Dont even try to go there. I saw you offer "to dumb things down" for another poster in the atheist thread yesterday. What is the word for that? Hypo---something. What IS that word?
There is no evidence that the sun or the wind has changed either the AMO or the PDO. There is evidence that warming has resulted in a slow down of the AMO, at the least. There is also evidence that recent volcanic emissions have resulted in the current so-called "hiatus" (an odd term to use since the past 17 years has seen the hottest month to month temperatures on record as well as the highest CO2 concentrations). As for your claim that the warming only started in the 1950s, that too is incorrect. The direct evidence goes back to at least 1890s, the year when accurate temperature measurements become available. The proxy data goes back much further. "CO2 only rose above the average in the 50's and for a short while"? Really? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#Current_concentration
Fortunately, he got the message, & the nuances of forum posting. It seems you did not. How is this my fault?
It doesn't matter if climate change is man made or not. Climate change happens. Promoting the general welfare means acquiring and possessing more Perfect Knowledge of structures such that we can build habitation, most anywhere on Earth, regardless of climate change.
You call it nuance? No, it is called being insulting then trying to accuse someone who not insulting you of doing so. That makes YOU a blatant hypocrite. And that is on your your shoulders.
[yawn] More deflections? Is that your job, to come in & deflect from the subject, smear the enemy, & distract from any thoughtful discussion?
Temperature has been rising since the 1600's. - - - Updated - - - There is no evidence that warming has slowed down the AMO other than hypothesis. Temperatures have been rising since the 1600s.
Lol. Speaking of deflecting.... 'sa matter? Dont like being called on your bs? Bower never once insulted you. Yet, yoy accused her of it while at the same time handed out one of your own insults in another thread. Tsk. Tsk. Dont like being called on it then DONT do it. Easy, huh? x100.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150323132746.htm And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years
Not surprise the first link is big news, especially since it is inferred using proxy data instead of actual measurements which are already available and Michael Mann is involved. It has been thoroughly rebutted as soon as it came out since it is actually measured physically and even NASA refutes it. NASA Study Finds Atlantic 'Conveyor Belt' Not Slowing Not only that, confronted by the facts on Mann's FB page and knowing how Mann works, he took a snapshot before Mann deleted them. BTW, this is one of those vaunted 'peer reviewed papers' that are good for the outhouse. Thanks for proving my point with your second link.
I ain't buying the contention that each time co2 changed in decades, that it was followed by a mass extinction, unless oxygen also decreased suddenly, exponentially. We have no clue what caused the great explosion in species millions of years ago, or what throttles such explosions back. The rise in co2 levels, in parts per million is so slight, for we know we have been up to like 1500 ppm, and the plants loved it. Probably eventually gave us fossil fuels found under the arctic today. There was a study that shows the earth is greening up. So, the plants love it, and could use more. With an ever increasing human population, what does the earth need to do, in order to actually feed all of these humans, for we will be at 12 billion one day? It needs to warm up from the last ice age, which we are still in, and perhaps co2 is the means to do this. But its all doom and gloom, and the end of the world hysterics coming from your camp. The earth was set to warm, and eventually it will cool down again, with us, or without us. I know that is hard for the human ego to swallow, but take a big gulp and swallow hard, for that is all that you can do. More co2 and a little warmer earth is good for humanity and plants. Why do you hate humans and plants as you do? LOL
I don't see any "obvious" that is countering measurement. I'm highly predisposed to measurement over "belief". I have no concept of what it would even mean to decide not to accept science as our method of learning about our physical world. If you have some alternative, please state it. Yes, science has been wrong in that science has had to update its understanding as it progresses. Scientific method is constructed with that as a principle. Einstein blew away pretty much all of physics, for example. But, the new understanding came to us through science and it is a clear example of how open science is to new understanding. Today, people are suggesting that science is stagnant - that some sort of blockage is causing science not to change its collective view of climate change. But, that makes no sense. Science is designed to reward those who have the earth shaking ideas of the Einsteins of the world, and to remove those who game the system. What we're seeing is that the fundamental points of climate change are holding strong.
Another key idea on this line is that the findings of science on this issue need to affect public policy if the findings reach some level of certainty. So, it's important to think about how certain science is on this particular issue. My main point on this is that the public policy that we have implemented has not and never will be based on certainty. We choose budgets for FEMA, size of our military, economic response to downturns, etc., all based on evidence that is far from scientific certainty. As Newt Gingrich pointed out, we make public policy when odds times costs go high. We do not wait for odds to be 100%. And, we don't wait for costs to be gigantic. We created FEMA to address relatively small disasters the size of hurricanes thinking about the odds of hurricanes larger than a certain size multiplied by estimates of the cost of the damage. We size our military (roughly speaking) based on the number of wars we think we might want to fight times the costs of not being prepared to fight those wars. We don't know for sure how many wars we want to fight or how large they might be. We buy weapons systems based on assumptions of what will be needed. These estimates can all be wrong - they aren't certainties. Refusing to respond to climate change on the grounds that we aren't certain is a false argument. The need to act comes before "belief". It comes from an examination of odds and costs.
I'm all for policy, but what do you think about the fact that western city people have the largest "carbon footprint" in the world and that no policies presented by the left can meaningfully impact our use of fossil fuels, plastics and nylons? The only exception is the "carbon tax" which, if it makes people use less petroleum products, means that the cost has been passed on to the average citizen because how else would it reduce our carbon output? Almost never have I seen an "environmentalist" admit to these things. To most of them, environmentalism is an excuse to be mean to conservatives and not about enacting any tangible policy. Something that you guys don't get is that the fossil fuels burned by "the industry" are all being used for something that has an existing role within our consumer economy. If you think getting rid of politicians who encourage petroleum use is the first step, why aren't you after Obama for making us the world's #1 petroleum producer?
