Man Based Global Warming....

"It appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences."

It is the peer-reviewed interpretation of their data as published in a scientific journal. It might be scary but it does not preclude from also being true.

 

Can you get me a link to the study?

My favorite quote:

"I guess if it's irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it," she says. "Because committing to something that you can't back out of seems to me like a step that you'd want to take even more carefully than something you thought you could reverse."

 

Doesn't appear to be out yet. Watch this site:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Came across this one while searching....

"The average rate of increase in the radiative forcing not just from CO2 but from the combination of CO2, CH4, and N2O is larger during the Industrial Era than during any comparable period of at least the past 16,000 years. In addition, the decadal-to-century scale rate of change in anthropogenic forcing is unusually high in the context of the natural forcing variations (solar and volcanoes) of the past millennium. Our analysis implies that global climate change, which is anthropogenic in origin, is progressing at a speed that is unprecedented at least during the last 22,000 years."

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/5/1425.full?sid=0e003ebe-9fff-4199-90bb-a46a4ac047b3

 

Which of course is another lie of yours. You asked what could dissuade folks, and I responded honestly. Yet, rather than discuss that you create a lie to entertain yourself with.

Do any of you denialists here have even a shred of intellectual integrity, because I've seen no evidence for it so far.

 

I want to see Al Gore debate Richard Lindzen. Intellectual integrity? Science is not about consensus, it is about using the truth and facts to prove theories. Politics is about building consensus.

 

Science is not about debates or the opinions of Al Gore or Lindzen. The facts all point to AGW. The point about a consensus among scientists is that they are using published facts to arrive at their conclusions and recommendations.

If Richard Lindzen disagrees, he can publish it, or try to.

 

Why should Mr. Gore debate Mr. Lindzen? In today's present political climate he (Al Gore) has nothing to win and a lot to lose.

Trying to present a logical argument against the precept of AGW is about as futile as waving a magic legislative rule and actually believing the temperature and future climate patterns of the entire world can somehow be manipulated in a measurable way.

Those who even dare question any theory an almighty climatologist may proclaim for one moment AGW are labeled as deniers, skeptics, or devoid of any logical thought or scientific analysis. Disgusting vile labels usually associated in the past with those who preached the Holocaust was just a hoax.

No matter the argument against AGW, we will consistently hear - the sample is too small, the sample is too large, we won't know for sure until the next 1,000 years, it's too cold (Oh, that's evidence of AGW), it's too hot (of course that's evidence of AGW), it rained today (that's evidence of AGW), Katrina (you remember, that's the one Bush made), lack of hurricanes, etc...

Meanwhile, as noted by NOAA as published in the Denver Weather Examiner, a decade of continuous cooling has passed with no end in sight and with 2009 starting with one bitter cold wave of cold after another we (not China, not India, not Russia) will no doubt be continue to push for carbon taxes, carbon trading, and other schemes which will surely diminish our security, standard of living, and standing in the world: all in the name of AGW.

No matter the science, as stated above political consensus determines our fate. And if you believe politicians, no matter which side of the aisle, are "transparent" and willing to listen to both sides, well, psst, there is this little bridge in Brooklyn...

Rick
#4 2006

 

Did you even read the actual NOAA press release (not linked by your "reference")

"The Central and Southern regions experienced below-average temperatures, while above-average temperatures were felt in the West, Southwest and Northeast. This resulted in a near average annual temperature for the contiguous U.S. and the coolest annual temperature since 1997.
For 2008, the average temperature of 53.0 degrees F was 0.2 degree above the 20th Century average.
The nation’s January-December average temperature has increased at a rate of 0.12 degree F per decade since 1895, and at a faster rate of 0.41 degree F per decade during the last 50 years."

Where is anywhere a cooling described by NOAA. The text describes a precipitous temperature increase in the past 50 years.

 

Why use the term consensus? Why did Al Gore make the movie? Why is it the more I watch the movie the more it seems like something Goebbels might have put together. I have to admit the first time I watched it, I was full of concern. Now in retrospect, it did exactly what it was supposed to. That being said, i think the "smoke and mirrors" used in the movie will end up hurting the entire environmental movement, which to me could be a very sad side-effect. Mt Kilimanjoaro, Katrina, Polar Bears, Manhattan under water, the slick "almost" overlaying of the carbon and temperature graphs, why not just tell the truth? Why overplay so far? Why not make a real documentary?

