More co2 raises temperature. Got it. The warmists seem dumbfounded that "deniers" can't grasp that simple fact. But thing is, the warmists just don't understand what deniers are saying. Tying global warming to the rise in co2 as if there aren't multiple, significant factors impacting how the planet processes things is just bad science. When the warmists start making some coherent explanation explaining how the impact of the oceans, seasons, the sun, blah blah may be ignored so that a mere rise in co2 will cook the planet, go for it. The best they do is claim the ice caps will melt and once gone, the whole thing can't stop it. Then they ignore the rise and fall of the ice caps and call warmers anti science.

There's plenty of work done (read the IPCC report) about feedbacks. No one is saying CO2 warms the Earth, the end. We understand that most of the uncertainty lies within the cumulative effect of the feedbacks, with some less understood than others. But don't present the issue like scientists are goofy morons completely unaware of the complexities of the system.

From the 2007 IPCC report:

http://www.realclimate.org/images/ar4_fig_spm_2.png

Furthermore, the discussion about what can be done about climate change is one obviously worth having and one I (nor anyone else) has a real answer to. I like reading these debates. But your original posts seemed to cast doubt on the entire basis of climate change for no real reason and I feel the goal posts have been moved. Are you questioning the science, or the solutions?

It isn't the scientists who are necessarily goofy and no one I know is saying that.

The goofy ones are the warmists who treat skeptics, even just those with questions that don't challenge the underlying assumptions, as being anti- science. The goofy ones are the guys who go so far as to say the whole thing is simple, ie, more co2 = higher temperatures (how can Anyone argue with THAT!). When someone sneeringly makes that argument (and they do, constantly - along with the claim that it's "settled science"), they sound like idiots. Sorry - but that's the opposite of science.

If the credible warmist crowd wants to be taken seriously by the skeptics, they might want to spend a little energy correcting the completely dumbed down, moronic claims by their army of true believers. This is NOT simple stuff and if it were as obvious as a lot of these tools seem to believe, I guarantee you, we wouldn't be having an argument. Every time I hear a warmist puffed up with moral outrage that they are surrounded by such idiocy I shave off a little bit of the benefit of the doubt. Those kinds of arguments are right up there with the guy wearing. Repent placard shouting on the side of the road.

Happy to talk to a real scientist with no skin the game - my experience is that most love the science and enjoy explaining it. But the ones turning this into a smart vs stupid argument aren't helping the cause - especially since most can't answer straight questions without lapsing back into "it's settled and only an idiot questions." IMO, that group is the biggest hurdle of the whole movement.

Sid, to be clear, I am not particularly including you in this. I'm working off your post just to structure this comment but you aren't nearly as bad as many.

But still - I've yet to see any serious study lay out in clear terms about what to realistically expect under a primarily alternative fuel world. No offense, but claiming that life won't change much is ludicrous short of finding an energy source not yet in existence. We can't rely on that. At this point, It's wishful thinking. We can and should reduce our energy consumption and get more efficient energy appliances. But trying to minimize how this will actually look in the real world isn't honest. Add buying all new, smaller, more efficient appliances as part of retrofitting when we consider the cost. Oh, someone can't afford that? Who is going to be able to provide these for the whole nation? And to suggest retrofitting is no big deal is mind boggling - just think of the parts, training, labor, cost, etc to hit just about every residence in the country just to "rewire" access to this mythical new efficient energy source. Now add in government and commercial buildings. And then let's talk about the currently nonexistent distribution system.

If we are racing the clock to save the world, just how long to we really have? The lunatic fringe warmists have already claimed we'd be in a death spiral right this minute. How can anyone take seriously - now - that we actually have many decades to avoid catastrophe? Because that seems to be the completely contradictory response if you can get someone to actually address the question. And I can't get anyone to actually discuss the whole China and India thing. It is like there are fingers in their ears.

