Global Warming is over.

[parkerbink]

This is the P&R subsection but no agenda involved from this post.

To say 400ppm is "nothing" is like saying you can walk through a cloud of mustard has and just because you didn't notice the odor, you won't sustain injury or even pass completely.

Try using 400ppm less ZDDP in your m20 oil and report back, in even 5yr.

GW isn't a "sky is falling" attitude, but in case you missed the point, it is fact, we are contributing as anthropolics, and just because it doesn't happen in your life time, it IS a measurable and quantified situation that is exponential AND quantifiable.

If co2 and c1o1 are not a big deal, then run your car in a garage with the door closed, or crawl in a box, make it air right, then report back after you reach 400ppm

The planet is a closed system. Just like you garage, or box will be.


Spouting out about non tangible evidence is just trolling.

I hate to do it, because I'm actually all about being pissed off at the global warming deniers, however...

gwb didn't say 400ppm was nothing, nor did he deny the existence of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, he simply stated that there is no defined concentration of CO2 (at least as far as I'm aware) that would with 100% certainty create a rise in global temperatures. You might not agree, but that is what he said.

Additionally, none of your examples have any correlation to global warming. The content of ZDDP in motor oil has no relation to warming of an atmosphere.

The poisonous nature to humans of CO2 and CO in a closed space like a garage has nothing to do with global temperatures rising.

If we were arguing that these gasses are harmful to humans and other organisms at certain concentrations, I would say your examples are valid, however, the whole point that gwb is arguing is that it can't be determined whether these gasses are THE variable that has made global temperatures rise. Your examples don't actually touch on that argument.


It's stuff like this that deniers eat up because people try to create correlations that aren't actually there and then scream from the hilltops about impending doom.

As I stated at the beginning, I'm certainly interested in reducing emissions and preparing a better world for tomorrow's generations, but if we're going to create an argument at least make it one that would stand up in a middle school mock trial.

You both make excellent points (I am happy, no grateful to have an actual conversation) but gwb has said over and over (not that post) that (A) there is no climate change & (B) Mankind is not causing any changes to the planet's ecology.

He "backs" these assertions up with fringe, paid for by petrochemical companies "research" That has next to no basis in reality and when one attempts to converse intelligently he calls people names or otherwise attacks.

I believe there is excellent research that asserts the climate is changing and that post-industrial age mankind has a role in those changes.

[Schnitzer318is]

I hate to do it, because I'm actually all about being pissed off at the global warming deniers, however...

gwb didn't say 400ppm was nothing, nor did he deny the existence of higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, he simply stated that there is no defined concentration of CO2 (at least as far as I'm aware) that would with 100% certainty create a rise in global temperatures. You might not agree, but that is what he said.

Additionally, none of your examples have any correlation to global warming. The content of ZDDP in motor oil has no relation to warming of an atmosphere.

The poisonous nature to humans of CO2 and CO in a closed space like a garage has nothing to do with global temperatures rising.

If we were arguing that these gasses are harmful to humans and other organisms at certain concentrations, I would say your examples are valid, however, the whole point that gwb is arguing is that it can't be determined whether these gasses are THE variable that has made global temperatures rise. Your examples don't actually touch on that argument.

It's stuff like this that deniers eat up because people try to create correlations that aren't actually there and then scream from the hilltops about impending doom.

Go back through his previous posts on the matter.

... the whole point that gwb is arguing is that it can't be determined whether these gasses are THE variable that has made global temperatures rise.

It can, and it has. He, and other deniers, don't believe the data.

Seriously, Merchants of Doubt should be required viewing for all middle school students. No matter which side of the fence you fall, it will at least show them how to check and verify their sources before forming a point of view.

[ForcedFirebird]

Yeah, got diarrhea of the keyboard and started rambling. Should't post after a cocktail, either. :/

It's things that he is implying such as NASA has an agenda about global warming, pulling these obscure links from non credible sources, and basically following the flat earthers mentality. We know the globe is warming, it's not difficult with modern technology to look at satellite imagery of the Earth and see what has happened over the last 20 years, and the result of it. Sure, it's been warming since the last ice age, and we know greenhouse gasses are rising and once the runaway effect starts happening when the ice is nearly gone, the world "may" end, but no where in this thread did I notice a "chicken little" attitude from any global warming supporters.

Science is science, and people don't normally go out to seek information just to support a political view, it's typically because they want to know the truth for themselves - my oldest going to college, I started hitting up the books and lectures, so been keeping up on current events/discoveries. In my mind, it's not a overly difficult experiment to fill a glass bulb with particular gasses and measure the outcome. Has nothing to do with computer modeling, predicting the future, or saying the sky is falling, it's about fact.

