World May Not Be Warming, Say Scientists

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from killthesunshine:

so, you agree that man's impact is leading to a climate change but argue with degree of progression?

Yes, carbon emissions have some impact, but to what degree? It's just the hysteria that climate cultists are trying to churn up. If it's as bad as they say, carbon taxes won't do at all. We would need to shut down every fossil fuel plant, turn off every car, close every steel mill and refinery, and do it today. It just isn't anywhere near as bad as they claim it to be, and the time frame they're talking about is absurb. Climate changes of this magnitude take hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum. To talk in terms of decades is simply crazy.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Yes, carbon emissions have some impact, but to what degree? It's just the hysteria that climate cultists are trying to churn up. If it's as bad as they say, carbon taxes won't do at all. We would need to shut down every fossil fuel plant, turn off every car, close every steel mill and refinery, and do it today. It just isn't anywhere near as bad as they claim it to be, and the time frame they're talking about is absurb. Climate changes of this magnitude take hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum. To talk in terms of decades is simply crazy.

So, when should be worry about the impact of our policies on global warming and make change, a 1000 yrs from now? 10,000? at the brink of total annihilation??

 

[CaptainObvious]

Quote from killthesunshine:

So, when should be worry about the impact of our policies on global warming and make change, a 1000 yrs from now? 10,000?

We should have concern now, and we are. Pollution control is a must and we can do it at a pace which does not destroy our industry. Listen, I'm no fan of corporate America, and I have little doubt they would make a garbage dump of the planet left to their own devices, so we must stay on their asses. On the other hand, we cannot wreck the entire economy to prevent something which is of no immediate threat.

 

[killthesunshine]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

We should have concern now, and we are. Pollution control is a must and we can do it at a pace which does not destroy our industry. Listen, I'm no fan of corporate America, and I have little doubt they would make a garbage dump of the planet left to their own devices, so we must stay on their asses. On the other hand, we cannot wreck the entire economy to prevent something which is of no immediate threat.

You agree with certain aspects of global warming theory but taking exception to the degree of progression.

(i won't even bring up the issue how you the hell you could know it's progressing slower given you flunked science in high school let alone a climatologist ROFL)

Shouldn't we start NOW changing our harm of the environment?

 

[Mav88]

We don't have a causual model that can say man made effects are 100% responsible, we really can't say if a temperature increase is going to be harmful to us, and we cannot know what the climate will be 100 years from now (no matter what the modelers say).

Therefore the exact cure, if there is really global warming and if it is really desireable to stop it, is arbitrary. However one thing is for sure- if you cripple the modern economy you will have mass misery. This isn't a case of being over zealous is harmless.

Another sure bet is that the radical left would like to cripple the free market US, that's why one course of action proposed is to have the US pay African nations. They love to hide behind the alarmists and push this kind of agenda for action. It makes people like me wary and not willing to go along.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Quote from killthesunshine:

You agree with certain aspects of global warming theory but taking exception to the degree of progression.

(i won't even bring up the issue how you the hell you could know it's progressing slower given you flunked science in high school let alone a climatologist ROFL)

Shouldn't we start NOW changing our harm of the environment?

I don't know why I waste my time on this, since the proponents of AGW have a religious belief in it. Nothing will dissuade them since their belief that man is destroying the planet and must be stopped predated the theory. AGW is just the latest hobbyhorse they are riding. The more sinister supporters, eg corrupt scientists and developing world pols, could care less about the science. They are just looking to line their pockets.

Anyway, there is a yawning chasm between the claimed observed rise in temps and the posited cause. There exist models that seek to link the two, but at best they fall afoul of the basic statistical caveat that correlation does not prove causation. Even the models are open to question however, as their claimed correlations are largely the product of fudge factors. Now, as we get more information, we are learning that even the claimed rise in temps is suspect.

It is far more intuitive to link any real temperature variations to the actual source of heat, the sun. We now that the sun goes through cycles of increased and decreased activity. This cyclic nature has the additional advantage of explaining the vast temperature variations that took place before large-scale industrialization.

The reason these well-meaning efforts to "do something", whether it is an infuriating bag tax or far more harmful carbon taxes or carbon rationing, are bad policy is that there is zero evidence they will have any beneficial effect. If we are to believe the alarmists, unless we return to carbon emission levels of decades ago, we are doomed anyway. Clearly minor efforts designed to make the more fervent believers feel good are useless.

