Scientists believe the Earth is rapidly approaching a catastrophic tipping point, driven by the activity of human beings, the Huffington Post reported this week.
The scientists argue that the Earth's climate is reaching a point of no return and that we are headed for rapid, destructive changes, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. The scientists say the changes will lead to mass extinctions, scarce resources for humans and eventual politcal and economic clashes.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency notes that Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.4 degrees in the last 100 years and could rise 2 to 11.5 degrees in the next 100 years.
The Nature Conservancy states that a quarter of the planet's species could go extinct by 2050. NASA predicts a decrease in crop yields for North America of 5 to 20 percent and up to 50 percent in Africa.
Scientists argue that one of the causes of climate change is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Since the Industrial Revolution began, scientist have said that human activity – deforestation, land use and the burning of fossil fuels – have increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere by a third.
Critics of global warming say that the concern is overblown and off-base. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre."
Lindzen stated that the Earth went thorugh a cooling period from the 15th century through the 19th century known at the Little Ice Age and some warming would be expected after that period.
U.S. Senator James Inhofe, R-OK, has been an outspoken critic of global warming science and suggested political motivations are behind it. Inhofe's book "Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future" was published this year.
Let me help you out: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01b.fnl.html That's the surface temp anomaly map for today. Note the various spots of anomalously low temp. Note the greater number of anomalously warm spots. Global warming is not uniform over the globe, nor do the anomalously warm/cool areas stay warm/cool. Everything shifts around. Some areas tend to be on a cooler trend. Some areas show very few days of anomalous cooling. I'll throw in the following link once again, because it's one of my favorites: all graphs and charts from the various monitoring organizations around the world, updated daily and linked to their sources. No rhetoric, other than what the Earth is telling us. https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/
Did Al Gore make these statements or not? Well, there is undeniable proof that Al Gore did indeed make these statements. Given that, you now have the opportunity to either agree or disagree with Al Gore. If you agree with Al Gore, then say it. If you disagree with Al Gore, stand up and say it loud and proud. There is a deafing silence from climate scientists on statements made by Al Gore. Silence could mean agreement, but I suspect that in this case, silence means that the Al Gore is a "sugar daddy" for climate science. Scientists and engineers who are honest and have integrity speak out, regardless of the monetary implications. Of course, I suspect that climate scientists who speak out are ostrasized from the group. Hence, the silence. It takes a lot of courage to speak out and contradict your profession. Most professionals simply don't have that kind of courage. And that's how climate science works-shut up or we'll ruin your career in this field. Balls in your court DSL350-do you agree with Al Gore or disagree with Al Gore? Let's get you on record. Of course, since you're hiding behind a moniker, I guess it really doesn't matter. Why not step out and post under your real name?
Richard, climate scientists are speaking out. They're just not saying what you want them to say. And you don't have the technical understanding to judge whether or not someone's work is garbage. You have to trust, blindly, that others are telling you the truth. I'm beginning to get an understanding of your methodology for choosing which sources to trust blindly. No, I am not going to give you my name. You have to judge my arguments on their own merit. Any argument you could make based on knowing who I am and what I do would be a fallacy. There is one legitimate reason for knowing what I do--to be able to tune your language toward me as you make analogies and hypotheticals. However, I am very well-read, and I've done many things in my life. Just about any choice you made with regards to figurative language would be ok with me.
That's exactly what I asked you to do-take a position on the statements that Al Gore made (in the videos). (There was no need to read any of Al Gore's works.) Once again, you failed to answer a direct question. A simple yes or no was all that was required. Throughout this discussion with me, you've failed to provide any answers. All you've given us is the run-around and a whole lot of jargon. I'm not impressed by your mastery of climate "science" jargon. Any goof can spout jargon. Susan Solomon's response to my direct question at the lecture at IIT in October 2010 reinforced my opinion regarding global warming. (See my comment regarding Susan Solomon's lecture in the thread above.) Climate "science" is junk science-that was my opinion before our discussion and you haven't given me any information that would cause me to alter my opinion. In fact, you have reinforced my opinion about climate "science". Thank you for your time. You did a half-assed job. To borrow a phrase from Donald Trump: "You're fired."
