The Great Global Warming Swindle

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

So, do you have paleoclimatology "evidence" that human induced global warming happened in the past? No. You only have evidence that global warming happened, but it wasn't induced by us. I've never saw a model to explain either the medieval warm period or the little ice age, but regardless of that inability they happened.

Maybe the medieval warm period was caused by global burning of evil witches...

No but we know what warming trends and atmospheric carbon loads were like in the past.
A natural explosion in greenhouse gas loads in the jurassic raised the average temperature of the earth by 5*C.
http://sheba.geo.vu.nl/~vonh/imagesanddata/data/Cohenetal2004.pdf
So the mechanism of greenhouse gas loads as a cause for increased temperature change is well founded. So increasing carbon loads artificially will have a similar effect.

 

[TheBear]

On the one hand I have a paper published in science magazine stating that there is no correlation between solar acitivity and global warming.

On the other hand I have the newsarticle of scientists claiming the exact opposite on the basis of the effect of solar activity on rain.

Then I say that I will need to read up more to really give an opinion on this. How is this me saying that the latter "must be wrong" and how is this unscientific and inidicating that I am stuck in my position? Yes, at this point I think the best conclusion we can draw based on the evidence currently available. Now, I am confronted with an article that claims a solar influence opposite to a very recent article claiming the opposite. The latter of these I have read and understood, the former I have yet to investigate completely. Sorry thebear, but nothing in scientific reasoning obliges me to draw a different conclusion until I have fully read and understood the new data given.

Thanks, Tom. I apologize for misunderstanding your earlier remarks. There are many who place their political ideology above all else in the discussion of global warming/climate change. I inadvertently lumped you in with that bunch.


There are differing and conflicting findings on global warming/climate change. What I really am interested in seeing, are the referee reports, the methodology used, and any editor notes on each of the varying findings.

 

[FishFace]

There is more than enough evidence that you are ignoring out there already.

But you aren't willing to show it to us, is that it?

Try the graph Gore uses to sow the correlation between carbon and temperature... conveniently ignoring tat temperature increases BEFORE carbon increases reversing the causal factors...

It's a feedback system. Increasing temperature releases carbon dioxide which increases temperature. This isn't evidence for you, it's just a poor attempt at refuting our evidence.

Read Bear's article... watch Glen Beck's CNN report, the BBC's report from 1992 and 2007. Read about carbon offsets and who benefits, read about African energy resources and who wants control of them.
Investigate... quit believing what the government and mainstream media is telling you.

I take it CNN and the BBC aren't mainstream media, then? Heh.

But you're not telling me to stop believing whom you mean. You're actually asking me - asking us - to stop believing the overwhelming majority of climate scientists; the people who know what they're talking about.

 

[KCDAD]

But you aren't willing to show it to us, is that it?



It's a feedback system. Increasing temperature releases carbon dioxide which increases temperature. This isn't evidence for you, it's just a poor attempt at refuting our evidence.



I take it CNN and the BBC aren't mainstream media, then? Heh.

But you're not telling me to stop believing whom you mean. You're actually asking me - asking us - to stop believing the overwhelming majority of climate scientists; the people who know what they're talking about.

No... you go on believing what ever you want... no amount of evidence to the contrary would convince you anyway.

Do you even know where the greatest increase in carbon output is occurring in the world?

 

[Chalnoth]

No... you go on believing what ever you want... no amount of evidence to the contrary would convince you anyway.

That sounds to me like a bad case of psychological projection.

Do you even know where the greatest increase in carbon output is occurring in the world?

Right now? Probably either the oceans or tundra. What does that matter?

 

[Tomk80]

Thanks, Tom. I apologize for misunderstanding your earlier remarks. There are many who place their political ideology above all else in the discussion of global warming/climate change. I inadvertently lumped you in with that bunch.

No sweat. I can see how my remarks may have had that impact.

There are differing and conflicting findings on global warming/climate change. What I really am interested in seeing, are the referee reports, the methodology used, and any editor notes on each of the varying findings.

Than http://www.ipcc.ch/ is your place to start.

