Ipcc Says Global Warming

find me another gas that plants use for energy..

Air pressure depends on the density and temperature of the air in addition to the altitude. ... Cold, dense, sinking air clashing with warm high pressure air is not ice cubes and cold water.

This is like explaining an air conditioner/ furnace to a senile person.

But whatever, You Win.

 

Because we all know the scientific process of consensus is NEVER compromised by corporate interests, never in a million years would that happen. Why not look into the recent story from the London telegraph, about how data has been fudged to support the idea of Global Warming? If we're going to laud science so much? We should atleast do the honest thing and evaluate all of it, including the side which insist the Earth is warming up dangerously and that it's entirely man's fault.

 

I don't get how excesisvely cold temperatures prove the Earth is heating up.

 

Debate is panacea and competition brings out best performances. This is a war of ideas, I'm interested in how it plays out. I REALLY do want some proof that co2 drives temperature in reality on this planet. Every climate model the IPCC has put forth has been wildly innacurate, and they've been proven to be intentionally disingenuous. I've found the best proof of a scientifically, factually sound platform is willingness to debate. None of the so-called experts propogating co2 led temperature increases is willing to debate. They're all scared shitless of Roy Spencer and Christopher Monckton and Marc Morano.

That's a good site, that's what I'm here for. I'll spend some time on it. Starting here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm
It's an admission that CO2 has always trailed temperature increases. But, but, but, but... CO2 amplified it.... we think? In fact, the earth warmed for 1,000 years, then CO2 started rising, then it warmed for another 19,000 years. Then it stopped warming. Then CO2 went down. So CO2 definitely amplified it! In fact, CO2 was rising for 19,000 out of 20,000 years! That's hella conclusive, it was all CO2. Let's put this in some academic papers and sell it to the public to support carbon taxes!

I don't want to write down to people reading this, but did anyone miss the point I was making?

This one is absolutely extraordinary. http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm
"Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years."
We are due for an ice age. Very soon. "These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent."

So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

1. These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age.

-Translation- we are successfully staving off the impending ice age, but not for long. We know that the orbit and tilt of earth are weak now because we know all the details of the earth's orbit and tilt 100 thousand years ago (really?)

 

I'm so glad people are waking up to the powers that be. The Bank for International Settlements, International Monetary Fund, World Bank. These are the dominant forces in the world. Trillions and trillions of dollars at their disposal. They can achieve anything money can buy. What can they not achieve? They used to print the money, now all they have to do is add zeroes to their account with a keyboard.

At least some people are waking up. So many are still refusing to break away from the flock.

 

You made a claim there that the sun was dimmer at that time and that's why 3000ppm wasn't disastrous. In the interest of an evidence based discussion would you link your source for that information? Let's get some data in the discussion so we can analyze that statement.

I understand you don't want to have to prove the greenhouse properties of CO2, but please post the study or studies that prove it. Let's look at the evidence.

EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE, EVIDENCE.

 

I don't want to get too conspiratorial, but it is interesting that some of the world's most powerful people are promoting all this. Therefore it's a pretty good chance they stand to gain something from it. Why is David de Rothschild one of those voices?

 

Roy Warren Spencer is a climatologist, Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center.

He is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qzf6z-oHP8U

 

You'll get fucked up in an intellectual debate where we focus on evidence based arguments. Sit your little ass out the way.

 

Can we just focus on one point at a time, please?

First of all, they're not saying 'we think', and they're not stuttering. If you're actually interested in a debate, you need to at least respect that climatologists are more qualified to understand these matters than you are (unless you're a climatologist, which I'm pretty sure you aren't), and that there's a far better chance that you aren't getting something than they've missed something.

Part of the problem here is that you're responding to something from 2007.

Here's an article that explains they're actually closing the gap between the lag:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

Here's an article on NASA's climate site that also helps understand these things-- scroll down to the letter at the end.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

I really hope you're not arguing that CO2 doesn't cause warming at all.
I mean, that's just silly.

If there's more CO2 in the air, then it's going to be warmer.
It doesn't matter how it gets there.

BTW-- you can't seriously think that Marc Morano is in any way a credible source of information.
Do you even know who this guy is?

 

He also denies evolution...

http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

... and is on the board of directors for a right wing think tank...

http://marshall.org/board-members/

... and has made a habit out of being wrong.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/09/07/bad-week-for-roy-wrong-way-spencer/

But he's definitely good at telling deniers what they want to hear.

 

George W Bush, the entire Republican party and the oil industry aren't powerful?
Nice try.

 

I was responding to the site you linked.

"Here's an article that explains they're actually closing the gap between the lag:"

What an interesting turn of phrase. Good on them! They're makin' it happen. So persistent. I don't think there's any significance at all to the lag being 1000 years or 200 years or 100 years. You tell me what initiates these rare periods of warmth. What starts the whole thing off? CO2 didn't initiate the warm medieval period. Since 1998 temperature has leveled off despite soaring CO2 numbers. Why?

I'm not arguing that CO2 doesn't raise temperature, I'm arguing the difference is totally negligible. It makes a minute contribution, and in all likelihood we're heading into a very cold period of the planet at this very moment. When do YOU think the next ice age is coming?

