Global Warming is over.

[nando]

Ill just throw this out there: scientists don't fully understand how gravity works, and the models are not complete. Yet, nobody denies that gravity exists.

At least, I hope not.

[rwh11385]

Wellp, not only is the EU making fraudulant claims, they've also already decided what our future will be.
If these demands don't make you shiver (living here or not) and if you are too blind to see the ideological shift of a whole society, than you are probably missing a large portion of your brain.
Yes I write demands, because these things will be dictated, not discussed and certainly not voted on by the society as a whole.



1a. Buying and using an electric car
1b. Buying and using an plug-in hybrid
2. Buying and using a smaller car
3. Fuel efficient driving style
4. Teleworking
5. Virtual meetings
6a. Reduction of room temperature by 1°C
6b. Reduction of room temperature by 2°C
7. Optimised thermostat settings
8. Optimised ventilation behaviour
9. Shift to a vegetarian diet
10. Reduction of animal protein intake (one animal protein-free day per week)
11. Shift to a healthy diet







Sure, let's drive hybrids and eat wheat while we slowly die out.



Meanwhile we're in a Demolition Man scenario, countries that don't give a rat's ass can continue breeding.

I hope you are aware that your post is pretty much the definition of Argument from Consequences and does nothing to refute global warming science.


From the paragraph, it seemed like those were suggestions (potential and use of the word if) - and suggestions that people here are adopting (at least programmable T-stat, lowered temperatures, telecommuting and Webex, switching to smaller cars which were not as popular 10 years ago). And animal protein has an obvious impact on GHG, but doubt diets here will change that much - and demand for it is only aimed to grow as middle class grows in the large developing countries. Same thing with A/C and demand for comfort in those same places. And global demand for cars... But wise thermostat-usage can save companies money as well as households - and can easily be market-driven instead of policy-forced.


The real impact will be game-changing technology, like Joule Unlimited's if it hopefully works and is commericalized. Or companies continuing to innovate with superior analytical abilities to make more fuel-efficient cars and trucks (like the Trailer Tail that gives big fuel savings).

[Fusion]

Why does everything have to be an argument? I'm stating something related to the topic.
Actually, any debate about AGW is basically useless now that governments have fully implemented their agenda. I highly doubt any change in the scientific data (either way) would have impact on the bureaucracy.

switching to smaller cars which were not as popular 10 years ago

Not true in Europe.

[rwh11385]

Why does everything have to be an argument? I'm stating something related to the topic.
Actually, any debate about AGW is basically useless now that governments have fully implemented their agenda. I highly doubt any change in the scientific data (either way) would have impact on the bureaucracy.

Because it's you and your contributions so far as been that you hate the government AGW regulations so therefore it must be creating false science to back it.

Not true in Europe.

Try reading the rest of the sentence and not just taking things out of context:

suggestions that people here are adopting (at least programmable T-stat, lowered temperatures, telecommuting and Webex, switching to smaller cars which were not as popular 10 years ago).

I used to do market research on the European car market while I worked over there, so I was well aware there was a more developed and popular A and B segment than in the US, and we've just been working to adopt smaller cars when gas prices shot up. Part of the reason I think the US finally got the updated Focus.



Anyway, not just Joule Unlimited working on turning CO2 into fuel: http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp-conte...2009-5796P.pdf

[cale]

Actually, any debate about AGW is basically useless now that governments have fully implemented their agenda.

So do you not care that what you believe to be true is swept under the rug if it's not going to make a political difference? Speaking of agendas...

[gwb72tii]

Smoke all you'd like too, apparently it's not bad jokes, I don't argue offline. So much more difficult when you can't google a subject 5 minutes before being an expert on it

Just watched the PBS bit Herb. Had a good snicker to myself every time they addressed an argument that had been brought up in this thread, and there were quite a few of them. Proof that the resident deniers are either experts on the subject, or just damned good at parroting what the current spokesperson for ignorance has fed to them. Oh to be so easily manipulated...I wish you were all 18 year old girls.

yada yada yada LOLOLOLLLLOLOl

but hey, how about those SF Giants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[u3b3rg33k]

Ill just throw this out there: scientists don't fully understand how gravity works, and the models are not complete. Yet, nobody denies that gravity exists.

Gravity is a lie. Things stick to the earth because god wants them to. That's why rockets make it into space - god knows they're evil and wants them off the planet.

Logic. Using it in arguments is awesome.

[purple haze]

Dey took our jooobs!!!

[gwb72tii]

this just in
a complete list of the affects of AGW

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

[BraveUlysses]

I'm pretty sure you have already trolled this thread more than once with that link.