Just can't gather if he is trolling, or actually in denial that any scientific evidence could be fact, even when several are studying independently and result collaborate (aka peer-supported).

I guess in all cases we will have far left/right and a whole bunch of grey in the middle, just get irked at the "nope, not true because I say so" attitude.

[parkerbink]

Yeah, got diarrhea of the keyboard and started rambling. Should't post after a cocktail, either. :/

It's things that he is implying such as NASA has an agenda about global warming, pulling these obscure links from non credible sources, and basically following the flat earthers mentality. We know the globe is warming, it's not difficult with modern technology to look at satellite imagery of the Earth and see what has happened over the last 20 years, and the result of it. Sure, it's been warming since the last ice age, and we know greenhouse gasses are rising and once the runaway effect starts happening when the ice is nearly gone, the world "may" end, but no where in this thread did I notice a "chicken little" attitude from any global warming supporters.

Science is science, and people don't normally go out to seek information just to support a political view, it's typically because they want to know the truth for themselves - my oldest going to college, I started hitting up the books and lectures, so been keeping up on current events/discoveries. In my mind, it's not a overly difficult experiment to fill a glass bulb with particular gasses and measure the outcome. Has nothing to do with computer modeling, predicting the future, or saying the sky is falling, it's about fact.

Just can't gather if he is trolling, or actually in denial that any scientific evidence could be fact, even when several are studying independently and result collaborate (aka peer-supported).

I guess in all cases we will have far left/right and a whole bunch of grey in the middle, just get irked at the "nope, not true because I say so" attitude.

This 100% & thanks for putting it "on paper"


The Earth will die in 3-5 billion years from one of several factors (Sun dying, asteroid strike, cosmic ray blast etc), yadda yadda yadda OR we will destroy it sooner.

I never suggested climate change was going to kill us BUT we ought to do something about a situation we can see is happening. For me, it is like if a hurricane is coming, you have a few days to gtfo but invariably some asshat stays and then is whining when he needs rescuing (putting others at risk)

Let's not watch the climate hurricane hit us is all I am saying.

[Schnitzer318is]

The Earth will die in 3-5 billion years from one of several factors (Sun dying, asteroid strike, cosmic ray blast etc), yadda yadda yadda OR we will destroy it sooner.

Understand your point, and agree. But we won't destroy the earth. We may make it uninhabitable for humans (and a whole host of other species) and kill ourselves off. But as the great Ian Malcom once said, "Life finds a way."

[parkerbink]

Understand your point, and agree. But we won't destroy the earth. We may make it uninhabitable for humans (and a whole host of other species) and kill ourselves off. But as the great Ian Malcom once said, "Life finds a way."

I meant making it unlivable for us (and mammals/other creatures that need silly things like light, oxygen/potable water etc)

[mbonder]

Go back through his previous posts on the matter.



It can, and it has. He, and other deniers, don't believe the data.

Seriously, Merchants of Doubt should be required viewing for all middle school students. No matter which side of the fence you fall, it will at least show them how to check and verify their sources before forming a point of view.

Oh I know what gwb is arguing, and I'm not saying that I support his argument, I was just pointing out that people need to make sure their rebuttals to him are on target.

Firebird I'm glad to see you didn't take my comment as too harsh, because I did go back and think, maybe I need to edit the end of that out.

Parker, I like the hurricane analogy, I think that's fitting. Much like the weather patterns, we don't really completely know what causes them, but we can see the dark clouds in the distance and think, maybe it's going to rain...I feel this way about greenhouse gas emissions and the changing climate. We might not know exactly what is causing this, but the more extreme weather recently has me looking at the whole thing going, maybe it's going to rain...

[ForcedFirebird]

I can set a clock to afternoon shower summertime in FL. Lol.

[z31maniac]

Oh I know what gwb is arguing, and I'm not saying that I support his argument, I was just pointing out that people need to make sure their rebuttals to him are on target.

Firebird I'm glad to see you didn't take my comment as too harsh, because I did go back and think, maybe I need to edit the end of that out.

Parker, I like the hurricane analogy, I think that's fitting. Much like the weather patterns, we don't really completely know what causes them, but we can see the dark clouds in the distance and think, maybe it's going to rain...I feel this way about greenhouse gas emissions and the changing climate. We might not know exactly what is causing this, but the more extreme weather recently has me looking at the whole thing going, maybe it's going to rain...

Yep just I think 2 weeks ago, we almost set a record in OK for the latest into the season without a tornado.

Then on that day 70 touched down in Oklahoma.

[parkerbink]

Look at the fact there have been several "once in 100-year" storms over the last few years. That is abnormal. Something is happening.

We can stick out heads in the sand or we can try to do something positive for our children's children's children is all I'm saying.