Like Mav, I am open to being persuaded but suspicious of the motives of those pushing this the hardest. When the debate turns to allegations of lack of patriotism or attempts to taint skeptics as analogous to Holocaust "deniers", then we have strong evidence that the claimed scientific foundation must be very weak indeed. True science does not deal in "consensus" but in replicable proof. Consensus is a political term, and this is clearly a political and economic issue.

 

[murray t turtle]

Quote from CaptainObvious:

Ins't anyone saying that man does not have any impact. It's the degree of impact. What people are "hostile" about is the radical left hijacking legitimate science, turning it in to another destroy America agenda, all the while posing as concerned citizens.

=====================
Good point, Captain.

Another chart in this religion & politics section shows a slight [hockey stick shaped]warm red uptick, but mostly cool blue cooling trends.

Even if its not an accurate chart;
its sure easy to see why there was a global cooling scare/scam in the 1970's. Most trends[ colored cool blue] are cooling a bit on that chart.

 

[Ricter]

You AAGW folks are wasting your breath. The whole planet is moving forward to control the emission of CO2, without your ilk, just as it did for ozone depleting substances, lead, and tobacco, all of which were denied being harmful.

 

[dcraig]

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I don't know why I waste my time on this, since the proponents of AGW have a religious belief in it. Nothing will dissuade them since their belief that man is destroying the planet and must be stopped predated the theory. AGW is just the latest hobbyhorse they are riding. The more sinister supporters, eg corrupt scientists and developing world pols, could care less about the science. They are just looking to line their pockets.

No. It's the science. And no, it's not the latest hobbyhorse. The first climate model attempting to estimate the effect of CO2 on climate was produced in 1895 by the Swedish chemist Arrhenius who came up with a figure for climate sensitivity to CO2 not so very different from IPCC estimates today. He did this from the physics not statistical correlations - there was no temperature record to speak of. After it was shown in the 1950s and early sixties that humans are increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by large amounts, there was a lot more scientific interest and it has grown ever since. There is an free online book detailing the history of the discovery of global warming:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Anyway, there is a yawning chasm between the claimed observed rise in temps and the posited cause. There exist models that seek to link the two, but at best they fall afoul of the basic statistical caveat that correlation does not prove causation. Even the models are open to question however, as their claimed correlations are largely the product of fudge factors. Now, as we get more information, we are learning that even the claimed rise in temps is suspect.

You are under the misconception that climate models are just statistical models. This is completely untrue. They are physical models that rely on the physics of the interactions of the various parts of the climate system. Suggesting that climate models are based on statistical correlation of such things as CO2 and temperature is incorrect and a straw man.

It is far more intuitive to link any real temperature variations to the actual source of heat, the sun. We now that the sun goes through cycles of increased and decreased activity. This cyclic nature has the additional advantage of explaining the vast temperature variations that took place before large-scale industrialization.

There is no question that the Sun heats the earth. However the earth sheds heat by radiating it into space - otherwise we would just get hotter and hotter. Hence an energy budget for the earth. The atmosphere has a major effect on the shedding of heat (something like 30 degrees). Introducing extra GHGs into the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect, upsets the energy budget and raises temperature. Measured solar variations are just too small to explain warming in the last hundred years. The last decade is that hottest on record. The sun is at it's weakest in a century.

The reason these well-meaning efforts to "do something", whether it is an infuriating bag tax or far more harmful carbon taxes or carbon rationing, are bad policy is that there is zero evidence they will have any beneficial effect. If we are to believe the alarmists, unless we return to carbon emission levels of decades ago, we are doomed anyway. Clearly minor efforts designed to make the more fervent believers feel good are useless.

Your conclusions are based on a false premise.

Like Mav, I am open to being persuaded but suspicious of the motives of those pushing this the hardest. When the debate turns to allegations of lack of patriotism or attempts to taint skeptics as analogous to Holocaust "deniers", then we have strong evidence that the claimed scientific foundation must be very weak indeed. True science does not deal in "consensus" but in replicable proof. Consensus is a political term, and this is clearly a political and economic issue.

There is a mountain of evidence for AGW. If you go to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ just about every skeptical argument is dealt with individually by proper reference to the relevant scientific publications. It is possibly the most informative site on the net.

 

[Index piker]

Quote from killthesunshine:

why is there so much opposition from conservatives over the distinct possibility that man's collective actions are changing the climate?

i don't get the hostility over this scientific possibility?

Ironic position concerning your hostility towards the possibility of a creator.

You will of course forgive me the obligation of buying your religions
version of the "indulgence".