Should global warming result in global cooling

[bush_cheney2004]

Why is it that the jobs created by oil and gas are somehow more valuable than the jobs created by utilizing other energy sources?

Because we could search, drill, pump, transport, refine, transport again, and distribute far less expensively than with other sources. That's because petroleum has an energy density of approximately 45 MJ/kg, and is the source for many other distillates and consumer products.

Solar energy began the magic millions of years ago...but the concentrated energy (density) of crude oil is available now in mere days.

Economics decides the winner.

[Canapathy]

I'll defer to Jerry's more detailed observations above, but I suggest that before you start accusing people of being entrenched in their viewpoint, you first look in the mirror. I believe that an objective reading of the piece in the article you supplied would find:

1 It is a defence of the Manmade GW proponents

2 It is objective enough to admit the weaknesses in the Manmade GW case, but not objective enough to be forthright about it. Instead it couches the evidential uncertainties as stages on a pre-ordained learning curve rather than as the fundamental uncertainties they are. In other words, it's saying that the conclusion is right, even though the evidence isn't there toi support it. Read it again carefully and you'll see what I mean.

1. Newer models still fall within the (maybe too generous) error bars of the old hockey stick graph.

2. If the flawed hockey stick model still bothers you then disregard it, there are dozens of other reconstructions that support the same conclusion.

Although each of the proxy temperature records shown below is different, due in part to the diverse statistical methods utilized and sources of the proxy data, they all indicate similar patterns of temperature variability over the last 500 to 2000 years. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals a steep increase in the rate or spatial extent of warming since the mid-19th to early 20th centuries. When compared to the most recent decades of the instrumental record, they indicate the temperatures of the most recent decades are the warmest in the entire record. In addition, warmer than average temperatures are more widespread over the Northern Hemisphere in the 20th century than in any previous time.

The similarity of characteristics among the different paleoclimatic reconstructions provides confidence in the following important conclusions:

1. Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.

2. The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

Source: National Climate Data Center

[ScottSA]

1. Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.

2. The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

url=http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html]Source: National Climate Data Center[/url]

None of which suggests manmade causation.

[Hollus]

IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorology Society, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences have all issued statements concluding the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling. President Bush recognizes human caused global warming. Steven Harper does. Prime Minister John Howard of Australia does. The EU does. etc.

Its globally excepted except for a few tin hat conspiracy nuts and petrol paid 'scientists'. Better cover yourself in tinfoil before those conspiring scientist have you buying their books and shopping for hybrids. LOL.

[bush_cheney2004]

President Bush recognizes human caused global warming. Steven Harper does. Prime Minister John Howard of Australia does. The EU does. etc.

President Bush also said there were WMDs in Iraq.

[ScottSA]

IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorology Society, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences have all issued statements concluding the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling. President Bush recognizes human caused global warming. Steven Harper does. Prime Minister John Howard of Australia does. The EU does. etc.

Its globally excepted except for a few tin hat conspiracy nuts and petrol paid 'scientists'. Better cover yourself in tinfoil before those conspiring scientist have you buying their books and shopping for hybrids. LOL.

Actually, about half of those you cited believe no such thing.

[Hollus]

President Bush also said there were WMDs in Iraq.

Ya, but this time he's got the whole world behind him.

[gc1765]

President Bush also said there were WMDs in Iraq.

Don't laugh, a lot of people still think there were WMDs in Iraq...

[bush_cheney2004]

Ya, but this time he's got the whole world behind him.

Oh, so when President Bush backs your cause, he is suddenly credible?

[bush_cheney2004]

President Bush also said there were WMDs in Iraq.

Don't laugh, a lot of people still think there were WMDs in Iraq...

And a lot of people believe Don Rumsfeld delivered them and has the receipts.

[speaker]

The globe could do with a little more cool.

[Hollus]

Ya, but this time he's got the whole world behind him.

Oh, so when President Bush backs your cause, he is suddenly credible?

It was a joke dumb ass.

Bush had to face up to the facts considering the scientific consensus.

