# Runaway Global Warming

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Facial, Jul 11, 2014.

1. ### sculptorValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,081
andy#s................(why 1033?)
I have read that for some people belief in agw is much like a religion

3. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
31,255
Which effects are you referring to, exactly, andy1033?

I've read that climate denialism is like a religion for some.

Messages:
5,081
lol

7. ### Truck Captain StumpyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
873
@sculptor
for the uneducated, either extreme can be a religious belief.
To the educated capable of understanding the science, it is the camp of deniers that are the religious fanatics

That is why I posted that link earlier.
IF there is a "denier" who believes strongly enough to try, there is a $30,000 prize waiting for them if they are able to prove, using the scientific method, that AGW is NOT real... no one has won yet. The important part of that is "Using the scientific method" and "prove". I find it hard to believe all the conspiratorial whisperings when we are talking about the world and that almost all of them generally agree on something... this would mean that the WORLD scientist, using different methods and experiments, working separately, came to essentially the same conclusions as the rest: it is real Now, the runaway part of it? that really is optional at this point, IMHO... I feel that we should be able to at least curb the worst of it and allow ourselves (and hopefully most of the other flora and fauna in the global ecosystem) to come through... maybe not unscathed, but better and more intelligent for it. And there have been many people who argue against what I have just said... to those who did, and do, I say: TAKE THE CHALLENGE WIN THE PRIZE PROVE YOURSELF TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY I will even re-post the link: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com.au/p/10000-global-warming-skeptic-challenge.html 8. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member Messages: 10,349 It is pretty clear that AGW has been proven. However, I think the chance of runaway global warming is vanishingly small. 9. ### sculptorValued Senior Member Messages: 5,081 You're sure of that? 10. ### sculptorValued Senior Member Messages: 5,081 optional? how so? 11. ### Truck Captain StumpyRegistered Senior Member Messages: 873 @sculptor I can't speak for origin, but I can agree with him. I am sure of it. and to anyone who thinks otherwise... well, go prove it on that link I left did you read after that quote? IMHO, we may well have the ability to curb/inhibit/(choose an adjective) the output of CO2 as well as other GHG's and make a difference. I don't know what the point of no return is, and it is possible that science does, or maybe they have it wrong. I don't know. what I think, though, is that we've been able to make a huge difference in a relatively short amount of time so it is possible that in the future we can correct our mistakes with the environment. It is possible that we can find the technology to help ourselves... just like it is possible that we could also push ourselves over the tipping point and destroy ourselves. It may NOT be runaway NOW... but if we continue on the same uninhibited path, we may well push ourselves into a no win situation that we cannot save ourselves from. That is what I meant by optional... We may well have the ability to correct, or worsen, our situation 12. ### wellwisherBannedBanned Messages: 5,160 The science that backs up man-made global warming or climate change, is the same predictive science used by the weatherman. The average weatherman is about 80-90% accurate depending on the time of the year. This science is not 100% reliable as inferred by thousands of news station each day average over a year. It is not soft science, but it is not hard science, either. I call it firm science. Say you are in the oil industry and need to explore for oil and drill wells. This range of science has much less margin of error, since one will be held accountable if there are any mistakes. This can lead to loss of money or violation of regulations. Unlike a weatherman who can get it wrong 10-20% of the time and still keep his job, the oil science has to get be almost perfect, or their will be accountability, including finds and jail. Someone connected to the oil sciences is used to dealing with solid science, and can see that weatherman science is only firm science; nobody expects accountability for that stuff. All the predictions that have been made, that have not panned out, if this was the solid science connected to oil, would have resulted in at least the loss of jobs. But in manmade global warming circles, you get a promotion. This difference is key to the magic trick. If you present science, that has no accountability when it makes predictions, people will just assume this is because it is above accountability, beyond its own self police. Since we hold the oil companies and their science liable, by outside parties, many assume this means this science is suspect. It is a magic trick. Picture this scenario. For now on, weathermen and weather women and all the executive in the media stations, right to the top, will be held accountable for bad weather forecasts, using standards as strict as applied to the predictions of oil based science. Once the audience sees 10-20% people canned each data or year, and some paying fines and going to jail, the science will be seen as soft/firm. The hidden wires will show in the levitation trick. Or we can do this the other way around. Oil companies will only see accountability if they exceed 10% mistakes. As long as only 1 in 10 oil wells creates pollute this will be ignored, to achieve the same media image of the science. This would make 10% pollution look good since nobody is getting too upset about the mistakes. If this was the media assisted state of the art in oil exploration; allows 10% mistakes and no accountability, I would fight against this as soft-firm science. I would not be take in by the special effects of the magic trick, that needs the audience seated a certain way; accountability wires. Most of what AL Gore had presented did not pan out, yet where are the fines for mind pollution? Why is he still talking as an expert spokesman? It is called magic where we turn firm science into stone in front of the audience. But it needs media props to work. 13. