Toronto Girlfriends

25 Years Of Predicting The Global Warming ‘Tipping Point’

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
I already showed you the chart from the IPCC that tracks the issues.
Go back and reread it and the IPCC report before you make more claims that have already been dealt with.
OH,...you mean were the unemployable state that burning trees puts C02 into the atmosphere,...damn those guys ARE smart.

FAST
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
OH,...you mean were the unemployable state that burning trees puts C02 into the atmosphere,...damn those guys ARE smart.

FAST
Speaking of smart, its very hard to understand what you are trying to claim with your typos and poor English skills.

I assume you are falsely implying that the well employed research scientists forgot to mention very basic elements of CO2 calculations?
Its all here, as long with quite a few other points that you probably aren't smart enough to consider yourself, or more likely weren't on the denier website you copied your claims from.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf

That's the chapter on forestry and agriculture from AR5.
The information you claim isn't there, is there.
Go read it.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
Would expect that cutting down the trees would also change how the earth absorbs or reflects the energy from the sun.
Albedo, that's the reflective quality, I seem to recall.
You have to calculate the amount of carbon in burning the wood, the amount of carbon stored in the wood if its used as a product, the amount of CO2 turned to oxygen through photosynthesis and yes, the albedo depending on the land use after deforestation.

Its all in the IPCC report, of course.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
Would expect that cutting down the trees would also change how the earth absorbs or reflects the energy from the sun.
YEP,...but contributing factors like this do not garner head lines,...the unemployables rather stick to simply repeating over and over again about burning fossil fuels,...gets much more attention for them.

Publications from the unemployables about stopping the destruction of the rain forest,...will not get the looney left and anti everything crowd much attention.

Still boils down to the unemployables maintaining their jobs,...in the same predicament as teachers,...unemployable.

FAST
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
YEP,...but contributing factors like this do not garner head lines,...the unemployables rather stick to simply repeating over and over again about burning fossil fuels,...gets much more attention for them.
They don't get headlines because its not the big story. Its a calculation and part of the figures, but its not the major source of CO2 right now.
As you should know if you looked at the links.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Then you need to refer to the terms of the question...
I noticed you didn't quote the part of that same question that said, "Regardless of the cause...". That's the part that confirms the 89% number you cited earlier was wrong -- it wasn't in support of man-made global warming.

The problem with their question was the 150 year term. Its very clear and the consensus supports the fact that man made climate change has been the major forcing over the last 50 years. But in the previous 100 years while there was also man made climate change, but its effect wasn't as strong and it wasn't the necessarily the primary forcing and it makes answering the question trickier. Which is why if you read the answers you'd know that only 6% said it was from natural events, which is your claim.
No, my statement was that this is one of the surveys that confirms that thousands of scientists throughout the world believe natural causes are a significant factor.

(My official position, for the record, is that we don't know enough about the climate to know how man-made emissions may or may not affect it. It is that position that had basketcase jumping to the idiotic conclusion that I believe in gods and magic.)

As for the natural causes, it is true that six per cent of respondents said the warming was mostly due to natural causes. However, another 11 per cent said it is an equal split between human factors and natural causes, and 23 per cent said we don't know how much can be attributed to man-made or natural causes. That shows about 40 per cent of respondents believe natural causes play a significant role or may play a significant role, and that almost 30 per cent clearly believe natural causes play a significant role.

In fact, 48 per cent of respondents didn't support the IPCC's position on man-made global warming.

Take that result and other findings (such as the divisions among the Geological Society of Australia, the divisions within the American Physical Society, the results from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, etc.) and we can easily extrapolate that there are thousands of scientists throughout the world that think natural causes are a significant factor -- as I said.

We can also clearly see that the "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.

By the way, 80 per cent of the total respondents have at least a master's degree (52 per cent of the total respondents have PhDs). They're not exactly the rubes you've been making them out to be. In fact, I suspect most of them are more serious scientists than fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
But in the previous 100 years while there was also man made climate change, but its effect wasn't as strong and it wasn't the necessarily the primary forcing and it makes answering the question trickier.
Obviously, those scientists have never heard your argument about Charles Dickens' coal mines. :thumb:
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,358
13
38
SHIT,...No wonder everybody here accuses you of lying,...

Maybe basic elements of climatology,...but something you sure as hell weren't aware of.

I never said they ignored the burning of forest,...what I did say is,...that they do NOT mention the increase in C02 due to the loss of trees converting C02 to oxygen.

