Does anyone still believe in Global Warming? Have we all finally concluded that it was a hoax?

Ebola > Global Warming.

Screw global warming.

the internet has gotten so much more popular in that time period, its understandable that the man who invented it would observe such a significant increase in net worth.

Athletics Illustrated wrote:

Al Gore thirteen years ago was worth 1.7 million dollars and is now worth over 200 million dollars. Good actor.

I know I'm not that smart, but you guys keep posting the way you do and you're making me look like a freaking genius.

So thanks and keep the Al Gore posts coming!

[quote]Conundrum wrote:

See the irony here.

Rather than deal with uncomfortable truths which are contrary to your world view, you prefer the comfort of thinking about and attacking Al Gore.

The irony is your refusal to allow yourself to see. But don't worry there will always but an Al Gore to provide comfort for you..

[quote]

Good lord, Al Gore didin't INVENT global warming. Climate change is built on the foundation of thousands of studies by thousands of individual scientists. The first paper that suggested it could be an issue was Svante Arrhenius in 1896 (http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf, or hell, you could even extend that to Fourier's 1824 work on the presence of greenhouse gasses that keep the earth's atmosphere warmer)! Many of the laws that point to climate change can be found in any Physics 101 or Chemistry 101 book. However, global warming didn't begin to gain publicity outside of the scientific arena until the 1980s and was certainly an issue before Al Gore made "An inconvenient truth".

One of the biggest issues with AGW is that Earth's hydrological cycle is incredibly complex and requires physical understanding from the micron scale at highfrequencies to centuries. Highlighting some of the complexity of these potential hydrological feedbacks:

Clausius Clapeyron equation (established in the early 19th century), that for each degree celsius the atmosphere warms, the atmosphere can hold 7.6%more water. Now water vapor is a also major greenhouse gas! Water vapor is natural, but when our increases in anthropogenic GHGs, water vapor can amplify the effects of small change in greenhouse gasses.

We should worry about the hydrological cycle getting really involved with climate change because Earth's population is more dependent on Earth's resources than ever before. With about 7 billion people looking to live a higher quality life, stable resources are highly important. If you begin to f*ck with earth's energy balance, there will be consequences. We've built our landscapes expecting climatic conditions to be fairly constant, but if farmlands become to arid to farm, or if the stromsurge-sea level rise combo regularly bursts on up into your bustling metropolis, etc etc, enormous amounts of time and money will have to be spent to rearrange everything to best fit into these new norms. Alternatively, we can focus on finding and using more eco-friendly fuel sources to replace a fuel source that already has a limited lifetime.

Suggest you do some research on the plummeting pan evaporation test results over the past centuries. There is less moisture in the air. But I don't want to put a dent in your beliefs, so maybe you shouldn't do the research. Amen. May the gods of global warming bless you.

Vinny, do you think you are smarter than the climate scientists?

Fat hurts wrote:

Vinny, do you think you are smarter than the climate scientists?

I am not Vinny. But I will answer your question nonetheless (it's a slow day here).

Yes, I AM smarter than at least 99% of all climate scientists.

It is also true that I am less informed than 100% of them when it comes to climate science.

The Truth Is wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Vinny, do you think you are smarter than the climate scientists?

I am not Vinny. But I will answer your question nonetheless (it's a slow day here).

Yes, I AM smarter than at least 99% of all climate scientists.

It is also true that I am less informed than 100% of them when it comes to climate science.

Thanks for that. Of course, I use the phrase "smarter than the scientists" in a very broad sense. Vinny is not more intelligent or better informed on the topic of AGW.

But Vinny, if you really think you hold scientific truths that the scientific community doesn't have, please do step forward with your crucial information and insight.

I'm quite sure Vinny won't answer.

Fat hurts wrote:

The Truth Is wrote:

I am not Vinny. But I will answer your question nonetheless (it's a slow day here).

Yes, I AM smarter than at least 99% of all climate scientists.

It is also true that I am less informed than 100% of them when it comes to climate science.

Thanks for that. Of course, I use the phrase "smarter than the scientists" in a very broad sense. Vinny is not more intelligent or better informed on the topic of AGW.

