Is Global Warming Unstoppable?

That is an insane comment. Tin-foil hat level of crazy. Thanks for showing just how gone you really are.

Guys, it is time to move on and stop feeding this troll.

 

LMAO!!! Just because its not reviewed by your "peers" of choice it doesnt count.

It doesnt even matter to you that your "peers" of choice are guilty of falsifying data. You are so blind its freakin amazing

 

If you're not a complete simpleton, you must be here posting on some kind of payroll because nobody could honestly come to the conclusions that you do. You shredded nothing - the article does not "only hurt" me*.

The point of the articles is that a small 3.6 degree temp rise, which we are easily heading towards this century, could raise sea level rise not just the previously estimated ~13-20 feet but possibly higher than 21 ft. This increase of up to 7+ feet means our coast lines and coastal cities are at even greater risk than previously thought.

Whatever the initial driver was for warming before in the distant past, doesn't mean that AGW isn't happening now.

*In fact because nature can do it on it's own, it's only prudent to not help the climate reach the numerous tipping points that come from great than 4 degrees F warming.

Again, that the Earth can and has been much warmer in the past is in no way a knock on AGW theory. How you can possibly stay focused on that idea, while ignoring the main point and risks posed in the article is completely beyond me.

You really look ridiculous and I'm sorry but if that's the level that you're going to operate at, then I am afraid I'm going to have to leave it there.

 

The idea that reasonable people can be deniers is starting to wane with me. I think we are being engaged by paid for shills from the status quo seekers who stand to lose the most. I'm done with this farce of a debate. Enjoy your circus.

 

From NP a few pages back:

"And you don't think that your bias towards the environment influences your choice if you believe in AGW or not? Your livelihood depends upon people wanting to help reduce their energy consumption. You strongly believe in taxing the population for "the greater good" as you call it."

Top counter, to I believe that my bias towards the environment influence my choices? Absolutely! Does it influence my choices of whether or not to "believe" in awg, I don't think so!

As for my livelihood being at stake, while it is more or less correct, it happens that it is less correct. As I have stated on other threads that you may not have seen, I am a semi-retired building who has a small construction consulting practice. I do design and build small PV solar systems, primarily for off grid remote sites. The net/net my income does not come in any meaningful way from caring about the environment.

As for taxing the population for "the greater good" absolutely I believe in that. Do I pay taxes so that children in my neighbourhood can go to school, despite the fact that I have no kids,, you bet. Do I think this is a good thing, you bet!

Do I pay taxes so that we have a local fire department even though I have never needed to call them? Police? Roads, snow plowing, pubic water and sewer districts?

Interstate highways, Airports and air traffic control. EPA, FDA, how many more do you wish? Is this taxing the population "for the public good"? What do you propose, we go back to the days of the wild west/deadwood where the only rule of law was who had the bigger gun/stronger gang? I'm sorry, I don't wish to live in your world in that case.

 

lmao!!!!!

 

In the year ~2100, I hope folks will say, I'm glad the global warming alarmists were wrong, it never came to anything.

I suspect that few people will cheer when the deniers are proved wrong, if there are many around to contemplate the reality.

Regardless of what you "believe" to err on the side of caution for the planet is, IMHO the only sane course, ESPECIALLY when in fact the solutions are so freaking cheap in the net/net! I will never understand the selfish shortsightedness of some folks.

I'm with Fibb, but I'm not sure I can keep myself silent.

 

Good riddance Although I'm sure you'll be back. I'm sure it hurts your ego to get every article you post ripped to shreds.

By the way, the fact that the 1980-2000ish warming is not unique hurts, rather than helps, any argument for AGW. This is the whole reason Mann and his cronies try to minimize the MWP and the LIA (Unfortunately for Mann proxy reconstructions aren't the only data that allow us to know of warmer times in the past)

The fact that such warming occurs naturally over time just makes it less likely that the 1980-2000ish warming is significantly influenced by anthropogenic mechanisms. It simply doesn't need to be. We have seen warming like this before and we will see it again. Additionally, there is absolutely zero empirical evidence that if we stopped all production of CO2 that we would experience a decline in the rate of warming.