Much better for the unemployable to scream about burning fossil fuels,...and big industry, than 3rd world countries.

I don't need to read another report,...you seem to have all the time to waste,...but I have read numerous ones that confirm, that the increase in C02 ,...1/3 of it can be directly connected to deforestation.
Which would help explain why the unemployables contention that burning fossil fuels is what is causing their claim of global warming,...does NOT correlate to your cut and paste graphs.

FAST

Since deforestation is man-made, I suppose it doesn't make a difference that AGW is not related to increased CO2 in that respect.
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,358
13
38
Those people in 3rd world countries are so inconsiderate, cutting down forests for farm land, subdivisions, malls, parking lots, factories, etc. wtf is wrong with living in a grass shack. Next they'll want SUVs, air conditioned homes, weekend vacations at the cottage. Sarcasm

Pictures of local old growth logging http://www.oddman.ca/archives/26538
Ha ha, good one.

I suppose one can make an argument for 'developing' countries that have no pollution controls or regulations (like China), although we might not be light years better.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
No, my statement was that this is one of the surveys that confirms that thousands of scientists throughout the world believe natural causes are a significant factor.
No, your statement is shown to be bullshit by the report.
"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."


As for the natural causes, it is true that six per cent of respondents said the warming was mostly due to natural causes. However, another 11 per cent said it is an equal split between human factors and natural causes, and 23 per cent said we don't know how much can be attributed to man-made or natural causes. That shows about 40 per cent of respondents believe natural causes play a significant role or may play a significant role, and that almost 30 per cent clearly believe natural causes play a significant role.
Over the last 150 years.
Add that clause into your statement, otherwise you are intentionally misquoting the survey.
Its only over the last 50 years that man made activities have been confirmed to be the primary climate driver, the technically correct answer over 150 years is not to answer yes.
Its a bad question, as the survey noted.

From the survey itself:
In this survey, global warming was defined as “the premise that the world’s
average temperature has been increasing over the past 150 years, may be
increasing more in the future, and that the world’s climate may change as a
result.” The investigators received separate emails from six respondents who,
after completing the survey, indicating that the reference period chosen to
define global warming – i.e., the past 150 years – was not a good choice. All six
suggested that a better reference period would have been the past 50 years, as
this is the period for which human causation of global warming is most well
established.
The extent to which other respondents shared this perspective is
unknown.
In fact, 48 per cent of respondents didn't support the IPCC's position on man-made global warming.
No, that is wrong.
You imply numbers that simply aren't there.



We can also clearly see that the "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
No, that's wrong.
Again, the finding of the survey was:

"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."


By the way, 80 per cent of the total respondents have at least a master's degree (52 per cent of the total respondents have PhDs). They're not exactly the rubes you've been making them out to be. In fact, I suspect most of them are more serious scientists than fake "Nobel laureate" Michael Mann.
Yes, but 20% are tv weathermen and amongst those who have a degree in climatology and contribute to the field the support was 93% support the IPCC position.

You need to stop lying about the findings of this survey.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Yes, but 20% are tv weathermen and amongst those who have a degree in climatology and contribute to the field the support was 93% support the IPCC position.

You need to stop lying about the findings of this survey.
In fact, you're the guy who has never read the survey (notice your previous posting about the 89 per cent support for the "consensus", when the question wasn't about man-made global warming). You just keep lifting talking points from dishonest propaganda sites.

First of all, I am not "implying" that 48 per cent didn't support the IPCC's position that human activity is the dominant cause of warming. The support for the IPCC's position was 52 per cent. Where did you study math?

Furthermore, the breakdown of researchers who are active in climatology only applies to 13 per cent of the respondents. Since 80 per cent of the overall respondents has at least a master's level education, it is clear that most of the respondents with post-graduate credentials are excluded from your separated numbers.

And let's not forget that your 93 per cent number includes "deniers" -- respondents who don't support the IPCC position. I still don't think you know the meaning of the word "consensus."

The consensus is a fairy tale.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Here's Frankfooter explaining the warming that occurred in the early part of the 20th century.

First, his quotes from May 9:

I'm saying that man made CO2 increases started in 1850 or so, increasing nearly exponentially to present day.