I am tired of being told that skepticism on this issue is indicative of being anti science or stupidity. I am tired of overblown claims being made and then hard deadlines being pushed back. I am tired of warmist claims that we are going to burn up the planet painted in neon, but refusal to realistically and honestly layout what would happen if we DID take the steps they claim is needed to save the world. I am tired of having legitimate questions and concerns prompt insults. And I am tired of people dumbing down an obviously very complex phenomenon and expecting me to accept something that, on its face, is unscientific. I am tired of being spoon fed a simplified narrative by people who can repeat conclusions but assume anyone who isn't as accepting as they are must be anti science.

I believe in climate change. I'm skeptical that rising CO2 is the driving force. I don't believe the hysterical claims of the warmists in terms of timelines. I am weary of warmists trying to make hay with every broken weather record or rain shower even when it falls within reasonable expected weather patterns. I am tired of being fed pablum and lectured for not accepting "settled science." I don't think for an instant that mankind can avoid complete catastrophe if we shift off fossil fuel absent widespread nuclear or a fairy tale new energy source. And even if the warmists are on the money, I don't think the biggest offenders are going to play ball so the only thing harsh measures will accomplish is to impoverish our country - and we'll still burn.

Rant over, I'm done.

Except to answer a question - yes, I somewhat moved the goalposts/issue. I said it in the last post but to summarize:

I believe in climate change.

I'm Skeptical that CO2 is going to create catastrophic climate change (again, please no one insist I am anti science for not understanding that greater co2 raises the temperature - I GET that).

If the warmists are correct, I have no faith that we can do stop it because the worst offenders won't cooperate even if we did.

I believe that if we managed to "save the planet" by reducing fossil fuels to the levels allegedly needed, not only would billions die (primarily in China, India and nations whose governments collapsed), we'd be living in a much less comfortable world more akin to 1900 than 2014. And short of some fabulous new energy source, we'd be poor. A largely urban population has higher energy needs than rural 1900 and compared to now, 1900 was like camping out.

I believe that if we managed to "save the planet" by reducing fossil fuels to the levels allegedly needed, not only would billions die (primarily in China, India and nations whose governments collapsed), we'd be living in a much less comfortable world more akin to 1900 than 2014. And short of some fabulous new energy source, we'd be poor. A largely urban population has higher energy needs than rural 1900 and compared to now, 1900 was like camping out.First, don't go away. We cannot have that reasoned, rational discussion if you pull out. If need be, Pete can move these posts to a new thread where we can continue and still be on topic.

Now to the point at which I disagree with you. I've emphasized it in the quote above. I think it would be much more like 1500 than like 1900. By 1900 we were using electricity to some degree, and combustion engines powered several forms of transport.

Some folk -- not any of the most vocal participants in this discussion -- have concentrated on CO2 and excluded the contribution of methane to the collection of greenhouse gases. The study reported above shows it to be much less significant, but it still seems to be in second place. And nobody has fingered the major sources of free methane in the atmosphere. Number one, apparently, is the huge collection of cattle and other ruminants that comprise a large part of the planet's food supply. However, several billion human beings also contribute to it -- on a daily basis unless constipated. Are the warmists willing to do away with current sanitary sewage plants, to sequester that source underground?

To get back to the title topic for this thread, I can see no reason at all to doubt that the climate change we all agree is happening has a direct connection to the worsening of severe weather, just as it does to the establishment of new arid regions including our own surroundings. It IS "climate change," after all, meaning that it is changing our climate -- and those changes can be for the worse, for the better, neither, or both, depending entirely on the eye of the observer...

http://i.imgur.com/f6DyBlN.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/f6DyBlN.jpgThat's almost like how people who believe in man-made global warming seem to only look back a hundred years or so. I believe the atmosphere was a little hotter a few billion year ago. We as humans have only been on this earth for a minuscule amount of time and add in the industrial revolution, you'd have to use a microscope to see that age of the earth if you looked at a foot long graph to scale.

