Story of the Year: It's Global Warming, Stupid

Dec 31, 2012 Full story: Common Dreams 324

My favorite headline of 2012 was " It's Global Warming, Stupid ," which appeared on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek on Nov.

Full Story
PHD

Overton, TX

#221 Jan 28, 2013
"WOW" wallop10 gets walloped again and again.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#222 Jan 28, 2013
And here is NASA.

Evidence: Climate change: How do we know?

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.
Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

• Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4

• Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7

• Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

• Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

• Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.9

• Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

• Extreme events
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950.

• Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#223 Jan 28, 2013
**Organizations that say AGW is a FACT**
U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
United States Department of Defense
United States Department of Energy
National Institutes of Health
United States Department of State
United States Department of Transportation
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Aeronautics & Space Administration
National Science Foundation
Smithsonian Institution
International Arctic Science Committee
Arctic Council
African Academy of Sciences
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences
and the Arts
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of Canada
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Académie des Sciences, France
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina
of Germany
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
Indian National Science Academy
Science Council of Japan
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts,
Letters and Sciences
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques
du Sénégal
Academy of Science of South Africa
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
National Academy of Sciences, United States
Zambia Academy of Sciences
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Association for the Advancement
of Science
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Medical Association
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Society of Agronomy
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Federation of American Scientists
Geological Society of America
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society of American Foresters
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Engineers Australia
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of Australia
British Antarctic Survey
Institute of Biology, UK
Royal Meteorological Society, UK
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#224 Jan 28, 2013
vs,

**Organizations that say AGW is a FRAUD**

American Petroleum Institute
US Chamber of Commerce
National Association of Manufacturers
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Industrial Minerals Association
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
Great Northern Project Development
Rosebud Mining
Alpha Natural Resources
Southeastern Legal Foundation
Georgia Agribusiness Council
Georgia Motor Trucking Association
Corn Refiners Association
National Association of Home Builders
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
Western States Petroleum Association
National Agnotology Producers Association
The Astroturfing Consortium

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/01/global-w...

Sort of shows where the science is, no?

CHALLENGE:
I challenge anyone to prove one item on the above list (in this and the previous post) is wrong.
PHD

Overton, TX

#225 Jan 28, 2013
I challenge you to prove anything you cut and paste to be correct. Do so with your own peer review published work.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#227 Jan 29, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar! And last I saw, you were coy about responding if you were paid by the far right for your posts.
So far the only people who seem to ask that are those like yourself when they have nothing else to offer.

Typical attack the messanger when you cannot defeat the message.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#228 Jan 29, 2013
Of course the thousands of scientific studies that disprove AGW so completely that it is no longer considered a theory anymore means nothing when a group of government sponsered oragnizations say it must be so.

I wonder how much climate science the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Nigerian, Sudan, Kenya NAS actually does. Given how many of those countries receive funding from the US Government.

Also Wallop 10 might want to doublecheck his data. NASA seems to be sitting on both sides of the fence and the IPCC is pretty well discredited on the subject of climate science after some noticed how gross the errors were in the AR4.
PHD

Overton, TX

#229 Jan 29, 2013
Spaced out spacedoutblues only understands scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#231 Jan 30, 2013
tina anne wrote:
Of course the thousands of scientific studies that disprove AGW so completely that it is no longer considered a theory anymore means nothing when a group of government sponsered oragnizations say it must be so.
Liar. I gave you the proof many times and you ran off.
tina anne wrote:
I wonder how much climate science the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Nigerian, Sudan, Kenya NAS actually does.
Why are you cherrypicking those from the rest of my list?
You do that. I give you 50 items, and you try to question 1, then proclaim that disproves the rest.
tina anne wrote:
Given how many of those countries receive funding from the US Government.
Also Wallop 10 might want to doublecheck his data.
This was the same list when George Bush was President and REpublicans controlled both houses of Congress...
tina anne wrote:
NASA seems to be sitting on both sides of the fence and the IPCC is pretty well discredited on the subject of climate science after some noticed how gross the errors were in the AR4.
No liar. You never showed me one website with NASA's official logo on it that global warming was anything other than very real and a serious threat.

Typical slime from you.
PHD

Overton, TX

#232 Jan 31, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar. I gave you the proof many times and you ran off.
<quoted text>
Why are you cherrypicking those from the rest of my list?
You do that. I give you 50 items, and you try to question 1, then proclaim that disproves the rest.
<quoted text>
This was the same list when George Bush was President and REpublicans controlled both houses of Congress...
<quoted text>
No liar. You never showed me one website with NASA's official logo on it that global warming was anything other than very real and a serious threat.
Typical slime from you.
You never stepped up to the challenge. Walloped again and again.
litesong

Everett, WA

#233 Jan 31, 2013
phud fetid feces face fiend wrote:
You never stepped up to the challenge.
You were never challenging & like all other toxic topix AGW deniers, never had mathematics & science degrees, & never had upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc for your poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Did you even had a hi skule DEE-plooomaa?
PHD

Overton, TX

#234 Jan 31, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You were never challenging & like all other toxic topix AGW deniers, never had mathematics & science degrees, & never had upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra & pre-calc for your poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. Did you even had a hi skule DEE-plooomaa?
And you think topix doesn’t know what you publish? Attacks on me won't delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

“Denying those who deny nature”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

#235 Jan 31, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Liar. I gave you the proof many times and you ran off.
<quoted text>
Why are you cherrypicking those from the rest of my list?
You do that. I give you 50 items, and you try to question 1, then proclaim that disproves the rest.
<quoted text>
This was the same list when George Bush was President and REpublicans controlled both houses of Congress...
<quoted text>
No liar. You never showed me one website with NASA's official logo on it that global warming was anything other than very real and a serious threat.
Typical slime from you.
You have given nothing of the sort. You have given the same tired old cut and paste responses. A list of government sponsered agencies. Groups that slop at the government trough. And other groups like the Nigerian NAS, and the Kenya NAS which one would have to wonder what they have contributed to the field of climate change other than their name. Groups like the IPCC and the CRU who have been discovered to have serious flaws if not just making it up.