It's 2009 and people are already saying that. In fact I can get you a list of over 30,000 scientifically inclined people (including over 9,000 PhDs) who say that.

 

NP,

Repeating the same old discredited lie over and over again doesn't make it true. People may believe it, but it doesn't make it true!

"It's 2009 and people are already saying that. In fact I can get you a list of over 30,000 scientifically inclined people (including over 9,000 PhDs) who say that."

Say I to Goebells when you see him!

 

Listen to your own advice

 

Well, Exxon Mobil just sent me a bomus for driving Fibber off the thread. Alriiiiiight.

And BP is dangling a Venti coffee in addition the usual $.02 fee if I can get Alric to follow. I think my success deserves better, however.

Just shillin'.

 

Once again, reinforcing the notion, if not the fact, that your interest lies somewhere other than the truth.

I shouldn't be surprised as that is how propaganda works. I suspect there is a bounty on my head. Pretty sad if that is how you measure success. Some of us are more concerned with contributing to making better world.

 

(You can't get Alric to leave. I thought someone already established that he was an internet robot? Long after humans have drowned due to global warming Alric will still be here posting the same three graphs and pasting his arguments from RealClimate.)

I wanted to reply to your post where you said something to the effect of that you thought the leaders at Copenhagen all know AGW is a hoax. I am starting to believe that very strongly. The more I read about ClimateGate and all the commentaries on it, the more it seems that educated people had to know that it was a complete load of crap.

Thanks to some leads here I've also been reading about the possibility that Keith Briffa is the person who leaked the CRU emails and data. It really seems like Keith Briffa was a good guy who got stuck in a bad crowd. Here is someone's commentary on it:

If Briffa is the leak, honestly, despite his participation in dishonest science, he should be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for helping expose the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on man and for having helped prevent not only the financial destruction of the modern, civilized world but also prevented the oppression of the developing world by mad watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside - watermelons is not my term, but it is great!)

By the way, this is a great article discussing the deficiencies of our current climate computer models.

Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change (supercedes “Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?”) Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

 

So your theory is that Briffa would release those emails to bring attention to the fact that:

1) His most recent data contradicts the instrumental record

2) His most recent data contradicts everyone elses proxies.

3) A difference Briffa himself found an explanation for in a previous Nature article where he concludes:


Reduced sensitivity of recent tree-growth to temperature at high northern latitudes : Abstract : Nature

"The cause of this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes is not known, but if it is not taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions, past temperatures could be overestimated."

"During the second half of the twentieth century, the decadal-scale trends in wood density and summer temperatures have increasingly diverged as wood density has progressively fallen."

It appears that if anything past temperatures were likely lower than currently estimated.

 

Ah Alric, you never fail to disappoint. I love that you keep linking to an abstract of an article. It's wonderful that you make assumptions based on an abstract. Thank you for giving us this window into your scientific reasoning capabilities.

Briffa leaking the documents is not my original idea. But if Briffa did leak it, he would have exposed the gatekeeping going on by CRU cronies. He would have exposed the manipulation of his and others data, and he would exposed the pressure that "climatologists" (you know, the thing that Mann and the head of the IPPC aren't) are under to make their data look like AGW is occurring. Also he would have been helping expose the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on man and would be helping prevent not only the financial destruction of the modern, civilized world but also prevented the oppression of the developing world by mad watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside!)

Would you risk looking bad to save the world? Not that I'm saying Briffa is the leak for sure, but it is a fun way to look at things. Honestly, whoever leaked the data should be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Actually they should be awarded Al Gore's Nobel Prize and Gore should have all sorts of lawsuits brought against him for perpetrating such a ridiculous set of ideas on the public.

 

You know, it's really weird how defensive you AGWers get. You, Alric, Fibber, and especially Shawn Clark (oh my god he overreacted.) You all watch this unfold. Your AGW facts don't add up because they are based on non-conclusive methods like computer models and are open to interpretation, which is why things ClimateGate kill you. You are forced to watch the entire scandal unfold. It's gotta hurt!

