Join The Community

Man-made We're screwed

"What we found is that temperatures increased in the last hundred years as much as they had cooled in the last six or seven thousand," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period, which began around 11,500 years ago.

We now know we are on this earth because of a very unique combination of chemicals, and as of yet, found only on earth . We also know that all things have to have a balance, for us, and for the earth to survive. If you eat to much you die. You eat to little you die. If you burn a billion years of carbon (fossil fuel) in 100 year you will unbalance the atmosphere as we now know. We have to get off carbon as fast as possible for our grandkids to survive.. Electric cars will be a big part of the solution. Not many people can own a oil well, but almost everybody can own photo cells.

"Climate wars" produced by the BBC on YouTube does a great job explaining these issues. Also the Frontline documentary "Climate of Doubt".

A main reason for the change in climate from ice age to hothouse over thousands of years is the tilt of the earth. We have been in a cooling phase for 10,000 years, and the earth is still tilted for cooling. We should be heading for an ice age, but the temperature is rising anyway. Faster in 100 years than it ever has risen in 5,000 years. Only sufficient cause is man, and arguments against that are ignorant an unsupported.

Jane, what records do you have for temperature change 5000 years ago? Ok , how about 1000 years ago?

temperatures over 11,500 years.

New chart, and explanatory article.

The article has been roundly refuted; it juggles time periods invalidly. You can't mix short-term and long-term data sets like that. Statistical garbage.

Fox News is not a scientific journal, isn't peer reviewed and certainly can't legitimatly refute any scientific findings. Micheal Manns work has been independently verified several times by other scientists.

The test in science is whether findings can be replicated using different data and methods. More than two dozen scientific papers, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions supporting the broad consensus shown in the hockey-stick graph.

Nobody has ever successfully refuted this basic idea, and the new results further support it.

Brian likes statistics. Well, 98% of climatologists support anthropogenic climate change. If 98 doctors said you needed heart surgery and two told you the other 98 were just after your money, what would you do?

And those 2 percent DON'T refute it... at least not with a published paper proposing an alternative to the observations.

There are ZERO published papers refuting AGW. ZERO. There are hundreds if not thousands supporting it. The jury has been in since the early 80s.

All false. There are hundreds, despite the attempted "bar the door" efforts of the Believers and Consensualists. But here's the point: every failed projection, and they are numerous, is a "falsification", requiring reset and restart. If the science was honest, it would have attempted to find those itself, up front, to forestall criticisms if nothing else.
Here's the fundamental fail:

When examining the past 15 years of monthly global temperature anomalies, the per century change from a warming trend to a cooling trend becomes clear. Calculating 10-year linear trends from the monthly anomalies, the above chart plots end of year per century trends (plus the May 2011 10-year trend).
As can be seen, since 2001 the per century trends have conclusively switched from a global warming direction to a global cooling direction. In addition, the early 2011 temperature anomalies confirm what has actually been taking place since 2001. If the May 2011 10-year trend continues, the global temperature by 2100 will have decreased by -0.67°C.
This warming to cooling reversal has happened in the face of "business as usual" increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. And this global temperature phenomenon reversal has occurred despite the "consensus" claims of IPCC "climate scientists" and predictions of the bureaucrats' climate models. (The lower left chart clearly depicts how badly the climate models have failed.)

Nice Graphs... anyone can make graphs; It takes REAL research in the field to do science. It takes publication and pear review to become accepted and have your hypothesis established as scientific fact. That's how science works.

Survey of PUBLISHED research; 97% Agree with AGW; 0% provide alternative hypothesis

Courtesy of National academy of science

Where is the PUBLISHED and PEER REVIEWED research refuting AGW... IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Quoting the 97% is the sign of gulliblity; it was generated by a couple of incompetent grad students with a ludicrously invalid survey, which winnowed down 5,000 requested responses to 79, of which 77 sort of agreed humanity might have a statistically non-zero effect on the climate, and 77/79 = 97%! Pathetic.