As for Al Gore, I'm not going to waste my time watching a video and responding to every claim in it. Why don't you go to AR4 and respond to every argument made in it? I asked you to express the Gore claims you have problems with. You have failed to do so. Richard: "Throughout this discussion with me, you've failed to provide any answers. All you've given us is the run-around and a whole lot of jargon. I'm not impressed by your mastery of climate "science" jargon. Any goof can spout jargon." I see. Let me state the obvious, just so someone does: you're projecting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection). You ask questions or make questionable claims. I respond by pointing to the peer-reviewed, published science. You claim I have not answered and then call my non-existent answers "jargon." I know I haven't changed your opinion. It is clear that no amount of evidence could change your mind. My main purpose is to provide readers with a counter-narrative based on the science. You have started with the assumption that climate science is "junk science," and so you naturally find that climate science is junk science. Thanks for the compliment. A few sentences before, you implied I did a no-assed job.
A while back, you claimed to be an engineer. You said you had a problem with me, a non-engineer, telling you what's what. Just because you have a degree in engineering or science, it doesn't make you an expert in all fields. You don't get the free pass for "general all-around science know-it-all." I know much more than you about the state of climate science. Much more. This doesn't mean I'm smarter than you. It means I am much more familiar with the scientific work that has been done. In fact, you haven't given any indication that you've read any published work on climate. Yet you speak with confidence, and confidence unbecoming of someone allegedly trained in science. I asked you several very direct questions about the science, and each time you slid off on a rhetorical sideshow. You haven't once engaged a question of science smirk-free and with an open mind. Assuming the hypothesis is a bad way to explore an idea, as your scientific training must have pointed out. Where is your mind? >Your< mind. Not some opinion writer. Not some internut driven by blind faith in his/her ideology. Your own mind.
Which of the following do you have a problem with? 1. CO2 is a long-lived, non-condensing greenhouse gas. 2. H2O is a short-lived, condensing greenhouse gas. 3. O2, N2, and Ar (99% of the atmosphere) do not absorb/emit within the thermal infrared range, the range within which the sun-warmed Earth emits. 4. Atmospheric CO2 has, over the last 10k years has been in equilibrium, hovering around 270ppm +/- 10ppm, until around 1850. Since 1850, atmospheric CO2 has risen to 395ppm. 5. Absorption/emission bands are broadened with pressure. 6. Transient climate response is not the same as equilibrium/final climate response. 7. Solar has been trending down since the Modern Maximum in the 1950s. 8. If we want to see anthropogenic global warming in the surface temp record, we need to strip out as many non-GHG signals (solar, aerosols, ENSO, UHI effect, etc.) as possible. In other words, we can't simply look at the surface temp record and say, "see, it's global warming!" or "see, no global warming!"
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all Richard, perhaps you could explain to Dr. Muller why he's wrong. He is, after all, a scientist, just like you. His explanations, no doubt, will be more believable than mine, even if he uses the same words.
"The problem with liberals is not that liberals know so much, but that liberals know so much that isn't true." Ronald Reagan DSL350 you have no idea what the term "peer-reviewed science" means. Actually, it's very simple-I peer-review your work and find nothing wrong with your work. Then you peer-review my work and find nothing wrong my work. Then we both go get a beer and laugh about peer-review. Cool, how that works isn't it. Of course, anybody who lives in Chicago is familiar with that system-that's how Chicago government works. Yup, nothing to see here, everything is on the up and up. It ain't called the County of Crook for no reason and it ain't called "junk science" for no reason either. "Junk science" is inadmissible in a court of law since a Supreme Court ruling in the early 1990's on breast implant lawsuits. Remember all the lawsuits over silicon breast implants-don't see those anymore because all those lawsuits were based on "junk science". I spent 4 or 5 hours of my time attending a lecture on global warming/climate change presented by Dr. Susan Solomon, a Nobel Prize winner along with Al Gore. Dr. Solomon was unable to address a very simple question that I asked. Her response was "you should believe me." That ain't good enough.
Richard, if "pal review" were the norm, science would be incapable of advancing. It has advanced, and the evidence is all around you. Engineering can't build castles out of sand (technically not true, but you get the idea), and scientific pal review is sand. Castles have been built by the thousands in every area of science. Occasionally, a foundation stone will turn into sand, and part of the castle will need to be rebuilt, but this happens less and less often as the science matures. The basics of atmospheric science were founded well over a century ago. The basics of global circulation modeling were founded over forty years ago. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8.html That link will take you to the IPCC AR4 chapter on modeling, where you'll find what scientists actually have to say about the process.