[gwb72tii]

I'm pretty sure you have already trolled this thread more than once with that link.

you really cannot so any critical thinking can you?
maybe 16 yeas old? too funny.

[BraveUlysses]

Yes, that website from 1996 full of newspaper quotes is really impressive and deserves a extensive discussion.

[cale]

this just in
a complete list of the affects of AGW
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Not sure if srs

[BraveUlysses]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/climate-models-get-smarter-but-uncertainty-just-wont-go-away/

Climate models get smarter, but uncertainty just won't go away
The projections in the new IPCC report won't be much more precise than the last.

It's been five years since the last report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the organization is currently preparing its fifth assessment report (AR5). These reports provide both an update on what we've learned about the climate in the intervening years and projections for likely future climates based on that new understanding.

Those projections are powered by climate models. Starting with AR4, those projections were based on the work of the World Climate Research Programme. This group identifies the current climate models from a variety of institutions, and runs them under a variety of emissions scenarios. Then, the WCRP collects the results of multiple runs from the ensemble of climate models, and uses that to predict the likely climate change and remaining uncertainties.

You might expect the progress made during the intervening five years would greatly narrow the uncertainties since the last report. If so, get ready for disappointment. A pair of researchers from ETH Zurich has compared the results from AR4 with the ones that will be coming out in AR5, and they find that the uncertainties haven't gone down much. And, somewhat ironically, they blame the improvements—as researchers are able to add more factors to their models, each new factor comes with its own uncertainties, which keeps the models from narrowing in on a value.

The model comparisons are run by the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, or CMIP ("coupled" refers to treating the ocean and atmosphere as a linked system). CMIP3, confusingly, was a run of the models to prepare for the IPCC AR4. The groups have since synchronized, and CMIP5 will be part of AR5.

The number of changes, some brought about by increased computing power, are staggering. More models are used, including some from entirely new sources. Additional forcings are included in many of them (at the time of AR3, several of the models assumed solar and volcanic forcings were constant). All models now include both the direct effects of aerosols (which reflect sunlight) as well as their indirect effects, including changes in clouds and precipitation. In addition, the models are now run at a much finer spatial resolution, since advances in computing power allow more calculations to be used in each model run.

An exact comparison between the two different sets of models is made challenging by the fact the IPCC has changed the details of its CO2 emissions scenarios. But, as best they could, the authors managed to compare the projections of the two sets of models.

When it comes to temperatures, the CMIP3 and 5 are in rough agreement as to the magnitude and regional details on future warming. But the areas where the models produce inconsistent results is actually larger in the updated version, with an area southeast of Greenland remaining difficult to predict all the way out to the end of the century. Predicted precipitation changes are similar, with areas of uncertain predictions growing as the century wore for both CMIP3 and 5 (they're concentrated around the equator). Although the new models seem to have fewer areas of uncertainty, they now have one sitting on top of a major agricultural area: North America's Great Plains.

How can we improve the models yet have them produce more uncertainty? The authors have a long list of reasons. Some of these are systemic: limited processing time, lack of detailed data to test the models against, and a lack of clear metrics to judge the success of a given model. Others focus more on the nature of climate change itself: forcings we haven't identified, and a degree of natural variation. But the authors suspect that at least some of the problem boils down to researchers using their increased computational capacity to add even more factors into their models:

In contrast to end users, who would define model quality on the basis of prediction accuracy, climate model developers often judge their models to be better if the processes are represented in more detail. Thus, the new models are likely to be better in the sense of being physically more plausible, but it is difficult to quantify the impact of that on projection accuracy

In other words, climatologists are building their models to best reflect what we know about the natural world. They're not building them to be the most effective means of making predictions for the future of specific regions of the globe. And, at least partly as a result, the models scientists use capture a great deal of uncertainty in our understanding of the climate. But that's a problem for policymakers, who could use specific predictions to act on.

In any case, given a similar set of emissions, the new set of models seems to behave very much like the old one, with temperatures rising by over 4°C by the end of the century when emissions continue unabated. Even when taking uncertainties into account, it's difficult to keep that change under 3°C without significant changes to our fossil fuels habit.

[u3b3rg33k]

Eh. As far as I'm concerned, global warming isn't real until scientists start serving jail time for it.


But seriously, say we stop all human related climate change. Who's to say that the earth isn't going to get warmer anyways? humans seem to LOVE the status quo like bad romance movies, but the earth is not a fishbowl. Rivers move (unless you pour cement riverbanks)



That'll teach mother nature...