Global Warming bullshit

[seremtan]

the WSJ was guilty of a "Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work

lol, the Wall Street Journal. we get free copies by the truckload where i work, and i always read it over lunch, especially the op-eds. i like knowing what the powerful people want me to think

[losCHUNK]

Did I mention that NASAs observation of Sun spot activity is the only report that explains the trend in cooling over the last decade n all ?

[losCHUNK]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rong.html#

In contrast...

Can we all stop worrying about global warming? According to a recent rash of stories in the media, the "climate sensitivity" – the extent to which temperatures respond to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – is lower than expected, and thus that the world won't get as hot as predicted. One story, in The Economist, based on leaked information from a draft of the next assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claims the IPCC will revise its sensitivity estimate downwards when they release their official report this September.

... (technical stuff which you should read when you click the link)

The bottom line is that there is no new consensus that climate sensitivity is lower than previously thought, says Knutti. The observed trend points to lower values because of the recent slowdown, but other evidence continues to support higher values.

The last IPCC report stated that equilibrium climate sensitivity was between 2 and 4.5 °C, mostly likely 3 °C. The Economist claims the IPCC's next report will give a figure between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, with no most likely value. The IPCC won't confirm or deny it, but it's not a huge change if it is true.

"What matters for avoiding dangerous climate change is the upper end, and that hasn't changed," says Knutti. Ward makes the same point. "We can't afford to gamble on sensitivity definitely being low," he says.

But will it all be a huge waste if sensitivity does turn out to be low? Far from it. If we don't cut emissions, Knutti points out, all low sensitivity means is that it will take a decade or two longer for the planet to warm as much as it would if sensitivity was high. "It doesn't get away from the fact that emissions have to be reduced," he says.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... jX0DT-2HGA

Sorry didn't respond to this puff, I missed it.

I know what the IPCC report is predicting and is what I am arguing against in exactly the same way I predicted the 2007 was bullshit. If it was 1.2C yesterday and 1.2C today, why would it be 4.5C tomorrow ?. Same arguement for the methane, where 0.1ppm is increased per year and has been for the last 15 yrs ?, why would this suddenly jump to double or triple ?. That's basically what they're saying

It goes like -

Science > ? > Prediction

and this especially sounds more like damage control rather than science, you can't make predictions after the fact. You'd be stupid to think that predicting results that were consistently off by over 50% as a minor error

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

The last IPCC report stated that equilibrium climate sensitivity was between 2 and 4.5 °C, mostly likely 3 °C. The Economist claims the IPCC's next report will give a figure between 1.5 and 4.5 °C, with no most likely value. The IPCC won't confirm or deny it, but it's not a huge change if it is true.

You are clinging to something small and irrelevant and acting like it disproves climate change. I honestly can't understand how you jump to the conclusions you do.

[losCHUNK]

Failed predictions from 2007 is small and irrelevant, only to have the same report to come back with modified results to account for this ?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

failed predictions = a range with a lower limit.
Yes this is basically irrelevant. The end will be the same.

Are you claiming the revision of the report means there is no climate change?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Same arguement for the methane, where 0.1ppm is increased per year and has been for the last 15 yrs ?, why would this suddenly jump to double or triple ?. That's basically what they're saying

Well, because as the permafrost thaws due to warming temperatures, large amounts of frozen methane are expected to be released into the atmosphere.

[losCHUNK]

failed predictions = a range with a lower limit.
Yes this is basically irrelevant. The end will be the same.

Are you claiming the revision of the report means there is no climate change?

Range with a lower limit, even though warming has never approached that lower limit or anywhere near the levels of the higher limit in the specified timeline, but instead has been entirely consistent for the last 100 years with results somewhat suggesting a dip. The results are way off. Just using the lower estimate they were .5C off every year in their best case scenario

And no, I've been saying since the start of this thread that climate change is happening, I would say warming is completely stagnant otherwise. I take issue to how the data is presented and used by the media.

[losCHUNK]

Same arguement for the methane, where 0.1ppm is increased per year and has been for the last 15 yrs ?, why would this suddenly jump to double or triple ?. That's basically what they're saying

Well, because as the permafrost thaws due to warming temperatures, large amounts of frozen methane are expected to be released into the atmosphere.

Weve been over this, I calculated the amount released for you and showing how much difference it would make if it was all dumped into the atmosphere tomorrow

[mrd]

I take issue to how the data is presented and used by the media.

How is that even a point worth arguing? That's like being mad because the sky is blue.

[losCHUNK]

Because of distorted facts that result in frenzied people thinking the world is about to end

It'll be like someone saying the sky is blue, then me going 'well, what shade ?'

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Because of distorted facts that result in frenzied people thinking the world is about to end

lol the media doesn't do this at all. they utterly fail to represent the extent of the true threat.

still waiting for some sources from you that aren't easily discredited.

feel free to point me to your methane claims so I can debunk them

[losCHUNK]

lol yes yes the media never exaggerates .

They're in your thread n all, search for methane. Some of it has been mentioned here.

[scared?]

What does the bible say about global warming?...there's ur answer chumps...

