ADVERTISEMENT

A near certainty

W

WATU2

I.T.S. Hall of Famer
May 29, 2001
13,093
200
63
An international panel of scientists has found with near certainty that human activity is the cause of most of the temperature increases of recent decades, and warns that sea levels could conceivably rise by more than three feet by the end of the century if emissions continue at a runaway pace...

article continues via link



This post was edited on 8/19 10:38 PM by WATU2

Better work on your freestyle..
 
Still laughing at the references to the United Nations, the New York Times, Al Gore and that mysterious group of Nobel winning scientists. Not a single skeptical scientist in that "group think" crowd to refute them, thus they all came to the same "conclusion". Nice.

My predicition is this - that this will not be the last "attempt" by the lieberal left to further the Obama climate agenda and thus justify more tax dollars and power going to the EPA that further puts them and the federal govt in control of our lives.

BTW, this has been the coolest/coldest summer (June July August) in Oklahoma in memory with lows in the 50's and highs (in some areas of the state) in the 70's. So my question is this - doesn't that mean that the temperature "trend" is down, not up? If last year was by far hotter than this year, doesn't that mean we are trending cooler? A simple question.

Next question is - since that conflicts with the Nobel scientists "trend', then "may they" just ignore it if the evidence conflicts with their outcome?

Last prediction is this - this will not be the final thread on man made global warming. But then, I may not have evidence of that statement. Its just a theory that may or may not be true, but I elect myself "Nobel" judge that my reasoning is sound (even though it might not be true).
 
PCFV01P10_14B.jpg

Originally posted by rabidTU:
I elect myself "Nobel" judge that my reasoning is sound .
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for the article. The one thing I don't understand is the statement that's it's a near certainty that man-made CO2 emissions is the sole cause of the current warming cycle the earth is experiencing.

I'm obviously not a scientist nor do I have an agenda to push. Isn't it agreed upon that man emits roughly 4% of the total CO2 being expelled into our atomsphere each year. It's also a fact that the earth us constantly in a cycle of warming or cooling and has been much warmer than even the projections in this article and much cooler than anything any of us has experienced. What caused such extreme warming in the past and how do we know for a near certainty that man's 4% of the CO2 being released is the sole cause for this warming cycle?

I look forward to reading the entire article. Unfortunately, I acknowledge that I'm likely not nearly smart enough to understand the same....and yes, I'm typically skeptical on most things and especially skeptical when those doing most of the pushing have a financial motive.

If the projections are accurate we obviously have a problem. Do I see a reduction of man-made CO2 emissions in our forseable future....no, not with population growth and the emergence of economies like China, India, etc... Can we reduce the increase of CO2 emissions...absolutely. Will that reduction simply slow the rise in ocean levels and ice melt by a few years....no idea.
 
I believe in climate change.
I don't believe in al gore..

Natural events like the volcano in Iceland, and
the earthquake in Japan, that moved Japan 13 feet closer to the US in
just acre seconds, have more to do with climate change than we do.
 
Interesting how we rely on science we do not understand in every aspect of our lives: industry, travel, communications,medicine, space travel, etc. that is until the scientific community tells us something we don't want to hear, especially if the it means we have to change our behavior in the short term to affect the long term. When that happens, suddenly those scientists are disparaged by some as self serving hacks pushing theories in their own interest. Suddenly any bozo with a high school diploma is free to claim he is smarter than the consensus view of the worldwide scientific community. Because he doesn't like the bad news or is just too lazy to change?

Who knows, but it is amazing.
 
Agreed....but scientist should be required to answer a few basic questions like those I proposed so lay people like myself can understand the issue and the proposed solutions. Yes, I do acknowledge that there will be people who will never accept man's role in climate change. However, most Americans imo would be willing to make sacrafices for our future generations if a problem and the related solution is logically explained to us.
 
Originally posted by WATU2:
Interesting how we rely on science we do not understand in every aspect of our lives: industry, travel, communications,medicine, space travel, etc. that is until the scientific community tells us something we don't want to hear, especially if the it means we have to change our behavior in the short term to affect the long term. When that happens, suddenly those scientists are disparaged by some as self serving hacks pushing theories in their own interest. Suddenly any bozo with a high school diploma is free to claim he is smarter than the consensus view of the worldwide scientific community. Because he doesn't like the bad news or is just too lazy to change?

Who knows, but it is amazing.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily think you're a bozo.
rolleyes.r191677.gif
But feel free to accept the "opinions" of those that stand to gain and have their livelihood tied to their research. You see, that research money vanishes if man caused GW is a myth.

