Global Cooling

[rwh11385]

as they say on ESPN radio

come on man.......

the basic physics is well founded in science, it's just that mother nature isn't cooperating with the "the world is coming to an end because CO2 has reached 400 parts per million" argument. ie the missing energy as rwh likes to put it. apparently the feedback mechanisms your side argues will result in catastrophic global warming aren't happening in the face of ever increasing CO2.

so why should anyone believe you guys anymore?
no statistical warming for 16 years, 10 months, yet the only theories that hold water are AGW

Ummmmm, the basic physics is well founded and this means that the greenhouse effect has been long established. As has the conservation of energy. The problem is that your assumptions contest the fundamental laws of science based solely on your complete lack of understanding of them, and lack of comprehension that energy doesn't disappear. The more GHGs = more energy per solar input is trapped = more energy stored = increase in mass * Cp * DT/dt (a.k.a. increase in temp). Now, if there was a period of lower solar activity, there would be less input but the mechanics of GHGs would still operate the same way.

How exactly do you explain the Earth increasing GHGs without an increase in energy [heat], for a given amount of solar input? References to ESPN radio and arguments from ignorance? Are you just pointlessly rambling while avoiding to answer anything meaningful because you are scared to confirm that you are a fool?

The content is obviously saying "The climate is getting cooler due to the sun, debunking everything AGW preached, but please, believe us that it'll keep warming after that, because Mann said so, and PLEASE don't stop funding us. Kthx."

The whole theory is failing.

Actually, if you paid attention in any of the pages of either of the global warming/cooling threads, you would have probably have seen the quote by James Hansen about solar activity influencing the annual temperatures which is included in climate science. So no, it hasn't debunked anything, unless you are completely ignorant and don't care about reality. The fact that solar activity varies does not eliminate the greenhouse effect, it simply has a lower baseline to multiply from. This was covered earlier on this very page: http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=138 It's not like you have to look far, you just have to be capable of reading, at all.

If you don't think the sun will be warmer in the future, might want to read this: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu...evolution.html

Obviously Devo is right and I agree that we need to prepare for eventual post-Earth colonization for the survival of the species... but increasing GHGs will only make matters worse. Of course, people who profit from dino fuel don't care about that or their grandchildren, just maintaining status quo by attacking science and protecting their current business.

gwb's level of analysis: If he agrees with the headline, it's worth posting. content be damned.

I'm not sure if he and Fusion are scientifically illiterate, or just simply illiterate.

[herbivor]

Obviously Devo is right and I agree that we need to prepare for eventual post-Earth colonization for the survival of the species

I think you put a lot of faith in technology and innovation. I tend to be more pessimistic only because much of our technological innovation so far has also caused much of the very problems that are contributing to our demise as a species. While it is theoretically possible to use even current technology to solve our problems, there are too many retards like Gwb and the religious that will prevent such actions.
I can't remember who suggested that perhaps the reason we haven't discovered intelligent life elsewhere is because the length of time an intelligent species exists is extremely small and therefore a rare and of short occurrence because by nature of being intelligent, the species will destroy their own environment.

[cale]

It's the final parameter of the drake equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

[herbivor]

It's the final parameter of the drake equation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Considering it was developed in the 1960s I think 'L' was assumed to be way too high. I'd guess 250 years tops at least or this planet and species. While the equation is a nice thought exercise, I'd agree with the critics that it is really unknowable and somewhat useless.

[Q5Quint]

well fuck me, it's the sun after all. who woulda known?

a new maunder minimum
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudso...ding-scientist

as they say on ESPN radio

come on man.......

the basic physics is well founded in science, it's just that mother nature isn't cooperating with the "the world is coming to an end because CO2 has reached 400 parts per million" argument. ie the missing energy as rwh likes to put it. apparently the feedback mechanisms your side argues will result in catastrophic global warming aren't happening in the face of ever increasing CO2.

so why should anyone believe you guys anymore?
no statistical warming for 16 years, 10 months, yet the only theories that hold water are AGW

Did you even read your own article? You need to take your pills again:

"It is worth stressing that most scientists believe long term global warming hasn’t gone away. Any global cooling caused by this natural phenomenon would ultimately be temporary, and if projections are correct, the long term warming caused by carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would eventually swamp this solar-driven cooling."

Do you want to re-read the last article you posted? You know the one where they predicted the el nino- la nina cycles would cause a pause in global warming before resuming the rapidly rising rate?

We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño. This overshoot is in the process of radiatively dissipating, and the climate will return to its earlier defined, greenhouse gas-forced warming signal. If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020. Of course, this contrasts sharply with other forecasts of the climate system; the purple line roughly indicates the model-based forecast of Smith et al. (2007) , suggesting with a warming of roughly 0.3 deg C over the 2005-2015 period.

