasn't "settled" by consensus --in fact when initially proposed there was a consensus against it-- nor was it settled by insight and mathematics, it was settled by observation. Eventually everyone will come to one side or the other with regard to man's influence on the climate. At that point we won't be trying to promote an idea by saying there is a "consensus". There will be unanimity. Let's hope it is sooner than later, but it is the data and its proper interpretation that will decide that.
As you know, since we now have better data, we find that C13 content is lower not just in CO2 from fossil fuel but in CO2 from natural sources as well (plant matter in general), and that the natural source and sinking of CO2 is at least two orders greater than CO2 contributed from fossil fuel. Consistent with this is the newest satellite data which indicates the most concentrated emissions of CO2 coming from undeveloped regions? Then we have the questions related to the proxy data. For example, some are calling into question the ice core data because they say diffusion of CO2, on the very long time scales involved, is not properly corrected for. So while every one agrees that CO2 is the second most important greenhouse gas, there isn't complete agreement yet on how important the fossil fuel contributed portion is to the whole, and there are many questions being raised with regard to both ice core and tree ring data.
I won't argue with your point that it has already been decided. Of course it has, even by some of the experts. I will point out though that not all the experts have decided yet. If there is a single observation that is inconsistent with with the hypothesis that man caused CO2 emission is significantly affecting climate, then the entire hypothesis has to be questioned unless the inconsistencies can be explained. They haven't been yet.
I learned a long time ago that while jumping to conclusions is invigorating, it can also reveal one as a fool. It is not yet time to be certain. We need more data and to revisit the interpretation of the proxy data and explain the inconsistencies in our observation.
Keep in mind that if the dependent and independent variable are swapped you still get the same correlations. Is it possible we have it backwards? I don't think we do, but we should allow for that in our interpretation. It is best to leave this to the experts. This entire business has become a fiasco because it entered the political arena prematurely. Now it is a mess because pride and reputation are on the line, and that hampers objectivity. Hanson will eventually be a hero or a goat, he is neither yet. But the more we learn, it seems his odds of becoming a hero may be fading.
You misinterpreted that NASA paper. Your statement implies to the naive that greenhouse gases have a net cooling effect on the atmosphere. I am happy to say that you are wrong, otherwise I wouldn't be here, and neither would you.
It seems fairly obvious that man's activities have a profound influence on microclimates, e.g. the city is 10 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside. And it is certainly reasonable to suppose that we might be affecting global climate in ways other then through fossil fuel burning.
The issue that is in the forefront at the moment, however, is the question of whether or not man's use of fossil fuel is causing climate change via CO2 emission. That's a very specific question, and I don't think we have the answer yet. My guess based solely on the relative magnitudes of man's fossil fuel CO2 emissions and natural emission and absorption is that on a short time scale our fossil fuel emission may have a very slight effect, and on a longer time scale, because of the long term response of the absorption mechanism to elevated CO2, has virtually no effect. The atmosphere, oceans and flora comprise a huge CO2 buffer with a very slow reaction time. (This is all guess work on my part, and I am no more qualified to make such guesses then you are to make your ridiculous statement with regard to greenhouse gases having a cooling effect
) Let me put it this way with regard to your interpretation of the NASA paper. Without greenhouse gasses in its atmosphere the Earth at night would be very roughly the temperature of the moon during its 13 day solar night, ~-100 degrees centigrade.
Quote from piezoe:
You misinterpreted that NASA paper. It seems fairly obvious that man's activities have a profound influence on at least microclimates e.g. the city is 10 degrees warmer than the surround country side. And it is certainly reasonable to suppose that we are affecting global climate in ways other then through fossil fuel burning.
The issue that is in the forefront at the moment, however, is the question of whether or not man's use of fossil fuel is causing climate change. That's a very specific question, and I don't think we have the answer yet. My guess based solely on the relative magnitudes of man's fossil fuel CO2 emissions and natural emission and absorption is that on a short time scale our fossil fuel emission has a very slight effect, and that on a longer time scale, because of the long term response of the absorption mechanism to elevated CO2, has virtually no effect. The atmosphere, oceans and flora comprise a huge CO2 buffer with a very slow reaction time. (This is all guess work on my part, and I am not qualified in the least to make such guesses.
I am qualified to read the NASA paper, however, and I am qualified to say that you have misinterpreted it, as did those who wrote that ridiculous headline. I already responded to you with details on the correct interpretation of the NASA measurements. See my earlier post if you have forgotten.
We definitely DO have the answer. Man has definitely raised levels of CO2 by 40%. CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas and temps have definitely skyrocketed along with CO2 levels over the last 60 years. These indisputable facts are one reason why scientists are as sure that man has caused almost all of the warming over the last fifty years as they are that smoking tobacco cause cancer. Why over 95% of all the world's climate scientists and all of it's science organizations agree.