NASA: six decades of a warming earth

[pocketfullofshells]

The same people who don't belive in global warming, are the people who think humans and Dinos shared the earth..Science will never effect them.

The simple fact is no amount of science will ever change their mind, because they choose not to believe in it, because to say its true...means they have to then take action...and they don't want the actions that would be needed, so they ignore the problem.

97% of Climate Scientist say one thing, but a eye doctor says something else about Climate...they go withth eye doctor.

They pretend that claiming they say its global warming due to the money to be made...such a stupid idea as the Oil companies pay to say its not, far far more... ( it costs more to get them to lie)

 

[GBFan]

The same people who don't belive in global warming, are the people who think humans and Dinos shared the earth..Science will never effect them.

The simple fact is no amount of science will ever change their mind, because they choose not to believe in it, because to say its true...means they have to then take action...and they don't want the actions that would be needed, so they ignore the problem.

97% of Climate Scientist say one thing, but a eye doctor says something else about Climate...they go withth eye doctor.

They pretend that claiming they say its global warming due to the money to be made...such a stupid idea as the Oil companies pay to say its not, far far more... ( it costs more to get them to lie)

I love your sweeping generalizations!!! They are so ... uhh, what's the word?? ... so ... naive ... no, that's not it ... lazy!!! I got it ... lazy!!! Tell me exactly how many science counter-opinions you have actually read. I know ... what's the word ... I know .. none!

 

[GBFan]

I love your sweeping generalizations! They're so ... uhh, what's the word?? ... naive!!! Or, maybe ... lazy! How many scientific counter-opinions have you actually read?

 

[Lagboltz]

I love your sweeping generalizations!!! They are so ... uhh, what's the word?? ... so ... naive ... no, that's not it ... lazy!!! I got it ... lazy!!! Tell me exactly how many science counter-opinions you have actually read. I know ... what's the word ... I know .. none!

I love your grandiose prose, where at the keyboard you think out loud. It's so ... how shall I put it ... intellectually lazy .. no that's not quite it. It's transparently pompous. Yes that's the phrase.

Practically every conservative on this board has a counter opinion to global warming. You can find it if you do a little search. Counter opinions have been all over the media for the last few years. I don't know where you have been, but PockOfShells has it right metaphorically.

The irony is that you predict that current climate science is statistically insignificant in making a projection, yet you do allow a projection for potential economic disaster. Economics has the same order of difficulty in projection as climate science.

 

[GBFan]

I love your grandiose prose, where at the keyboard you think out loud. It's so ... how shall I put it ... intellectually lazy .. no that's not quite it. It's transparently pompous. Yes that's the phrase.

Practically every conservative on this board has a counter opinion to global warming. You can find it if you do a little search. Counter opinions have been all over the media for the last few years. I don't know where you have been, but PockOfShells has it right metaphorically.

The irony is that you predict that current climate science is statistically insignificant in making a projection, yet you do allow a projection for potential economic disaster. Economics has the same order of difficulty in projection as climate science.

The average idiot understands that economics is a short term effort that allows projections on relevant data. But, then, you definitely aren't average, are you?

Generalizations? You? Nahhh ... I mean "Practically every conservative ...", that's not a generalization, is it?

 

[Lagboltz]

The average idiot understands that economics is a short term effort that allows projections on relevant data. But, then, you definitely aren't average, are you?

Generalizations? You? Nahhh ... I mean "Practically every conservative ...", that's not a generalization, is it?

Economic projections are notoriously bad in the short run in many important areas because the idiosyncrasies of people and institutions can't be predicted.

Oh yes it is a generalization, but not an over-generalization. You, being more of a nubie, don't know the tenor of the conservatives here. Of the many that previously went into the topic of global warming on this board in the past, I know of no conservative that believes global warming is a problem. In my previous post I suggested you do a search, but you seem to be more trusting of your gut feelings again.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I love your sweeping generalizations! They're so ... uhh, what's the word?? ... naive!!! Or, maybe ... lazy! How many scientific counter-opinions have you actually read?

When the experts in the feild are 97% to 3%...I give the 97% the edge. when the 3% are right wing Oil company hacks...even more so. When the Bush White house is forced to issue a report that agrees with the 97%...

I have read no reports on the earth is Flat...but that does not change the fact that its not. And I have read reports trying to deny it, and they are all flawed and most nothing more then paid for fake science.

 

[GBFan]

Despite a scientific consensus on the subject, some people don't think global warming is happening at all. There are several reasons for this:

• They don't think the data show a measurable upward trend in global temperatures, either because we don't have enough long-term historical climate data or because the data we do have isn't clear enough.
• A few scientists think that data is being interpreted incorrectly by people who are already worried about global warming. That is, these people are looking for evidence of global warming in the statistics, instead of looking at the evidence objectively and trying to figure out what it means.
• Some argue any increase in global temperatures we are seeing could be a natural climate shift, or it could be due to other factors than greenhouse gases.