And yet you refuse to accept any of it. You are in a pathological denial. I can't think of anything that is more anti-intellectual than that. I mean these things are fact, ie, hide the decline, and you guys want to deny it. To be honest, the only "denialists" are the AGWers. It's just bizarre that your mindsets are so attached to one idea that you literally put blinders on.

(I'm sure you'll turn around and repeat the same thing for me - but you are wrong. I can openly admit that humans may be contributing to climate change. I'm not so attached to any one idea that my self image is attached to it. What I want to debate is the degree to which humans contributed to the warming we saw from 1980-2000ish.

There's a great article I linked above discussing the deficiencies of our computer climate models, ie, they have poor feedback systems in relation to how they handle clouds. Why don't you read it? And comment on it? You don't have to debunk it - because I know you can't - but it would be interesting to hear input on it. I'm sure it has to *kill* you that you live by these predictions of great sea level rises when we have been in a temperature decline for 8 to 9 years (despite rising CO2 - lol). I just really wish you guys were open to actual discussion instead of being very close minded. It's actually frustrating for me. I'd happily leave if you could point me in the direction of an internet forum where people actually discuss things.)

 

"I can openly admit that humans may be contributing to climate change. I'm not so attached to any one idea that my self image is attached to it. What I want to debate is the degree to which humans contributed to the warming we saw from 1980-2000ish. "

If this were only true,,, I believe you may think it true.

If you were genuinely concerned, perhaps you would be interested in something broader than 1980-2000. Most (rational) people agree that there is a lag in climate reacting to input, and that we are likely only seeing the results of greenhouse gas emissions released decades ago, and the logical result is that the consequences of todays emissions won't be felt until coming years/decades.

Thats why I think the entire 'debate' is ludicrous in that the deniers all get caught up in the "it isn't happening yet" when the reality is that it is in any rational analysis, a slow incremental change, the bulk of which lie in the future.

An you are right, being a layman I can't point with any authority that this graph or that study is real or faulty, but because I am a rational thinking person, and I realize because of the closed nature (no pun intended) of the earth's atmosphere the greenhouse gases we have thrown in to the air in the last ~200 must have some effect!

It reminds me of the rocket scientist who says, "there is no reason is should have crashed, all the calcs are right!" and yet he won't accept the evidence lying in ash at his feet.

You guys don't want to accept that the climate change is human caused in spite of much scientific and empirical evidence. All you want to do fiddle! (And try to demonize those of us whose concern is real because you are afraid you will have to pay for some of your choices)

 

This is misinformation. There is no conclusive evidence that the warming we saw from 1980-2000ish is in anyway related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases from any time period.

And I noticed your "most people" argument being used again. Didn't you just say:

Ehhh?

Ah, the future. And how do climatologists predict the future? With computer models. And didn't you agree previously that they are inaccurate? (I believe you said they lead to a wide variety of outputs.) Also, if you read the article I posted recently it demonstrated in great detail the deficiencies of our current computer models. Namely that they greatly over estimate the amount of warming caused by anthropogenic influences.

Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change (supercedes “Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?”) Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

There is a difference between the fact that they must have *an* effect, and that the opinion that they must have a *great* effect.

Where are these repeatable experiments that lead to conclusive evidence that supports human caused climate change?

Not even Michael Mann would make such a statement. If there was such conclusive (damning?) evidence for anthropogenic global warming then there would be no debate. It would be accepted, just like we accept 1+1=2.

 

Yell louder,, it only makes you look more foolish!

 

Climatology is similar to astronomy and much of biology. These sciences are based on models, theories and predictions confirmed my observation. In the case of biology, evolution by natural selection predicted human ancestors and transitional species and both were found. Big bang theory has specific predictions about the type of background radiation that should exist and that was found also.

Certain things are predicted if humans are increasing greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. Both detection of increased gas concentration and global increased temperature and its consequences are observed.