Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

[Zipperfish]

The flaw is emotionally, socially and financially abusing Billions of people with an unproven theory of CO2 (GHGs) being the ONLY causation to climate change.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. As I said, I don't think there's much we can do to control demand. We'll be mitigating global warming, not preventing it.

Incidentally, proof is more of a logical/mathematical construct. It doesn't exist in the physical sciences. You just have varying degrees of confidence in the various theories.

 

[darkbeaver]

And the ones that are so invested in it. Reminds me of Robert McNamara and Vietnam... it was bound to fail but he just couldn't stop it.



How many bank transfers will stop the climate from changing?

[/FONT]

Exactly, since banking is known to be the cause of todays climate science and climate prob it's only logical to assume that only the maximum of bank transfers can save us from ultimate destruction.

 

[petros]

Look at ALL of the climate stastics of the past and one thing is guaranteed. ALL interglacials periods peak rapidly and drop into ice age faster than they rose.


Can we stop it?

 

[darkbeaver]

I don't necessarily disagree with this. As I said, I don't think there's much we can do to control demand. We'll be mitigating global warming, not preventing it.

Incidentally, proof is more of a logical/mathematical construct. It doesn't exist in the physical sciences. You just have varying degrees of confidence in the various theories.

There is far better logic and math in the electrical theory I think.

I don't want to argue another four or five years about this dumb idea that we mice can change the course of inter the planetary power distribution. I will retire to the shed and smoke myself to sleep.

 

[Zipperfish]

There is far better logic and math in the electrical theory I think.

I don't want to argue another four or five years about this dumb idea that we mice can change the course of inter the planetary power distribution. I will retire to the shed and smoke myself to sleep.

It's a pretty solid argument. Calculate the mass of the atmosphere. Calculate the gigatons of carbon oxidized by humans. Calculate the resultant change in CO2 conentration in the atmosphere. Plug that into the radiative forcing equation. Voila.

 

[petros]

You'd think but for some reason, it's not happening that way. Why? Possibly because it wasn't the reason for the changes?

 

[Zipperfish]

You'd think but for some reason, it's not happening that way. Why? Possibly because it wasn't the reason for the changes?

I've thoroughly considered your posts and determined that you are wrong. Please modify your opinion accordingly. :lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

I've thoroughly considered your posts and determined that you are wrong. Please modify your opinion accordingly. :lol:

That cracked me up.

Yes... Petros should modify his opinion or cease and desist on all oral and written opinions.

Petros... remember... THE DEBATE IS OVER!

 

[petros]

Petros... remember... THE DEBATE IS OVER!

I know. General Electric won.

 

[EagleSmack]

On to the next fad!

I'm kinda reminded of the scene from Falling Down when the guy keeps asking Michael Douglas for money...

Falling Down (bum begging for money) - YouTube

 

[captain morgan]

That cracked me up.

Yes... Petros should modify his opinion or cease and desist on all oral and written opinions.

Petros... remember... THE DEBATE IS OVER!

A lot of cults operate in this manner. The Church of Global Warming is no different; in fact, they are possibly the most aggressive example of 'correct thinking' that we have seen to date

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I've thoroughly considered your posts and determined that you are wrong. Please modify your opinion accordingly. :lol:

Is this what you're trying to say, Zip?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOEr7kiysrE

 

[Zipperfish]

Yeah, that's about it. ha ha ha.

A lot of cults operate in this manner. The Church of Global Warming is no different; in fact, they are possibly the most aggressive example of 'correct thinking' that we have seen to date

Oh, I don't know--there was the movement in the 60s and 70s to link smoking to lung cancer. That one was quite successful. There's still no proof that smoking causes lung cancer, but for some inexplacable reason, people still accept it. :lol:

 

[captain morgan]

Oh, I don't know--there was the movement in the 60s and 70s to link smoking to lung cancer. That one was quite successful. There's still no proof that smoking causes lung cancer, but for some inexplacable reason, people still accept it. :lol:

... And this has to do with anthropogenic global warming?

Thanks for coming out... I'll see about a consolation prize.

 

[Praxius]

Our own CanCon members are?

I'm what some would call a "Lefty" yet I never once supported the whole Global Warming crap that's been sweeping the world for the last number of years.

Global Warmongers are not what I would call Left, Right or Centre... it's not a political thing, it's just an idiotic thing based on Quack science..... and fits in line with other idiots like Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherds whom base their view on emotions strived from the first thing they can find that justified their stance to be emotional.

 

[Zipperfish]

I'm what some would call a "Lefty" yet I never once supported the whole Global Warming crap that's been sweeping the world for the last number of years.

Global Warmongers are not what I would call Left, Right or Centre... it's not a political thing, it's just an idiotic thing based on Quack science..... and fits in line with other idiots like Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherds whom base their view on emotions strived from the first thing they can find that justified their stance to be emotional.