But according to the scientific community (and that evil Charles Krauthammer), global temps have been stable for over a decade. You don't have to believe him if you don't choose to, but many of us will, rather than call him a liar. I've never heard him wrong on the facts, but feel free to find "research" that proves he is. I'm sure those that would stand to lose their funding have tried. Besides, there's nothing we can do about those overseas anyway. Only a madman thinks some emerging nation there will halt their industrialization over some far fetched scientific theory that may not be at fault anyway.
Why do lieberals always feel inclined to "blame america first".

BTW Our CO2 e-levels have diminished to 1992 levels - when that evil Bill Clinton first enterred office. Shame on him.
 
Originally posted by lawpoke87:

Agreed....but scientist should be required to answer a few basic questions like those I proposed so lay people like myself can understand the issue and the proposed solutions.
Click to expand...
IMO they don't want us to understand, just obey.
This post was edited on 8/21 10:57 PM by rabidTU
 
What's so hard? The implications are clear. The recommendations have been made.

Is the source of the reluctance in the science or the effort the recommendations call for?

To me the first steps are simple: stop subsidizing detrimental activities and foster beneficial ones..or at least ones that do not make the environment worse.
 
Originally posted by WATU2:
What's so hard? The implications are clear. The recommendations have been made.

Is the source of the reluctance in the science or the effort the recommendations call for?

To me the first steps are simple: stop subsidizing detrimental activities and foster beneficial ones..or at least ones that do not make the environment worse.
Click to expand...
What kind of cars/industry did the caveman have that caused the North American ice sheet to melt off?



This post was edited on 8/22 5:18 PM by noble cane
 
Re: A near certainty[/URL]WATU2 posted on 8/22/2013...

What's so hard? The implications are clear. The recommendations have been made.

_____________________________________________________________________


If those recommendations are implemented unilaterally by the U.S. how much would worldwide CO2 emissions be reduced as a percent of the annual global CO2 being released into out atomsphere?

If countries where the real growth in CO2 emissions is forecast in the next century (China, India, etc..) don't comply is there any mechanism in place to force compliance?

So we come up with a percent we believe is a realistic expectation to reduce CO2 emission....what effect will such reduction have on global warming.

And last but not least...what will these recommendation cost not only the U.S. but worldwide.

Why are these questions so difficult to answer?
 
Lieberals always punish the rightdoers i.e. us. Its just like gun grabbing. When a gang thug in Chicago or Detroit kills someone, they want to confiscate all the guns in Texas.

Since the US is cutting down those "mysterious" CO2 emmissions and have reduced them to 1990 levels, the worlds emmissions have increased. Why? Do we really even make a dent in CO2 if we decrease while the others increase? Maybe those other countries know something we don't - that its a sham and anyone stupid enough to follow that thinking enables this ridiculous man made GW notion.

So why is it so mild/cool in Oklahoma this summer? Trending down?





This post was edited on 8/22 10:11 AM by rabidTU
 
Originally posted by lawpoke87:

Re: A near certainty[/URL]WATU2 posted on 8/22/2013...

What's so hard? The implications are clear. The recommendations have been made.

_____________________________________________________________________


If those recommendations are implemented unilaterally by the U.S. how much would worldwide CO2 emissions be reduced as a percent of the annual global CO2 being released into out atomsphere?


Why are these questions so difficult to answer?
Click to expand...
Hey, it may be hard, so should we throw up our hands? Not exactly the attitude that got us to the moon back in the 60's.

Once again, if we know (and we do) that we are subsidizing pernicious behavior, why not stop it and reward beneficial behavior? If the most powerful country in the world won't set the example, who will? If the leader of the free world won't do it, who will and who will follow?

From a moral perspective, the US benefited greatly by being an early industrializer; when CO2 and other pollutants weren't a problem, so no cost was attached to our uncontrolled atmospheric dumping. We got a free ride and other countries would like to have the same advantage now. It makes the negotiations hard, but as a major beneficiary of the all this pollution, we carry a special obligation to lead in the clean up.

Yes, I realize that the idea of raising a moral argument here is a laughable waste of time.
 
...but when the answer to the question if vital for a survival (if we are to believe some of these groups) shouldn't we at least be trying to answer the same? To date, I have never even seen these key questions discussed.

If one is faced with a life or death decisions, he who makes said decisions without first evaluating the likelyhood of success will surely perish. The fact that we never see any information regarding the effects of implementing these changes is astounding imo. How can you ask people or even countries to allocate resources into a venture without first presenting a discussion on the likely outcomes of said venture. We hear all these projections on what will likely happen with no action but nary a word on the amount said actions can reduce global emissions and the likely effect of the same. THIS IS HOW YOU SELL A PLAN. No one investments money or makes sacrafices without any idea of the likely results of such actions.