Despite all the cries of bias from many of those on the opposing side, it is the most comprehensive report on climate change, the modeling of it and the issues involved. It is also lengthy and boring, but if you want to know what you're talking about, that's what you're getting into to.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Right now? Probably either the oceans or tundra. What does that matter?

There is a lot of frozen biomass in the tundra and as the tundra melts, that is all released and contributes to GW. The northern latitudes also happen to be carbon and heat sinks which results in a feedback loop which hastens the process.

 

[Chalnoth]

There is a lot of frozen biomass in the tundra and as the tundra melts, that is all released and contributes to GW. The northern latitudes also happen to be carbon and heat sinks which results in a feedback loop which hastens the process.

That's why I guessed those two, because of the potential feedback. That doesn't really help the case against global warming, though: it merely shows how very small human changes can have disastrous consequences. If we didn't have positive feedback, it is much less likely that global warming would be a problem.

 

[KCDAD]

That sounds to me like a bad case of psychological projection.


Right now? Probably either the oceans or tundra. What does that matter?

Man made... that is what you are concerned with and supposedly have control over... Where is the increase in man made carbon?

 

[Chalnoth]

Man made... that is what you are concerned with and supposedly have control over... Where is the increase in man made carbon?

Well, that's easy. The burning of fossil fuels, simply because that carbon comes from deep underground instead of from the atmosphere.

 

[Tomk80]

As shown by changing ratios C13/C14 already discussed earlier in this thread.

 

[FishFace]

No... you go on believing what ever you want... no amount of evidence to the contrary would convince you anyway.

That would be relevant if, and only if, there were sufficient evidence to the contrary. Incidentally, it's wrong anyway.

Do you even know where the greatest increase in carbon output is occurring in the world?

Haha, yes, the greatest carbon output is the oceans. It's also the single largest absorber of carbon dioxide - have you ever heard of "dynamic equilibrium?"
You're performing the classic denialist gambit of claiming that there's a common sense refutation for something. Sorry, pal, common sense doesn't always cut it.

EDIT: also, since the oceans act as a positive feedback system, small man-made changes cause large global changes if they tip the balance of an unstable system.

 

[TheBear]

No sweat. I can see how my remarks may have had that impact.


Than http://www.ipcc.ch/ is your place to start.

Despite all the cries of bias from many of those on the opposing side, it is the most comprehensive report on climate change, the modeling of it and the issues involved. It is also lengthy and boring, but if you want to know what you're talking about, that's what you're getting into to.

Thanks, Tom.

I'm well into the reports, and notice that oceanic emissions of CO2 are not listed. For that matter, there are no natural CO2 emission sources, listed in the same charts and graphs as man made CO2 emission sources.

I would really like to see the charts and graphs which include natural sources of CO2, along side man made CO2 emissions.

 

[Tomk80]

Thanks, Tom.

I'm well into the reports, and notice that oceanic emissions of CO2 are not listed. For that matter, there are no natural CO2 emission sources, listed in the same charts and graphs as man made CO2 emission sources.

I would really like to see the charts and graphs which include natural sources of CO2, along side man made CO2 emissions.

Which reports are you reading now and have you read? It's been quite some while since I've looked at them.

 

[KCDAD]

Well, that's easy. The burning of fossil fuels, simply because that carbon comes from deep underground instead of from the atmosphere.

That's not what I meant... by where I meant a location and the answer is China and India.

 

[Chalnoth]

That's not what I meant... by where I meant a location and the answer is China and India.

That seems unlikely to me. Got data to back this up?

 

[KCDAD]

That seems unlikely to me. Got data to back this up?

Where is there an industrial revolution going on? Where is the vast majority of goods being produced?

You don't need data... just open your eyes and look around.

 

[trunks2k]

You don't need data... just open your eyes and look around.

wow. It's like Stephen Colbert.

 

[Chalnoth]

Where is there an industrial revolution going on? Where is the vast majority of goods being produced?

You don't need data... just open your eyes and look around.

I don't doubt that they may have the greatest increase in recent years, but it seems unlikely that they've overtaken the US and Europe.

 

[TheBear]

Does anyone know where I can find a chart or graph, where naturally occurring CO2 emissions (PPM), are included in the same graph with man made CO2 emissions (PPM)?