Global Warming Ended 10 years ago

The National Academies of Science of every industrialized nation agree that global warming is caused by human activity.

And "debate" is not the scientific method.

Here's the Webster's dictionary definition of "Scientific Method": principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Here's the definition for "debate": a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides.

"Shameful" is a good term for what you're trying to achieve here. You're deliberately lying in order to change people's opinions to a position you know is either false or unproved.

Or worse yet, you're repeating a position that someone with the above motivation used to get you to accept their POV - and which you've chosen to repeat without the smallest bit of investigation on your own part.

Oh, and one final comment before signing off (too nice a day here in So Cal to stay in front of the computer): your tactic of turning the tables by accusing proponents of Scientific Method of practicing "religion" is also not only shameful, but recalls the old schoolyard taunt: "I know you are but what am I."

Your contentions are in fact entirely based upon "religion": you mock science and call those who put their trust in scientific method "hysterics" who are practicing "religion."

First off: nice ad hominen attack.

Second: your belief system is not based on science (there are no peer-reviewed, published, scientific studies to support your viewpoint).

That you would still claim to be on the side of science is ... well, for lack of a better word - hysterical.

SoCal Pete---if there is global warming going on, shouldn't it be getting warmer? Why is the increased CO2 in the atmosphere driving a cooling trend?

http://www.lenzie.org.uk/scam.php

say what now wrote:

SoCal Pete---if there is global warming going on, shouldn't it be getting warmer? Why is the increased CO2 in the atmosphere driving a cooling trend?

http://www.lenzie.org.uk/scam.php

Please don't post stuff like that. Reality conflicts with my computer model. Reality must be wrong.

SoCalPete is getting kickbacks from the carbon credit industry, obviously.

People like you keep these threads around, not the global warming skeptics. It's very entertaining to see you pop a blood vessel over this. If I had more time, I'd post some refutes to your assertions just to be a jerk and watch you go apeshit some more. Maybe later, but for now I have to find the easter eggs that I hid a little too well...

I've moved on to being a letsrun.com poster. Doesn't pay well, but keeps me busy. Give it time, children. One of these years will break the 1998 record and redeem me.

Pete---why aren't you happy that your theory has been disproven? I know it must hurt on some level to be wrong, but in a larger sense, you guys were predicting all sorts of horrible catastrophes involving floods, starvation, disappearing islands, refugees and so on and those things AREN'T GOING TO HAPPEN! Doesn't that make you relieved? Isn't it good to know that you were wrong about this?

SoCal Pete, what is the optimal temperature of the earth that we "must" keep it at in order to avert catastrophe. Is it the temperature from the medeival warming period when the glaciers were further back? Maybe it's from one of the ice ages? Please advise, becasue I want to be able to take some feel good measures that really don't affect anyone important's lifestyle.

Also, the arctic ice is back.

Also, why have atmospheric temperatures failed to correlate to the supposed warming model.

Also, could you tell me why we should invest all this money to eradicate CO2 which is totally inert when there are plenty of potentially carcinogenic pollutants whose release into the environment could be prevented using the same money? Again, please advise. Also, please answer the funding question but instead of other pollutants insert "any pressing world problem."

20 years from now we will all look back at this nonsense as a boondoggle.

Dear letsrun community---while sitting in a Chinese restaurant last night, Tipper and I were talking about the terrible challenges our planet faces. And I did some quick back-of-a-napkin calculations--I learned that trick at Harvard--and I discovered that if the average temperature of the earth were to rise 198 degrees by next Thursday, we all will be boiled in our skins like lobsters, and that even the Mu Shu Pork they served us last night would be unavailable, because the boiled bodies of the pig farmers who raise the animals Tipper and I love to eat---well, they'll be buried under at least 79 feet of water, because all the ice on the planet will melt and the sea level will rise 143 feet.

Folks--as far as I know, the current administration is doing nothing to stop this from happening. I'm not saying this should influence your vote for next year, but remember, even Brie Felnagle's makeup would be affected by this catastrophic chain of events.

Sincerely,

Vice President Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize Winner

I'm pretty pissed off!!! I live in Ohio and was hoping a little more global warming came my way. I would be happy with 5-7 degrees so it won't be too hot in the summer.

Pete, Al Gore's house uses more energy than George Bush's ranch, so global warming can't be true.

1) There is no magical "optimal" temperature, but most people consider the mid twentieth century to be a baseline. A “small” increase in average global temperatures will probably not be too bad while a “large” increase might be much worse. Although potentially harmful, a one degree increase will probably not be catastrophic. However, something to keep in mind is that the average temperature difference between interglacial periods and ice ages is something like 10 degrees C. The predicted increase under an A2 “business as usual” scenario is about 5 degrees C by 2100, the predicted increase under the best case mitigated scenario is about 3 degrees C by 2100. This means that an increase of 3-5 degrees C is BIG.