WATU, you know I respect and value your opinions. However, in this case I'm at a lost to understand why you're not asking these same questions as this is a vital issue for mankind going forward.

As far the fact that we benefitted from lax regulations during our industrial revolution and we should now lead and understand that others now coming into their emerging economies may not comply....I agree in part and disagree in part. Agree that we benefitted. However, that was a time where economies were isolated and not global. We're running a $17T deficit, have the lowest work force participation in my lifetime, have almost half the people in this country on public assistance. Placing our employers at a competitive disadvantage by costly regulations or higher taxes against their global competitors will be a tough sell. Can it be done? I'm not sure anybody really knows or has asked that question either.
 
CO2 isn't a pollutant to anyone other than a govt funded scientist (its what we exhale for crying out loud) - but they define it as such because that benefits them and their grants. Its junk science nonsense.

I want to see a scientist that has absolutely no skin in the game and completely impartial (if there still is one) do his/her research as a skeptic, not an advocate. But too many of them (skeptics) are shouted down by the group thinkers.

But Nobles statement about cavemen and global warming is still one that no lieberal can or will answer. The reason is they won't try to since they already have come to THEIR definitive conclusion, a conclusion that5 benefits them - remember East Anglia..

And WATU's idea that the US should lead all the rest of the world and sacrifice trillions to cut "only" our CO2 as a gesture of faith might be defined as "CO2 justice" and is pretty ridiculous. Liberals have no limit to their "blaming of america" for every perceived problem in the world. To the liberals, its always our fault. But when things prove out they were wrong, they never own up. Has Obama ever admitted a mistake? Has the left? If they ever do, it will be after the harm has already been done.
 
Poke, all good points. The scientific community has been sounding the alarm and answering the questions you raise. But our politics and short term focus is a problem. Because the effects are long term and until now so gradual, short term, self interest prevails.

Heck, just look at the posts on this board.
 
By scientific community I assume that means the ones being rewarded with the billions in grants.

Lets see, if someone does research that encourages an outcome that promotes more money to them, would he/she be presupposed to penalize himself and come to a conclusion that would cut off their own funding? In effect isn't he encouraged to go along and come to a conclusion that rewards HIM regardless of its truth?

Kinda like an ambulance chasing lawyer. Does he really care about his client or is it his "law business"? If he could use some trick to win a case he knows isn't correct, wouldn't he be encouraged to win it? Same for scientists who are being rewarded for their junk science. End justifies means.

Once again, the summer temps in Oklahoma are the mildest in many years. But if I'm a scientist being rewarded for this ridiculous notion, can I go to the Mojave Desert and just count that temp instead of ours to come to a result I want in the first place?

Did the cavemen cause the first "melt"? A simple question.
 
Originally posted by lawpoke87:

Thanks for the article. The one thing I don't understand is the statement that's it's a near certainty that man-made CO2 emissions is the sole cause of the current warming cycle the earth is experiencing.

I'm obviously not a scientist nor do I have an agenda to push. Isn't it agreed upon that man emits roughly 4% of the total CO2 being expelled into our atomsphere each year. It's also a fact that the earth us constantly in a cycle of warming or cooling and has been much warmer than even the projections in this article and much cooler than anything any of us has experienced. What caused such extreme warming in the past and how do we know for a near certainty that man's 4% of the CO2 being released is the sole cause for this warming cycle?
Click to expand...
We know that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 300 to 400 ppm in the last 120 years. These increases can be traced to fossil fuel burning (up to 30 gigatons per year now).

We can also calculate the increased energy reaching the Earth's surface via the greenhouse effect using radiative transfer models. Importantly, the increases in CO2 correspond to the temperature increase of the planet in the last 120 years.

I also think you're slightly confused at to what that 4% number represents and how it relates to the carbon cycle. For example, the oceans release 300 gigatons of CO2 per year (10x fossil fuel contributions), but the oceans also reabsorb 300 gigatons of CO2 as different regions cool and the solubility increases. This is an important distinction because the 30 gigatons produced from burning fossil fuels is never reabsorbed by its source.
 
Voet,

Now that's the type of information I've been asking for.....thank you sir.

Do we know of increased CO2 emissions (obviously from other sources) have caused the other warming cycles the earth has experienced throughout its history?
 
