The Truth, Still Inconvenient

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
How could human activity possibly effect climate???

Very interesting theory:

Columbus' Arrival Linked To Carbon Dioxide Drop - Science News

By sailing to the New World, Christopher Columbus and other explorers who followed him may have set off a chain of events that cooled Europe’s climate.

The European conquest of the Americas decimated the people living there, leaving large areas of cleared land untended. Trees that filled in this territory pulled billions of tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, Stanford University geochemist Richard Nevle reported October 11 at the Geological Society of America annual meeting. Such carbon dioxide removal could have diminished the heat-trapping capacity of the atmosphere and cooled the climate, Nevil and his colleagues have previously reported.

“We have a massive reforestation event that’s sequestering carbon … coincident with the European arrival,” said Nevle.

Ice cores from Antarctica contain air bubbles that show a drop in carbon dioxide around this time. These bubbles suggest that levels of the greenhouse gas decreased by 6 to 10 parts per million between 1525 and the early 1600s.

Reforestation fits with another clue hidden in Antarctic ice, says Nevle. As the population declined in the Americas, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere got heavier. Increasingly, molecules of the gas tended to be made of carbon-13, a naturally occurring isotope with an extra neutron. That could be because tree leaves prefer to take in gas made of carbon-12, leaving the heavier version in the air.

“There’s nothing else happening in the rest of the world at this time, in terms of human land use, that could explain this rapid carbon uptake,” says Jed Kaplan, an earth systems scientist at the Federal Polytechnic School of Lausanne in Switzerland.

Kaplan points out that there’s a lot of uncertainty in isotope measurements, so this evidence isn’t conclusive. But he agrees that the New World pandemics were a major event that can’t be ignored — a tragedy that highlighted mankind’s ability to influence the climate long before the industrial revolution.
^partial article
 
Nice try guys. Where's the evidence that the warming since the last little ice age was all due to man? Nobody has this including "BEST". Also skeptics aren't saying that there was no warming since the LIA. They are arguing how much is natural and how much is man made. When recent temperatures slow down and sea level starts to decrease when CO2 increases it raises major questions. When the land based data differs from satellite data the debate is hardly over.

Comment On The Article in the Economist On Rich Muller’s Data Analysis | Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

The nearly identical trends is no surprise as they draw from mostly the same raw data!

“The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95% of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003).”

Secondly we actually can't afford to do carbon taxes since it would shrink the economy so the solutions are not tenable in a democracy. You can't pay more for energy without it depriving cash from other industries. Unemployment will increase without new industries replacing the old ones. The only humans who believe carbon taxes are okay are only special interest groups that want tax dollars for their lame technologies that produce pathetic amounts of energy. There may also be some ignorant people that don't realize what would happen to their standard of living because they think there will be no cost. (Eg. green techologies can quickly replace fossil fuels).

How could human activity possibly effect climate???

Very interesting theory:

Columbus' Arrival Linked To Carbon Dioxide Drop - Science News


^partial article

Thanks to modern technology there is less need to clear trees for farming.
 
Why hello there, straw man argument.

Has anyone even tried to claim that the warming since the last ice age was all due to man?

little ice age you mean?

The claim is that man influenced the majority of 20th century warming (especially after 1950) and is going to in the future towards destruction of the planet.

6 Degrees Warmer: Mass Extinction? - YouTube
 
purpleoscar said:
Are you saying I'm reading too much inbetween the lines? The context of this thread is belief that man influences the climate towards destruction and that we must stop using fossil fuels ASAP.

Yes, in more ways than one. No one mentioned taxes, no one mentioned that all warming was due to man, and yes there are some that completely deny warming. You need a stronger grasp on this subject, try making just one post without a strawman.
 
If our temperatures aren't solely influenced by the actions of humans, we must be doing nothing wrong!

Actually it's more like "please discover what is human and what is nature" regarding temperatures and then create climate models that actually predict the climate much better because of the improved data. Recycling old data and then claiming skeptics shouldn't be skeptical anymore when these fundamental parts aren't answered doesn't move the argument anywhere. Skeptics don't deny that we recovered temperatures since the little ice age. It would be a "straw man" argument since all the temperature data show an increase since the 1800s. We question how much of it is man made and if there is some man made influence (there must be some) is it really threatening or something we can deal with? Until these questions are answered with more certainty we end up with alarmism again and end of the world scenarios.
 
