Global Warming. Fact or grossly exaggerated??

[GPIDEAL]

Here's a video and newspaper article by Sun columnist Brian Lilley who says GW ain't happening.


http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/03/20140314-071457.html



(Now I'm really confused).

 

[blackrock13]

Here's a video and newspaper article by Sun columnist Brian Lilley who says GW ain't happening.


http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/03/20140314-071457.html

(Now I'm really confused).

As usual with most amateurs, he's saying that one year disproves the findings, just like the earlier mentioned 1922. All of the points this talking head raised have been handled nicely in past threads/posts

 

[basketcase]

Here's a video and newspaper article by Sun columnist Brian Lilley who says GW ain't happening.


http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2014/03/20140314-071457.html



(Now I'm really confused).

Sadly for that columnist, the 'pause' hasn't been a stoppage of global warming, just a decrease in how quickly it is happening.

Since he referenced the Met, here are their latest reports. One on recent observations and patterns, one specifically examining the pause, and one on the implication for predictions.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

For example, despite his claims of global warming having stopped in 1997, the 14 warmest years in recorded history have happened since then.


Using an opinion piece from the Sun might not be the best source for science.

 

[basketcase]

Also worth noting, while we are undergoing a colder winter than usual, Australia is having record heat; temperatures in Melbourne and Adelaide topping 40 C.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/australian-summer-melts-records


I wonder how the quacks will react if we get a summer like that?

 

[Moviefan-2]

Just for fun, let's look at the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers from 2007:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

A key quote (with highlights added by me):

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[7] It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4)."

Furthermore, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions grew by about 80% between 1970 and 2004. The long-term trend of declining CO2 emissions per unit of energy supplied reversed after 2000."

So, to be clear, the premise of anthropogenic global warming is that man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the warming, and man-made carbon dioxide is by far the "most important" of the greenhouse gases.

The IPCC and its followers couldn't be clearer on this point: man-made carbon dioxide emissions are, in their view, the primary driver of global warming.

If you want to talk about "human activity," that's something completely different.

Here's the problem, particularly for basketcase -- if you believe that anthropogenic changes to the climate only refer to "human activity" in general and not specifically to CO2 as a primary influence, you may be on more solid scientific footing.

But that means the IPCC, Michael Mann, Groggy and others would classify you as a "denier."

 

[basketcase]

Just for fun, let's look at the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers from 2007:
...

Yes, it is fun to watch you embarrass your self over this.


But just to take this further, it looks like you are lying again. Nowhere in the link is the quote:

the premise of anthropogenic global warming is that man-made greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the warming

They do say...
"There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming"
... Which is exactly what those 97% of experts say.

MF exposed as a fraud again.

 

[basketcase]

Of course the scientific community does strongly support the connection between increasing CO2 and global warming but since you are too busy trying to play word games in justifying your errors to discuss science....

 

[Moviefan-2]

They do say...
"There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming"
... Which is exactly what those 97% of experts say.

Of course the scientific community does strongly support the connection between increasing CO2 and global warming but since you are too busy trying to play word games in justifying your errors to discuss science....

You've lost me.

Do you believe that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary driver of warming, or don't you?

It's not a trick question or an attempt at "word games." I honestly can't figure out if you support the IPCC's position or not.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/10/carbon-dioxide-highest-level-greenhouse-gas

 

[blackrock13]

You've lost me.

Do you believe that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary driver of warming, or don't you?

It's not a trick question or an attempt at "word games." I honestly can't figure out if you support the IPCC's position or not.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/10/carbon-dioxide-highest-level-greenhouse-gas

Furthermore, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions grew by about 80% between 1970 and 2004. The long-term trend of declining CO2 emissions per unit of energy supplied reversed after 2000."

Two different situations. You can be the most important factor (more than any other single element) without being the primary driver (more than all the rest combined), make up your mind.

 

[groggy]

Second, a question about "human activity" is not a question about anthropogenic global warming.
.

What do you think 'anthropogenic' means?

(chiefly of environmental pollution and pollutants) originating in human activity.

Are you really that stupid?
Ok, we know you are, but I still need to ask once in a while.

What else can you say from a man who gets his climate research from someone who says the earth is only 6,000 years old.

 

[groggy]

Interesting. Here's the quote I like:



http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange-g8+5.pdf

Assuming they were reading their model projections correctly, it looks like the IPCC went with the top end of the range when it made its predictions in 2007.

Another bet that Groggy is very likely going to lose.