Link to paper you misquoted in an effort to lie to us all and convince us the pause meant global warming was not real.

Oh that is right- you are trying to say it is the sun, AGAIN.

...
How exactly do you explain the Earth increasing GHGs without an increase in energy [heat], for a given amount of solar input? References to ESPN radio and arguments from ignorance? Are you just pointlessly rambling while avoiding to answer anything meaningful because you are scared to confirm that you are a fool?



Actually, if you paid attention in any of the pages of either of the global warming/cooling threads, you would have probably have seen the quote by James Hansen about solar activity influencing the annual temperatures which is included in climate science. So no, it hasn't debunked anything, unless you are completely ignorant and don't care about reality. The fact that solar activity varies does not eliminate the greenhouse effect, it simply has a lower baseline to multiply from. This was covered earlier on this very page: http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=138 It's not like you have to look far, you just have to be capable of reading, at all.

If you don't think the sun will be warmer in the future, might want to read this: http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu...evolution.html
....

You are a target of the spin, the trick, the biggest lie ever in history. You are a victim of the Southern Strategy, a sham playing off racism and middle class white power and fear and ignorance. You can not morally say that cutting off millions from welfare and leaving them on the streets is the right thing to do. You can not morally say that destroying our environment for corporate gain and leaving us coughing in our own pollution and sickness is the right thing to do. You can not morally say that giving tax cuts to 24 families, the 1%, and raising taxes on 900,000 of the poorest people in your state is the right thing to do. Ironically that is the opposite of what Reagan did- he is a LIBERAL compared to what our right-wingers are doing today.

Bill O'rielly said in the last election that 'the white establishment is now the minority'. Do you know why? Because even white people hate ignorant, racist, bigoted white people who think they deserve more than our women, our poor, our racial minorities, and our working class. This is why nearly 50% of voters are unaffiliated.

You continue to argue that global warming is not real with no scientific proof at all. Why? Is it to protect your interest in oil and money and greed of the few? Or is it to protect the people of our country from those who will exploit them?

One of those directions has a righteous and morally positive outlook, and I commend you if you really think that all these scientist are actually scheming together to screw over the people of our country. But.. BUT... if you have absolutely no research to back it up and are grasping at whisps of headlines to even partially validated your point... at some point don't you ask yourself if you are really sure you are on the right side? The morally right side, and not the spun propaganda side of the greed of the few?

[herbivor]

When they say it's hard to deprogram a cult member, gwb is an excellent example. Logic, proof and facts don't convince him. Only when his cult leaders say that it is ok to accept AGW as a fact, will he reconsider, but from anyone outside his cult, forget about it. You're wasting your time.

[Fusion]

You are a target of the spin, the trick, the biggest lie ever in history. You are a victim of the Southern Strategy, a sham playing off racism and middle class white power and fear and ignorance. You can not morally say that cutting off millions from welfare and leaving them on the streets is the right thing to do. You can not morally say that destroying our environment for corporate gain and leaving us coughing in our own pollution and sickness is the right thing to do. You can not morally say that giving tax cuts to 24 families, the 1%, and raising taxes on 900,000 of the poorest people in your state is the right thing to do. Ironically that is the opposite of what Reagan did- he is a LIBERAL compared to what our right-wingers are doing today.

Oh, so now anyone who doesn't agree with your failing theory is a racist, wealty, cotton farm owner and cult member.
At first I thought you just wanted to make this thread entertaining in awkward way.
Then I realised you're just following what your corrupt douchbag leader tells you. Good job. Atleast we made solid ground on who you look up to in this "science".
Heres his scientific view on AGW:

Speaking to Klein, Gore compared his decade-long struggle to have climate change accepted to the Sixties battle over civil rights and the current debate over gay rights.

“Well, I think the most important part of it is winning the conversation,” he said. “I remember as a boy when the conversation on civil rights was won in the South. I remember a time when one of my friends made a racist joke and another said, hey man, we don’t go for that anymore. The same thing happened on apartheid. The same thing happened on the nuclear arms race with the freeze movement. The same thing happened in an earlier era with abolition.

“A few months ago, I saw an article about two gay men standing in line for pizza and some homophobe made an ugly comment about them holding hands and everyone else in line told them to shut up. We’re winning that conversation.”

Gore added: "It’s like a family with an alcoholic father who flies into a rage every time a subject is mentioned and so everybody avoids the elephant in the room to keep the peace."

