Global Warming Poster Question

white lightening wrote:[/b

for all of you who don't believe in global warming, pull your heads out of your asses, read a book, do some research

Hey aggro-boy, you're the one who needs to read a book, and not Al Gore's fairy tales.

My beef is with Al Gore and those global warming fanatics who will make billions off of this because of their lies and bullying tactics. I do not want our country to get bamboozled into spending billions and billions on this Al Gore farce. Al Gore is a sick man and I feel sorry for him.

Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now.

There was an Ice Age and it warmed up, there was a Mini Ice Age just 500 years ago and it has been warming up ever since. The Industrial Revolution was not around during those periods.

NASA reports because of Solar Flares the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years. There are no cars on the sun.

Global warming is causing ice to melt on Mars. There are no cars on Mars.

Thousands and thousands of studies and experiments prove that more carbon dioxide produces better fruits, vegetables, trees and almost any sort of plant life.

Most of the temperature increase happened before 1940 (Before most carbon dioxide was released by cars and factories)

The hot year of 1998 was caused by El Nino.

Joining the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. approximately $400 Billion every year and would have virtually no effect on earths temperature.

April 28, 1975 Newsweek printed an article about scientists predicting doom and gloom because of Global Cooling.

Global Warming Lies and many millions of other people who don't believe global warming is man made have never received money from any oil company.

Climate models do not take into account water vapor that is 95% of the atmosphere.

The United Nations left out two statements that were supposed to be in the final draft of a paper on Global Warming.

1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”

2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

look fellas, you need to spend a few years dedicating yourselves to climate science to be able to make a judgement about these things. Reading Al Gore's book or some other random book or any other nonsense (or even an excellent scientific paper) does not give you the proper perspective to make any claims on this issue. The people who do spend their lives on climate science (not a few random well known scientists in other fields who are not in their element) are in almost complete agreement that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing significant warming of the planet... (and by significant I actually mean a really small but life changing amount) If there were no greenhouse gases it would be -30 degrees all the time. A two degree change is very small and can be caused by the CO2 and other greenhouse gases we put in the air. And we have raised CO2 way over any historical measure. This would still cause dramatic changes to this planet and human life would not exist as we know it because of feedbacks (like permafrost melt as previously mentioned among others). Of course there are other feedbacks which aren't completely understood like transport of CO2 to the deep oceans and the effects of black carbon etc.

Anyway, I got to rambling: take home message. Unless you've spent ten years studying this stuff, leave it to the experts and quit your armchair quarterback "Climate science is a myth" act. You should not talk about what you don't know about.

Dude,

You totally had me until you said there are no cars on the sun. That's straight up BS.

Thank God we won't be bamboozled into spending all that money on becoming more energy efficient, that would just take money away from any future wars we could be bamboozled into spending that money on. Rock on, Johnstone Plaza Dude!

hey Al Gore criticizer, I HAVE NEVER READ AL GORES BOOK. I have never heard anything Al Gore has to say about the subject. I have read PRIMARY LITERATURE. I have DONE RESEARCH on the subject. stop assuming. maybe some of you should stop listening to the right wing people who just care about money.

Johnstone Plaza wrote:

Climate models do not take into account water vapor that is 95% of the atmosphere.

you need to do some research, too. water vapor is less than 1% of the atmosphere.

white lightening wrote:

you need to do some research, too. water vapor is less than 1% of the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

Idiot. The guy misspoke. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gasses.

look fellas - it takes years wrote:

look fellas, you need to spend a few years dedicating yourselves to climate science to be able to make a judgement about these things. Reading Al Gore's book or some other random book or any other nonsense (or even an excellent scientific paper) does not give you the proper perspective to make any claims on this issue. The people who do spend their lives on climate science (not a few random well known scientists in other fields who are not in their element) are in almost complete agreement that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing significant warming of the planet..

I trust MIT Meteorologist Richard Lindzen more than I trust you. The claim of yours (and your hero Al Gore) that "the people who spend their entire lives on climate science are in almost complete agreement that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing significant warming of the planet.." is a fantasy tale being perpetuated by people who have something to gain by the global warming fraud.

Poor Al Gore wrote:

Idiot. The guy misspoke. Water vapor is 95% of the greenhouse gasses.

Idiot. Water vapor is 35-65% of greenhouse gases, and only up to 85% when counting clouds. But "the overall effect of all clouds together is that the Earth's surface is cooler than it would be if the atmosphere had no clouds." Therefore, we discount clouds, and we get a max of 65%.

Also, yes, climate models do take into account water vapor. They take into account everything you can think of that is relevant.

why do you trust one guy against greater than 95% of his colleagues? There was a scientific poll a few years back that said in fact, 97% of working climate scientists agreed that anthropogenic greenhouse gases were warming the planet.