[losCHUNK]

Says something about 4 horsemen and something to do with Syria ?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/2 ... 43917.html

LONDON, July 24 (Reuters) - A release of methane in the Arctic could speed the melting of sea ice and climate change with a cost to the global economy of up to $60 trillion over coming decades, according to a paper published in the journal Nature.

Researchers at the University of Cambridge and Erasmus University in the Netherlands used economic modelling to calculate the consequences of a release of a 50-gigatonne reservoir of methane from thawing permafrost under the East Siberian Sea.

They examined a scenario in which there is a release of methane over a decade as global temperatures rise at their current pace.

They also looked at lower and slower releases, yet all produced "steep" economic costs stemming from physical changes to the Arctic.

"The global impact of a warming Arctic is an economic time-bomb," said Gail Whiteman, an author of the report and professor of sustainability, management and climate change at the Rotterdam School of Management, part of Erasmus University.

"In the absence of climate-change mitigation measures, the model calculates that it would increase mean global climate impacts by $60 trillion," said Chris Hope, a reader in policy modelling at the Cambridge Judge Business School, part of the University of Cambridge.

That approaches the value of the global economy, which was around $70 trillion last year.

(more if you click)

[mrd]

@los:

Right, but (99.99923% of) media/news is money. Money doesn't care about anything except more money.

Do you think that the same sort of person that would be worked into a frenzy over a newspaper telling them how the world is behaving is the same sort of person that would make legitimate, effective changes in their lifestyle to at least attempt to stem global warming? I don't.

I remember reading one scientist saying about global warming (can't remember the name sorry, the quote just stuck with me): "If you don't believe in global warming you either haven't seen the data or you don't understand the data."

I'm of the view that the kind of people who read newspapers for updates on how the planet is doing are most likely not the kind of people who will truly "get" what is going on. They want to have their shallow view that humans are some special creature or some special case reinforced. Study even basic chemistry or physics and you start learning about laws of equilibrium and such. It's not that hard to see that once we sort of "snap" ourselves/our atmosphere into a new cycle or new stage beyond what we are currently in, it will run away on us. The universe is a violent place, it does not care about us. Unfortunately this kind of stuff is gloomy and doesn't sell newspapers.

[losCHUNK]

Not doing this one again, go see your thread

[losCHUNK]

@los:

Right, but (99.99923% of) media/news is money. Money doesn't care about anything except more money.

Do you think that the same sort of person that would be worked into a frenzy over a newspaper telling them how the world is behaving is the same sort of person that would make legitimate, effective changes in their lifestyle to at least attempt to stem global warming? I don't.

I remember reading one scientist saying about global warming (can't remember the name sorry, the quote just stuck with me): "If you don't believe in global warming you either haven't seen the data or you don't understand the data."

I'm of the view that the kind of people who read newspapers for updates on how the planet is doing are most likely not the kind of people who will truly "get" what is going on. They want to have their shallow view that humans are some special creature or some special case. Study even basic chemistry or physics and you start learning about laws of equilibrium and such. It's not that hard to see that once we sort of "snap" ourselves/our atmosphere into a new cycle or new stage beyond what we are currently in, it will run away on us. The universe is a violent place, it does not care about us. Unfortunately this kind of stuff is gloomy and doesn't sell newspapers.

Reading newspapers is good with an objective mind, some people don't really care about the facts which is what I think of the daily rag, just throwaway bullshit.

These people are the voting public though, who vote for people with ideas the same as themselves

[scared?]

I win ...

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

lol yes yes the media never exaggerates .

They're in your thread n all, search for methane. Some of it has been mentioned here.

Not going to search when frankly you haven't produced any compelling arguments so far.

As for media exaggeration, the original article you posted exaggerates and lies and is basically a huge piece of poop but it lies for your side so i guess in this case the media is exempt from your accusations and should be given credibility right?

[losCHUNK]

Objective mind remember, how many times have you heard me slate the daily rag. Seremtan could see the merit of the article by noticing the facts like a continual rise in temperature of 1.33C as opposed to 1.7C? by the ipcc on the low end.

You don't wanna read that;s fine, already know i've swung you round the room with the methane argument

[mrd]

Reading newspapers is good with an objective mind, some people don't really care about the facts which is what I think of the daily rag, just throwaway bullshit.

These people are the voting public though, who vote for people with ideas the same as themselves

Sure, reading a paper can be fine. All I'm saying is that the sort of people who are likely to truly understand what global warming is will likely not glean that understanding from reading a paper, whether it's a rag or not. They will probably surmise it from their own private studies and observations.

Well, the public and most of the elected are a mass of uneducated mother fuckers, so that is another can of worms.

[losCHUNK]

Aye but those elected remtards effect what we do :/

[mrd]

Unfortunately. I find it telling that even in Puff's article, all they ever boil it down to is "this will cost the economy $60 trillion." Who fucking cares? Money isn't even real. How about "this will turn our planet into a nuclear desert?" That sounds more realistic and actually makes me want to do something. I don't give a fuck about dollars, fuck.