Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 46,728
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#35243 Apr 20, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
Political Opponents? No, Brain, we are you scientific opponents first.
I oppose climate and CO2 taxes. I also oppose government spending on climate change mitigation. We've spent and committed economic disruption in the name of pseudoscience. There's no demonstration, experiment or trial published in a peer reviewed journal for climate change mitigation.

There's almost no consensus for climate change mitigation; some people favor restricting man made carbon dioxide emissions and others favor publicly funded carbon sinks. All favor more research dollars for their own mitigation schemes.

We aren't scientific opponents because we agree experimental tests of climate change mitigation don't exist. We draw different conclusions from that shared knowledge.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
The climate models work pretty well. They were tuned to predict past weather, and so work pretty well in the current situation. They tend to UNDERESTIMATE because these times are very different from past warming episodes.
Here we disagree; they work badly and underestimate as well as overestimate predicted climate change. Tuning climate models for past weather can be as simple as setting up a historic table of dates and events. The models can do whatever you program them too, except forecast future weather. Get real.

.
gcaveman1 wrote:
I'm looking for an experiment that shows that you are human, and not just another denierspambot.
I don't care to label opponents; this is where we differ. I'd prefer to deal with arguments, not personality.
gcaveman1

Bay Springs, MS

#35244 Apr 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I oppose climate and CO2 taxes. I also oppose government spending on climate change mitigation. We've spent and committed economic disruption in the name of pseudoscience. There's no demonstration, experiment or trial published in a peer reviewed journal for climate change mitigation.
There's almost no consensus for climate change mitigation; some people favor restricting man made carbon dioxide emissions and others favor publicly funded carbon sinks. All favor more research dollars for their own mitigation schemes.
We aren't scientific opponents because we agree experimental tests of climate change mitigation don't exist. We draw different conclusions from that shared knowledge.
.
<quoted text>Here we disagree; they work badly and underestimate as well as overestimate predicted climate change. Tuning climate models for past weather can be as simple as setting up a historic table of dates and events. The models can do whatever you program them too, except forecast future weather. Get real.
.
<quoted text>I don't care to label opponents; this is where we differ. I'd prefer to deal with arguments, not personality.
I'm thinking you're so full of sheet that your eyes are turning brown.
EXXON Pollutes

United States

#35245 Apr 20, 2013
With huge profits , the unpatriotic polluters refuse to maintain their aging infrastructure and ethics standards ...........In Mayflower , AK , the EXXON thugs find TINS FOR SALE , and hire cops and judges and private eyes to punish reporting of tar sands oil in the streets and in homes , due to broken KEYSTONE like pipes....ONLY PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE , corporate lawyers are unscrupulous and unpatriotic...........indict the EXXON managers and enabling lawyers and crooked judges.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#35248 Apr 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because there is evidence for all of the explanations. They are real, observable phenomena with a known and understood effect on temperatures.
Which makes them quite plausible hypotheses at the moment for why the models significantly overpredicted GAT rise over the past decade+- nothing more. Not proven.

I think we've about wrung this very small point dry now, don't you?
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#35249 Apr 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
I gave you a straight answer: the chance of observing the temperatures we did was about the same as a double six in dice.
An improbable event, but hardly one that's going to make you think the dice are bent.
Very good - that's right. 2 sigma off the EV predicted by the models, or about 5% likely IF the models are correct and complete.

Your comparison with dice is fallacious. Fair dice are known without doubt to be perfect random generators of a mathematically certain result.

Climate models are no such thing. Very unlikely outcomes over more than a decade now would make ANY OBJECTIVE observer speculate whether the climate models are in facts imperfect, biased, incomplete, or otherwise faulty.

The only reason for perpetuating this silly debate is your incapacity to admit to even the SMALLEST SHRED of the possibility of imperfection in climate models that are being touted as the reason for turning societies upside-down.

I might be willing to admit they are good enough, if not for this stubborn refusal of yours to admit to their imperfection.
TrollBot

Mclean, VA

#35250 Apr 20, 2013
the Professor wrote:
<quoted text>

(Another tediously juvenile and inane troll snipped)
Troll. Ignore.

"Flagging trolls until Topix lets you killfile the scum."

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35251 Apr 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Which makes them quite plausible hypotheses at the moment for why the models significantly overpredicted GAT rise over the past decade+- nothing more. Not proven.
I think we've about wrung this very small point dry now, don't you?
They were quite plausible hypotheses about three years ago when Climategate made a big thing of "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't".

Well now we have observations and model runs that suggest how we can account for the lack of warming.

I think we've moved beyond a proposed explanation, but no doubt you'll seek to wring this point long after it's dry.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#35252 Apr 20, 2013
gcaveman1 wrote:
you're so full of sheet that your eyes are turning brown.
The eyes of 'lyin' brian' have been brown for decades.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35253 Apr 20, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Very good - that's right. 2 sigma off the EV predicted by the models, or about 5% likely IF the models are correct and complete.
Your comparison with dice is fallacious. Fair dice are known without doubt to be perfect random generators of a mathematically certain result.
Climate models are no such thing. Very unlikely outcomes over more than a decade now would make ANY OBJECTIVE observer speculate whether the climate models are in facts imperfect, biased, incomplete, or otherwise faulty.
The only reason for perpetuating this silly debate is your incapacity to admit to even the SMALLEST SHRED of the possibility of imperfection in climate models that are being touted as the reason for turning societies upside-down.
I might be willing to admit they are good enough, if not for this stubborn refusal of yours to admit to their imperfection.
You are still making the same basic error: in assuming that that the models are "correct and complete".