[rwh11385]

I think you put a lot of faith in technology and innovation. I tend to be more pessimistic only because much of our technological innovation so far has also caused much of the very problems that are contributing to our demise as a species. While it is theoretically possible to use even current technology to solve our problems, there are too many retards like Gwb and the religious that will prevent such actions.
I can't remember who suggested that perhaps the reason we haven't discovered intelligent life elsewhere is because the length of time an intelligent species exists is extremely small and therefore a rare and of short occurrence because by nature of being intelligent, the species will destroy their own environment.

Duh, but for good reason. Our modern lives have been greatly benefited by innovation in healthcare, transportation and energy, as well as communications. What problems are caused by technology that will bring the demise of our species? Nuclear weapons certainly have risked that, as have biological weapons. But in the grand scheme of things, is a technology that has enabled a lot of growth at some environmental cost for only a century and a half, and has a limited supply, completely irreplaceable by a new technology? I'd say no personally. There's a lot of vocal voices defending petroleum who have skin in the game or affiliated with those who do, but that does not mean its practical days aren't numbered. “The Stone Age didn't end because humanity ran out of stones.” I'm sure some people had issues with the whaling industry being the source of lamp oil and that problem was solved by kerosene. The whalers could have really hoped that there was never going to be something better but that denial didn't change their ultimate fate - becoming history.

Now does anyone honestly expect that there won't ever be a practical and more cost effective replacement for petroleum at some point in time?

In the history of science, there were people adamantly against heliocentricism, but eventually people came around. They too were defending their way of life or that of powers that they supported or were associated with. But in the long run, denying science doesn't work out for anything I can think of. Leeches and bloodletting didn't really survive modern medical science. The denial that heavier than air flight was possible was overturned, the assumption that that cars were a joke and wouldn't replace the horse is laughed at by the eventual reality.

[Fusion]

To make this even more entertaining, here's a couple fun facts about that dipshit. There are just times when using the race/lbgt card makes you look like a complete idiot.

- Gore's ancestry: Jacob Waggoner, b. ca. 1803, living Smith Co., Tenn. 1860 (owning 16 slaves), d. 1893
Lewis Stunston, b. Weakley Co., Tenn. 20 Oct. 1821, d. 5 Jan. 1896, living Weakley Co., Tenn. 1860 (owning 6 slaves), m1. 1845 Louiza Anderson, m2. Anna

- Gore (sr.) was one of only three Democratic senators from the 11 former Confederate states who did not sign the 1956 Southern Manifesto opposing integration, the other two being Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (who was not asked to sign) and Gore's fellow Tennessean Estes Kefauver, who refused to sign. South Carolina Senator J. Strom Thurmond tried to get Gore to sign the Southern Manifesto, Gore refused. Gore could not, however, be regarded as an out-and-out integrationist, having voted against some major civil rights legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He did support the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In those days, Democratic nomination was still tantamount to election in Tennessee since the Republican Party was more or less nonexistent in the South.

- After leaving Congress, Gore (sr.) resumed the practice of law with Occidental Petroleum and became vice president and member of the board of directors, taught law at Vanderbilt University 1970–1972. He became chairman of Island Creek Coal Co., Lexington, Kentucky, in 1972

I don't think I have to mention that Gore Jr. is a white millionaire in the top 1%, who sold a TV station to AlJazeera, owned by Qatari big oil dictators, and who I've seen do nothing with his ~$200mil for American minorities or lbgt.

'Hipocritical asshole' fits the guy nicely.

[Farbin Kaiber]

^like.

In before, but he is not his dad, as was used to distance the Sr. and Jr. BHOs.

[rwh11385]

I'm not sure how focusing on the politics of either side does anything to change the science of greenhouse gases or the conservation of energy, but knock yourself out hating on Gore. It's what you have done repeatedly and what everyone expects from you at this point. Being angry about EU policies or US pundits regarding climate change won't make the science debunked, just like ignoring gravity doesn't make it go away.

[Fusion]

I'm not the one using Gore's unethical rhetoric to make a point.
But go ahead rwh, write some more generic phrases about how this isn't a political issue to try and make Quint's post go away.
We've called each other various names in this dicussion, but accusing someone of being a white supremacist bigot in a climate debate is taking it one step too far.

I see no reason not to bring up Gore anyways. He is the 'AGW spokesperson', he's trying to save us from an apocalyspe, he has no logical argument to back that and he sees his plan crumbling so he's on a defensive ad hominem argument spree. So why shouldn't I bring him up?

[rwh11385]

I'm not the one using Gore's unethical rhetoric to make a point.
But go ahead rwh, write some more generic phrases about how this isn't a political issue to try and make Quint's post go away.
We've called each other various names in this dicussion, but accusing someone of being a white supremacist bigot in a climate debate is taking it one step too far.