That's almost like how people who believe in man-made global warming seem to only look back a hundred years or so. I believe the atmosphere was a little hotter a few billion year ago. We as humans have only been on this earth for a minuscule amount of time and add in the industrial revolution, you'd have to use a microscope to see that age of the earth if you looked at a foot long graph to scale.

To be fair...a few billion years ago the Earth was still cooling from its early formative existence. So we really can't use that as a basis of comparison.

To be fair...a few billion years ago the Earth was still cooling from its early formative existence. So we really can't use that as a basis of comparison.I had a whole seven paragraphs typed out and lost every damn piece of it because of this stupid computer.

Anyhow..... basically the earth is ever changing and the climate never stays the same. That was my point.

The planet isn't nearly that simple and, no offense, but I find that analogy rather frightening if you think that is how the planet works. That sort of experiment doesn't factoring in the enormous impact of our huge oceans, the movement of air, seasons, temperature changes based on topography, plants, the sun, volcanoes, plus so many other factors.

I don't disagree that we need to take care if the planet but CO2 doesn't hurt the planet one bit. It even helps many plants.

Whether people believe in global warming or not does not really matter, there is a lack of will to do anything. But C02 increase is a major issue. Plants like it (of-course they are all being cut down), but there is not enough - so where is it going. Simple, the oceans are absorbing it. In the process they are becoming more acidic - and the worlds reefs - calcium based (all those 'shell' animals) are dying off in-mass. They are the basis of the oceanic food chain. Nature will adjust, it has done so many times in geologic history. Life and the planet will go on. It will simply change to such a degree that the systems of agriculture, etc. that we depend on will have to change dramatically if society, as it is now, wishes to continue. But they lack the political and personal will .... so it wont and there will be 'disruptions'. Mans not changing the environment? 6 Billion people eating, defecating, 1/4 driving cars not change the environment? Wow.

Whether people believe in global warming or not does not really matter, there is a lack of will to do anything. But C02 increase is a major issue. Plants like it (of-course they are all being cut down), but there is not enough - so where is it going. Simple, the oceans are absorbing it. In the process they are becoming more acidic - and the worlds reefs - calcium based (all those 'shell' animals) are dying off in-mass. They are the basis of the oceanic food chain. Nature will adjust, it has done so many times in geologic history. Life and the planet will go on. It will simply change to such a degree that the systems of agriculture, etc. that we depend on will have to change dramatically if society, as it is now, wishes to continue. But they lack the political and personal will .... so it wont and there will be 'disruptions'. Mans not changing the environment? 6 Billion people eating, defecating, 1/4 driving cars not change the environment? Wow.7.1 billion, but who's counting ;)

Population Clock (http://www.census.gov/popclock/)

Whether people believe in global warming or not does not really matter, there is a lack of will to do anything. But C02 increase is a major issue. Plants like it (of-course they are all being cut down), but there is not enough - so where is it going. Simple, the oceans are absorbing it. In the process they are becoming more acidic - and the worlds reefs - calcium based (all those 'shell' animals) are dying off in-mass. They are the basis of the oceanic food chain. Nature will adjust, it has done so many times in geologic history. Life and the planet will go on. It will simply change to such a degree that the systems of agriculture, etc. that we depend on will have to change dramatically if society, as it is now, wishes to continue. But they lack the political and personal will .... so it wont and there will be 'disruptions'. Mans not changing the environment? 6 Billion people eating, defecating, 1/4 driving cars not change the environment? Wow.

Of course, its about survival for many. Parasites dont have the ability to stop growing. We are pretty much at the peak of the oil age. The only question is will it be a gradual decline or collapse.

Perhaps it was just a sloppy phrase, but just let me point out that nobody is saying man isn't changing the environment. Jeeze. That sort of interpretation of "skepticism" is one of the reasons this subject is so difficult to discuss. The warmists insist on thinking that people not in lock step are idiots. They not only think they know all the answers ( they don't) they don't even under stand the questions being asked.

