So in other words, Global Warming means ... nothing

[ArcBound]

The weather is not climate. Meteorologists don't study ice core samples or any other geographical evidence. It's true that one ought not rely on any one specific individual forecast model, but that is true of every other science. The details of how fast the changes will occur, how hot it will be, how far the oceans will rise, are all details under vigorous debate and immense uncertainty—and consequently the reliance on any particular forecast model is full of caveat emptor. But to focus on the disagreement of scholars over specific details to cast doubt over the entire field, as if to say "If they can't reach agreements, why should I believe anything?—maybe the whole thing is bull," is a tactic of denial movements (see Michael Shermer; Why People Believe Weird Things). While I don't knock the credentials of William Gray, in general the field of meteorologists is unscientific. They aren't research scientists. In general, they don't have graduate degrees and half don't even have a degree in atmospheric science (source). It comes as no surprise the field of meteorology is a treasure trove of climate change deniers—they aren't scientists and they are uneducated.

You said they in meteorology don't study geography or have graduate degrees (generally)

"In 1952, Gray received a B.S. degree in geography from George Washington University, and in 1959 a M.S. in meteorology from the University of Chicago, where he went on to earn a Ph.D. in geophysical sciences in 1964."

And the second list of scientists I posted are all from top tier research institutions, like Princeton, number 1 university in Israel, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and etc etc.. and pretty much all have phD's and their life's work is research in these fields, and they aren't all quack meteorologists as you say.

Also while in general some meteorologists may be quacks and not have credentials, I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about a man who's at the top of his field and has done his research.

Also:
"The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible.""

^ A group calling Global Warming incontrovertible and then relooking at data and research and going oops my bad, I was just kidding.

 

[Rogue]

ArcBound:

"The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible.""

Don't lie to me.

No, the American Physical Society did not reverse its stance. You are referring to this bogus 'news' story from July 2008, to which the American Physical Society responded the next day its "Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large." The 'reversal in stance' you refer was a petition which garnered only 0.45% support—it gathered only 206 signatures out of 47,000 (source). As of April 18, 2010, the website of the American Physical Society stands its position on climate change quite clearly in favor 'there is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement," which was:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

 

[ArcBound]

So now that APS is standing by their claim of climate change, will this change your belief at all?

It's possible, yes. But the issue of climate change was never the question, there is climate change. The issue is whether human's actions are actually causing this climate change or is it primarily because of natural cycles. The Earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling, Ice Ages and extinctions. We don't have any strict evidence that it is going faster because of our impact.

@Rogue, yes I just went over this with Cr1msonKing it seems the last article I quoted was wrong. The APS supports their claim of climate change.

 

[ArcBound]

See thats the thing.

We do have evidence, climatologists have been putting their research into peer reviewed journals for a very long time now. Literally almost all of them come to the same conclusion, the scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.

If you have conclusive evidence, like Quiksilver said post it. I'd certainly read it. Most "evidence" is based on climate/computer models that don't work and ignore many variables altogether.

 

[Alle_Gory]

Can algae oils replace conventional petrol?

Yes. If grown in large enough quantities and fast enough to meet demand. We consume A LOT of oil.

What does it cost to produce a gallon of algae derived biofuels?

You need a large property in a very bright area. Deserts are nice since there is usually sunshine. Cost of property.

You need equipment to grow the algae in. They do this in large bags. Cost of bags. You need water. Cost of water delivery and purification equipment. You need personnel to manage said equipment. Cost of general labour. You need engineers and technicians to monitor said algae environment and modify it if necessary. Cost of more specialized labor. You need some kind of carbon dioxide filtering system to extract carbon dioxide from the air. Like it's done for carbon dioxide and nitrogen. You also need equipment to deliver said carbon dioxide from storage and into the growing tanks.

After growing you need a facility to extract said fuels from the algae... etc.

I'm sure that it would be just as expensive as producing oil, however it could be grown domestically and that means you have some control over prices.

If you have conclusive evidence, like Quiksilver said post it. I'd certainly read it. Most "evidence" is based on climate/computer models that don't work and ignore many variables altogether.

Oh really? Like what?

And please don't post any garbage from Fox News or the Daily Mail.

 

[BBbardot]

Synergy ill answer yes to The questions i read ( sorry Im reading The post from m'y phone and Im so sleepy so didnt read everything, Will do tomorrow. They are fllushed with money. They are very advanced. They have The thing. Its Like done. They are official, very official . Its The big deal...
X
S

 

[BBbardot]

Synergy ill answer yes to The questions i read ( sorry Im reading The post from m'y phone and Im so sleepy so didnt read everything, Will do tomorrow. They are fllushed with money. They are very advanced. They have The thing. Its Like done. They are official, very official . Its The big deal...
X
S

 

[BBbardot]

Err Fox news? This is an insult to m'y intelligence i give No credit^^ about anything said on Fox news or msnbc^^
Ok Im too sleepy, Not home so No battery charger and m'y phone is running out battery so ill try to deal with this later.
Love
Sdy

 

[PRMoon]

Seriously who invited this person ^^ to our club?