What's surprising to me is that people can so easily write off the idea that 6 billion people mining gigantic numbers of tons of ancient carbon and spewing it into the atmosphere for decade after decade could possibly make a difference.
I don't write that off at all. I do think that adding co2 MIGHT cause a slight warming, but since we have had co2 so much higher in the past, as life flourished, I just do not see the reason for the hysteria. Nor do I see a reason to tax carbon, in order to redistribute wealth from the west to the backward poor nations, who are ruled over by money hungry elites. And of course there is that group of western elites who have interposed themselves between the revenues from carbon taxation(paid by working people, the consumers) and the receipients of that money, the poor overseas. They call it handling costs, which can be really high, so that it makes a few elites even more wealthy. I personally hope the earth is warming, but it will do that, and is doing that naturally. The co2 might speed it up a bit, but the warming is a given with or without co2. As that NASA scientist said and others. But we need a warmer earth, for farming will be done farther north on fertile land that we have not been able to use because of the cold. And co2 makes plants healthier, which is why greenhouses pump in extra co2 for plant health and yield. Why not just surround all co2 emitting energy plants with greenhouses? Well, you cannot redistribute wealth like that. Why not address the co2 levels, if it is so horrible with land management, as freeman dyson the notable scientist has suggested? Well, you cannot redistribute income like that either. So, the only solution is this carbon tax. It's a con game man, created by the UN and swallowed whole by the modern liberal.( I am an old time liberal, the liberal that isn't a space cadet as the modern liberal is) So yeah, perhaps co2, a natural gas, essential for life is speeding up an inevitable warming, but so what? Man and plants flourish under warmer temps and a little higher co2. So no need for the hysterics that do come from the left, nor is there a need for a carbon tax. We will be off of fossil fuels before the next century gets here, and the problem with co2 from man will be solved. And trust me, the world will not be destroyed by co2 before we get there. It really isn't this great and grave problem that the left is trying to make it out to be...because they are prone to hysterics.
The reason environmentalists always lose is because they have no integrity. Obama makes the US the world's #1 oil producer and then the environmentalists all get angry about how we need to "punish" the deniers yet they give a pass to their people who make the supposed problem worse, even though the starting point of environmentalist policy right now would be to roll back what Obama has done.
First of all, the first link I posted was to a study released just this month (as opposed to the one you think refutes it, which was released in 2010), and the lead author is Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, not Michael Mann, so it is quite obvious that you didn't even bother to read it. Secondly, I don't know what point of yours you think the graph I posted proved, but what it does show is that temperatures have not been rising since the 1600s. They've been rising at an increasing rate since the mid-1800s.
Public policy? That should be a consideration when doing scientific research? The hysterics about global warming are nothing, compared to the real problem of over population, dwindling energy sources, & arable land. Some of you remember this thread where we discussed those things in great detail. Why is there no UN declaration about them? http://www.politicalforum.com/science/339639-population-energy-food-very-long.html
The reason for a carbon tax is to encourage the decrease in amounts of carbon emitted into the atmosphere. So, naturally, if you don't care about warming you wouldn't be interested in such a tax! I don't know what you are calling "hysterics". You might check out the Chesapeake Bay plan for what coastline mitigation is being billed to us today in one location. You can extrapolate that around the US and the world. You might think about the fact that New Orleans is seeing about 1 cm per year in sea rise. The last time that flooded was considered less than free. We can pay for more work to extend the life of the city, move it, or whatever. Sea rise in other areas won't be free, to say the least. You might check out Somalia for costs due to agricultural failure. India has a wall against Bangladesh, built to prevent an influx of Bengalis who are impacted by the climate change related disaster they are experiencing. We're rich, so we can just buy more food from somewhere else. But, poor nations depend on their own ability to produce food, and even small impacts in that become national security issues. What is happening in CA (with fire departments delivering water to some towns in 55 gallon barrels and farmers not planting due to lack of water) is exactly in line with what climatologists have predicted for the US southwest. You might check out the proposed Pentagon budget increases for increased defense needs due to warming. When there is agricultural failure there are more failed states and movement of desperate populations. These are national security issues even for us, since we care about world trade, terrorism, etc. Nobody is claiming that we're all about to die. But, there are some fairly big ticket items coming down the pipeline. They are likely to impact trade and security besides any direct costs. They will require highly expensive mitigation. And, science is telling us that we can do something to take the edge off.
No, it's the other way around. Public policy needs to consider what is found through scientific research. We need to base what we do on what we know. Pointing at population doesn't excuse irresponsible behavior on other problems. There is very little from the UN in part because the US has been effective in preventing it. Remember that we're a key member of the UN. Every other first world nation (in fact, almost EVERY nation) has high taxes on key emitters of carbon. We are the ones refusing to move.
No, it hasn't. Temperature was cooling for the last 5,000 years, but only at a rate between 0.01 and 0.03 °C per century. Between year 0 CE and the 1800's, temperatures dropped gradually, only about 0.4 °C, but slowly. The current trend didn't start until the late 1800's, warming a full 1.0 °C in just the last 100 years.
And this is where half understood science can lead you astray. I am almost at a loss to know where to start with correcting your misconceptions on this - but let us start with intake versus inherent levels, What is being challenged at the moment is which foods most affect body lipid levels See this is a highly complex system and one we are adding knowledge to all the time so to say previous science is 'wrong" is in itself in error when what is happening is a refinement of knowledge. Sort of like calling a Model t ford wrong because the latest Ferrari is so different