The models actually encapsulate our understanding of the uncertainty of climate.

If the temperatures are within the range of the models, then our understanding of the uncertainty of climate is good.

If temperatures are within the range of models (they are), then we have to ask why some models were better than others in predicting temperatures.

Climate scientists have been doing so for years.

Unfortunately some AGW deniers are too stoopid to follow an intelligent discussion, and prefer to SHOUT on about an alleged conspiracy.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#35254 Apr 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
If temperatures are within the range of models (they are), then we have to ask why some models were better than others in predicting temperatures.
Unfortunately some AGW deniers are too stoopid to follow an intelligent discussion,...
As the models predicted... It is currently snowing in Minneapolis.
Who would have thunkit... Anthropogenic Global Warming would look like Christmas?

“EnvironMENTAList ”

Since: Feb 07

Near Detroit

#35255 Apr 21, 2013
Scientific "proof" is when science says comet hits and asteroid hits are inevitable and eventual but climate science has never said a CO2 climate crisis "will" happen only 27 years of "maybe" and "could be" and.......Science gave us pesticides and made environmentalism necessary in the first place.
A climate crisis "IS" a comet hit of an emergency and thus needs certainty not "maybes" in order for the climate change movement to be sustainable but maybe it's too late?
*REAL progressives know that Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations and trustworthy politicians.*
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#35256 Apr 21, 2013
mememine69 wrote:
Scientific "proof" is when science says comet hits and asteroid hits are inevitable and eventual but climate science has never said a CO2 climate crisis "will" happen only 27 years of "maybe" and "could be" and.......Science gave us pesticides and made environmentalism necessary in the first place.
A climate crisis "IS" a comet hit of an emergency and thus needs certainty not "maybes" in order for the climate change movement to be sustainable but maybe it's too late?
*REAL progressives know that Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations and trustworthy politicians.*
When we see the signatures of extra-terrestrial impacts all over our planet, during all the Ages of the Earth; when we look to the Moon, Mars, Mercury, and the moons of other planets, and we see the scars and craters remaining through all the eons of their existence; when we witness impacts with the gaseous planets now, using our modern sky-gazing equipment; yes, we know more impacts are inevitable.

But we are not sure that we have ever seen warming on this planet progressing at the rate the current warming is, and we have a pretty firm idea that our actions are causing it. The "maybe" and "could be" is now at the 95% confidence level. You are backing a 5% uncertainty and I certainly hope that isn't the way you place most of your bets.

If so, you're going to lose your ass at the racetrack.

You've already lost your credibility on this thread. Don't ask me to loan you any money to go to the track.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#35257 Apr 21, 2013
What is the confidence level of AGW being a bad thing?
COAL IS KING

Paducah, KY

#35258 Apr 21, 2013
What does it matter if the climate gets warmer?

In my opinion it would be a good thing. All that land in the north that is too cold for crops will be able to grow more food for more people.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#35259 Apr 21, 2013
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere

NASA's Langley Research Center has collated data proving that “greenhouse gases” actually block up to 95 percent of harmful solar rays from reaching our planet, thus reducing the heating impact of the sun. The data was collected by Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry,(or SABER). SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances thought to be playing a key role in the energy balance of air above our planet’s surface.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#35260 Apr 21, 2013
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#35261 Apr 21, 2013
coal is kinking climate wrote:
What does it matter if the climate gets warmer?
In my opinion it would be a good thing. All that land in the north that is too cold for crops will be able to grow more food for more people.
First, all the permafrost must thaw, the bacteria sending trillions of tons of methane into the air. Maybe "coal is kinking climate" can drape millions of square miles of methane trapping tarps on the permafrost & start a new industry. However, that still leaves millions of square miles of methane clathrate thawings in oceans to deal with. "coal is kinking climate" just says, "In for an ounce, in for trillions of tons!"
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#35262 Apr 21, 2013
coal is kinking climate coughed:
What does it matter if the climate gets warmer?
In my opinion it would be a good thing. All that land in the north that is too cold for crops will be able to grow more food for more people.
//////////
litesong wrote:
First, all the permafrost must thaw, the bacteria sending trillions of tons of methane into the air. Maybe "coal is kinking climate" can drape millions of square miles of methane trapping tarps on the permafrost & start a new industry. However, that still leaves millions of square miles of methane clathrate thawings in oceans to deal with. "coal is kinking climate" just says, "In for an ounce, in for trillions of tons!"

The following will cheer "coal is kinking climate".
http://theenergycollective.com/josephromm/215...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#35263 Apr 21, 2013
fishface wrote:
New Discovery: NASA Study Proves Carbon Dioxide Cools Atmosphere
New discovery?

No, well know phenomenon.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/95...

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-G...
Bushwhacker

Minneapolis, MN

#35264 Apr 21, 2013
It's -14 in Minnesota in mid April.

Global Cooling it is!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 17 min woodtick57 1,110,078
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 21 min LieutenantGov 4,033
IL Who do you support for Lieutenant Governor in I... (Oct '10) 34 min fosterbrooks 156
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 38 min Blwlgo 1,930
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 42 min Profess-sewer Brooks 49,869
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Grau 68,496
Abby 9-20 1 hr Mister Tonka 9
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr cheluzal 98,235
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 5 hr Jacques from Ottawa 178,078
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••