107 replies to this topic

[thatlookseasy]

Let's assume the East Angola incident never happened and that all Global Climate science was working for actual truth. How good of a job have they been doing? If we were to take the predictions of just a decade ago and look at how they panned out, how well did they do?

Is anyone actually still thinking in the face of this track record that the alarmists know as much as they claim?

Its very difficult to model global temperature trends because there are so many factors involved and so much variation from year to year. I freely admit that current models predicting sea level rise and temperature fluctuations are speculative at best, and they are even less accurate making predictions at the local level.

For example, most models assumed an even sea level rise globally, yet new information shows it is rising faster on the northern east coast than the SE US. http://www.sciencene..._sea_level_rise

But imo its silly to dismiss overwhelming scientific evidence because a few people have overstated the immediate danger posed by global warming. Humans may only contribute a fraction of the global CO2 flux each year, but we have added a major source of CO2 without adding any significant sinks. The result has been a steady, accelerating rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution which isnt going to magically stop unless we do something about it

[twylyght]

Its very difficult to model global temperature trends because there are so many factors involved and so much variation from year to year. I freely admit that current models predicting sea level rise and temperature fluctuations are speculative at best, and they are even less accurate making predictions at the local level.

For example, most models assumed an even sea level rise globally, yet new information shows it is rising faster on the northern east coast than the SE US. http://www.sciencene..._sea_level_rise

But imo its silly to dismiss overwhelming scientific evidence because a few people have overstated the immediate danger posed by global warming. Humans may only contribute a fraction of the global CO2 flux each year, but we have added a major source of CO2 without adding any significant sinks. The result has been a steady, accelerating rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution which isnt going to magically stop unless we do something about it

I agree that it is a daunting task to perform predictive analyses for global climate. There is no disputing the physics of how greenhouse gases work in a controlled environment. There is no reasonable disputing the warming trend of the planet. There can be no reasonable dispute over the urban effect of creating hot spots for local climate.

What can be reasonably asked is where do people actually fit on the scale how global climate is affected. It stands to reason that if the earth has undergone several cooling and warming cycles for its duration of existence (as our best scientific guesses can fathom), then the mechanisms for these cycles pre-dating humanity are well-established. Moreover, if we are emerging from an ice age, then it also stands to reason that the pattern indicates that the earth would be warming anyway. The evidence suggests that we are still before the mid-point of the upswing in temperature to its expected peak.

We cannot sweep the failures of our understanding aside to assume a new arrogance of understanding when it hasn't been properly tested. If anything, one should want to assure proof of understanding before waging a fool's fortunes. This becomes even worse when the fortunes we wage are not our own. Hence, I don't think that the questions that I ask are unreasonable.

I appreciate the civil discourse that we can have now. I come off as a pure dick to a lot of people on this board, but I give respect to those that deserve it.

[mav1234]

See http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm and other links on that page for responses to this.

[twylyght]

See http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm and other links on that page for responses to this.

If they used the sources they claim for their graph, then they fudged the data

[chris999]

Global warming is real, just like global cooling is real.

But the climate changes on its on. It's natural. The climate has changed back and forth for billions of years.

Taxing people for their 'carbon output' (the end-game of the 'global warming' establishment) is nothing but a fraud to tax people even more and to set up a global tax in preparation for the soon coming global government.


Why do people believe that we can control the climate? We are nothing compared to the power of nature. It will do what it will do, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.




I am all for keeping our environment, air and water clean for future generations, but a global carbon tax will not do that, it is just a scam to implement more taxes.

[thatlookseasy]

Global warming is real, just like global cooling is real.

But the climate changes on its on. It's natural. The climate has changed back and forth for billions of years.

Taxing people for their 'carbon output' (the end-game of the 'global warming' establishment) is nothing but a fraud to tax people even more and to set up a global tax in preparation for the soon coming global government.


Why do people believe that we can control the climate? We are nothing compared to the power of nature. It will do what it will do, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.


I am all for keeping our environment, air and water clean for future generations, but a global carbon tax will not do that, it is just a scam to implement more taxes.

So you think its a coincidence that atmospheric CO₂ concentrations have increased 40% while humanity has simultaneously spent trillions of dollars drilling for, processing, and burning carbon containing compounds from inside the earth?

Or do you just think CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

[mav1234]

If they used the sources they claim for their graph, then they fudged the data

And why do you say that?

[mav1234]

btw PhillyB to address that figure specifically, http://www.skeptical...ycle-length.htm talks about it.