 

[Alle_Gory]

Err Fox news? This is an insult to m'y intelligence i give No credit^^ about anything said on Fox news or msnbc^^

I was talking to ArcBound. He said there is evidence that the computer models are flawed. I want to know where he got that from, and then I made a comment about Fox News.

:kick:

 

[ArcBound]

@AlleGory, no I don't watch either of those news channels you posted. What sources do you think are credible then? I'd just like to know before you claim everything I give as non-credible. For now I'll post one up anyways.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html

Richard Lindzen points out a couple faults in the current IPCC model that Al Gore uses and many of his advocates use. Read throughout the article.

Also like I said, I'm not going to be completely rigid minded about this, I'm open to debate and may change my mind. This is the third time its being asked in this thread for any sort of evidence that humans are causing or accelerating global warming.

Bbardot told us to there were tons of books backing her claim on the subject or iTunes it, yet she didn't even give me one of them. Instead of giving one source she just said "I mean I can't even start making a list". It's fine Bbardot, give me one or two books you read on the subject.

Cr1msonKing said there is clear evidence for anthropogenic global warming, if you have it by all means post it or at least make a reference to which journal/book and issue you are getting this information from.

FFS maybe you guys are right on the subject matter but you aren't even giving any sort of convincing argument or any argument for that matter. Claiming a ton of reliable information is out there without pointing any of them out, what good does that serve me?

 

[Rogue]

Arcbound:
"In 1952, [William] Gray received a B.S. degree in geography from George Washington University, and in 1959 a M.S. in meteorology from the University of Chicago, where he went on to earn a Ph.D. in geophysical sciences in 1964."

Like I said, I don't knock his schooling. It's all well and good for Gray to specialize in hurricanes, but is he active in climate change research? You see, what many people don't seem to understand or fail to grasp is how science is a social thing. To quote Michael Shermer:

Science is a social process, where one is trained in a certain paradigm and works with others in the field. A community of scientists reads the same journals, goes to the same conferences, reviews one anothers' papers and books, and generally exchanges ideas about the facts, hypotheses, and theories in that field. Through vast experience they know, fairly quickly, which new ideas stand a chance of succeeding and which are obviously wrong. Newcomers from other fields, who typically dive in with both feet without the requisite training and experience, proceed to generate new ideas that they think—because of their success in their own field—will be revolutionary. Instead, they are usually greeted with disdain (or, more typically, simply ignored) by the professionals in the field. This is not because (as they usually think is the reason) insiders don't like outsiders (or that all great revolutionaries are persecuted or ignored), but because in most cases those ideas were considered years or decades before and rejected for perfectly legitimate reasons.

Climate change research is an interdisciplinary field and a scientist needs to stay up on their conferences and collaborating with their colleagues to keep up with the latest information. This is why the opinions of scientists actively involved in climate change research (who almost without exception are persuaded by the anthropogenic hypothesis) are very important, a point which is pervasively ignored by climate change deniers. There is a website called realclimate.org which is authored by scientists active in climate change research. Here they scientifically refute William Gray as essentially outdated and wrong, concluding in the end, "The problem is Gray’s failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying."

FFS maybe you guys are right on the subject matter but you aren't even giving any sort of convincing argument or any argument for that matter. Claiming a ton of reliable information is out there without pointing any of them out, what good does that serve me?

Try realclimate.org.

 

[Drdeee]

People simply cannot deal with change. We do everything we can to keep things the way they are.

:trouble:

Last I checked laws are passed like crap during diarrhea when something happens. First something happens, then TV goes hooray, then people kinda agree with hooray, and boom choka laka, a new law is passed!!

It's like a system really, a well fine tuned pickup method for getting the b*tches do things.

But then go tell them idiots that they are being played. Nobody likes to hear that. They rather come up with excuses and point to more crap data to prove their little world is legit and make themselves feel better. There is no difference between a b*tch and the mainstream following sheeple, they both enjoy c0ck up their butt and will do almost anything to keep it inside them. :kick:

With all this global warming chatter, what is the major zeitgeist that is being rammed down our throats?

It is

A) Global TAX.

B) Global population control.

No wonder 31,000 scientists across United States reject man made global warming agenda. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734

Now you are faced with a choice. Either you will look for anything at all to refute what I just stated above, or you will look for information that will help you sort out this issue. Here is where you could start.