 

If the Trend since 1998 continues, wont the highlighted info be null and void? Certainly the average decadal rise over the last 50 years?

 

What trend? 10 years is not a climate trend.

 

In your view how long does it take to develop a trend? You say 10 years is too short, but obviously 50 years is long enough. I find it interesting that in AIT Mr gore was not afraid to insinuate that two bad hurricane years had established a climactic trend.

 

Look at the graph that shows a trend. That's the scale. Ten years is not enough.

Any symptom of climate change should be examined. Hurricane intensity is quite and important possible effect that should not be overlooked. It may still hold to be true..

 

You are right, it may hold to be true, but the brutally cold weather in the eastern half of the country may eventually said to be the leading edge of an ice age. If I made a movie and suggested that, it would be highly deceptive and irresponsible.

 

Not if it was an actual possibility suggested by the science. Which is the case of AGW and hurricane intensity. It just doesn't appear to be happening yet.

 

Alric said earlier that it would take a 30 year trend of decreasing temperatures during a period of increasing CO2 to convince him that CO2 is not the primary driver for global warming. That or a new consensus of climatologists. This was back at page 27, 28.

I pointed out that the 20 years of cooling from 1950 to 1960 didn't convince him and he replied that that was only a temporary trend and it reversed to match the 100 year trend. Then I pointed out that there are many trends longer than 30 years that show cooling. He replied that that is evidence of AGM.

Alric is only concerned with the past 100 years. Even the chart he keeps posting (which is not of global temperatures) shows a 2000 year cooling trend but he ignores the 2000 year trend and only focuses on spike of warming for the last 100 years.

I suspect that Alric will be talking about global warming even in the face of a 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 year cooling trend. He will simply call that trend temporary and wait for it to reverse until he dies. However, if climatologists suddenly abandon global warming for a more lucrative source of funding he will follow in lock-step.

 

This post is a good example of baiting environmentalists. It is only through suspension of rational thought that one could entertain the idea that global climate change does not exist.

We are removing carbon from the Earth's crust 10,000 times faster than it was put there and placing it in the atmosphere as a known heat trapping gas. To take the default position that this probably is not a problem is grossly illogical and grossly irresponsible to our children. We don't need to be positive that it's happening to act to protect our children. The default position should be to protect our children, not corporate profits.

Saying that we don't have enough evidence to act on GCC is like saying we won't put seat belts on our children unless we're 90 percent certain we'll have an accident.

The vast majority of peer reviewed scientific studies say it's happening and getting worse. The credible experts agree GCC is happening. It's illogical for non-experts to question that.

Saying that cold temperatures in some areas for a period of time means that climate change isn't happening is also illogical. It's called global climate change not global warming. Some places get colder, some get warmer. Overall it gets warmer.

Even former President Bush, oil companies and most traditional GCC deniers finally agreed that GCC was happening. The proof and logic that GCC is real is so obvious and overwhelming that those opposing the idea have been relegated to the radical fringe element, like Holocaust deniers.

Nearly everyone has left the camp buddy. There are just a few whackos left sitting around the GCC denial campfire. Your efforts to bait environmentalists are obvious.

The person who wrote this enjoys seeing those who care about their children's future getting riled up. It's like teasing the neighbor's dog. The best thing to do with irrational ideas like those being proposed here is to ignore them. But I guess I'm not following my own advice.

 

It started as "Global Warming", it then changed to "Global Climate Change", and it seems to be shifting to "Abrupt Climate Change".

 

I'm glad you finally understand the argument. By all accounts we should all be in the middle of that 2000 year cooling trend. However, we are in a 100 year abrupt warming trend.

 

I've never misunderstood your position, I just don't agree with you.

We are in a 2000 year cooling trend. This trend has had periods of cooling and warming. We are currently in a warming period. This 100 year period of warming doesn't change the fact that the 2000 year trend is still cooling.

This is no different then your position that a 20 years of cooling from 1950 to 1970 doesn't change the 100 year trend of warming from 1900 to 2000.