Global Warming is over.

[herbivor]

2.4-4.0C temp rise
.2-.59M sea level rise
Ocean acidity is increasing from ph8.1 to 7.7-7.9
9-31% species committed to extinction
all corals expected to become bleached
47% rainforest loss, 50% tundra loss, corals to be ovverun with algea

woops.

That's depressing, especially since you can see much of that happening currently. I know what will make it less depressing, pretending it doesn't exist and there is nothing we can do about it. I feel better already.

[gwb72tii]

maybe cale, just maybe, its because of the shit the alarmist side employs in their unending campaign to rule our collective lives

1. there is no scientific proof CO2 has caused the current very small global warming since the 1880's
2. there is no scientific proof CO2 causes global warming at all, but lots of scientific data gathered that supports CO2 rising AFTER warming has occured
3. your mathematical models all start with the assumption CO2 is the driver of warming, which is back asswards from how the models should be constructed. further, your models do not account for water vapor or the sun, the two largest drivers of climate change, which is, frankly, un fucking believable (and admited to by non other than pielke himself)
4. your side is funded, massively, by groups with a pro-anthropogenic global warming bias. a bias that is almost 100% POLITICAL in its aims and uses the alarmist propoganda as a means to an end.

[herbivor]

maybe cale, just maybe, its because of the shit the alarmist side employs in their unending campaign to rule our collective lives

1. there is no scientific proof CO2 has caused the current very small global warming since the 1880's. Yes there is proof.
2. there is no scientific proof CO2 causes global warming at all, but lots of scientific data gathered that supports CO2 rising AFTER warming has occured. Yes there is proof.
3. your mathematical models all start with the assumption CO2 is the driver of warming, which is back asswards from how the models should be constructed. further, your models do not account for water vapor or the sun, the two largest drivers of climate change, which is, frankly, un fucking believable. I don't think you understand sophisticated climate modeling and its complexities, but neither do I, because I'm not a climatologists. So only a climatologist can be worthy of critiquing the modeling, which you are not, so please stop.
4. your side is funded, massively, by groups with a pro-anthropogenic global warming bias. a bias that is almost 100% POLITICAL in its aims and uses the alarmist propoganda as a means to an end. This is nice conspiracy hypothesis, brought to you by Donor's Trust, but it is completely false.

So I take you haven't watched or never plan to watch the PBS documentary.

[nando]

Washington set a record for the most rain in 24 hours on Monday. Bremerton got something like 5" of rain in one day.

Even in a state where developing good storm drainange is a major priority, the system was overwhelmed and streets flooded everywhere. towns near the ocean flooded because there was no where for the water to go (I guess a few inches of sea level rise must matter after all huh?).

How many more records do we need to set before GWB opens his eyes?

[gwb72tii]

herbal, you have basically the same understanding as i do re AGW, so perhaps you could look in the mirror next time you care to shout and ask yourself , not being a climatologist and all, whether or not you should post about AGW at all

[gwb72tii]

Washington set a record for the most rain in 24 hours on monday. Bremerton got something like 5" of rain in one day.

How many more records do we need to set before GWB opens his eyes?

oh noes, the world is coming to an end
you do realize nando we had below average temps this summer, right?
its fucking FREEZING

[nando]

uh, really? freezing? Where the hell did you spend your summer? it couldn't have been in WA.

we had .01" of rain from July to October. we would have broken the record easily for the longest period without rain but we got that .01" of rain in August.

[BraveUlysses]

just ban the troll already

[Kershaw]

herbal, you have basically the same understanding as i do re AGW, so perhaps you could look in the mirror next time you care to shout and ask yourself , not being a climatologist and all, whether or not you should post about AGW at all

Wait wait wait... Does this mean you're finally accepting the views of the climatologists on this matter?

[gwb72tii]

Wait wait wait... Does this mean you're finally accepting the views of the climatologists on this matter?

well yes, and i always have
but let me pre-empt your response
can we all please end the "consensus" bullshit
it has been debunked in many studies, there is no 97% consensus on anything related to GW

[gwb72tii]

just ban the troll already

amazing insight "brave"
as usual

[gwb72tii]

uh, really? freezing? Where the hell did you spend your summer? it couldn't have been in WA.

we had .01" of rain from July to October. we would have broken the record easily for the longest period without rain but we got that .01" of rain in August.

our summer was about as perfect as i could have been, except for the afternoon of rain and that it was about 5* below average temp

[herbivor]

herbal, you have basically the same understanding as i do re AGW, so perhaps you could look in the mirror next time you care to shout and ask yourself , not being a climatologist and all, whether or not you should post about AGW at all

Well, since we can at least agree that neither of us are experts, than wouldn't it be logical that we rely on the experts for our information? There is no debate amongst the experts as to whether AGW exists. The only debate is the one in your own head and amongst a group of non-experts which have as much qualifications as you and I. If you have heart disease, would you seek my expertise as a structural engineer, or that of a cardiologists? I know a thing or two about heart disease, but that doesn't mean you should listen to my advice or conspiracy theories about Lipitor and the drug companies.

[gwb72tii]

Well, since we can at least agree that neither of us are experts, than wouldn't it be logical that we rely on the experts for our information? There is no debate amongst the experts as to whether AGW exists. The only debate is the one in your own head and amongst a group of non-experts which have as much qualifications as you and I. If you have heart disease, would you seek my expertise as a structural engineer, or that of a cardiologists? I know a thing or two about heart disease, but that doesn't mean you should listen to my advice or conspiracy theories about Lipitor and the drug companies.

you need to get out more and read from skeptics instead of greenpeace promo articles
there are many, many cliamtologists, climate scientists, atmospheric scientists, that doubt AGW, and doubt CO2's supposed role in causing GW
they are there if you look!

[nando]

how many is "many many"? if there are 100 climate scientists, is the number then 3?