 

[Rogue]

No wonder 31,000 scientists across United States reject man made global warming agenda. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734

Of the 31,000 scientists: 9,833 are engineers; 3,046 doctors; 4,818 chemists; 581 mathematicians; 149 zoologists; 59 astronomers; and 39 climate scientists. The rest are soccer moms. Wow, that's great incontrovertible evidence you have there. Very persuasive. By your standards, Jenny McCarthy can tell PhD doctors that vaccines cause autism and junior college dropouts can tell NASA about rocket science. How incredible!

 

[Drdeee]

Of the 31,000 scientists: 9,833 are engineers; 3,046 doctors; 4,818 chemists; 581 mathematicians; 149 zoologists; 59 astronomers; and 39 climate scientists. The rest are soccer moms. Wow, that's great incontrovertible evidence you have there. Very persuasive. By your standards, Jenny McCarthy can tell PhD doctors that vaccines cause autism and junior college dropouts can tell NASA about rocket science. How incredible!

What did I said about cowards coming up with any type of BS in order to keep their little world from collapsing.

It takes chemists, mathematicians, zoologists, and oh yes astronomers to make the shot that global warming can not be caused by man. Climate scientists??? You walked into your own grave son, there aren't many of those in United States, and 39 is a big number.

Sun is causing global warming, it's natural, and it's gradual. It happens over the period of thousands of years, as OP complained. After it warms it will begin cooling, it is a recorded historical evidence. :flowers:

Now I'm sorry Mr, but if you want to pay money to bankers and have child limitations, or worst, submit to sterilization, you are not my friend, nor you are friend of anyone reading this post. You're dumb ignorant son of a b*tch that's pissed off and will come up with almost anything to keep himself in his little bullsh*t world. You're like one of those attention wh*res.

You're wrong, you've been mislead, you've been taken advantage of. :kick:

 

[Rogue]

I'm always amused when someone says 'son', whether in the context of "You walked into your own grave[,] son" or "You're [a] dumb[,] ignorant[,] son of a b*tch," as if the faux condescending language is supposed to throw down the gauntlet. (For that matter, I highly recommend you buy the book Insults & Comebacks. Your dullness needs a pencil sharpener.)

It takes chemists, mathematicians, zoologists, and oh yes astronomers to make the shot that global warming can not be caused by man.

When a scientist speaks outside their domain of expertise, their opinions are rendered about equally useless as a homeless guy on the street. Regardless of education, training, and productive success in other fields, a person who is uneducated of the intricacies of specialized knowledge derived from a specific field will be unable to discern good research from sloppy research; they will be unable to spot mistakes. Scientists who contribute legitimate advancements in a field publish their results in peer-review journals, where even the best conclusions are brutally scrutinized by reviewers ('referees'), for quality assurance purposes. Where precisely are these science journals where a primatologist studying chimpanzees can dump on a paper of a nuclear physicist?

Science is an interdisciplinary collaborative practice and so astronomers can and do make contributions on specific aspects which pertain to their field, like the current understanding of the sun, but not to the whole field writ large—ultimately it is the specialists of a field which hold the deepest most comprehensive understanding of their specific field. You will notice more climate change deniers the farther away their field is from climate change research.

Sun is causing global warming, it's natural, and it's gradual. It happens over the period of thousands of years, as OP complained.

The sun cannot adequately explain this:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

As we can see, the correlation between solar activity and temperature (i.e. the 'natural cycle') has stopped. I also have Dr. Phil Plaitt, astronomer extraordinaire, who explains how solar activity does not explain the climate change.

I wrote about this extensively in my upcoming book [Death From The Skies!], so I talked to quite a few solar astronomers about this very topic. In general the solar output varies very little over the course of a year, less than 1%. Over the whole sunspot cycle, though, it’s a little more complicated. The sunspots darken the Sun by about 1%, but they are surrounded by regions called faculae, which are actually brighter in the visible and ultraviolet. So when the Sun is its spottiest, it’s actually brighter than average by about 0.1%.

At most, this would raise the temperature of the Earth on average by 0.2 degrees Celsius (and it’s generally less), and we are measuring increases much larger than that (not to mention the trending just keeps going up, and doesn’t rise and fall with the sunspot cycle). People have also tried to tie global warming to sunspots by invoking cosmic rays; when sunspots are at a minimum the Sun’s magnetic field is weakest, and it lets subatomic particles from outer space into the solar system. This can seed clouds (so it’s claimed) and cool the Earth. Maybe, kinda, sorta. The evidence for this is incredibly weak, and it’s not taken very seriously yet.