Originally posted by lawpoke87:


Do we know of increased CO2 emissions (obviously from other sources) have caused the other warming cycles the earth has experienced throughout its history?
Click to expand...
Not directly, but it has amplified warming events throughout history. For example, increases in total solar irradiation have caused warming in the past that decreased the solubility of CO2 in the oceans. Subsequent release of this CO2 amplified the effects of these warming events.
 
Thanks for the explanation. It underscores that the understanding of the problem and its cause are well understood by scientists. unfortunately not enough voters have bought into it for a wide rage of reasons, most of them poor.

This post was edited on 9/8 3:00 AM by WATU2
 
Originally posted by WATU2:
Thanks for the explanation. It underscores that the understanding of the problem and its cause are well understood by scientists. unfortunately not enough of the voting has bought into it for a wide rage of reasons.
Click to expand...
Imagine a block of ice the size of the country of Mexico 700,000 sq miles in area and over 10,000 feet thick (approx. 2 miles), you then would be describing Greenlands Ice sheet.

We have seen some evidence of maybe 1-2 degrees of temperature warming over the last 100 years. With that kind of increase over a Century how long would it take to melt that ice sheet?

The experts estimate 2000+ years....

Why worry about something 2000+ years out?

And remember only 9000 years ago the North American Ice sheet still extended into Wisconsin.

Wonder who caused that massive ice melt?

Probably the Mastodon's CO2?

GO TU!!!!
This post was edited on 8/28 3:23 PM by Tu Geo
 
I do find it rather odd that the IPCC has raised its level of certainty on the cause of global warming and increased it's temperature predictions despite the fact the warming has been virtually non-existant for the past 15 years (something they failed to predict) and Artic ice cover is now showing record expansion (something else they failed to predict). Wouldn't these things decrease the level of certainty in their models and decrease projections going forward?

I'm by no means a scientist but if my model failed to predict a weather pattern for the last 15 years why would I have increased confidence in said model?

I also find it rather odd that these scientist who are devoting their lives to our planet aren't rejoicing at the latest data of a slowdown in global warming and an increase in Artic ice. Isn't this good news? The tone coming out of some of these guys borders on outright anger. Isn't the prospect of a slowdown in warming despite rising CO2 levels a possible indication that there are other factors in play when it comes to climate projections going forward...and isn't this good news and possibly provides some hope going forward?
 
seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

Some good news is that the ice cap in the southern hemisphere is well above its 30 year mean average and is on an upward path.

Question for the climate guys...why such a difference between the poles? Looking at this graph the ice cap here has been well above its average mean for most of the last 15 years. Why do we place so much emphasis on the north and ignore what's going on down south?
This post was edited on 9/20 3:27 PM by lawpoke87
 
Because there's a large land mass at the South Pole.

The reason sea ice has increased recently is that more land ice is melting than normal. This melting of the land ice deposits more fresh water into the Southern Ocean and increases the stratification between salt water and fresh water layers and leads to more ice at the surface of the water.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/full/ngeo1767.html
 
Thanks for the education.

Veotoet...if I may ask, do you work in a weather or environmental related area?
 
I work in cancer research. I just enjoy reading literature on other scientific topics in my spare time.
 
Originally posted by voetvoet:

Originally posted by rabidTU:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html
Click to expand...
The ice cap didn't grow by 60%. It's 60% larger than this time last year when it was at an all-time low. That's just noise in the downward-pointing trendline.

extent-anomalies-2013.jpg



This post was edited on 9/20 2:52 PM by voetvoet
Click to expand...
Thats right, I'm glad to see you recognize that it did indeed grow last year and will next year. Now about those hurricanes that didn't occur "this year" that all the great Nobel winners "predicted"? Times running out.


Even junk science can be made to look legit. Where you start and design the graff shows where you sometimes want the result to end. We are talking about global warming aren't we? And where is the defintive "manmade" part? Its hard to prove a theory. When you say something was an "all time" low or high, that is a lot of assumption. Are you saying that the temp has never, ever been this high?
 
Originally posted by aTUfan:
Did anyone tell the polar bears that the polar ice was increasing.
Maybe they can return now.
Click to expand...
Polar bears and humans have no way of communicating, as there is no common language between man and bear. We are unable to tell them anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T

Possible Social Security Fix

Replies
47
Views
804
Crossfire
lawpoke87
L
W

Next to Alaska...or Detroit?

Replies
9
Views
1K
Crossfire
lawpoke87
L
W

Has the WSJ sold out to communists?

Replies
5
Views
1K
Crossfire
TU Man
T
E

How will climate change affect the future of the planet?

Replies
27
Views
1K
Crossfire
aTUfan
A
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back