Most scientists recognize that global warming does seem to be happening, but a few don't believe that it is anything to be worried about. These scientists say that the Earth is more resistant to climate changes on this scale than we think. Plants and animals will adapt to subtle shifts in weather patterns, and it is unlikely anything catastrophic will happen as a result of global warming. Slightly longer growing seasons, changes in precipitation levels and stronger weather, in their opinion, are not generally disastrous. They also argue that the economic damage caused by cutting down on the emission of greenhouse gases will be far more damaging to humans than any of the effects of global warming.

In a way, the scientific consensus may be a moot point. The real power to enact significant change rests in the hands of those who make national and global policy. Some policymakers in the United States are reluctant to propose and enact changes because they feel the costs may outweigh any risks global warming poses. Some common concerns, claims and complaints include:

• A change in the United States' policies in emissions and carbon production could result in a loss of jobs.
• India and China, both of which continue to rely heavily on coal for their main source of energy, will continue to cause environmental problems even if the United States changes its energy policies (critics of these policymakers point out that this approach employs the tu quoque logical fallacy).
• Since scientific evidence is about probabilities rather than certainties, we can't be certain that human behavior is contributing to global warming, that our contribution is significant, or that we can do anything to fix it.
• Technology will find a way to get us out of the global warming mess, so any change in our policies will ultimately be unnecessary and cause more harm than good.

What's the correct answer? It can be hard to figure out. Most scientists will tell you that global warming is real and that it is likely to do some kind of harm, but the extent of the problem and the danger posed by its effects are wide open for debate.

 

[GBFan]

When the experts in the feild are 97% to 3%...I give the 97% the edge. when the 3% are right wing Oil company hacks...even more so. When the Bush White house is forced to issue a report that agrees with the 97%...

I have read no reports on the earth is Flat...but that does not change the fact that its not. And I have read reports trying to deny it, and they are all flawed and most nothing more then paid for fake science.

The question isn't whether it exists ... the question is 1) whether it is alarmists who think they know the answer before they look, 2) a concerted effort to prove their hypothesis, even if they have to falsify the data, or 3) assuming it exists, if fixing it is worth the catastrophic economic impact proposed by the idealists.

Have there been changes in the environment? Of course ... Are they man-caused? The jury is still out on that, but I tend to not believe it is. If it is man-caused, how do we fix it? Clearly, the answer isn't another massive government power grab. We can't destroy our economy, on a guess. Particularly, when we know that no one else is willing to make those sacrifices.

Oh, by the way ... I think that you'll find that most conservatives take a middle of the road approach on global warming ... I know that doesn't fit your political agenda, and that's it's more convenient to scream and yell about the outliers, but you really shouldn't jump to conclusions without facts.

 

[Lagboltz]

Despite a scientific consensus on the subject, some people don't think global warming is happening at all. There are several reasons for this:
...... etc

Yeah, I read that. I think it was in howthingswork.com. I think the author was evenly balanced. He starts out with three points covering what “some people” think about global warming. He mentions “a few” scientists don't think it should be worried about. This was not an admission by the author that he thinks the points were valid, it was just a statement of what a few think.

And finally he mentions the political inertia, and what pols are thinking. Of course, scientific consensus and political action are two quite separate issues.

According to one study the computed range is, 2 to 7 feet of sea level rise this century. In the US “nearly 5 million people live in 2.6 million homes at less than 4 feet above high tide.” How will the costs of cutting emissions compare with the costs of a climate catastrophe? I'm sure both sides can spin it either way, but my gut feeling sides with cutting emissions unless I hear solid evidence otherwise.

Oh, by the way ... for the third time, I said that it was conservatives on this forum that jumped on global warming. I wasn't generalizing about all conservatives. Even the Koch brothers believe GW is a problem.

 

[GBFan]

Yeah, I read that. I think it was in howthingswork.com. I think the author was evenly balanced. He starts out with three points covering what “some people” think about global warming. He mentions “a few” scientists don't think it should be worried about. This was not an admission by the author that he thinks the points were valid, it was just a statement of what a few think.

And finally he mentions the political inertia, and what pols are thinking. Of course, scientific consensus and political action are two quite separate issues.

According to one study the computed range is, 2 to 7 feet of sea level rise this century. In the US “nearly 5 million people live in 2.6 million homes at less than 4 feet above high tide.” How will the costs of cutting emissions compare with the costs of a climate catastrophe? I'm sure both sides can spin it either way, but my gut feeling sides with cutting emissions unless I hear solid evidence otherwise.