Which part is the quack part? Is CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Is there such a thing as the greenhouse effect? Is the temperature record wrong? I can accpet that global warming may turn out to be wrong, but don't really see the quackiness in the basic principles of the theory. And really, as for being strident adn insufferable, I don't think that's peculiar to the propnents of anthropgenic global warming theory, as a quick review of this thread should attest.

I'm not trying to convince you to my point of view. I'm just seriously interested in where the theory falls apart for people.

... And this has to do with anthropogenic global warming?

Thanks for coming out... I'll see about a consolation prize.

Yes somewhat similar. A agreement among the large majority of scientists that smpoking was harmful, a response by vested interests that the science was a load of bunk. Lots of talk about there being no proof that smoking causes cancer. To me it was a similar scenario.

 

[Nuggler]

It's a pretty solid argument. Calculate the mass of the atmosphere. Calculate the gigatons of carbon oxidized by humans. Calculate the resultant change in CO2 conentration in the atmosphere. Plug that into the radiative forcing equation. Voila.

Yup.

Got bout halfway with that an my head started to hurt

again

All these climate change deniers

And niers

Can **** right off

I's too old to care

Read Einstein's theory of E = (mc)2 and got as far as............E

Imagine the change in the world I could have made if I'd got so far as the "="

And that was 45 years ago.

Scary, eh :roll:

 

[Zipperfish]

Yup.

Got bout halfway with that an my head started to hurt

again

All these climate change deniers

And niers

Can **** right off

I's too old to care

Read Einstein's theory of E = (mc)2 and got as far as............E

Imagine the change in the world I could have made if I'd got so far as the "="

And that was 45 years ago.

Scary, eh :roll:

I don't like the word "denier" myself. It has a negative connotation. I like "skeptic" better. It's OK to be skeptical. In science, it's crucial to be skeptical. But at some point the skepticism has to stop. There are some things that I'm skeptical about--the role of water vapour, cloud formation, and maybe (thanks to dark beaver and petros) the role of the magnetoshpere. But other things--the First Law of Thermodynamics, photon absorption in basic quantum physics, the total mass of CO2 and methane humans have put into the atmosphere. These things are basic, accepted physics that have been around for more han a century and are demonstrable through relatively simple math and/or bench scale science experiments. If you're going to take a run at those theories, you better have some pretty powerful ammo to back you up.

E=mc^2. Mass can be viewed as extremely dense energy concentration. That's is why a thermonuclear bomb can turn a few lbs of radioactiove uranium into the force of 1.2 million tonnes of TNT. You just need the initial energy to unklock the forces that hold atoms together. :smile:

 

[captain morgan]

Which part is the quack part? Is CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere? Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Is there such a thing as the greenhouse effect? Is the temperature record wrong? I can accpet that global warming may turn out to be wrong, but don't really see the quackiness in the basic principles of the theory. And really, as for being strident adn insufferable, I don't think that's peculiar to the propnents of anthropgenic global warming theory, as a quick review of this thread should attest.

Downplaying (or outright omission) of strong variables related to natural forces is a big cause for skepticism and one can't be faulted for questioning the scientific method if this is the case.

Following up the aforementioned issue, we have yet to see any model that is capable of explaining the past, let alone the future. With this in mind, any claims that outcome 'A' will result when inputs 'B' increase/decrease is not believable if the models are not functional.

The big nail in the coffin on this though is when certain high-profile representatives have doctored their commentary (eg: Gore) and/or claim that 'the debate is over' when a debate was never engaged in the first place.

I'm not trying to convince you to my point of view. I'm just seriously interested in where the theory falls apart for people.

In the context of the overall debate, much of the 'quackiness' is derived from the manner in which the proponents of AGW have attempted to move the cause forward.

Yes somewhat similar. A agreement among the large majority of scientists that smpoking was harmful, a response by vested interests that the science was a load of bunk. Lots of talk about there being no proof that smoking causes cancer. To me it was a similar scenario.

Absolutely... But the difference in the smoking vs AGW example has to do with possessing strong and complete research in which a cause/effect relationship was proven. The same simply does not exist on the AGW front

 

[mentalfloss]

They said the United States and Japan “share the view” that human-caused climate change represents a threat to the security and economic development of all nations.

“Cooperative efforts between the United States and Japan demonstrate our shared commitment to advancing climate action in the multilateral context,” the two officials said in a joint statement. “We plan to deepen our mutual engagement in advancing low-carbon growth.”

Kerry and Kishida said the United States and Japan will hold a new bilateral dialogue, based on three pillars of cooperation – a new, ambitious, global, post-2020 international agreement to combat climate change, cooperation to advance low-emissions development in the world, and cooperation on constructing climate-resilient societies.

“We agreed that based on these three pillars, we will carry out cooperation regarding climate change,” Kishida said.

“The United States and Japan seek to join with other partners, both bilaterally and multilaterally, in a renewed effort to craft an ambitious post-2020 agreement that is applicable to all countries,” they said.


U.S., Japan, G8 Commit to Climate Change Action | Environment News Service