POINT 2 - This one is absolutely extraordinary. http://www.skeptical...tle-ice-age.htm
"Worry about global warming impacts in the next 100 years, not an ice age in over 10,000 years."
We are due for an ice age. Very soon. "These glacials have been punctuated by interglacials, short warm periods which typically last 11,500 years. Figure 1 below shows how temperatures in Antarctica changed over this period. Because our current interglacial (the Holocene) has already lasted approximately 12,000 years, it has led some to claim that a new ice age is imminent."

So what are today’s conditions like? Changes in both the orbit and tilt of the Earth do indeed indicate that the Earth should be cooling. However, two reasons explain why an ice age is unlikely:

1. These two factors, orbit and tilt, are weak and are not acting within the same timescale – they are out of phase by about 10,000 years. This means that their combined effect would probably be too weak to trigger an ice age.

-Translation- we are successfully staving off the impending ice age, but not for long. We know that the orbit and tilt of earth are weak now because we know all the details of the earth's orbit and tilt 100 thousand years ago (really?)

 

The 'Co2 lags temperature' link already explained how interglacials are triggered.

They are triggered by Milankovitch cycles, which are changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun.
The initial warming from the orbital shift then releases trapped Co2 which amplifies the warming.
From then on, it's a series of feedback loops that add to the warming.

So wait-- you're saying that Co2 is responsible for only a minute amount of climatic change, yet it's also keeping us out of an ice age?
How is that even possible?

 

Do you acknowledge our solar cycle has us due for an ice age?

Make a prediction for me. What's your best guess for the next 1000 years? Assume we do NOTHING to curb CO2. We don't tax anyone, we don't stop China or India from building coal plants, we let people tap into cheap power. Do you think global temperature goes up 2 degrees? 5 degrees? 10 degrees?

 

I've read that without the greenhouse effect, we would be cooling.

But according to the skepticalscience post, the orbit and tilt are out of phase by 10,000 years , and since the last time this happened the interglacial lasted 30,000 years, I guess that means we probably have at least 20,000 years or so before this one ends. But of course, I don't know.

If we do nothing to curb Co2 emissions in the next 1000 years???
I think we'll run out of fossil fuels long before we get to the year 3015, assuming the warming doesn't kill us all.

It's really hard to answer your question if you're not stating a timeframe, but I think that the IPCC stated that 4 degrees over the pre-industrial average is already locked in for 2100, just from the buildup of CO2 that has already accumulated.

If we continue business as usual, then maybe 5 or 6 degrees... and if it's a libertarian free for all where all science and news belongs exclusively to the oil industry and people are too mesmerized by their iHoloPhones to notice, I would say 8 degrees.

The thing is, we're already at the point where nations are going to collapse, people are going to starve and massive wars are going to be fought. We're not seeing the full effects of it yet, but it's on the way and it can't be stopped, save some sort of geo-engineering miracle.

My biggest worry about climate change is India-Pakistan-China. Three nuclear nations, two of which have the largest populations, who are expected to suffer massive climate-change related food shortages and extreme weather in an already rather destabilized political shitstorm part of the world. It's a recipe for horrors that previous generations will never have imagined, except perhaps the WWII generation.

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would kill 1.3 billion people and lead to a planetary cooling (from the nuclear fallout) that would ruin crops globally... and probably end up killing another 2.3 billion in China, who will inevitably be dragged into the war as well-- as they've already fought with India and have been projected to fight again, possibly over Southern Tibet.

What the emissions scenarios don't show are all the little variables nobody thinks of like the effects of extinctions on food chains, the fact that warmer weather makes people more aggressive, the fact that China's environment is already so degraded that the changes brought on by warming will probably be enough to render parts of it uninhabitable, not that they're all that habitable now. Who is going to take in hundreds of millions of Chinese climate refugees? No one... they're going to be exterminated.

I am fully expecting to live to see a planet in which the environment has been strained past the breaking point and 9 billion people experiencing all kinds of genocide, terrorism, fascism and war. I am fully expecting the rich to force the poor to live in the degraded environments that their own industries create.

Of course, there might be a technological solution to all of this in the making... but it's up in the air whether we'll get there before it's too late and the means to reach that solution are totally wiped out. Think of everything we'll never know because Rome collapsed and the church decided on which science and technology would survive the dark ages. Once religious superstition and anti-intellectualism take over, it's impossible to get back to the point where you can solve those problems easily.

I think we'll be in a better position to know what's going to happen in 10... definitely in 20 years.

I know what some people are going to say, but I see it as either we embrace socialism globally, or everything falls into neo-feudalism and finally fascist corporate rule... probably through some sort of populist ideology that resembles libertarianism.

 

Over here, our two most influential, media sponsored, and well paid (by socialist governments) global warming alarmists are one, a paleontologist, and the other an economist.

NIL cred!

 

FragileRock I think a better way to frame the prediction is temperature rise in relation to CO2 levels. So we've recently gone from 300 to 400ppm what's your best approximation of temperature increases at
500ppm
1000ppm
1500ppm
2000ppm

 

I would certainly like to have our city with an average temperature of 5C greater than now. ......as would the US north east states.

humans live on this planet with averages varying by probably 20C, or more

In Australia, Darwin's daily average is probably 15C higher than Hobart. Same with Boston and Key West.

 

Well, Australia has one of the highest per capita emissions of carbon dioxide. It was 18.3 tonnes per year per person and the 11th highest in the world in 2009. Probably mostly the smoke blowing out ozjohns ass! lol :-D