There are many kinds of ways to impact the environment and it is done all the time. Climate is merely one aspect of the environment and the debate is not whether man is impacting his environment. The debate is whether man's actions are fundamentally changing the climate. Only an idiot would claim man isn't impacting his environment, the air, water and soil. Pretending that is the argument being made by skeptics is absurd. The argument is whether the planet is a complex system that can absorb man's assaults on the environment or whether the rise in Co2 will fundamentally change the climate so as to make it uninhabitable. Man destroys and kills fellow species all the time - every large city is a concrete graveyard on a vast part of his environment. The same people concerned about global warming typically show zero concern about other species' habitats they routinely destroy.

Sorry, but it is aggravating to try to have a discussion and people just insult the intelligence of skeptics by assuming they don't grasp things that straightforward. On the other hand, In fairness, I suppose they get irritated to have it pointed out that this is a complex system because that's pretty obvious, too.

Here's something interesting. Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136?mg=ren o64-wsj)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k

The issue isn't helped when politicians - and yes, plenty of them on the "right" side of the aisle - continually move to block opportunities for alternative fuel solutions to be integrated into mainstream practice.

FritterGirl, perhaps being in the worlds MOST Republican-dominated state has made it harder to see but in states where there is energy production, the Democrats continue to support development of fossil fuels as well as support alternative fuel solutions. Republicans would be far more likely to support certain initiatives for alternative solutions if it didn't result in massive government expenditures and interfere with marketplace balances.

In Colorado the main barrier to energy development is the Federal Government and the roadblocks they put up along with money wasting requirements for forced use of alternative sources. These requirements are directly responsible for a semi-serious attempt by energy-rich counties to break away from the rest of the state. The president continues to be one of the few people (other than hard-core anti fossil-fuel environmentalists) who is still opposed to the Keystone XL Pipeline. At the same time, the alternative transportation source, trains carrying the oil pumped from North Dakota are shown to be more volatile and more prone to explosion and already have killing several people. With thoughtful, rationale and reasonable regulation and oversight by government, the marketplace nearly always comes up with a better solution.

The issue is the way the alternative fuel solutions are supported. The right wants to see it done in a market-driven way where alternative fuel solutions pay for themselves. The left wants a government driven solution which is fraught with problems as was seen with all the renewable energy company loans made by the O-administration that have gone bust at OUR expense because the products made by the companies the loans were extended to were not economically feasible. I am all for encouragement of solutions that will pay for themselves - natural gas auto's will never become mainstream until there are thousands more refueling stops. This is something that government could help with but seems to not understand which is starting to convert the basic infrastructure.

Just like Bricktown has been the catalyst for billions of dollars of private investment in Oklahoma City, worthwhile government-paid projects can be the catalyst for a cascade of market-driven investment. The requirement is that it must be profitable for the market to take over.

Loved the link diggyba. NDT is possibly one of the most effective communicators of scientific ideas alive today.

Here an interesting graph I meant to post.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10363536_10203007295215856_7323455663169345702_n.j pg

I've posted this picture before on here I think, but might as well post it again.

Here an interesting graph I meant to post.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/t1.0-9/10363536_10203007295215856_7323455663169345702_n.j pg

I've posted this picture before on here I think, but might as well post it again.
Frequently, when it comes to trying to show a warming trend attributed to CO2, the warmists restrict themselves to the modern period after the dustbowl. If they are willing to expand, many deny (love it!) even the presence of the Little Ice age because it doesn't fit with the theory. It would help if everyone just laid the cards on the table but there's a lot of long sleeves involved in dealing.

I'm just curious if you consider Neil deGrasse Tyson a "warmist?"

I'm just curious if you consider Neil deGrasse Tyson a "warmist?"

Whose that? I am not up on the names in the scientific consensus.

The guys that created that chart sort of summarize their viewpoint on their website. It's more nuanced, but they basically say man made climate change is real, and so are long term earth patterns too. I don't know any real climate scientists who aren't saying about the same, so their statement is probably a fairly good summary:

"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades."