[bush_cheney2004]

It was a joke dumb ass.

Bush had to face up to the facts considering the scientific consensus.

Yes...it is a joke.

[Hollus]

IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorology Society, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Sciences have all issued statements concluding the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling. President Bush recognizes human caused global warming. Steven Harper does. Prime Minister John Howard of Australia does. The EU does. etc.

Its globally excepted except for a few tin hat conspiracy nuts and petrol paid 'scientists'. Better cover yourself in tinfoil before those conspiring scientist have you buying their books and shopping for hybrids. LOL.

Actually, about half of those you cited believe no such thing.

Your funny.

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf]National Academy of Sciences[/url]

American Meteorological Society

American Geophysical Union

American Association for the Advancement of Sciences

President Bush discusses Global Climate Change

Steven Harper Discusses Global Climate Change

Australia Recognizes Human-Driven Global Warming

Europa on Climate Change

Better get in yer tin foil bunker. The whole worlds trying to trick you. LOL

[ScottSA]

Your funny.

[President Bush discusses Global Climate Change

Better get in yer tin foil bunker. The whole worlds trying to trick you. LOL

Yuck yuck. I only bothered to check one of your links, because I know from previous experience the level of intellectual sloppiness you usually employ in these debates, and lo and behold, Bush says no such thing. Unless I'm missing something, he doesn't even come close to claiming that humans cause GW. In fact, the entire citation is a condemnation of Kyoto. Oops. Maybe you should read your links before posting them?

I have no doubt that a number of the other links you supplied are suspect, and that some do indeed support the claims you make, in varying degrees and with numerous caveats. Just as I am sure I could google up a number of equally credible organizations admitting that the evidence is simply not there.

Your is spelled "you're" in this context, but I don't suppose they teach that in Lemming school?

[gc1765]

Yuck yuck. I only bothered to check one of your links, because I know from previous experience the level of intellectual sloppiness you usually employ in these debates, and lo and behold, Bush says no such thing. Unless I'm missing something, he doesn't even come close to claiming that humans cause GW. In fact, the entire citation is a condemnation of Kyoto. Oops. Maybe you should read your links before posting them?

Actually, the link says this:

"Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution."

You're right, maybe Bush thinks the substantial increase in carbon dioxide levels since the industrial revolution have nothing to do with humans

...and in case you don't know how to use Google, here's another Link

"Listen, I recognize the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," said Bush."

[Hollus]

HAAAHahahahahhaha.... Pricless... Oh and thanks for the spelling tip Scott, it's the most credible piece of information I've seen you provide to date.

[Canapathy]

1. Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.

2. The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

url=http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html]Source: National Climate Data Center[/url]

None of which suggests manmade causation.

The fact that atmospheric carbon levels have risen 35% since humans started burning fossil fuels around 150 years ago, but were relatively stable for the previousl several thousand years does at least suggest a manmade cause.

[ScottSA]

Yuck yuck. I only bothered to check one of your links, because I know from previous experience the level of intellectual sloppiness you usually employ in these debates, and lo and behold, Bush says no such thing. Unless I'm missing something, he doesn't even come close to claiming that humans cause GW. In fact, the entire citation is a condemnation of Kyoto. Oops. Maybe you should read your links before posting them?

Actually, the link says this:

"Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution."

You're right, maybe Bush thinks the substantial increase in carbon dioxide levels since the industrial revolution have nothing to do with humans

...and in case you don't know how to use Google, here's another Link

"Listen, I recognize the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," said Bush."

Squirm as you will, the link you supplied doesn't come close to saying what you claim it said. In any event, since you and the lefty brigades spend all your time dissing Bush, why would you cite him as an expert on global warming?

[ScottSA]

1. Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.

2. The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.

url=http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html]Source: National Climate Data Center[/url]

None of which suggests manmade causation.

The fact that atmospheric carbon levels have risen 35% since humans started burning fossil fuels around 150 years ago, but were relatively stable for the previousl several thousand years does at least suggest a manmade cause.