One way of alleviating the effect of global warming is to get out of this thread and stop posting on it on a permanent basis.
 
Actually it's more like "please discover what is human and what is nature" regarding temperatures and then create climate models that actually predict the climate much better because of the improved data. Recycling old data and then claiming skeptics shouldn't be skeptical anymore when these fundamental parts aren't answered doesn't move the argument anywhere. Skeptics don't deny that we recovered temperatures since the little ice age. It would be a "straw man" argument since all the temperature data show an increase since the 1800s. We question how much of it is man made and if there is some man made influence (there must be some) is it really threatening or something we can deal with? Until these questions are answered with more certainty we end up with alarmism again and end of the world scenarios.
The difference is that only the skeptics think they haven't been answered. Everyone else sees the answers you claim aren't there. You don't. It's not alarmism. Nobody wants us to be fucking the climate up. What good does that do me? Nothing. It's just the reality. There is damn clear science that shows this is happening. People who ignore it are people who either want to maintain their lifestyle guilt free or don't like it simply because they don't like the other politics of those who acknowledge it. People who would believe in climate change if the wrong people didn't side with those who say we need to get our shit together. "Oh, here go those hippie liberals again!"

Trying to frame the argument as "us saying everything is man made climate change" is just distracting horseshit, and you know it. Making us devote time and energy to explaining that is the goal, and unfortunately, it's working.
 
The difference is that only the skeptics think they haven't been answered. Everyone else sees the answers you claim aren't there. You don't. It's not alarmism. Nobody wants us to be fucking the climate up. What good does that do me? Nothing. It's just the reality. There is damn clear science that shows this is happening. People who ignore it are people who either want to maintain their lifestyle guilt free or don't like it simply because they don't like the other politics of those who acknowledge it. People who would believe in climate change if the wrong people didn't side with those who say we need to get our shit together. "Oh, here go those hippie liberals again!"

Trying to frame the argument as "us saying everything is man made climate change" is just distracting horseshit, and you know it. Making us devote time and energy to explaining that is the goal, and unfortunately, it's working.

Antarctic and Arctic ice is not rapidly disappearing

Antarctic Ice Above Normal 83% Of The Time Since Mid-2007 | Real Science

Polar bears are doing okay

Polar bears not at risk: Nunavut - North - CBC News

Why is sea level slowing down and even dropping?

Hiding The Inconvenient Satellite | Real Science

Why aren't we getting more hurricanes as per Al Gore?

World Climate Report � Western Pacific Hurricanes Declining?

US Hurricane Strikes In Sharp Decline | Real Science

Why are droughts treated with alarmism when worse scenarios happened in the recent past with less CO2 in the atmosphere?

Seth Borenstein Displays His Spectacular Ignorance Once Again | Real Science

This is just a sample. So NO I'm not trying to ignore it. They haven't been able to pin-point human versus natural influence. Once the BEST studies get analyzed I'm sure that there will be weaknesses and further studies will be needed.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/...additional-transparency-to-preven-pal-review/

The temperature on earth has never had a stable "belle epoque" that was just recently turned into "climate disruption". This kind of Golden Age thinking is natural for humans but we have to do our due diligence before we spend trillions of dollars. The fact that you posters look at people trying to protect their lifestyle when there's a shitty economy and people out of work shows that you'll only have alarmism becuase nobody in their right mind would damage their lifestyle for a small human factor that can be lived with. It has to be end of the world scenarios or else why would anyone pay more taxes? Do you expect anyone to believe you are willing to sacrifice your lifestyle anymore than anyone else? The public is not going to stand by and watch green workers live it up while the increased energy costs reduce the size of the middle class.
 
I'm amazed at the conservative petty hatred for Al Gore and the need to constantly take pot shots at his chubby visage,

He's one guy who had the Presidency voter-frauded away from him and made a documentary. Get over it.
 