Whose that? I am not up on the names in the scientific consensus.

The guy in the video above. He's sort of a celebrity scientist these days. He's the atro-physicist who is the director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York. He's really great at explaining scientific viewpoints and isn't generally heavy handed one direction or the other and seems like a genuinely nice guy. I thought maybe you were referring to him in your last post and it kinda surprised me, so I was just curious what you thought of him, but now I'm guessing you weren't referring to him.

Whose that? I am not up on the names in the scientific consensus.

Okay, so per Wikipedia:

Neil deGrasse Tyson (/ˈniːəl dəˈɡræs ˈtaɪsən/; born October 5, 1958) is an American astrophysicist, author, and science communicator. He is currently the Frederick P. Rose Director of the Hayden Planetarium at the Rose Center for Earth and Space and a research associate in the department of astrophysics at the American Museum of Natural History. From 2006 to 2011, he hosted the educational science television show NOVA ScienceNow on PBS and has been a frequent guest on The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, and Real Time with Bill Maher. Since 2009, he has hosted the weekly radio show StarTalk. In 2014, Tyson began hosting Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, an update to Carl Sagan's Cosmos: A Personal Voyage (1980) television series.[2]
Hmm. That's some high brow stuff.

The guys that created that chart sort of summarize their viewpoint on their website. It's more nuanced, but they basically say man made climate change is real, and so are long term earth patterns too. I don't know any real climate scientists who aren't saying about the same, so their statement is probably a fairly good summary:

"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades."
Based on that, he doesn't sound fringe to me. I might agree or disagree but notwithstanding being on the comedy shows, he doesn't sound like he is walking around with a placard screaming the end is near, so sayeth the prophets. Like I've said, the serious climate change guys biggest problem isn't the dumbasses who think the world is flat. It's the hateful hysterics who insist we are all about to die if we don't do something. Anything.

Sadly that's pretty much TV and radio these days. As I get older I understand now why my grandparents never really watched TV and just chose to read books for information.

"We, Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, believe that the warming and even the cooling of global temperatures are the result of long-term climatic cycles, solar activity, sea-surface temperature patterns and more. However, Mankind’s activities of the burning of fossil fuels, massive deforestations, the replacing of grassy surfaces with asphalt and concrete, the ‘Urban Heat Island Effect,’ are making conditions ‘worse’ and this will ultimately enhance the Earth’s warming process down the meteorological roadway in the next several decades."I certainly agree with that statement in its entirety. The part that I emphasized seems to be a quite accurate summary of the situation. However alarmist politicians such as Gore and his "unfortunate truth" seem to ignore everything but the first activity listed, and cry havoc is arriving in a few years, not several decades.

Back when the leading cause of such alarm was depletion of the ozone layer, a cousin of mine who happened to be an atmospheric physicist and spent much of his career at Los Alamos, published a small book titled "Which Way Is The Sky Falling?"

In it, Tom made the point that much of the measured depletion was due to volcanic activity, not under man's control at all.

A similar refutation of mass hysteria would be welcome today, I think -- but mass media would ignore it.

Well, if we are going to use non-peer reviewed research from a blog, an axis on the graphic would be a nice start....

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

The x-axis is marked as 57 degrees, and the two most recent peaks in the y-direction are marked with their relative temperatures. I'm sure they just assumed most people could look at that chart and connect the dots themselves without them having to bisect their chart with another axis. It's pretty easy to see based on the numbers they included that the chart is to scale.

Eat more steak! It cuts down on cow flatulence, all that methane is not good for our environment.

Eat more steak! It cuts down on cow flatulence, all that methane is not good for our environment.

Just don't compliment it with a side of beans or that negates everything. :-P

Tonight's episode of Cosmos, which is airing right now on Fox as I type this, is about climate change if anyone is interested.

