Ipcc Says Global Warming

It is my mission in life to combat the forces of ignorance and greed. I'm losing.

 

Not really. Compare the level on ignorance on this subject for instance with a few decades ago.

 

The fact that you haven't found any such data tells me that you haven't even looked for it. Now why would that be? Because it would upset your fragile view of reality where the government is completely evil and giant corporations are good?

 

I became a "denier" when some 'expert' idiot tried to tell us that the Antarctic ice was melting and we were "all gunna drown."

The average temperature down there is about MINUS 30C, and gets near ZERO C during summer for a few days. Ice does NOT melt at MINUS centigrade.

all BOVINE EXCRETA!

 

Temperature leads CO2, not the other way around. You can't show me any studies that explain the tail wagging the dog and you can't explain why skyrocketing co2 levels have resulted in temperatures completely leveling off since El Nino in 1998.

It's an extraordinarily common fallacy to point at extreme weather events in various parts of the world as evidence of anthropocentric causation. There will always be extreme weather events in some parts of the world, and you haven't imposed any objective measures to account for your selection bias. Hurricane seasons have been uncharacteristically mild for many years in a row, but there's drought here and here and there! This proves my hypothesis of CO2 leading temperature! It's not like drought has ever ocurred without human intervention!

Nice strawman, I bet you do that a lot. Corporations are awful. Monsanto is awful. Comcast is awful. Big banks are awful. The awful truth is, these groups and others like them essentially control the government. That's the link that is so hard to imagine and where the name calling starts. "Conspiracy theorist", "denier" good ones! You guys have failed to provide any supporting evidence. You're shooting very low on the argumentation pyramid. http://www.thewildbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Grahams_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg_.png shame on you, aim higher.

I'm going to take a radical step and provide you some data supporting the idea that the historical record shows temperature rises preface CO2 increases. Currently our CO2 is 400ppm, it's been 10 times higher, it's been 5 times higher. Please debunk this, OR OFFER DATA TO THE CONTRARY! =)

"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the OrdovicianSilurian (450-420 Ma) and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods (151-132 Ma), when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively4 ."

"It has been used by the IPCC (and Al Gore5 ) as evidence that CO2 has caused the temperature increases, however they failed to explain that in fact the CO2 increases occurred on average 800 years after the temperatures increased."

http://www.lavoisier...notco2-2009.pdf

My guess is you won't even acknowledge the data or try to find studies that debunk it. I'm going to go ahead and bet on

tu quoque
ad hominem and
appeal to authority

but NO refutation of the data, NO supporting evidence from your side. Called it =D

 

A lot of what you say I've already answered too many times elsewhere to want to go through it again, but I will answer the first question because it's the least likely to turn into an endless spiral of information that isn't being heard.

The fact is that climate change and global warming are NOT the same thing, so there was no name change.

http://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change

Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.

So we are experiencing both global warming AND climate change.

We could also be experiencing global cooling and climate change would still be called climate change... because in those conditions certain areas could get warmer, wetter, colder or drier than they had been before the trend began, because the climate of the cooling world would change as it cooled.

 

Uhh- ohh, looks like NASA is in on it too...They didn't even go to the moon! Who's gunna believe them? {rolls eyes}

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/12/us/nasa-antarctica-ice-melt/index.html
"The rate at which the area's ice is melting has increased 77% since 1973, and there are several reasons, researchers said.
The ice sheet there, unlike those in much of east Antarctica, is attached to a bed below sea level. That means ocean currents can deliver warm water at the glaciers' base, or grounding lines -- places where the ice attaches to the bed, NASA said.
The heat makes the grounding line retreat inland, leaving a less massive ice shelf above. When ice shelves lose mass, they can't hold back inland glaciers from flowing toward the sea. Glaciers then flow faster and become thin as a result, and this thinning is conducive to more grounding-line retreat, NASA said."

 

like I said BOVINE EXCRETA!

NOWHERE on the Antarctic Continent does it get over ZERO centigrade, except for the most northerly part of the Antarctic Peninsular for a few days in summer. That part is NORTH of the Antarctic Circle.

And the ice shelves are growing and breaking off all the time, they have been doing so for millions of years.

And NASA is budget dependent, they say what the money men (Government) want, same with the Weather Bureau.

 

I really wish I could go back and rename the thread. "A warming earth precedes CO2 rises, not the other way around"

Earth has a long history of temperature fluctuations dragging CO2 up and down as the climate fluctuates. Have we done even a little bit to prove causation of CO2 making earth warmer?