Antarctic and Arctic ice is not rapidly disappearing

Antarctic Ice Above Normal 83% Of The Time Since Mid-2007 | Real Science

Polar bears are doing okay

Polar bears not at risk: Nunavut - North - CBC News

Why is sea level slowing down and even dropping?

Hiding The Inconvenient Satellite | Real Science

Why aren't we getting more hurricanes as per Al Gore?

World Climate Report � Western Pacific Hurricanes Declining?

US Hurricane Strikes In Sharp Decline | Real Science

Why are droughts treated with alarmism when worse scenarios happened in the recent past with less CO2 in the atmosphere?

Seth Borenstein Displays His Spectacular Ignorance Once Again | Real Science

This is just a sample. So NO I'm not trying to ignore it. They haven't been able to pin-point human versus natural influence. Once the BEST studies get analyzed I'm sure that there will be weaknesses and further studies will be needed.

BEST: What I agree with and what I disagree with – plus a call for additional transparency to prevent “pal” review | Watts Up With That?

The temperature on earth has never had a stable "belle epoque" that was just recently turned into "climate disruption". This kind of Golden Age thinking is natural for humans but we have to do our due diligence before we spend trillions of dollars. The fact that you posters look at people trying to protect their lifestyle when there's a shitty economy and people out of work shows that you'll only have alarmism becuase nobody in their right mind would damage their lifestyle for a small human factor that can be lived with. It has to be end of the world scenarios or else why would anyone pay more taxes? Do you expect anyone to believe you are willing to sacrifice your lifestyle anymore than anyone else? The public is not going to stand by and watch green workers live it up while the increased energy costs reduce the size of the middle class.



:wave:
 
7de43be450f0fa18fc0e6a70670038f2.jpg


Time to change your catastrophic greenhouse gas rhetoric from "global warming" to "climate change" once again.
 
Uh oh: It was the BEST of times, it was the worst of times | Watts Up With That?

Oops. Possible changes for peer review:

[Curry] ‘I agree that the way the data is presented in the graph “hides the decline.”‘ and adds, “I thought the project was a great idea, and I still do, but it currently has a tarnish on it. Lets see what we can do about this.”

article-2055191-0e974b4300000578-216_468x4731.jpg


Prof McKittrick added: ‘The fact is that many of the people who are in a position to provide informed criticism of this work are currently bound by confidentiality agreements.

‘For the Berkeley team to have chosen this particular moment to launch a major international publicity blitz is a highly unethical sabotage of the peer review process.’
 
November 02, 2011|Seth Borenstein, Associated Press

For a world already weary of weather catastrophes, the latest warning from top climate scientists paints a grim future: More floods, more heat waves, more droughts and greater costs to deal with them.

A draft summary of an international scientific report says the extremes caused by global warming could eventually grow so severe that some locations become "increasingly marginal as places to live."

The report from the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change marks a change in climate science, from focusing on subtle shifts in average temperatures to concentrating on the harder-to-analyze freak events that grab headlines, hurt economies and kill people.

"The extremes are a really noticeable aspect of climate change," said Jerry Meehl, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "I think people realize that the extremes are where we are going to see a lot of the impacts of climate change."

The final version of the report from a panel of leading climate scientists will be issued in a few weeks, after a meeting in Uganda. The draft says there is at least a 2-in-3 probability that climate extremes have already worsened because of man-made greenhouse gases.

By the end of the century, the intense, single-day rainstorms that typically happen once every 20 years will probably happen about twice a decade, the report said.

The opposite type of disaster - a drought such as the stubbornly long dry spell gripping Texas and parts of the Southwest - could also happen more often as the world warms, said Meehl, who reviewed part of the climate panel report.

Researchers have also predicted more intense monsoons with climate change. Warmer air can hold more water and impart more energy to weather systems, changing the dynamics of storms and where and how they hit.

The panel was formed by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization.
 
November 02, 2011|The report from the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change marks a change in climate science, from focusing on subtle shifts in average temperatures to concentrating on the harder-to-analyze freak events that grab headlines, hurt economies and kill people.

In other words, let's exploit modern electronic media, the hysteria machine that is 24 hour cable news and the human impulse to think history begins the day you were born.
 
Back
Top Bottom