The x-axis is marked as 57 degrees, and the two most recent peaks in the y-direction are marked with their relative temperatures. I'm sure they just assumed most people could look at that chart and connect the dots themselves without them having to bisect their chart with another axis. It's pretty easy to see based on the numbers they included that the chart is to scale.

It is just really poor form and not good science... sorry. There are a number of things that would cause this graph to not be taken seriously within the scientific community. I have issues with the presentation of the data even if the data itself is okay (although their interpretation, and what they then imply, is completely misleading IMO).

Anyway, discussing the topic here seems futile and does nothing but frustrate me so I'm going to try my best to bow out from here on out. It is tiring to hear the same talking points over and over again with no peer-reviewed science being discussed and I only have so much time. Everyone apparently has an equally valid opinion on the subject regardless of education and experience, and with accusations of bias (both personal and within data), there's really no where to go from here. Regardless of the discussion in this thread, certain forces in this country have committed themselves to ignoring science (for whatever reason) and stalling the debate, so it truly is a pointless discussion by now until the people higher on up can agree to get their stuff together. See y'all in the General Weather thread....

Tonight's episode of Cosmos, which is airing right now on Fox as I type this, is about climate change if anyone is interested.

It was a very well done episode IMO.

Oh man, neither of them state any actual qualifications or formal degrees in the science -- no degree for a "climatologist"? Or "meteorologist" Randy Mann? (I take issue with him using that title, and I'd noted my suspicion that he uses it on his own graphs because no scientist would ever do such a thing).

Even better, Cliff Harris is apparently a chemtrails fanatic. Chemtrails!

Great stuff we're citing here, folks.... :rolleyes:

I have no doubt Mr. Harris is a good commodities trader, but can we leave the science to actual, you know... scientists? Think before you post.

In Person: Cliff Harris - Coeur d'Alene Press: Lifestyles (http://www.cdapress.com/lifestyles/article_3245d5e5-81a0-51a5-aa30-479edd40f61b.html)


Why did you recently begin writing about chemtrails, that the government is spraying chemicals in the sky?

Because I couldn't deny what was going on. I was having doctors call me and saying, 'I'm seeing patients with their urine and hair samples and blood samples with all these heavy metals. It's got to be coming from the air. It's not leaching up from the ground. It's not like radon. It's falling from the air.

What reaction are you getting from folks?

Seventy percent positive. One fellow thought I should be put in a mental institution, but they don't understand what's going on. And they don't look at the proof. I studied five years of evidence and information before I ever wrote anything.

A National Weather Service official and an area college professor on weather both said you're wrong and there are no chemtrails, the government is not spraying, there is no evidence for it. What do you say to that?

They're just naive. They don't know about it, they won't look at the evidence

Predicted highs near the Arctic circle in Siberia for today...

http://i.imgur.com/hZSgj7R.jpg

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/jun_wld.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.png

99.999% certainty humans are driving global warming: new study (http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911)

I find it interesting that people (including myself) were blaming global warming for last year's violent tornado season but there are also people blaming it for this year's low tornado count. That goes to show that most people don't fully understand global warming. Same for people who start denying it during a polar vortex during the winter season.

His counterpart lost. Global warming is happening.

http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/future_tense/2014/07/15/jun_wld.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.png

Start a couple of hundred years earlier. And that's just June monthly averages, anyway. Let's see some weekly and yearly and not just June. This means nothing without comparing other times of the year and contrasting it with apples to apples, ie, urban, altitude, near the shore, etc. That's Japan's stats. Let's compare it to the US, Australia, Russia, etc. you end up with Japan's global temperature for June to prove a point and you know you're cherry picking. And for that matter, the average global temperature is nutty since the northern and southern hemispheres are in opposite seasons. Better to stick to one or the other and compare.

I'm concerned that global warming is making Polar Bears relocate and making people more stupid.
I think the cause is all of the communication satellites orbiting the planet.
Not to mention all of the above ground electric power transmission lines.
Some kid needs to make a Master's Thesis/Federal Case out of it.
Before it is too late. To actually do something. About IT.