Climate models do take into account both anthropogenic and natural forces. The model is tested by running it "in the past." They put in initial conditions that existed in the past and see if the model predicts what actually happened. When the model only takes into account natural factors, it does not match reality. When taking into account only human factors, it does not match reality. When the two are combined, it predicts, almost precisely, what actually happened.

Here is another statement about consensus quoted below. I don't really care all that much what one particular guy says... he might be wrong even if he is from MIT. And he could be right. But, if I had to bet, I would not bet based on a single or small group of people, I would put my money with the large group (of experts that is)

I don't give a crap what polls of average media influenced idiots who believe the earth was actually created in 7 days think.

"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is probably attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries.[24]"

Reference:

[24] Joint statement of sixteen national academies of science (18 May 2001). "The Science of Climate Change". The Royal Society.

http://royalsociety.org/Report_WF.aspx?pageid=10028

. Retrieved 2009-05-20.

This can be found on wikipedia by the way.

Abstract

It is often said that there is a scientific “consensus” to the effect that climate change will be “catastrophic” and that, on this question, “the debate is over”. The present paper will demonstrate that the claim of unanimous scientific “consensus” was false, and known to be false, when it was first made; that the trend of opinion in the peer-reviewed journals and even in the UN’s reports on climate is moving rapidly away from alarmism; that, among climate scientists, the debate on the causes and extent of climate change is by no means over; and that the evidence in the peer-reviewed literature conclusively

demonstrates that, to the extent that there is a “consensus”, that “consensus” does not endorse the notion of “catastrophic” climate change.

Here's a summary of the article:

Brenchley’s paper goes on to cite the origin of the claim that global warming has universal consensus among the scientific community, when in fact, there never was consensus. His paper also addresses a more serious issue at hand here. The issue of fraud being perpetuated by some in the scientific community and by the journal Science specifically.

The claim of “consensus” can be traced back to an article in the journal Science entitled “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian who lacked qualifications in climatology. In her essay (not a scientific peer-reviewed paper) published in 2004, she analyzed 928 abstracts published in peer-reviewed science journals between 1993 and 2003, using the key words “climate change”.

She concluded that 75% of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the “consensus” view; 25% took no position, being concerned with palaeoclimate rather than today’s climate; and –“Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. … This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect. … Our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it. … There is a consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.”

A lot of heavy stuff coming from one essay, however, when true scientific scrutiny was applied to her essay, it turns out it was bunk. After all, replication of scientific findings is the hallmark of science.

Benchley goes on to cite an attempt to replicate Oreskes study by Dr Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in the UK. He found that using the search words “climate change” in the ISI Web of Science database, there were over 12,000 papers (from 1993 to 2003) not the 928 as Oreskes claimed. When he notified Science of his findings, the editors backpedaled and said that her search was based on “global climate change” not “climate change”.

Peiser then changed his search to “global climate change” which yielded 1117 documents, 929 articles and 905 abstracts. Among the many conflicting conclusions Peiser found was that fewer than 33% of the articles either explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus” as defined by Oreskes (not the 75% that she claimed), and that more than HALF of the 905 abstracts didn’t mention anthropogenic climate change at all! Only 13 of the 1117 documents explicitly agreed with Oreskes own definition of “consensus.” That’s only 1%!

Dr Peiser wrote Science with his findings pointing out the many holes in Oreskes findings, only to have Science return a letter requesting a shortened version, when he did, they refused to publish it anyway! The editors of Science refused to publish any of the letters they received pointing out the deficiencies in the Oreskes analysis.

white lightening wrote:When the two are combined, it predicts, almost precisely, what actually happened.

Proof? Just the fact that you wrote that sentence is proof you're pulling facts out of your ass.

look fellas - it takes years wrote:

why do you trust one guy against greater than 95% of his colleagues? There was a scientific poll a few years back that said in fact, 97% of working climate scientists agreed that anthropogenic greenhouse gases were warming the planet.

Your assertion is wrong. If you keep repeating a lie it doesn't make it the truth.

white lightening wrote:

Idiot. Water vapor is 35-65% of greenhouse gases, and only up to 85% when counting clouds.

95 percent idiot.

Poor Al Gore wrote:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Oh good, you're citing something that's 12 years old... How applicable is that to today? Oh yea. It's not. Congratulations. Got me again...

sorry, I actually mis spoke before, you are right in a minor sense. I was refering to the fact that 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is occurring. Only about 74% agree that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing the warming. Still I'd place my money with that 74% rather than the 26%. Of course, we'll never know the answer with 100% certainty whether or not we are causing global warming so it is kind of a pointless debate. Like I said, don't talk about what you don't know about.

BTW, Lindzen is an interesting character. I urge you to learn more about him. Nevertheless, citing one person does not help.

link to my information:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

quote: "Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University."

Les filles françaises sont chaudes!