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member Messages: 31,255 97% of climate scientists are sure, and they should know. 14. ### Truck Captain StumpyRegistered Senior Member Messages: 873 There is also the evidence that must be considered about the interference of Big Oil, etc in the concentrated attempt to denigrate the science by means other than the scientific method. The oil and manufacturing organizations have a vested interest in making money, as well as making sure they do not spend money when they can get away with NOT spending it... or creating a situation where they will not HAVE to spend it. sounds convoluted, but it is supported by evidence: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html as well as this: http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay - Climatic Change.ashx the camp of deniers have a large bankroll trying to push the uneducated (and voters) towards their position by any means necessary... scare tactics, false proclamations, attempts to discredit science through attacking individuals, etc (and so much more) Is Gore an idiot? Well, I think so... he's made mistakes... just like anyone else. I personally just don't like the guy. BUT.. that is my OPINION when it comes right down to it... James R makes the most powerful point about it to date THE SCIENCE speaks volumes... the DENIERS just yell a lot and again, I reiterate a specific point: IF there is one capable of using the scientific method to prove AGW wrong, I suggest going to the link provided and making your case. It is a fairly simple challenge. You don't have to be original, but you do have to be first. http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com.au/p/10000-global-warming-skeptic-challenge.html Last edited: Jul 14, 2014 15. ### sculptorValued Senior Member Messages: 5,081 You do realize that the 97% number is a fiction cobbled together from a diversity of respondents to varied surveys? A fiction told by a politician "full of sound and fury and signifying--------------nothing" One such number starts out claiming that 97% of scientists surveyed believed that global warming of the past century was real. (only 97% ---gee that seems odd) Then added that man made greenhouse gasses were likely a contributing factor. wild guess 97% of astrophysicists agree that solar activity had been increasing over the past century or 2 or 3. and that this had been influential in global warming out of the maunder minimum. ................ Are we still increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses? (best answer is "Yes") Is the earth still warming? (best answer is "No") So, then..........................? ..................................................................................... Let us assume that we are driving a vehicle. As we press down on the gas pedal, we sing "yankee doodle dandy" and the vehicle accelerates.-----"obviously, the vehicle accelerated due to our singing" Then we take our foot off of the gas pedal, while still singing "yankee doodle dandy" and the darned vehicle slows down. hmm most sane people would begin to reassess the earlier "obvious" speculation. ...................... meanwhile, as we continue to increase output of CO2, the primary producers continue to raise the bar: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 46% now there is a number that may signify a tad more than "nothing" 16. ### billvonValued Senior Member Messages: 13,840 No. The 97.1% number had nothing to do with any surveys. It was an analysis of climate papers from 1991-2011. Yes Yes. Warmest year on record - 2010. 2013 was the fourth warmest year on record. So they are likely related. Good example. Now let's say you do the experiment again. This time you don't sing, just floor the accelerator. When you do that there is a momentary hesitation when the engine coughs and the transmission downshifts before the car starts accelerating again. Climate scientist conclusion - "the accelerator most likely controls the acceleration of the car" Denier conclusion - "The accelerator CANNOT have anything to do with the acceleration of the car, because when I first floored it my speed did not significantly increase!" 17. ### Truck Captain StumpyRegistered Senior Member Messages: 873 As billvon points out, the 97% number was an analysis of climate papers from 1991-2011, and has corroborating evidence in other places, starting with http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf located at this site: http://theconsensusproject.com/ there is a great deal of information there about global warming and I again point out that your efforts would be better used going here: http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com.au/p/10000-global-warming-skeptic-challenge.html and trying to convince them for the$30,000. Unless, of course, your evidence is conjecture or based upon non-scientific methods.
This is NOT a gut feeling thing... you are NOT Gibbs, able to tell a liar from 100 paces with your eyes half shut (hyperbole)
I was a skeptic two or so years ago myself until I run into a series of posts by runrig on Phys.org (PO). With the help of Maggnus, Thermodynamics, Pink Elephant and others there, as well as research into the SCIENCE and reading the studies that I could find/were lined to by those posters mentioned, I was shown the TRUTH. And by TRUTH, I mean the SCIENTIFIC TRUTH