Oh, by the way ... for the third time, I said that it was conservatives on this forum that jumped on global warming. I wasn't generalizing about all conservatives. Even the Koch brothers believe GW is a problem.

But, the crux of the article is that there is no reasonable proof that man is the cause of global warming, or that any of his responses would have a measurable effect. Then, when you couple that with the fact that largest polluters are going to ignore the problem, there doesn't seem to be much incentive to destroy our economy in order to have no measurable effect on something we aren't even sure we can have an effect on, anyway.

In short, get back to me when China and India sign up ... until then, we're wasting our time and money.

 

[Lagboltz]

But, the crux of the article is that there is no reasonable proof that man is the cause of global warming, or that any of his responses would have a measurable effect. Then, when you couple that with the fact that largest polluters are going to ignore the problem, there doesn't seem to be much incentive to destroy our economy in order to have no measurable effect on something we aren't even sure we can have an effect on, anyway.

In short, get back to me when China and India sign up ... until then, we're wasting our time and money.

Neither you nor I are climate scientists and must appeal to authority for input. That has been a major political difficulty. Some “authorities” have a hidden agenda. The author of the article points out disagreements, but he didn't seem to take sides. That is why I thought his article was fairly written.

No the author did not cover human influence, but the IPCC did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report
A general conclusion of the 5th IPCC assessment is that,
“Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record. There is a clear human influence on the climate. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.”

The IPCC statement was a world consensus of 800 scientists from many countries and disciplines. They based their findings on 9,200 peer-reviewed studies.

Sure, world cooperation will be difficult but that doesn't mean that we should give up. Already China is getting concerned, albeit because the pollution is choking some of their areas. Getting third world cooperation is one focus point on climate control and we shouldn't ignore it.

 

[GBFan]

Neither you nor I are climate scientists and must appeal to authority for input. That has been a major political difficulty. Some “authorities” have a hidden agenda. The author of the article points out disagreements, but he didn't seem to take sides. That is why I thought his article was fairly written.

No the author did not cover human influence, but the IPCC did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fifth_Assessment_Report
A general conclusion of the 5th IPCC assessment is that,
“Warming of the atmosphere and ocean system is unequivocal. Many of the associated impacts such as sea level change (among other metrics) have occurred since 1950 at rates unprecedented in the historical record. There is a clear human influence on the climate. It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report.”

The IPCC statement was a world consensus of 800 scientists from many countries and disciplines. They based their findings on 9,200 peer-reviewed studies.

Sure, world cooperation will be difficult but that doesn't mean that we should give up. Already China is getting concerned, albeit because the pollution is choking some of their areas. Getting third world cooperation is one focus point on climate control and we shouldn't ignore it.

No one proposes we 'give up' ... but I think it is extremely dangerous to try to go it alone ... and, that's clearly what the current regime has in mind.

As for the IPCC assessment, I'm not ready to buy it ... they have a clear political agenda. Any other answer would have been detrimental to their own purposes. Let's keep in mind that there is a whole series of industries dependent on that answer. Frankly, there's too much money involved to just accept their finding carte blance.

When you're talking about climate cycles measuring 100s of years, I think their statistical assumptions are based on wishin' and hopin', rather than legitimate math ... frankly, they don't have sufficient scientific proof to state human influence as the 'dominant cause', and I personally don't think they even have sufficient scientific proof that human influence has any influence, at all.

 

[Lagboltz]

No one proposes we 'give up' ... but I think it is extremely dangerous to try to go it alone ... and, that's clearly what the current regime has in mind.

As for the IPCC assessment, I'm not ready to buy it ... they have a clear political agenda. Any other answer would have been detrimental to their own purposes. Let's keep in mind that there is a whole series of industries dependent on that answer. Frankly, there's too much money involved to just accept their finding carte blance.

When you're talking about climate cycles measuring 100s of years, I think their statistical assumptions are based on wishin' and hopin', rather than legitimate math ... frankly, they don't have sufficient scientific proof to state human influence as the 'dominant cause', and I personally don't think they even have sufficient scientific proof that human influence has any influence, at all.

What do you think is the agenda of the 800 scientists of the IPCC, and what would be detrimental to their purposes? Do you have a solid basis for that feeling?

You then mention industries. Don't you think oil and coal industries would even have a clearer hidden agenda?

In your final paragraph you discount the statistics of the scientific investigations - over nine thousand studies. Did you read the wikipedia article on GW?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Do you discount all the statistics there as wishin' and hopin'? What is your argument against the statics shown in the wiki article? The surface temperature and CO2 climate cycles shown in wiki were over millennia. Be sure and look at those. What drives your personal opinion against all that scientific investigation?

It seems that drivers for many who discount GW are short term economics. Don't you think that might drive your personal opinion on the science aspect?

 

[dogtowner]

Whats the margin of error on the study upon which the rise in temps was stated ?