The Science of Global Warming - Settled Once and for All

[LongRedHair]

Global warming is a good thing. Without the intervention of us humans over the last couple of hundred years or so we would soon be heading towards an ice age very soon which would be a lot more harmful to the human race than warming up a bit.

And before all you young people ( ie. under about 40 or so ) start to flame me I would surgest you do a bit of research about what all the "climate experts" were saying back in the 60s/70s.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/BPeiser.html


[/ QUOTE ]
Priceless. These guys continue to make complete asses of themselves, and one has to wonder what the [censored] a doctor and an anthropologist are doing with literature surveys of subjects they can't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still in disbelief that someone with a Ph.D. can conclude this debunks global warming:

AQUATIC BIOMASS RESOURCES AND CARBON-DIOXIDE TRAPPING
CHELF P, BROWN LM, WYMAN CE
BIOMASS & BIOENERGY 4 (3): 175-183 1993
Intensively managed microalgal production facilities are capable of fixing several-fold more carbon dioxide per unit area than trees or crops. Although CO2 is still released when fuels derived from algal biomass are burned, integration of microalgal farms for flue gas capture approximately doubles the amount of energy produced per unit of CO2 released. Materials derived from microalgal biomass also can be used for other long-term uses, serving to sequester CO2. Flue gas has the potential to provide sufficient quantities of CO2 for such large-scale microalgae farms.<font color="red"> Viewing microalgae farms as a means to reduce the effects of a greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, CO2) changes the view of the economics of the process. Instead of requiring that microalgae-derived fuel be cost competitive with fossil fuels, the process economics must be compared with those of other technologies proposed to <u>deal with the problem of CO2 pollution.</u> However, development of alternative, environmentally safer energy production technologies will benefit society whether or not global climate change actually occurs. Microalgal biomass production has great potential to contribute to world energy supplies, and to control CO2 emissions as the demand for energy increases. </font> This technology makes productive use of arid and semi-arid lands and highly saline water, resources that are not suitable for agriculture and other biomass technologies.

How that made national news I will never know. I don't care if his Ph.D. was in geography he should know better.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
The Debate is Over!

[ QUOTE ]
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."


[/ QUOTE ]

I can't wait for the new mantle of the MCGW cult true believers to transform into the persecuted underclass of the scientific community laboring as outcasts to expose the "truth." I can imagine someone from the MCGW to wax poetic very soon about Galileo. The fallacy of the appeal to the majority, that is, the "consensus" having been exposed and debunked...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very telling that you cite statistics showing there is not consensus as evidence that your view on GW is definitively right.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Global warming is a good thing. Without the intervention of us humans over the last couple of hundred years or so we would soon be heading towards an ice age very soon which would be a lot more harmful to the human race than warming up a bit.

And before all you young people ( ie. under about 40 or so ) start to flame me I would surgest you do a bit of research about what all the "climate experts" were saying back in the 60s/70s.

[/ QUOTE ]
As one of these young people, I am well aware of what was said in the 60s. But you have to realize that we have come a very long way since then, in a lot of subjects, as well as computing power. That psychiatrists thought lobotomy to be a valid treatment in the 60s doesn't negate modern theories about the causes and treatment of depression, for example. They're worlds apart. The transistor was only invented around the middle of last century, and numeric computing techniques have only become useful in the last 20 years or so. There has been an explosion of understanding in climate science - while I won't claim it's a mature field or a settled question, there are many things we now know as fact. CO2 forcing is one of them. Global warming is now unequivocal, man caused global warming, very likely. Where this will lead - we're not sure. But I'd argue that we can give a distribution of outcomes that fits well with what we know.

There's really no compelling evidence that we would be heading toward an ice age if not for global warming. And the real possibility of the global-warming-caused disruption of the thermohaline circulation, causing a devastating freeze of North America and parts of Europe, is a more likely threat than the coming of a global ice age, IMO.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you cannot necessarly draw any conclusions from their neutrality.Maybe 90% support mmgw, maybe 90% are skeptics.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, "(48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis" is the very definition of skeptic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

I don't know the study, but to assume that every paper published on climate change MUST weigh in on MMGW or otherwise be branded as a skeptic seems silly. I recently published a paper on an aspect of structural failure in turbine engines -- I didn't need to take a position on what source was definitively inducing this failure mode, nor did I have the adequate information to make such a statement as it wasn't germane to my research. I'm sure this is representative across academia, including climatology. Expecting scientists to make definitive statements on subjects not directly related to their own specialized area of expertise is misguided.

[LongRedHair]

[ QUOTE ]


There's really no compelling evidence that we would be heading toward an ice age if not for global warming. And the real possibility of the global-warming-caused disruption of the thermohaline circulation, causing a devastating freeze of North America and parts of Europe, is a more likely threat than the coming of a global ice age, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now that is is just plane wrong !!

People tend to think of things in there own experence and life time which when your talking about something that is 4.5 billion years old and will be around for another 5 billion or so is a bit pointless.

Brief history of the world part 1.

Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze. Around every 100,000 years or so the earth warms up a bit and we have an interglacial period that last around 15-20,000 years. We are currenly in an interglacial period. Global warming started as the last ice age started to end about 15-18,000 years ago. Since then earth temperature has gone up by about 16Deg. F and sea levels have risen around 300ft. ( all of this I might add without any help from Man ).

Back in the late 60s early 70's the "environmentalists experts" were worried that manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun would speed up the return of the next ice age. They were using evidence that since around 1940 there appeared to have been a slight cooling in the earths temperature. Sometime in the late 70's early 80's they changed there minds and decide that things had started to warm up again and we went from "global cooling" to suddenly "global warming".

If humans did not exist on the earth at this time there is no reason why this cycle of ice ages would change so you would expect the earth to continue it's normal cycle and start to cool down and enter another ice age somtime in the next 5,000 years or so.

Maybe you want to rethink the statement "There's really no compelling evidence that we would be heading toward an ice age if not for global warming"

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
were worried that manmade atmospheric pollution blocking out the sun would speed up the return of the next ice age

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
somtime in the next 5,000 years or so

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe you want to rethink the statement "There's really no compelling evidence that we would be heading toward an ice age if not for global warming"

[/ QUOTE ]
Cheers.

[LongRedHair]

Ah I see what your saying, your only worried about what happens to the earth for the next few years you don't care about what happens after that, correct ?

[tolbiny]

l'ennimi

I read this part

[ QUOTE ]
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change

[/ QUOTE ]

As meaning the papers selected were on the causes of climate change. If the papers included are on "the effects of climate change on butterfly migration" then neutral papers may be meaningless.

[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah I see what your saying, your only worried about what happens to the earth for the next few years you don't care about what happens after that, correct ?

[/ QUOTE ]

what a selfish prick! Not thinking about what the world will look like in a few millennia!