I'm older, I will not live to see horrible changes (or Social Security run out) I'm really thinking of the next several generations here.

On second thought, everyone do what you like, just remember I told you so when you live with Kevin Kostner on Water Word.

lol

[cale]

Reality will be as much of a dismal failure as the movie was.

In reality though, we'll be able to engineer our way around some massive changes to our environment. If it even goes so far as growing crops in what's currently tundra, the wealthier nations of the world will make do. Not exactly a bright future though...

[ForcedFirebird]

Miami Beach is a good example of the "Waterword" scenario. Seeing my shop (~20mi north of MB) is 13' above sea level and my home 10mi inland is 16', it's a bit nerve racking knowing that the ocean has already reached our fresh water table and spring tides are now crossing A1A and flooding beach homes. This was a non issue even just 5 years ago.

[gwb72tii]

Oh I know what gwb is arguing, and I'm not saying that I support his argument, I was just pointing out that people need to make sure their rebuttals to him are on target.

Firebird I'm glad to see you didn't take my comment as too harsh, because I did go back and think, maybe I need to edit the end of that out.

Parker, I like the hurricane analogy, I think that's fitting. Much like the weather patterns, we don't really completely know what causes them, but we can see the dark clouds in the distance and think, maybe it's going to rain...I feel this way about greenhouse gas emissions and the changing climate. We might not know exactly what is causing this, but the more extreme weather recently has me looking at the whole thing going, maybe it's going to rain...

Thank you for an intelligent response.

Some here accuse me of quoting fringe sources, yet when i link to scientists like Spencer, Lintzen, Christy etc, all knowledgeable in climate science I am derided as "fringe". Fringe for not agreeing with the "consensus"?

Nowhere have I stated the planet is not warming and pollution is a good thing (CO2 is not a pollutant). None of you know me personally, and if you did you'd see I'm probably more environmentally oriented than most on this blog.

Nowhere is there any scientific proof that shows CO2 is the driver of AGW. I am not saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. All we have are studies and models that hypothesize CO2 as the culprit, but there are peer review studies showing CO2 lagging a warming climate. Obviously some here feel strongly one way or another. I'm pointing out there is more than one point of view from those qualified to have a scientific opinion on the matter.

Troll? meh. Only to those that have little basis for a rebuttal other than calling names and unable to see a different point of view.

Maybe I'm older than a lot of you (probably). Maybe I've seen all this before and you haven't. I'm not saying I am right, I may not be. But the pro AGW argument is full of holes, and anyone that argues settled science knows nothing about science.

[parkerbink]

Thank you for an intelligent response.

Some here accuse me of quoting fringe sources, yet when i link to scientists like Spencer, Lintzen, Christy etc, all knowledgeable in climate science I am derided as "fringe". Fringe for not agreeing with the "consensus"?

Nowhere have I stated the planet is not warming and pollution is a good thing (CO2 is not a pollutant). None of you know me personally, and if you did you'd see I'm probably more environmentally oriented than most on this blog.

Nowhere is there any scientific proof that shows CO2 is the driver of AGW. I am not saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. All we have are studies and models that hypothesize CO2 as the culprit, but there are peer review studies showing CO2 lagging a warming climate. Obviously some here feel strongly one way or another. I'm pointing out there is more than one point of view from those qualified to have a scientific opinion on the matter.

Troll? meh. Only to those that have little basis for a rebuttal other than calling names and unable to see a different point of view.

Maybe I'm older than a lot of you (probably). Maybe I've seen all this before and you haven't. I'm not saying I am right, I may not be. But the pro AGW argument is full of holes, and anyone that argues settled science knows nothing about science.

I have never seen (until now) a post from you that was open to the possibility there are man made causes to climate change.

Settled science? Many refute the Earth is round & say evolution is a theory. There are a lot of things that seem settled that are not. I don't recall anyone saying man causes the current climate change and it's 100% settled.

I am open to discussing the causes and hear reasons we are not at fault BUT are you open to the possibility we are?

Is it possible while we may not be 100% "to blame" but that we are exacerbating a current warming trend that is natural?

As far as the scientists you name, while they seem to have good credentials, spencer is a known climate denier:

Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_blog.htm

I did not look up the rest as I just don't feel the need to.

Can you at least agree since the '70s there has been a huge loss of polar ice & a rise in sea levels as well as mean temperatures?

[gwb72tii]

As far as the scientists you name, while they seem to have good credentials, spencer is a known climate denier:

Climate Misinformer: Roy Spencer

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy_Spencer_blog.htm

I did not look up the rest as I just don't feel the need to.

and this is exactly why it's impossible to have any conversation with you about this subject.