CO2 is a boon for plant growth, and more plant growth cycles more CO2 into oxygen. Farming will get easier and easier as we create more energy from fossil fuels and increase atmospheric CO2. Check out the plant growth downwind of coal plants or watch this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

P.S. get owned. Truth prevails. You all know this ripped you a new asshole

 

The present concentration of CO
[SIZE=11.8999996185303px]2[/SIZE] in Earth's atmosphere is the highest in the past 800,000 years[9] and likely the highest in the past 20 million years.[10]

 

You can also dump a bunch of COLD water on ice and it will melt, same thing when it snows or rains, it's nothing but alarmism for profitering. All fifty states have had freezing temperatures this winter, including California, Florida and Hawaii. if carbon dioxide and methane were to actually blame? It would be the opposite. The fact the IMF is getting in on the act should raise some red flags with certain people, but it's not.

 

He's a meterologist, which is a type of climate scientist.

 

Haha... I've seen that argument quite a bit in these discussions... it's a really old one.

It would be really helpful if we stuck to relatively apolitical sources and didn't use denier blogs and fake science sites. Australia is number one in the world for emissions and your site is obviously funded by the people who want to keep it that way.

The reason that the Earth didn't burn up or whatever you think it should have done when CO2 was that high is because the sun was dimmer at that time. So the world could be much cooler at 3000 ppm. Climate change isn't only caused by one thing, it is caused by a combination of factors.

The greenhouse properties of CO2 have been understood for well over a century and there is little point trying to debate them.

 

No it's not.

He doesn't have any formal education in science-- so no meteorology courses.
On top of that, meterology deals with weather, not climate.

If you're participating in this discussion, I shouldn't need to explain the difference between weather and climate to you... but I'm pretty sure you don't know the difference because if you did you wouldn't have said that.

 

Okay, but do you understand the difference between climate change and global warming now?

It's pretty obvious that you're just throwing out as many random denier arguments as you can, knowing that very few people are going to have the patience to deal with them all. This is has already devolved into nothing more than an exercise in googling climate change topics.

You'll be repeating your denier propaganda and everyone else will be repeating whatever they can find, and it won't even matter because you'll just keep cycling through the points over and over until finally we all get tired and go outside.

I think it's pretty obvious that you're just looking to 'win' a battle or something and aren't at all interested in having a discussion, so I'm just going to say that you can find responses to all of your brilliant arguments here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

If you can come up with an argument that hasn't been debunked yet, get back to us.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MeteorologyMeteorology is the interdisciplinary scientific study of the atmosphere. Studies in the field stretch back millennia, though significant progress in meteorology did not occur until the 18th century. The 19th century saw modest progress in the field after observing networks formed across several countries. It wasn't until after the development of the computer in the latter half of the 20th century that significant breakthroughs in weather forecasting were achieved. Mr Coleman first started his career in reporting weather in 1953, I'd say that gives him atleast some credibility to tlak about this topic. Fraggle Rock You just dislike him because he has a different conclusion than you do

 

So currently co2 is around 400ppm.

It's been 4000ppm in the past, and even higher. Temperature rose for some reason or another, likely solar fluctuations, and co2 skyrocketed up to astronomical levels in response. Then it came back down. Sun heats up, sun cools down. If we got in a time machine and went back 150 million years, we would find farming extremely easy, and we would need heavy weaponry to defend ourselves from dinosaurs. In many ways it's a more hospitable situation for sustaining populations than we have today, where growing food requires concerted effort.

 

Why are you posting this definition? Does this somehow mean that meterologists actually do study the climate? Does it change the fact that he has no relevant education?

And I really don't think that being old automatically gives someone credibility.
If someone repeats the same wrong opinion for 62 years, it doesn't change the fact that the opinion is wrong.

And yes, I disagree with him... what a hate monger I am.

 

Owned my ass, overwelming scientific consensus says you are full of shit, and all your crap is Koch Bros backed smear ( and other oil industry orks)


Check out lyin'-ass Willy, the latest to be outed. It won't be long before we out every last one of these lyin' cocksuckers


For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
Continue reading the main story




Document: Funding That Climate Researcher Failed to Disclose
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

There's already a thread, but I thought I would just leave this here for ya.

 

For fucks sake, don't feed the troll.

No amount of logic or facts can win an argument with somebody who chooses to not recognize logic and facts.

Did everyone forget this guy that fast?