***I see. Let me state the obvious, just so someone does: you're projecting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).*** You hit the nail squarely on the head about Richard. I have observed this time and time again from him in this thread and others. He is quite easy to see through. He is not a psychologically well man. Why people, such as yourself, respond to his idiotic rantings is beyond me. Would you put so much effort and thought in engaging an obviously mentally ill man on the street? Doubtful. I would like to make the constructive suggestion that you and others stop hitting your heads against the wall by responding to his 'wind in a box'. You only serve to encourage his blather. Richard Shulte : Stupidest. Man. Ever.
My other purpose here, though, is to help clear up misinformation regarding the science. Richard provides more than ample material in this regard, and he also provides a look, through his rhetorical style, into some of the reasons why people don't understand what's going on with the climate. If I had less patience, I would long ago have called him a "poster child for 'denialism'." However, as I said, I don't like putting people in boxes and storing them in the basement.
Ms. McLick, you spelled my name wrong. When you have my award engraved, please spell my name correctly.
Ms. McLick really cut McCloud down to size. What a sharp wit she has. It appears that Ms. McLick thinks that anyone who disagrees with her is "clueless". McLick: Most.Open-Minded Individual.Ever. McLick-a sheep in sheep's clothing. baaaaa.
We, on the other side, are passionate, because with the excuse of Global Warming, you and others like you are trying to take our freedom away, Sorry if we seem a little upset, but our freedom is kind of important to us. Freedom should take priority with you also, because without it, how can you fight for the environment? Look at the free countries as opposed to the others and see who has the strictest environmental rules, and who has people and organizations watching all the time. I think you'll agree, once you lose your freedom, the environment is toast too.
Steve, you say "We, on the other side, are passionate, because with the excuse of Global Warming, you and others like you are trying to take our freedom away, Sorry if we seem a little upset, but our freedom is kind of important to us." This is precisely why scientists, liberal and conservative, are speaking out about the problem. If you want to conserve the freedom you have, you certainly don't want to do anything that upsets the general conditions that underwrite your freedom. Long-term climate stability has allowed us to do what we've done over the last 10k years. Again, if you look at temperature reconstructions from the combined proxy record, you'll see that interglacials do not last very long. The current interglacial is remarkably long. AGW means long-term climate instability. Weather patterns don't just shift to a new regime; they destabilize. Sea level doesn't just suddenly rise and then stabilize. It continues to slowly rise, making coastal infrastructure planning a nightmare. Farmers don't just pack up and move en masse to new regions to farm. Infrastructure has to be built, new political relations have to form, and new economic networks have to coalesce -- and all while the climate continues to morph into something different. Being forced into a limited set of decisions is freedom? Well, it can be.
Sounds pretty free to me... how about you?
Academia has been politicized and, hence, science performed by academics has been politicized. As noted by Dr. McCloud, a "boy who cried wolf" situation has been created by environmental science.
"The "Climategate" investigation was conducted by five Penn State employees. It is available here. The five internal investigators were given a list of four specific allegations of academic fraud, and they proceeded to dismiss the three most significant allegations outright, without investigating them at all. The next step was to read 376 e-mails written by Mann and dismiss 329 of them. After this, they conducted a two-hour interview with Michael Mann, in which he (shocker!) denied doing anything wrong." Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_climategate_and_jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_common_thread.html#ixzz22CTvX2Oq Comparing the Penn State investigation of Michael Mann to the PSU investigation of Jerry Sandusky is perhaps appropriate.
"Next, they interviewed Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT, who accused them of ignoring the most important allegations [regarding Michael Mann]. They ignored him and moved on. The report actually states this. "We did not respond to him." " Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/the_climategate_and_jerry_sandusky_scandals_a_common_thread.html#ixzz22CUgl8KN
DICK Shulte: Stupidest. Man. Ever. Sorry...no award given to a man of your dubious distinction. Your pathetic mind set and world view are your lifetime rewards. Wallow and enjoy!
Is global warming real and caused by human activity? Yes. If we are not careful we will screw up the planet. (Oh, we better not do that) No. Things are fine. (We should do nothing) Kind of backs you into a corner. A simple Yes or No without the commentary would have been more accurate. Jen McLick, I hope I don't run into you in a dark alley, you are nasty.