The National Academy of Science is a couple of grad kids? I guess Tesla is a few hobbyists tinkering in their garage. This was published and peer reviewed in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.

Even if you ignore this study the fact remains that there isn't a single peer reviewed and published paper that explains the warming this last century w/o AGW.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (incompetent grad students) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:
(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

(ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. Your "Believers and Consensualists" are: National Academy of Sciences, Geological Society of America, American Meteorological Society, American Institute of Biological Sciences, European Geosciences Union, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (US), National Research Council (US) ... and on, and on.

The "experts" you are quoting are people such as Lobbyist for Exxon Mobil Fred L. Smith, Jr ., Richard Linzen who deliberately falsified the results of a Gallup Poll ( according to Gallup), Fred Singer, who cites IPCC members as not agreeing when they felt the Policymaker’s Summary downplayed the seriousness of the situation, and the world's leading climate change critic, "sceptical environmentalist" Bjørn Lomborg who now says that we need to put it at the top of our priority list.

Brian's chart refers to the UK Met Office study HadCRUT3.
Here's their chart:

Here's their official conclusion:
Average global temperatures are now some 0.75 °C warmer than they were 100 years ago. Since the mid-1970s, the increase in temperature has averaged more than 0.15 °C per decade. This rate of change is very unusual in the context of past changes and much more rapid than the warming at the end of the last ice age. Sea-surface temperatures have warmed slightly less than the global average whilst temperatures over land have warmed at a faster rate of almost 0.3 °C per decade.

These longer-term analyses have shown that current warming is being caused mainly by human emissions of greenhouse gases which have accumulated in the atmosphere and intensified the greenhouse effect by absorbing more of the thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean.

This long-term warming trend is set to continue as the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to increase. Inevitably this will lead to further impacts on our lives and the world's natural ecosystems. Heatwaves and droughts are likely to become more prevalent; snow cover is projected to continue to diminish; and sea ice to continue to shrink.

The rate of warming has fluctuated since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1800, and the two previous warming cycles rose as fast as the recent one. The overall rate of rise is steady, once the cycles are smoothed. Thank goodness for the warming; why the coldest period since the beginning of the Holocene 10,000 years ago is taken as the norm, God only knows.

The 5 warmings since the end of the Ice Sheet period 10K yrs ago have been successively cooler. Civilization boomed in the previous ones, and we can only hope this one does not end too soon. Warming is benign. You won't like cooling; it kills.

As Musk likes to say, start from first principles, not analogy.

The physics of the situation is clear CO2 is a greenhouse gas, something scientists have known for two centuries. We are adding CO2 to the atmosphere in significant quantities at a geometrically increasing rate.

At best, this is an uncontrolled experiment on the planet. Last time I checked, we only have one. Thus, this behavior is foolish. It is especially foolish because we have alternative technologies.

There's a certain psychology in those who pride themselves in denying the overwhelming evidence of scientific studies -- the hoaxes of climate change or evolution or the big bang or clean energy. It's their way of feeling superior to the "sheep" who just go along. Ah, well. Enough of this.

You're not to blame for buying and Believing; "It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.
The late Dr. Hal Lewis, Fellow and founding member of the American Physical Society, in his resignation letter after the executives repeatedly refused to permit discussion of the issue among the members.

You and those like you will be to blame when things get worse for our kids and grandkids, because you and others believed people like this tired old physicist who knows nothing about climate and who makes ridiculous statements about trillions of dollars corrupting scientists, and supposes a worldwide conspiracy of scientists all eager for a trip to Hawaii, and was bamboozled (like you) by Montford's silly Climate Gate. Irrational nonsense.

"the executives repeatedly refused to permit discussion of the issue among the members" because there is no real discussion. The real scientists don't want to give air time or lend credibility to the denier quacks. Meanwhile, the falsely named Discovery Institute is trying to force teachers to "teach the controversy" about warming as they have about evolution. And you are at their side.

Well, I hope you enjoy your Tesla even though it helps save the world from global warming.

Yah, the "kids and grandkids" BS. Lowlife argument. Like you or anyone knows what resources, tech, and priorities they will have. What could your grandparents have "saved" for you?

The most energy-intensive economies have the highest standard of living and cleanest environments (because they can afford them).

"The most energy-intensive economies have the ... cleanest environments." Like the USA, I suppose.

The U.S. scores a meager 63.5 on the ecosystem vitality scale, vs. an average score of 74.2 for the world's richest nations. The U.S.' overall Environmental Performance Index score is 81, putting it in 39th place on the list, behind Costa Rica and Columbia. The U.S., once a leader in environmental protection, has failed to keep pace. Starting 25 years ago, the United States started to fall behind. The science that's come out has shown that the harder you look for air-pollution-related health problems, the more you find. Scientists have recommended that environmental regulations be tightened. Europe has done that, but the U.S. has been stuck.

This from the notoriously liberal magazine, Forbes.

Stuck, in facing up to the problems of the environment or climate change. I don't know what techs and resources future generations will have, but I know that they can't help being better if we face problems and find the tech and resources to solve them, rather than denying them and fighting to restrict the resources. So, yes, your attitude does damage the possibilities for our kids and grand kids, and you can't deny that.

Wild discussions.

I will take actions that I think will better support our lives and future lives.

If they are wasted, I will have enjoyed the journey with no harm done.

If they are correct, I did the right thing. And still, as much as possible, enjoyed the journey.

We breath air. Keep it clean.

We have alternatives to choose.

No one should die for oil interests.

And even without environmental concerns, evs are a better choice.

Oh yeah..... I have never enjoyed driving a car as much as our M S.

Thanks for all your passionate discussions. And your decision to drive a MS.

@reitmanr, I agree.

@JaneW, I heard that America has 2% of the world's population and creates 30% of the world's pollution.

Only for the WWF aberrated definition of pollution. Designed to milk carbon compensation, of all the stupid things, from it. Rapidly being eclipsed by China, of course, which is exempt from such friendly fire, and laughing all the way to the bank.

@Brian H.

So in China, that would mean 25% of the world's population and 30% of the pollution.

That sounds better, somehow.

If global warming is so dangerous, why is it that most man made global warming believers do not promote nuclear energy? It has effectively a zero co2 footprint. Do you support nuclear energy? Its expansion?

I do not believe global warming believers are against nuclear energy! However until the knowledge to be able to re concentrate the spent fuel is available, and put to use, Nuclear pollution is also very dangerous.
I am pleased that there are so many pro polluters interested in and hopefully supporter of Tesla Motors. What factors influenced your decision?
I am also interested in why pro polluters would try to sell pollution on the worlds cleanest car, web forum?

Oh? Nuclear pollution is dangerous? Really? How exactly?

Good job kenliles, nwdiver93, JaneW, and others in pointing out Brian H's self-contradicting nonsense on this topic of climate change. I'll be the first to admit that one must be brave or foolish to stand firm against a river of opposite arguments and facts. When one makes less sense than a noisy child while trying to defend his point, that might help specify which one of the two is the better description. Sometimes the action counts more than the intention, so if he and other skeptics like him end up buying a Tesla instead of a dinosaur car, then we all win regardless of our beliefs and who's right or wrong, right?

I generally agree with scientific consensus, but it is my view that the big bang theory does not quite fit in your list of scientific topics with "overwhelming evidence", as it is based almost exclusively on the weak notion that expansion of space is the only possible explanation for the red-shift of light through the Doppler effect. Mind you, that also implies that photons can never lose any energy at all, even after traveling for 13 billion years, in one weird exception to the basic laws of physics that disprove the concept of any other perpetual motion machine. Big bang theory appears to me as a religious view stemming from a profound lack of imagination, similar to the beliefs that allowed the Earth to sit at the center of the universe for hundreds of years. Although it is rarely said in this language, the observation that space is expanding at the same speed in all directions can mislead us to the conclusion that we, after all, sit roughly at the middle of the universe. One day I'll write my views on the topic, but for now let me just say that I disagree with big bang theory.

X Deutschland Site Besuchen