You have also not shown anything other than one NASA web site authorized the Dr Hansen who is now an administrator.
PHD

Overton, TX

#236 Jan 31, 2013
Yes, more scientific science fiction cut and paste useless babble from the wallop10 AKA walloped. If you research NASA, they also said "could be" which makes it scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#237 Jan 31, 2013
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You have given nothing of the sort. You have given the same tired old cut and paste responses. A list of government sponsered agencies.
No. These are 100% of the non-petroleum based, world renown science agencies in the world. And I'll repeat these JUST FOR YOU in the next post.
It also includes 100% of the mainstream science media and world renown science journals.

But hey, lie away.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Groups that slop at the government trough. And other groups like the Nigerian NAS, and the Kenya NAS which one would have to wonder what they have contributed to the field of climate change other than their name. Groups like the IPCC and the CRU who have been discovered to have serious flaws if not just making it up.
Yeah, it includes these **BUT ONLY BECAUSE IT ALSO INCLUDES ALL THE US, EUROPE, AND ASIA'S world renown science organizations that are not petroleum sponsored.

How about that. LOL.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You have also not shown anything other than one NASA web site authorized the Dr Hansen who is now an administrator.
I can include **all** the official NASA websites on climatology with their logo on it. Same with NOAA, and every other world renown science organization in the world.

http://climate.nasa.gov/

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

And you can't produce any. I said you were running off. No, you came back and are just LYING about it.

Need to see that lie again.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you still believe in AGW after all this time really is a peek into your mind. After all, AGW stopped being a theory in 2008.
All the world renown science agencies (not petroleum based) are on record in suppport of global warming.

I'll give you a list next. Try to find one that says what you claim.

It should be EASY -- assuming you aren't a fat a$$ liar.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#238 Jan 31, 2013
Here is Wikipedia,

Scientific opinion on climate change

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:


An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]

The main conclusions of the IPCC on global warming were the following:
1.The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]
2."There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]
3.If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11]
<<

Just about everyone (that doesn't have an association with petroleum) is here.

Not even the petroleum organizations are outright refuting it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...

So give us some more of those right wing lies, Tina when you try to proclaim.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you still believe in AGW after all this time really is a peek into your mind. After all, AGW stopped being a theory in 2008.
It makes you look ridiculous.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#239 Jan 31, 2013
And some names for you to look up

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academié des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy
Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU) American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

These organizations also agree with the consensus:

Iceland GeoSurvey National Centre for Atmospheric Science
UK Climate Group Climate Institute Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy Royal Meteorological Society Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London Geological Society of America UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council Office of Science and Technology Policy Council
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Engineers
Australia American Chemical Society
The Weather Channel
National Geographic

See why you are not only a liar, bush a WHOPPER liar?

NAH, you are too big of a liar to admit it. LOL.
PHD

Overton, TX

#240 Feb 1, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
And some names for you to look up
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academié des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia Academy
Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed these conclusions:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU) American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
These organizations also agree with the consensus:
Iceland GeoSurvey National Centre for Atmospheric Science
UK Climate Group Climate Institute Climate Trust
Wuppertal Institute for Climate Environment and Energy Royal Meteorological Society Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Geological Society of London Geological Society of America UK Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
American Association for the Advancement of Science
National Research Council
Juelich Research Centre
US White House US Council on Environmental Quality
US Office of Science Technology Policy
US National Climatic Data Center
US Department of Commerce
US National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council Office of Science and Technology Policy Council
The National Academy of Engineering
The Institute of Medicine
UK Natural Environment Research Council
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology Engineers
Australia American Chemical Society
The Weather Channel
National Geographic
See why you are not only a liar, bush a WHOPPER liar?
NAH, you are too big of a liar to admit it. LOL.
Walloped, walloped, walloped all day long. How are those walloped tires working for you?
Teddy R

Houston, TX

#241 Feb 1, 2013
<whew>

Quite a list. Most impressive.

Of course, the true scientist would acknowledge -

"If I were wrong, one would be enough." - Einstein

Consensus science is not science - it is politics.

http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Consensus_sc...

"Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_conse...

A word of advice - if the science is solid (as you seem utterly certain it is)- stick to arguing the science. Appeals to the majority like this only serve to discredit and weaken the strength of the underlying scientific argument.

Leave the consensus bullsh!t to the partisan idealogues who only care about the science to the extent they can exploit it as a stalking horse to advance their real political agendas.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#242 Feb 1, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<whew>
Quite a list. Most impressive.
Of course, the true scientist would acknowledge -
"If I were wrong, one would be enough." - Einstein
Einstein was of course responding to a list of scientists who were denying his theory of relativity.

The parallel with global warming denial is obvious: if there was any real doubt about the theory, one good opponent would be enough.

Of course there isn't. The fact that deniers like to put together similar lists of scientists who don't believe in AGW of course exposes the weakness of their case, as Einstein knew.

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.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 14 min Scholar 1,081
The Fed's next land fight: New Mexico ranchers ... (May '14) 5 hr Notexactly 31
Get furnace checked or face a fine 9 hr silly rabbit 45
Russian ruble extends losses 12 hr Dimitri100 65
Michelle Grossman - About NBC 10 News Story - W... (Mar '08) 17 hr RamapoU 495
Lake Effect Snow and Bitter Cold Air Fri larry 2
Protective Coatings, Decorative Paints and Coat... Fri Gerald Vonberger 1
More from around the web