The effect at around 1850 was fairly minimal, as use built up. That combined with the 40 year or so lag in climate change reaction to CO2 increases combine to create the rise in global temperature we see now, with what the IPCC reports as CO2 increases being the dominant factor in temperature increases since 1950. It was the primary cause in 1020-1940, but its effect wasn't nearly as dramatic as the effects we see now.
Now, his quotes from today:

Its only over the last 50 years that man made activities have been confirmed to be the primary climate driver....
So, on May 9, man-made CO2 emissions were the "primary cause" of warming in the early part of the 20th century.

Today, we learn that human activities were only the primary driver during the last 50 years.

Somebody has a consistency problem. :biggrin1:
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,519
6,728
113
...
By the way, the results actually showed that 52 per cent of respondents supported the hypothesis. The 73 per cent number is specific to respondents who actively publish on climate research.

Neither is anything close to a "97% consensus." The "97% consensus" is a fairy tale.
Pre-fucking-cisely. I know you somehow think that ignoring people talking out of their asses and instead listening to the experts in the field is a bad thing but that just shows how warped the argument is you're putting forward. If I want to know about cars, I ask a mechanic or an automotive engineer. If I want to know why my elbow hurts, I talk to a doctor. If I want to know about climate change, I talk to someone who actually studies it.

73% (or 78% if you prefer) of climate scientists see human CO2 as THE MAJOR factor. 20% see it as A factor. Either 73% or 93% represents a strong consensus.

A freakingly small segment support your 'natural' hypothesis.

Can't believe you still claim the study says otherwise. All you're doing is exposing your views as a joke.
 

Moviefan-2

Court Jester
Oct 17, 2011
10,489
171
63
Either 73% or 93% represents a strong consensus.
FYI, the 93% number is made up of people who support the IPCC's hypothesis and people who don't support it.

As for the 73% figure (which you only get after you remove 87 per cent of the respondents), that is a "strong consensus"? :Eek:

You and Frankfooter should have a race to see which one of you can be the first one to learn the meaning of the word "consensus."

The actual support for the IPCC's position among the membership (of which 80% has a post-graduate degree in this area of science) was 52%.

The claim that there is a "97% consensus" is false. It is nothing more than a fairy tale.
 

K Douglas

Half Man Half Amazing
Jan 5, 2005
27,378
8,050
113
Room 112
Pre-fucking-cisely. I know you somehow think that ignoring people talking out of their asses and instead listening to the experts in the field is a bad thing but that just shows how warped the argument is you're putting forward. If I want to know about cars, I ask a mechanic or an automotive engineer. If I want to know why my elbow hurts, I talk to a doctor. If I want to know about climate change, I talk to someone who actually studies it.

73% (or 78% if you prefer) of climate scientists see human CO2 as THE MAJOR factor. 20% see it as A factor. Either 73% or 93% represents a strong consensus.

A freakingly small segment support your 'natural' hypothesis.

Can't believe you still claim the study says otherwise. All you're doing is exposing your views as a joke.
The majority of climate scientists are neutral on the issue or afraid to speak out for fear of reprisals such as losing funding or ridicule from peers. It seems to me the so called deniers are becoming more vocal than those who support the theory and it's now being reflected in popular opinion. What I do know is that there is not a consensus or even close to it and maybe we will finally have a debate instead of a proclamation.
 

TeeJay

Well-known member
Jun 20, 2011
8,052
731
113
west gta
Those people in 3rd world countries are so inconsiderate, cutting down forests for farm land, subdivisions, malls, parking lots, factories, etc. wtf is wrong with living in a grass shack. Next they'll want SUVs, air conditioned homes, weekend vacations at the cottage. Sarcasm
You realize your feeble attempt to be witty falls kind of flat when you actually open your eyes and look at the world?

Places like Brazil have destroyed far more of the world's trees than all of Europe & North America combined...
 

FAST

Banned
Mar 12, 2004
10,069
1
0
The majority of climate scientists are neutral on the issue or afraid to speak out for fear of reprisals such as losing funding or ridicule from peers. It seems to me the so called deniers are becoming more vocal than those who support the theory and it's now being reflected in popular opinion. What I do know is that there is not a consensus or even close to it and maybe we will finally have a debate instead of a proclamation.
Well put,...and closer to reality than what is being posted here by anti everything crowd.

FAST
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
91,866
22,266
113
FYI, the 93% number is made up of people who support the IPCC's hypothesis and people who don't support it.
No its not, its backed up by five studies.
97% of climatologists support the IPCC consensus views.
Its a fact and its even supported by the survey that you claimed disproved it.
"These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change."
You, sir, are the joke.
 
Toronto Escorts