[Squirrel]

So you think its a coincidence that atmospheric CO₂ concentrations have increased 40% while humanity has simultaneously spent trillions of dollars drilling for, processing, and burning carbon containing compounds from inside the earth?

Or do you just think CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

Well when you have urban areas cutting down all the vegetation that might just have something to do with it. But no it cant be that its all the cars and aerosol's.

[chris999]

So you think its a coincidence that atmospheric CO₂ concentrations have increased 40% while humanity has simultaneously spent trillions of dollars drilling for, processing, and burning carbon containing compounds from inside the earth?

Or do you just think CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?

I think that we should limit our CO2 emissions in order to help keep our atmosphere clean, but like I said, a carbon tax will not solve anything other than to line the pockets of the people behind the establishment.


A super volcano emits more CO2 in a couple days than humans have emitted in our entire existence... and guess what, the climate always returns back to normal.

Chemical pollution is much more of a concern than CO2 emissions.


It is no coincidence that most of the people who believe that a carbon tax will fix the problem are the same people who think that big government and spending trillions of dollars is the solution for any problem. They are being used as pawns for those who exploit them.


The Earth has been here for over 4 billion years. It has seen Ice Ages and volcanic enduced greenhouse warming for billions of years, and it always bounces back.



Now I do believe that we need to continue to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because they are not going to last forever and we need to find a renewable source before it is too late. That being said, this global initiative is based more on scamming more money from the people and for political points than it is about 'saving the planet'.

[mav1234]

Well when you have urban areas cutting down all the vegetation that might just have something to do with it. But no it cant be that its all the cars and aerosol's.

why would urban and suburban areas have the same temp, then? or are you saying that deforestation is likely contributing to climate change?

[mav1234]

The Earth has been here for over 4 billion years. It has seen Ice Ages and volcanic enduced greenhouse warming for billions of years, and it always bounces back.

When people talk about saving the planet, they aren't talking about saving literally the earth and ground, but the things that live on it.

Sure, life will survive even in the most dire of predictive models, but the point is that life as we know it probably won't.

[chris999]

When people talk about saving the planet, they aren't talking about saving literally the earth and ground, but the things that live on it.

Sure, life will survive even in the most dire of predictive models, but the point is that life as we know it probably won't.

That is the nature of things. I believe there is actually a law of science that states given time, nothing remains the same.



During the Earth's existence, 99% of the species that ever lived here either went extinct or adapted to changes before humans ever even walked the Earth.

Everything is doomed to extinction. It is the nature of things.

[thatlookseasy]

I think that we should limit our CO2 emissions in order to help keep our atmosphere clean, but like I said, a carbon tax will not solve anything other than to line the pockets of the people behind the establishment.

A super volcano emits more CO2 in a couple days than humans have emitted in our entire existence... and guess what, the climate always returns back to normal.

Chemical pollution is much more of a concern than CO2 emissions.
It is no coincidence that most of the people who believe that a carbon tax will fix the problem are the same people who think that big government and spending trillions of dollars is the solution for any problem. They are being used as pawns for those who exploit them.

The Earth has been here for over 4 billion years. It has seen Ice Ages and volcanic enduced greenhouse warming for billions of years, and it always bounces back.

Now I do believe that we need to continue to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because they are not going to last forever and we need to find a renewable source before it is too late. That being said, this global initiative is based more on scamming more money from the people and for political points than it is about 'saving the planet'.

Well the idea of using a "carbon tax" to limit emissions was proposed as a free market alternative to simply mandating a certain portion of our energy production come from non-carbon sources. I'm no expert on how the money from carbon taxes are used (I suppose its up to the individual country), but several European countries are getting a sizable portion of their energy from non-carbon sources

And its not really a question of whether life on earth will continue- it will. The question is whether its smart to willfully make the planet less livable for humanity. Sure, like you said, a supervolcano would be worse than global warming, but it would also be a catastrophic disaster. There is no reason preparing for one scenario should prevent preparing for another.

Hell, if there is one threat I think we should do something about now its meteors. So far we just have a vague map of the random objects flying around the solar system, and nothing to actually prevent a strike

[twylyght]

And why do you say that?

Actually the discussion below the article lays a lot of it out. There's a lot of picking and choosing of data. A fair look at the raw data can be found here:

http://www.swpc.noaa...centIndices.txt

A better look at solar cycles and how the resultant spots affect global temperature can be found with a quick wiki search.