I really don't care about posters who challenge with cherry picked charts like other known posters at PO
. They sometimes make logical sounding arguments, until you realise that: they mistake weather for climate, OR they cherry pick the data OR the only evidence they can bring to bear is from links to polarised sites or sites that have NO scientific peer review processing their stuff...
a NON peer reviewed paper, compared to a peer reviewed study, is no match IMHO.
IF there was valid science, it would be published in a manner that would allow for peer review
this would be assigning an action to a secondary cause and not a root cause, therefore it is a fallacy due to ignorance and bad investigation OR the inability to objectively see the reality of the situation in fron of you
this is NOT relevant
there is NO correlation with the atmosphere, the studies, the science nor the situation

IF you are going to make a point, please make a relevant one. this one is non-nonsensical unless you are saying that the predominant unwashed and uneducated masses are assigning a correlation that accelerating vehicles are caused by singing, to which I can produce some of the dumbest hillbillies on the planet that would refute that statement

That link is still available above

Last edited: Jul 14, 2014
18. ### originIn a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect.Valued Senior Member

Messages:
10,349
I didn't realize that sculptors/artists were allowed to be republicans. Do you have to endure self-loating as an artist/conservative?

19. ### sculptorValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,081
from John Cook, et.al.
66.4% voiced no opinion on anthropogenic caused global warming
32.6 percent endorsed agw
ok so
97.1% of the 32.6% who were pre-selected because they endorsed AGW---which means that 31.66% endorsed the "consensus"

That's really funny
Say what you will about the brouhaha concerning agw. It does have it's humorous moments.

20. ### sculptorValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,081
<----- dennis kucinich kind of republican (Libertarian Socialist?)
who has a very limited amount of "self loathing" and doesn't like to use nor waste it.

21. ### billvonValued Senior Member

Messages:
13,840
Nope. They pre-selected any paper that stated whether or not AGW was valid. 66.4% made no such statement and so were eliminated, which makes sense. Of the ones that remained - the ones that DID express an opinion - 97.1% agreed with the basics of AGW.

22. ### Truck Captain StumpyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
873
@billvon
there is a more recent study done proving this point. Within the last two years, I think... I can't find it at the moment.
It specifically shows that of the published papers 97% agreed with etc
this is different than the above Cook study that started it all off which I posted a link to above.
I will try to dig it up in the next day or so between classes

23. ### sculptorValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,081
Alternately; of the 33.6 percent who expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming(32.6% of whom had already endorsed agw), 97% endorsed the ... position that humans are causing global warming------------
well, gee duh

"valid" is your's. not theirs

Their words: 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain
32.6 + .7 +.3 = 33.6
32.6 / 33.6 = .97 = 97 percent of those who expressed a position on global warming
..............
darned entertaining way of phrasing their findings
66.4 + .7 + .3 = 67.4
They could have also said that of the 11914 climate abstracts which matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming',
67.4% either expressed no opinion on agw, rejected agw, or were uncertain about the cause of global warming.

..................
"all lies in jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"