2) Only seasonal artic ice is back. Since seasonal ice is, as its name implies, highly variable, a much better indicator of overall arctic sea ice conditions is perennial ice (the ice that remains year round). Perennial arctic ice is in fact declining rapidly (by 20% in just two years, 2005-2007).

3) What is your source that says temperatures don’t correlate with models? I haven’t seen this but wouldn’t doubt it completely, climate is incredibly complex and any small error in the model could greatly affect the results. Did the models take into account El Nino and La Nina events or other natural events? I’ll have to look into this more.

4) First off, mitigation does not necessarily require a ton of money and it would not be detrimental to the economy. It would only shift productivity to different sectors. Second, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and DOES cause atmospheric warming. Third, CO2 has other implications besides global warming—ocean acidification for example is extremely detrimental to coral reefs and could have major implications for ocean fisheries. You’re right, there are many other pressing problems that should also be dealt with (AIDS, malaria, malnutrition, dysentery, population growth). Global warming though could make things much worse. No, we won’t drown under water as sea levels rise thousands of feet, or die from excess heat directly. However, there are many other implications of climate change that aren’t discussed nearly as much as they should be. Some big ones are the effect of climate change on water availability and on agriculture. The constant water supply in California for example is dependent on winter snowpack in the Sierras lasting while into the summer. This means that when rainfall is very low, we still receive water from snow melt. If temperatures rise just a little bit, the hydrologic cycle could be severely impacted so that we experience spring flooding and summer droughts. While some regions might benefit from climate change (with longer growing seasons), the overall trend is bad. Most regions will experience declines in agricultural productivity—largely due to changes in the hydrologic cycle. Another fact that is not well known is that many agricultural species (fruits and nuts in particular) require a dormancy period of cold winter temperatures to remain productive. Without a certain amount of time below 7 degrees C they won’t produce fruit and nuts. These are just a couple of many problems.

This is the second link I meant to put:

http://www.mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/pdf/US_ghg_final_report.pdf

You're dramatically overstating the degree of certainty; most scientists agree that there is strong evidence to suggest that a significant portion of global warming is caused by human activity. That's a lot different from saying that global is caused by human activity. You either didn't read the IPCC reports, you didn't understand them, or you're deliberately lying yourself. Which is it?

Reducing CO2e emissions to 80% of 2000 levels (what is required to keep warming under 2 deg) will cost 0.1% of the global GDP (high consensus among scientists). Better to be safe than sorry wouldn't you say?

that's what I don't understand...so say the debate is still raging and some are unsure whether there is man made climate change happening or not (most credible sources, I believe, have long ago decided it is--but whatever)...so the verdict is still out...why wouldn't we do what is in our power to curb our emissions and such, to be "better safe than sorry" as bruncle said. Why not take some small steps in the hope that if we are screwing things up, we can slow down or stop screwing them up? What's the rationale to do nothing? Arrogance?

YOu know, they didn't put warnings on cigarettes for the longest time, even though just about everyone who wasn't a dipshit knew the suckers were bad for you...but go ahead and don't take action til the 'this product may cause cancer' warning comes out, by which time it will probably be too late anyway...

People like SoCal Pete have an idealized view of science. The don't realize that they are just worshipers in a different church. Question their dogma, and you'll get called every name in the book.

The reason that there have been many more "proponents" of global warming than "deniers" there is very little interest in finding a null result. Almost all of the people working in this field could be described as "advocates." I am not accusing (most of) them of impropriety, but simply having blinders on.

As physicists and mathematicians get more involved, we'll see how the models hold up. I don't think they will. Recent observational data such as ocean temperature studies also cast doubt on whether warming has actually occurred. The "land" temperature is much less important than the ocean.

It's all about marketing.

Let me see if I have this right.

1) Ocean levels have risen over 350 FEET since the last ice age.

2) If the sun continues to pour out energy near a maximum, which it had been doing for the last 22 year sunspot cycle, the earth should expect to warm, as would Mars, etc. However, the sun has its own cooler periods as well.

3) According to the IPCC report, the oceans are predicted to rise, maybe, at most 17 INCHES by 2100, if all goes according to a poorly-understood science known as climatology.

4) Temperature measuring stations at many locations throughout the world are placed in positions that show a warming bias (i.e., will overstate the true temperature by several degrees). Thus, no one knows what the 'average' global temperature really is.

5) Much of northern Africa, as well as the Middle East, are well positioned to receive large amounts of desalinated water from the oceans, if we will just start doing it.

6) If the Sahara Desert were to become a large reservoir of fresh water, Atlantic hurricanes that begin off the west coast of Africa would likely lose the heat energy needed to form, saving many billions of dollars in property losses in the American hemisphere.

7) The underground acquifer in the Central US is seriously short of water, and no one seems to be planning to replenish it.

If people were really serious about ocean levels, droughts, etc. they would work on sequestering water inland, where people would use it. Every time I see a flood caused by rain, I see another chance to replenish an incredibly important acquifer squandered.