People who try to tie global warming to the Sun are in for a losing fight, it seems, though in many cases this just makes them scream all the louder. But they have very very spotty (har har) evidence, and what they do have does not come close to explaining the rise in temperature we see on Earth.

(Every time you quack 'it's a conspiracy!,' you lose a few brain cells.)

 

[Alle_Gory]

A) Global TAX.

You FAIL. If you knew anything about taxation it's that there exist many charters for a global tax. For example, if you have dual citizenship and move between two countries, they have an agreement to take a share of your taxes. Sometimes it's only what is fair, sometimes more in the case of double taxation.

This has ALREADY EXISTED for a long time. Please educate yourself on the topics which you are preaching.

B) Global population control.

That wouldn't be such a bad thing. Unfortunately, there is little hope of this happening seeing as how you get money for having children. There are incentives to have kids at least in North America.

Look into "welfare moms" for horror stories.

No wonder 31,000 scientists across United States reject man made global warming agenda. http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=64734

The petition that scientists supposedly signed has been operating for 10 years. Right?

WRONG.

Here is the WHOIS data (internet registry database):
http://www.whois.net/whois/petitionproject.org.org

Domain ID151163325-LROR
Domain NameETITIONPROJECT.ORG
Created On:12-Feb-2008 03:00:50 UTC
Last Updated On:30-Dec-2009 05:30:30 UTC
Expiration Date:12-Feb-2011 03:00:50 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)

Gee that's weird, a 10 year old website launched in 2008. But let's just say that for the sake of argument that it's legit and the website is something new.

What if you signed the petition in 1997 and you changed your mind later once new information came out? You're still considered a denier. Another problem with this "petition" of 31,000 scientists is the qualifications needed to get on this petition.

Here they are:
http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.

Oh really? All you need is to be a University Graduate in the sciences? Kind of skews the stats on these so called "experts" and "scientists". Not only that, but let's look at the sciences:

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences (also known as computer programmers) includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,812 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,822 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,965 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine (medicine has nothing to do with climatology or geology) includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science (ah general sciences, the garbage bin of the sciences, and what do engineering graduates have to do with global warming?) includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

Seems that there are way fewer than 31,000 scientists in the relevant fields and not all of them are any good (like the fresh out of University Graduates). The petition is a sham.

Either you will look for anything at all to refute what I just stated above

Done. Please give me more shoddy "evidence" to take apart. I like playing detective.

 

[JustLurk]

Yes. If grown in large enough quantities and fast enough to meet demand. We consume A LOT of oil.

There's no way this would let America end dependence on foreign oil. For example, ethanol. Switch all, ALL farmland in the entirety of the US to this and there still wouldn't be enough to supply demand. American oil dependence is too much to be solved by just America. There isn't enough room unless we find some magically much more efficient method.

That wouldn't be such a bad thing. Unfortunately, there is little hope of this happening seeing as how you get money for having children. There are incentives to have kids at least in North America.

Look into "welfare moms" for horror stories.

Oh, no! Welfare horror prevents us from having mass infanticide like China has! Look a little further and you'll realize the current attempts at population control caused a lot more horror then your little horror stories about "welfare moms".

@global warming: Who cares about global warming? The earth is the great equalizer. If you warm it up too much it will extinct you, cool down, and go back to normal. Or this could be just another of the unknown patterns of the warming of the earth. A single change in one of these patterns, a routine one, could make useless almost all long-term climate model predictions after that one event. Global "warming" is not a long-term prediction usable beast. Without these models, and with hopelessly incomplete data, we try to make assumptions about events centuries down the road.. yeah right.

 

[Quiksilver]

Now when you survey climatologist, the consensus is that almost 100% of them believe that humans are negatively impacting the environment.

"Negatively impacting the environment" is unrelated to land temperature rises over the next 100 years as a result of human consumption of hydrocarbons.

Of course humans are destructive to the environment to some extent, but please do not cross-contaminate environmentalism with believing that we are changing the climate.

edit: Alle_Gory, I encourage you to research the fertility rate for first world nations, then compare it to nations such as N!ger, N!geria, Brazil, Turkey, and Saudia Arabia. Then ask yourself these questions:

- Is the global population still rising?
- If so, where is the fertility rate greater than the replacement rate?
- Should nations with fertility rate lower than replacement rate still consider further population control(see: reduction) methods?
- Should the U.S. or any first world nation be concerned more about domestic fertility rate or immigration policy?

 

[ArcBound]

Thanks Rogue for actually putting up a website or any sort of information, I'm going to be reading through it. Do you have any specific articles that helped you out?

And how about the article I posted from WSJ pointing out some flaws of the IPCC reports. It's only one of many articles pointing out IPCC flaws. What did you think of that? Even realclimate.org advocates reading the IPCC reports as part of the "start here" area.