I hope you don't try to lie your way out of that bet as well.
You seem to have forgotten that 2013 was the 4th warmest year on record.
That even as this year has been cold here, its been 10-20f warmer in other places this winter.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/longterm-warming-still-on-trac/24422281

From Nasa, legit scientist there.
No creationists.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Two different situations. You can be the most important factor (more than any other single element) without being the primary driver (more than all the rest combined).

NASA says the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is the "primary driver" of warming:

http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/

The IPCC says the largest contribution to total radiative forcing (which drives climate change) is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (Page 13):

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

The Union of Concerned Scientists says global warming is "primarily" a problem of too much CO2 in the atmosphere:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...html#CO2_has_caused_most_of_the_warming_and_i

The EPA says CO2 accounts for 84 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

 

[blackrock13]

NASA says the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is the "primary driver" of warming:

http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/

The IPCC says the largest contribution to total radiative forcing (which drives climate change) is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (Page 13):

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

The Union of Concerned Scientists says global warming is "primarily" a problem of too much CO2 in the atmosphere:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...html#CO2_has_caused_most_of_the_warming_and_i

The EPA says CO2 accounts for 84 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

Setting aside the point that none of those statements sat the same thing, what is your point? You've been trying to play wordmeister so long you can't even keep whatever message you're trying to make straight.

 

[basketcase]

You've lost me.

Do you believe that man-made carbon dioxide emissions are the primary driver of warming, or don't you?

It's not a trick question or an attempt at "word games." I honestly can't figure out if you support the IPCC's position or not.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/may/10/carbon-dioxide-highest-level-greenhouse-gas

Yes I do. It is the opinion most based in actual science no matter how much you try and twist things. There are other factors in play as well which is why there is a wide range of predictions (and yes, current observations fit in the range of previous predictions) but CO2 is a major player and one which we have immediate control over. Despite you claims, deforestation and urbanization are minor impacts except through production and lack of processing of CO2.

 

[basketcase]

NASA says the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is the "primary driver" of warming:

http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/

The IPCC says the largest contribution to total radiative forcing (which drives climate change) is the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (Page 13):

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

The Union of Concerned Scientists says global warming is "primarily" a problem of too much CO2 in the atmosphere:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...html#CO2_has_caused_most_of_the_warming_and_i

The EPA says CO2 accounts for 84 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html

So now you believe that CO2 is the major factor driving climate change? Nice to see you've finally come around.

 

[Moviefan-2]

So now you believe that CO2 is the major factor driving climate change? Nice to see you've finally come around.

No, I believe we should accept the empirical evidence and conclude that we don't know whether man-made CO2 affects the climate.

You guys seemed to be struggling to understand what it is the IPCC has been saying (yet, in spite of your confusion, you're certain the IPCC must be right).

 

[blackrock13]

No, I believe we should accept the empirical evidence and conclude that we don't know whether man-made CO2 affects the climate.

You guys seemed to be struggling to understand what it is the IPCC has been saying (yet, in spite of your confusion, you're certain the IPCC must be right).

Not confused at all, as opposed to your cherry picked, by creationist and researchers or politicians bought and paid for by big business, oil, gas and coal, supposed evidence like 1922(remember that one) and this past winter, the trend is that the world is getting warmer and at greater rate than before over the last 150 to 250 years.

Empirical researcher? Research from some had you believe 1922 was a perfect example of many others researcher had it wrong, until you were shown it was a single year anomaly of the time. The empirical research is there, and you're shown that over and over and over, but you only believe it when it fits your 'preconceived', yes you are a denier, ideas. You believe the view of 19 retired NASA employees, but not the 1000's who haven't said anything of the kind. Then you almost always depend on dated research or key holed data.

'We' may not know for certain, but many many, many researcher who know far more than you and I have a damn good idea, and that is good enough for most every one else. I'm sure you can find some nutters. You avoided answering the question of what if we are wrong and make the changes to improve the situation, what could happen. I wonder why.

 

[Moviefan-2]

We' may not know for certain...

Far from it, in fact.

 

[blackrock13]

Far from it, in fact.

Unless you know the end result and the triumphs and errors to be discovered in between, you can't make that claim, at least with some credibility.

How close do you think people thought the Wright Brothers, on the try before succeeding? How close were they the day before the discovery that Viagara was good for ED, not just migraines? What did the researcher think the day before they discovered nylon. How close did Alexander Flemming think he was the day before he discovered penicillin?

 

[Moviefan-2]

You can make that claim, at least with some credibility.

I sure can. :thumb: