Global Warming? My A$$ Its Cold Outside

[skinsfaninok]

Originally Posted by Lotus

In southern MS we got more nailed with ice than with snow. Tons of it, a sleetocalypse. We didn't get more than a couple of inches but it is almost all ice.

We have no snow plows or salt trucks. No one has snow tires. Hence the freak out and the shut down.

Usually the rare snow here melts away within hours, hence the lack of equipment. For the first time in 20 years, we're winter screwed.

Same as Houston all ice no snow

[Hijinx]

Just because something is beyond your understanding, that doesn't make it not true.

Climate change is real, every credible climatologist says so. Get educated on the subject then your opinion might matter.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Hijinx

Just because something is beyond your understanding, that doesn't make it not true.

Climate change is real, every credible climatologist says so. Get educated on the subject then your opinion might matter.

Global warming might very well exist...but it is an absolute falsehood that "every credible climatologist says so".

They key part of that phrase is "credible". Who decides what is credible? Certainly there are plenty of idiot crackpots in the deny camp...as there are in the warming camp. But what has happened is that the warming contingent has sought to label anyone who raises doubts as not "credible" simply due to those doubts. That's not science. It comes down to this, because they don't agree then they're not "credible". Ha! Skepticism is an integral part of science. To dismiss it is to abandon science. They're doing that. There are many who do it on both sides.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Global warming might very well exist...but it is an absolute falsehood that "every credible climatologist says so".

They key part of that phrase is "credible". Who decides what is credible? Certainly there are plenty of idiot crackpots in the deny camp...as there are in the warming camp. But what has happened is that the warming contingent has sought to label anyone who raises doubts as not "credible" simply due to those doubts. That's not science. It comes down to this, because they don't agree then they're not "credible". Ha! Skepticism is an integral part of science. To dismiss it is to abandon science. They're doing that. There are many who do it on both sides.

The tiny fraction of scientists that don't believe in global warming are being funded by people like the Koch Brothers. These guys stand to lose billions so they pay scientist to say the opposite of what 97% of the scientist all agree on.


Koch Industries - SourceWatch

Other Koch funding
Koch-funded organizations

According to the 2010 report by Greenpeace, Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine, Koch has out-spent ExxonMobil in funding climate change denial. From 2005 to 2008, ExxonMobil spent $8.9 million, while the Koch Industries-controlled foundations contributed $24.9 million in funding to organizations of climate change skeptics. Efforts include:

More than $5 million to Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP) for its nationwide “Hot Air Tour” campaign opposing clean energy and climate legislation.
More than $1 million to the Heritage Foundation, which writes about climate and environmental policy issues.
Over $1 million to the Cato Institute, which disputes the scientific evidence behind global warming, questions the rationale for taking climate action, and has been heavily involved in spinning the recent ClimateGate story.
$800,000 to the Manhattan Institute, which has hosted Bjorn Lomborg twice in the last two years, a prominent media spokesperson who challenges and attacks policy measures to address climate change.
$365,000 to Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment (FREE), which advocates against taking action on climate change because warming is “inevitable” and expensive to address.
$360,000 to Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy (PRIPP) which supported and funded An Inconvenient Truth...or Convenient Fiction, a film attacking the science of global warming and intended as a rebuttal to former Vice-President Al Gore’s documentary An Inconvenient Truth (PRIPP also threatened to sue the U.S. Government for listing the polar bear as an endangered species.)
$325,000 to the Tax Foundation, which issued a misleading study on the costs of proposed climate legislation.

The reports says such contributions are only part of the picture, because the full scope of direct contributions to organizations is not disclosed by individual Koch family members, executives, or from the company itself.

These scientists and politicians are being bankrolled to preach anti-global warming rhetoric so the Koch brothers can continue raking in billions and billions of dollars.


Billionaires’ Carbon Bomb | Koch Cash

[JoeRedskin]

I would suggest that the vast majority of "credible" believe global warming is occurring. The real question is whether or not it is the result of human driven and whether there is an impending climate crisis:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...-survey-finds-
majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

but see: Heartland’s James Taylor Falsely Claims New Study Rejects Climate Consensus | ThinkProgress

Climate change and human interference in climate is one of the most politically driven areas of science out there. Once upon a time, I waded into it to try and understand what the "science" was/is. You simply cannot take anything with an opinion on it at face value and almost always have to look at who is funding whom.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I would suggest that the vast majority of "credible" believe global warming is occurring. The real question is whether or not it is the result of human driven and whether there is an impending climate crisis:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...-survey-finds-
majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

but see: Heartland’s James Taylor Falsely Claims New Study Rejects Climate Consensus | ThinkProgress

Climate change and human interference in climate is one of the most politically driven areas of science out there. Once upon a time, I waded into it to try and understand what the "science" was/is. You simply cannot take anything with an opinion on it at face value and almost always have to look at who is funding whom.

I'm thinking, we've had "global warming" since the Ice Age, and Greenland actually lush and green (and icy again) since then, all without human intervention. But we've done so much changing the landscape and putting particulate in the air (not as much as volcanoes but still), it has to have an effect, it's debatable how much. I could be looking at this wrong....

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The tiny fraction of scientists that don't believe in global warming are being funded by people like the Koch Brothers. These guys stand to lose billions so they pay scientist to say the opposite of what 97% of the scientist all agree on.


Koch Industries - SourceWatch





These scientists and politicians are being bankrolled to preach anti-global warming rhetoric so the Koch brothers can continue raking in billions and billions of dollars.


Billionaires’ Carbon Bomb | Koch Cash

Propaganda. There is far more money of the green side now. Far more.

I'm not arguing that there isn't GW. I am arguing that the entire discussion, on both sides, has been hijacked by propaganda and money.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

I'm thinking, we've had "global warming" since the Ice Age, and Greenland actually lush and green (and icy again) since then, all without human intervention. But we've done so much changing the landscape and putting particulate in the air (not as much as volcanoes but still), it has to have an effect, it's debatable how much. I could be looking at this wrong....

I am coming around to the "human intervention is having a disparate effect on climate change" side but am still having a hard time getting past some of the scientific bias/prejudice displayed by the IPCC and it's members in their early drafts/product. [As RR screams "blasphemy --- it's science, it can't be biased!!]

Again, when it comes to climate change, and regardless of the opinion expressed, you have to always follow the funding trail whether they are proclaiming "the end is nigh!!" or "relax, it's just the same old world turning" or something in the middle.

[Chico23231]

My thought is this, an influx of man made pollution pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial age cant be good for the environment as a whole. My guess was the planet wasnt fist pumping like yes this is exactly what I need.

[Schneed10]

I can't believe this is a serious discussion. Ignore the scientists because as FRPLG says, it's all propaganda. Just go back to high school science class. Did everyone sleep through it?

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, etc.) absorb infrared radiation from the sun and refract it in the form of heat. The more fossil fuels you burn the more carbon dioxide and methane you put into the atmosphere. Thus the more of the sun's infrared radiation is absorbed and refracted, hence global warming.

These are simple chemical properties we've known about since the 1800s. Brush up people, either bust out your chem book or go rewatch Breaking Bad on Netflix.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I can't believe this is a serious discussion. Ignore the scientists because as FRPLG says, it's all propaganda. Just go back to high school science class. Did everyone sleep through it?

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, etc.) absorb infrared radiation from the sun and refract it in the form of heat. The more fossil fuels you burn the more carbon dioxide and methane you put into the atmosphere. Thus the more of the sun's infrared radiation is absorbed and refracted, hence global warming.

These are simple chemical properties we've known about since the 1800s. Brush up people, either bust out your chem book or go rewatch Breaking Bad on Netflix.

So the argument, its really cold outside so it cant be a thing such as global warming doesnt work with you?

Dont listen to fox new then:

Jon Stewart of ‘The Daily Show’ rips Fox News on climate change

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I can't believe this is a serious discussion. Ignore the scientists because as FRPLG says, it's all propaganda. Just go back to high school science class. Did everyone sleep through it?

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, etc.) absorb infrared radiation from the sun and refract it in the form of heat. The more fossil fuels you burn the more carbon dioxide and methane you put into the atmosphere. Thus the more of the sun's infrared radiation is absorbed and refracted, hence global warming.

These are simple chemical properties we've known about since the 1800s. Brush up people, either bust out your chem book or go rewatch Breaking Bad on Netflix.

Yes. You must be right b/c once greenhouse gases are pumped into the air they stay there forever!!

There is, actually, another side to the equation in that GHG's have an atmospheric lifetime (form most it is a few years). The question is whether the rate of production the GHG's with longer atmospheric lifetimes is outstripping the ability of the world ecosystem to absorb/dilute and ultimately disperse the GHG's and, if so, to what extent. That is a complex question dependent on climate models which, in turn, depends on the variables and assumptions used in those models.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

So the argument, its really cold outside so it cant be a thing such as global warming doesnt work with you?

Dont listen to fox new then:

Jon Stewart of ‘The Daily Show’ rips Fox News on climate change

It doesn't work with me. Extreme cold, as counterintuitive as it might seem, can provide evidence for global warming. The theory of global warming doesn't say it gets warmer every single day. Instead the theory predicts stronger and more bizarre weather patterns. Such weather patterns can include the strongest hurricane on record (like we saw last fall) but also things like Panama icing over (which has not happened and I use just as an example).

[FRPLG]

There is also the question of what the ecosystems reaction to the warming is. It isn't as simple as GHGs exist and therefore the earth is warming. There is evidence to suggest that the quotient of warming introduced via GHGs is being offset by some other counter reaction...hence the lack of warming in the last 17 years. The main theory is that the ocean is storing up the heat deep within. I haven't read as much on this theory so I don't quite understand the specifics.

To me the main issue remains: does it really matter? Is the warming enough to actually cause negative issues? Are the effects being oversold? Are the effects even properly understood?

[JoeRedskin]

I have noticed - purely on a personal anecdotal level - that the focus does seem to be shifting to what effect GHG's are having on the oceans and their role in climate control.

A quick google found this: Oceans losing ability to absorb greenhouse gas | UCIrvine News

From the article (as I said, it's all in the modeling):

When we measure the carbon concentration of seawater, it’s not possible to distinguish carbon that originated from fossil-fuel burning and the large background level of natural carbon. So instead of trying to directly measure the increase in ocean carbon, we created a mathematical model based on tens of thousands of ship-based measurements collected over the last 20 years that allowed us to determine where and how long ago the water in the ocean’s interior was last at the surface. The model was then used to track all of the ocean’s water masses backward in time to when they last exchanged carbon dioxide with the atmosphere. We reconstructed a year-by-year inventory of the manmade gas in the ocean from 1765 to 2008. This allowed us to identify trends in the uptake of human-generated carbon dioxide.