But you are the only who said this (before Quint's post):

The content is obviously saying "The climate is getting cooler due to the sun, debunking everything AGW preached, but please, believe us that it'll keep warming after that, because Mann said so, and PLEASE don't stop funding us. Kthx."

The whole theory is failing.

And then never cared to reply to my response. Are you just here to troll and pick fights while completely ignoring that there is actually science at hand, not just politics? You can try to back up your claims instead of just simply excreting politics and ignorance, but based on past experience I would say it is doubtful.

I see no reason not to bring up Gore anyways. He is the 'AGW spokesperson', he's trying to save us from an apocalyspe, he has no logical argument to back that and he sees his plan crumbling so he's on a defensive ad hominem argument spree. So why shouldn't I bring him up?

You might want to think if there could possibly be a reason to have any understanding of science besides a hatred for Al Gore to claim that it is debunked. Attacking Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler didn't make the Earth the center of the solar system either just because the church didn't like their science. Likewise, arguing from ignorance and appeal to consequences doesn't invalidate science fundamentals upon which climate change is based and no one seems capable of refuting.

[herbivor]

Duh, but for good reason. Our modern lives have been greatly benefited by innovation in healthcare, transportation and energy, as well as communications. What problems are caused by technology that will bring the demise of our species? Nuclear weapons certainly have risked that, as have biological weapons. But in the grand scheme of things, is a technology that has enabled a lot of growth at some environmental cost for only a century and a half, and has a limited supply, completely irreplaceable by a new technology? I'd say no personally. There's a lot of vocal voices defending petroleum who have skin in the game or affiliated with those who do, but that does not mean its practical days aren't numbered. “The Stone Age didn't end because humanity ran out of stones.” I'm sure some people had issues with the whaling industry being the source of lamp oil and that problem was solved by kerosene. The whalers could have really hoped that there was never going to be something better but that denial didn't change their ultimate fate - becoming history.

Now does anyone honestly expect that there won't ever be a practical and more cost effective replacement for petroleum at some point in time?

In the history of science, there were people adamantly against heliocentricism, but eventually people came around. They too were defending their way of life or that of powers that they supported or were associated with. But in the long run, denying science doesn't work out for anything I can think of. Leeches and bloodletting didn't really survive modern medical science. The denial that heavier than air flight was possible was overturned, the assumption that that cars were a joke and wouldn't replace the horse is laughed at by the eventual reality.

I'm not denying science and technology are great things. But those great things they produce for the most part have contributed to the destruction of our environment. Environmental destruction created by man's intelligence is as old as civilization itself. One can say it is an unfortunate evolutionary byproduct of our intelligence. Petroleum has essentially allowed the 20th century to be as innovated as it was. We would not have 7 billion people on this planet without it. Before petroleum it was coal, before that it was wood. We seem to find the next great energy source just in time to progress civilization. The energy has been progressively more energy dense and cleaner, therefore allowing the population to grow with it. But we reached a tipping point of being too large for our planet's resources, about 100 years ago when our population reached around 2 billion people. So we either need to reduce the population to closer to 2 billion people, which nature may do for us, or find a new energy source that will allow us to live with our current comforts at the current population. So far I haven't seen any that will accomplish that. And considering the climate will be drastically different in the next 100 years, with about 50% loss in animal species and ocean life, I'm not sure the 2 billion people will be a sustainable amount in the future anyway.
It reminds me of the title of an album I bought when I was 11 from the Dead Kennedy's, "Give me Convenience or Give me Death". ...so true.

[rwh11385]

I'm not denying science and technology are great things. But those great things they produce for the most part have contributed to the destruction of our environment. Environmental destruction created by man's intelligence is as old as civilization itself. One can say it is an unfortunate evolutionary byproduct of our intelligence. Petroleum has essentially allowed the 20th century to be as innovated as it was. We would not have 7 billion people on this planet without it. Before petroleum it was coal, before that it was wood. We seem to find the next great energy source just in time to progress civilization. The energy has been progressively more energy dense and cleaner, therefore allowing the population to grow with it. But we reached a tipping point of being too large for our planet's resources, about 100 years ago when our population reached around 2 billion people. So we either need to reduce the population to closer to 2 billion people, which nature may do for us, or find a new energy source that will allow us to live with our current comforts at the current population. So far I haven't seen any that will accomplish that. And considering the climate will be drastically different in the next 100 years, with about 50% loss in animal species and ocean life, I'm not sure the 2 billion people will be a sustainable amount in the future anyway.
It reminds me of the title of an album I bought when I was 11 from the Dead Kennedy's, "Give me Convenience or Give me Death". ...so true.

Okay Malthus... :roll:

http://na.unep.net/geas/archive/pdfs/GEAS_Jun_12_Carrying_Capacity.pdf