No it doesn't. It suggests that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen. The link between that and GW is specious at best and does nothing whatsoever to explain much more extreme fluctuations in temperature in the past, before and since the entrance of man onto the world stage. One thing we can be reasonably sure of is that the industrial revolution has nothing to do with the current GW on other planets.

[gc1765]

Squirm as you will, the link you supplied doesn't come close to saying what you claim it said.

The link I provided was

This One

""Listen, I recognize the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," said Bush."

If you can't see where he says humans are contributing to the problem, I can't help you.

In any event, since you and the lefty brigades spend all your time dissing Bush, why would you cite him as an expert on global warming?

I never said he was an expert on global warming, I was simply pointing out to you that you were wrong...and in the same post where you chastised someone else for being wrong, who actually turned out to be correct

[ScottSA]

Squirm as you will, the link you supplied doesn't come close to saying what you claim it said.

The link I provided was

This One

""Listen, I recognize the surface of the Earth is warmer, and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," said Bush."

If you can't see where he says humans are contributing to the problem, I can't help you.

In any event, since you and the lefty brigades spend all your time dissing Bush, why would you cite him as an expert on global warming?

I never said he was an expert on global warming, I was simply pointing out to you that you were wrong...and in the same post where you chastised someone else for being wrong, who actually turned out to be correct

You jumped into the argument in defence of Hollus, and I assumed you were Hollus. The link Hollus provided did not say what he claimed it said. He didn't read it before he posted it.

[Hollus]

[

You jumped into the argument in defence of Hollus, and I assumed you were Hollus. The link Hollus provided did not say what he claimed it said. He didn't read it before he posted it.

HA! Your the idiot who claimed he didnt support the idea. I absolutely read the article where Bush cites the National Academy of Sciences and states how there has been a dramatic increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution. What the hell do you think he was saying? But even if I hadnt read it, does it change the fact that your talking out of your ass and shitting out of your mouth? No it doesnt. And it was not about citing Bush as an 'expert' on global warming, it was pointing out that even he- the leader of the administration that for so long fought against the idea- now accepts it. How friggin dense are you?

[B. Max]

B Max, Do you realize that your little joke means you are probably a Marxist at heart? I'm sure Zeppo would be proud of you, hold on a second I have to twist my arm around to a more comfortable position, oh ah there we go, I'm going to have to get a mattress underneath my bed.

No that's not what makes a Marxist.

It isn't weather changing that worries me, It really isn't global warming that worries me. If anything it would be the side effects, or as mentioned in this quote from a scientist who has difficulties with the IPCC work ,,

We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring? Kevin Trenberth, Climate Analysis Section, NCAR

His concerns about the shortcomings of modelling agm have been widely quoted by deniers as "proof" that the IPCC doesn't know what they are doing. But when he gets down to cases the point he is making is that while we can always use more study and better methodology, that doesn't detract from the very serious threat to our way of life and our economic system from global warming.

The climate is always changing, but you can't plan for something when you don't know what change there may or may not be. No matter what changes, or if there are no changes. Wrecking the econmy is not a good plan.

[ScottSA]

[

You jumped into the argument in defence of Hollus, and I assumed you were Hollus. The link Hollus provided did not say what he claimed it said. He didn't read it before he posted it.

HA! Your the idiot who claimed he didnt support the idea. I absolutely read the article where Bush cites the National Academy of Sciences and states how there has been a dramatic increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution. What the hell do you think he was saying? But even if I hadnt read it, does it change the fact that your talking out of your ass and shitting out of your mouth? No it doesnt. And it was not about citing Bush as an 'expert' on global warming, it was pointing out that even he- the leader of the administration that for so long fought against the idea- now accepts it. How friggin dense are you?

In the interests of saving you from walking around with a glowing dunce hat, here's what you originally said:

"...have all issued statements concluding the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling."

Here's the argument you're now trying to flog as if it was the original one:

"there has been a dramatic increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution."

Let's see if you can figure out the difference between those two statements. It shouldn't be hard, since it's the main point of debate in the whole GW debate. Go for it!