But Vinny, if you really think you hold scientific truths that the scientific community doesn't have, please do step forward with your crucial information and insight.

I'm quite sure Vinny won't answer.

You haven't a clue about global pan evaporation test results? How can you live in such ignorance and yet feel informed enough to make bold predictions on increasing evaporation rates? You are the stereo typical global warming worshiper. At least you can impress your neighbors with your trendy, hip "morals." Amen.

Vinny wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Thanks for that. Of course, I use the phrase "smarter than the scientists" in a very broad sense. Vinny is not more intelligent or better informed on the topic of AGW.

But Vinny, if you really think you hold scientific truths that the scientific community doesn't have, please do step forward with your crucial information and insight.

I'm quite sure Vinny won't answer.

You haven't a clue about global pan evaporation test results? How can you live in such ignorance and yet feel informed enough to make bold predictions on increasing evaporation rates? You are the stereo typical global warming worshiper. At least you can impress your neighbors with your trendy, hip "morals." Amen.

I worship the Lord Jesus Christ. My morals come from a Jewish carpenter who lived 2000 years ago. I do consider that to still be quite trendy. But it has nothing to do with the questions I'm asking you.

And you still haven't answered.

Do you think you know more than the climate scientists?

More research accumulates to refute the IPCC models.

The impact of CO2 dampens after 400 ppm, which in large part explains why the temperature has flattened out.

But many of you will claim this paper wasn't done by a "Climate Scientist", I mean, the entire CO2 phenomenon only has to do with physics and spectroscopy.

Even if Climate Change is not caused by mankind, the steps that would go into mitigating it are in our best interests anyway. Air pollution is terrible for public health and the environment, which, in turn, is terrible for the long-term well-being of our economy. Oil and gas will lead/have led us into global conflicts because they are finite resources and we are too dependent on them. Wind, solar, and geothermal energy are practically unlimited and could create a ton of jobs if we chose to invest in them. All of this stuff is indisputable. Why would we not do everything we can to clean shib up?

I am pretty sure I am smarter than most climate scientists. They have a horrible track record.

SomeCoach wrote:

http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/download/3001-846.pdf

More research accumulates to refute the IPCC models.

The impact of CO2 dampens after 400 ppm, which in large part explains why the temperature has flattened out.

But many of you will claim this paper wasn't done by a "Climate Scientist", I mean, the entire CO2 phenomenon only has to do with physics and spectroscopy.

I just scanned the paper you link, but he gets the same result for CO2 forcing as everybody else including the IPCC "best estimate", 1.1 C per doubling of CO2. Not clear how you can conclude "the impact of CO2 dampens after 400 ppm" from that paper.

It's his derivation of feedbacks that would be contentious relative to mainstream climate science.

Sally V wrote:

I am pretty sure I am smarter than most climate scientists. They have a horrible track record.

This thread proves otherwise.

jon secada wrote:

Sally V wrote:

I am pretty sure I am smarter than most climate scientists. They have a horrible track record.

This thread proves otherwise.

I predicted no global warming and they did the opposite - over last 17 years it looks like I am winning!

Global temperatures over the past 6 months are the hottest on record:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/13/nasa_earth_just_experienced_the_warmest_six_month_stretch_ever.html

Remember, the "globe" is a big place. "Ignorantf*wadistan", or whatever rock you Limbaugh clones are hiding under, is much smaller. Your "weather" is not the same as "global climate". I know, thinking is hard, but I encourage you to try it anyway.

You Are What You Is wrote:

Global temperatures over the past 6 months are the hottest on record:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/10/13/nasa_earth_just_experienced_the_warmest_six_month_stretch_ever.html

Remember, the "globe" is a big place. "Ignorantf*wadistan", or whatever rock you Limbaugh clones are hiding under, is much smaller. Your "weather" is not the same as "global climate". I know, thinking is hard, but I encourage you to try it anyway.

Please check out this graph to learn how Global Temps are doing (hint: the Earth Aint Warming):

You Are What You Is wrote:Global temperatures over the past 6 months are the hottest on record.

This claim is not remotely consistent with the data shown in the graph in this earlier link: