Seven Big Failed Environmentalist Predictions

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. But it is a greenhouse gas.   So if you pump more of it into the atmosphere, all things being equal, temperatures will rise. That's just a scientific fact.

 BTW: Do you have fossil fuel investments? I bet you're invested in it in some way. Don't bother to answer that. I will probably not believe you if you try to deny it.

Anyway, there may have been other factors. When you're talking about going back half a billion years it gets a little harder to weigh all the factors, but CO2 levels do have a bearing on global temperatures (which *are* rising BTW, and antarctica, greenland, and glaciers *are* melting, and the sea level *is* rising):

You are beginning to sound like crazy Wolfbird.  She gets my gender wrong too, but with her, it's intentional.  And, no, I have no energy investments.  It is interesting though, that you prefer smears over science.

Your lower graph presents fewer than 150 years worth of data.  And from that, you (and many true-believers) draw broad conclusions.  It is a common enough mistake among non-professionals.

Natural processes follow physical laws, and these processes do not change over the long term.  If you want to claim that CO2 forces warming, then you need to explain why that did not happen in the past.  In lieu of that, you lack a solid scientific foundation for your claims.

And equally viable explanation is that whatever forces act in concert on the Earth to cause changes in global ambient temperatures, also affect CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

135 years worth of data really are not that much, when a 5.4 billion year record exists to contradict your claims.

I'm not a scientist, but the people at NCAR, USGS and NASA are scientists. They understand all of the science you are posting better than you do,  and then some, and they, along with the vast preponderance of scientists around the world, think there is far greater than a 90% chance that global warming is real *and* man made. The Pentagon considers global warming a national security threat. Huge banks and investors are now factoring carbon footprint into their evaluation of all investments.  It's not even a debate anymore except primarily from fossil fuel industry funded disinformationists and the partisan fools who are manipulated by think tanks and money to agree with them.

http://climate.nasa.gov

Great points Jaime.

The only intelligent thing to do at this point based on the state of the information and debate is to err on the side of caution and act as though humans are contributing to global warming to try to offset it. Weening from fossil fuels and finding greener alternatives is just good sense, anyway, from the standpoint of pollution and mercury poisoning etc...  Have you seen the smog in China?

no amount of empirical evidence can convince the truly deluded.

"Err on the side of caution" - not an unreasonable course, if your premise were valid.  However, why must erring on the side of caution result in a massive shift of wealth to countries which can hardly govern themselves, let alone contribute to problem-solving.  It is the stock-in-trade of Socialist ideology.

But before we even get to that point, given that the Earth is emerging from an anomalous climate state - a series of ice ages - what is the downside to warming?

The premise is valid. Global Warming is (A) indisputable, and (B) the vast majority of scientists and research institutions, agencies, weather analysts etc... say there is well over a 95% chance that global warming is man made. That means that erring on the side of caution is to attempt to mitigate human contribution to global warming.

Anyway, thanks for tipping your hand, you partisan hack. So it's not the science, it's the crap partisan slur of 'socialism' that is driving your agenda is it?  Well hey, Einstein, modern countries are a combination of Capitalism and Socialism because neither extreme works (e.g. total dominance/independence of indidivuals vs. total submision to the group). It's a balance, and right now unregulated Capitalism is the real threat as the income gap grows exponentially, not this straw bogeyman of Socialism you Cons keep trotting out. But anyway, thanks again from showing us where your red herring global warming BS is coming from.

Oh and this other part of your question: What is the downside of warming? The part even further submerged than the up side, since rising oceans are going to wreak havoc. Not to mention, the havoc draughts and heat waves will cause.  Huge upheaval. Rising food costs. Mass migrations.  Pest invasion into areas not equipped to deal with them. For you even to ask such a thing is to reveal the disingenuousness or ignorance behind your whole charade in this thread.

Firtunately, science is not a popularity contest; otherwise we might still be dealing with luminferous ether and phlogiston, which, needless to say, the "vast majority" of scientists believed.

In fact, it was still decades after the Michelson-Morley experiment before the last diehards gave up on ether.

Indeed, in my own field, plate tectonics was still considered unproven by the old guard, who clung to their antiquated notions.

You cannot divorce "climate change" alarmism from politics or money.  Nothing loosens the treasury's grip on funds quite like a well-orchestrated "crisis."

The issue is not whether the Earth is warmimg - it is - and has been for at least the past 12,000+/- years.  Funny how that works - warmimg, cooling, warming, cooling, and so on.  There is not such thing as a climate steady state, never has been, never will be.  It is folly to believe that humans can control global processes.

Which gets me back to the pointed question I asked - in the grand scheme of thing, it appears from geologic history, that a warmer environment is a healthier environment.  So what's the problem?

"warmer environment is a healthier environment. So what's the problem?"

Your not understanding the subject?

I disagree that a warmer climate is automatically a healthier environment, for instance, tropical diseases flourish in a warmer environment as well as the appearance of invasive specicies (insects, etc.) that can gain a foothold in areas where they could not previously survive.

This has already been documented in several cases, where tree and plant pathogens and pests are being observed farther north than at any previous known time.

In addition, the indigenous flora and fauna are not equiped to combat the invasive species.

If this were to affect food crops or livestock, it could be "unhealthy" in the extreme.

now_and_zen has written the items below which I will address in bold.

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. But it is a greenhouse gas.   So if you pump more of it into the atmosphere, all things being equal, temperatures will rise. That's just a scientific fact. 1 + 1 = 2 is a fact, but that doesn't mean mankind will end.  C02 is actually one of the weakest greenhouse gases.  Water vapour is one of the biggest.  Last I knew computer models didn't include water vapour.

 BTW: Do you have fossil fuel investments? I bet you're invested in it in some way. Don't bother to answer that. I will probably not believe you if you try to deny it.

Typical Liberal tactics; change the subject or attack the messenger.

Anyway, there may have been other factors. When you're talking about going back half a billion years it gets a little harder to weigh all the factors, but CO2 levels do have a bearing on global temperatures (which *are* rising BTW, and antarctica, greenland, and glaciers *are* melting, and the sea level *is* rising):

And we just had a big earthquake in Nepal and it's raining outside here in Texas. So what!?

I'm not a scientist, but the people at NCAR, USGS and NASA are scientists. They understand all of the science you are posting better than you do, not necessarily

 and then some, and they, along with the vast preponderance of scientists around the world vague,

think there is far greater than a 90% chance that global warming is real *and* man made I doubt this statement is true, I believe if it were true AGW would be settled science.This just sounds like someone throwing out numbers.

The Pentagon considers global warming a national security threat.

The Pentagon a) responds to politicians. b) consider many things threats as they need to prepare for most possibilities, i.e. have a plan.

Huge banks and investors are now factoring carbon footprint into their evaluation of all investments. They are being prudent, just like most businesses give money to both political parties.  However, some busienesses do plan to make money on the alarmist winning.

 It's not even a debate anymore except primarily from fossil fuel industry funded disinformationists and the partisan fools who are manipulated by think tanks and money to agree with them.  Again if it was settled, the few holdouts would be ignored.  Here you're essentially just throwing a tantrum. And calling names as Liberals typically do.

The only intelligent thing to do at this point based on the state of the information and debate is to err on the side of caution and act as though humans are contributing to global warming to try to offset it. On the side of caution, you shouldn't ever leave your home.  Life has risks, so using caution is a very weak debating point.

Weening from fossil fuels and finding greener alternatives is just good sense, anyway,  Nuclear energy is the only viable alternative to fossil fuels unless you want to live like a caveman (note: this is an exageration),  Are you in favor of Nuclear engery use?

from the standpoint of pollution and mercury poisoning etc...  Have you seen the smog in China? This is misdirection.  Smog does not equal AGW.  Smog can be reduced when using fossil fuels as America has demonstrated.

The premise is valid. I disagree.

Global Warming is (A) indisputable, I dispute AGW having alarmist claimed harmful effects, and many claims therein.

and (B) the vast majority of scientists and research institutions, agencies, weather analysts etc... say there is well over a 95% chance that global warming is man made. You said 90% above, will you stop when you get to 99.9 or will you go for 100%.

Anyway, thanks for tipping your hand, you partisan hack. Another Liberal personal attack.

Oh and this other part of your question: What is the downside of warming? The part even further submerged than the up side, since rising oceans are going to wreak havoc.  Move to higher ground. LOL.  Can Liberals take a joke? I doubt it.

Not to mention, the havoc draughts and heat waves will cause.  California is having a draught yet the AGW models predict California will be wetter.

Huge upheaval. Rising food costs Like Venzuela now? or Greece if they default?

Mass migrations.  You saw "The Day After Tomorrow" didn't you?  Did you cry or cheer?

 Pest invasion into areas not equipped to deal with them. Like in poor countries now that have malaria because DDT was banned and millions have died of malaria since the ban and the ban was not entirely sound.  Politicians make life and death decisions all the time.  They just don't talk about it.

I give your debating content and technique a 2 out of 10.  I'm sure if you try harder you can do better.

xlote -

Your debating skills are "I don't like this. Libs are like this and like this and like this. Here I have a myth, and some jokes for you".

97% of scientists agree on Global Warming. It is settled science:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

You said smog can be reduced? Yes, but only because of regulations created by Liberals.  Still the mercury. How do you deal with that?

Nuclear only? Really?  Low  brow pseudo Conservatives can't invent their way out of a box. Nor do they want to. They're too busy telling people who are doing it that it can't be done.

Solar power will soon be cheap as coal:

http://qz.com/386261/solar-power-will-soon-be-as-cheap-as-coal/

Nanotech material converts 90% of captured light into heat:

http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=37903.php

Audi just invented e-diesel fuel made from CO and water w/net zero carbon footprint:

http://fortune.com/2015/04/28/audi-just-invented-fuel-made-from-co2-and-water/

Renewable energy, the best invesstment of the 21st century:

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/239921-renewable-energy-the-best-investment-of-the-21st

So yeah, AGW causes the seas to rise. I can take a joke. The joke is on global warming deniers flying in the face of the evidence.  The seas rising will displace populations and cause mass migrations. It's just a fact.  That will not be easily dealt with.

And you trotted out the Climate Myth about water vapor:

Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas
“Water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas. This is part of the difficulty with the public and the media in understanding that 95% of  greenhouse gases are water vapour. The public understand it, in that if you get a fall evening or spring evening and the sky is clear the heat will escape and the temperature will drop and you get frost. If there is a cloud cover, the heat is trapped by water vapour as a greenhouse gas and the temperature stays quite warm. If you go to In Salah in southern Algeria, they recorded at one point a daytime or noon high of 52 degrees Celsius – by midnight that night it was -3.6 degree Celsius. […] That was caused because there is no, or very little, water vapour in the  atmosphere and it is a demonstration of water vapour as the most important greenhouse gas.”

Which is clarified here:

When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphereexists in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature, more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a  greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedbackloops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our  atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.  

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by  CO2 even bigger.

I'm all for Green energy if it works and is cost effective.  So far, it only exists in limited uses and with lots of subsidies.  The thing is alarmists claim things based on computer models.  The models haven't been right.  Global warming becomes Climate Change, etc.  It's all about control.  It's never been about truth or saving the planet (what's that mean anyway). It's about control, power.

Here's one for youz guys....

Scientists Say New Study Is A ‘Death Blow’ To Global Warming Hysteria

MICHAEL BASTASCH

10:07 PM 03/31/2015

A new study out of Germany casts further doubt on the so-called global warming “consensus” by suggesting the atmosphere may be less sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide emissions than most scientists think.

A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.

What do aerosols have to do with anything? Well, aerosols are created from human activities like burning coal, driving cars or from fires. There are also natural aerosols like clouds and fog. Aerosols tend to reflect solar energy back into space, giving them a cooling effect that somewhat offsets warming from increased CO2 emissions.

The Max Planck study suggests “that aerosol radiative forcing is less negative and more certain than is commonly believed.” In layman’s terms, aerosols are offsetting less global warming than was previously thought. And if aerosols aren’t causing as much cooling, it must mean carbon dioxide must be causing less warming than climate models predict.

 “Going forward we should expect less warming from future greenhouse gas emissions than climate models are projecting,” write climate scientists Pat Michaels and Chip Knappenberger with the libertarian Cato Institute, adding that this study could be a “death blow” to global warming hysteria.

Independent climate researcher Nick Lewis put out a study last year with Georgia Tech’s Dr. Judith Curry that found that the climate’s response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels — a measurement called “climate sensitivity” was 1.64 degrees Celsius.

Lewis revised his findings based on the Max Planck aerosol study and found something astounding: climate sensitivity drops dramatically. Lewis also looked at climate sensitivity estimates given by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — often regarded as the world’s top authority on global warming.

The IPCC’s latest assessment put climate sensitivity between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius. The IPCC says that despite “the large uncertainty range, there is a high confidence that aerosols have offset a substantial portion of [greenhouse gas] global mean forcing.”

Basically, the IPCC says aerosols deflect a lot of warming — the opposite of the Max Planck study’s finding.

But incorporating the results from the Max Planck study dramatically reduces the upper bound estimate of climate sensitivity from 4.5 degrees to 1.8 degrees Celsius.

To put this into perspective, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 currently stand at around 400 parts per million, if this were to double, according to the IPCC’s estimates temperatures could rise as high as 4.5 degrees Celsius.

But incorporate the Max Planck study results and warming would only be as high as 1.8 degrees Celsius — less than half what the IPCC originally predicted.

Michaels and Knappenberger say Lewis’s findings basically eliminate “the possibility of catastrophic climate change—that is, climate change that proceeds at a rate that exceeds our ability to keep up.”

“Such a result will also necessarily drive down estimates of social cost of carbon thereby undermining a key argument use by federal agencies to support increasingly burdensome regulations which seek to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” write Michaels and Knappenberger.

I remember the first time there was a lightning storm in JANUARY in Michigan: 2002.  The following year, there was a lightning storm in JANUARY in FInland.  Old-timers said they had never seen rain in the winter before.

Last year, the summer temperature in Finland reached +30 Celcius for three weeks straight.  Anything over +25 is considered hot.  Old-timers couldn't remember a week with continuous +30.

Ten years ago, you could go to the Lapland and it was cold with meters of snow.  A few years ago, we noticed the permafrost melting.

Until 1990, I turned my horses on summer grass in May.  By 2000, the grass has been green and full by the beginning of April.

The winter of 2014, I didn't wear my down parka once.  NOT ONCE!

I only had to plug in my car to warm up the engine for 14 days total last winter.  Ten years ago, you had to plug in your car every night from the beginning of November to the end of February.

I don't know if GLOBAL WARMING is real, but weird things are definitely happening up here in Finland.  If you study peer-reviewed research papers and do an academic literature review, you may find that the general consensus in the last 10 years is that GLOBAL WARMING is real.  The question is... how long can we continue to do nothing about it before the devastating effects of global warming become irreversible?

Maybe we should head up to the Arctic Circle and observe the lemmings...

Weird things have happened throughout History as we know it.  You local weather is not indicative of Global Warming or AGW, or Climate Change.  Climate has and will change over centuries.  Temperature rise & fall.  It's hot, it's cold.  It's wet it's dry.

It's weather and variation.  

Did you know that Lemmings don't spontaneously throw themselves into the ocean?  When Disney was filming them, they wanted to embelish thing so the Disney staff through Lemming into the water and claimed it was a natural occurrence.

http://io9.com/lemming-suicide-is-a-myth-that-was-perpetuated-by-disne-1549040246

What do scientists say about this, or the fact that the planet is warming and the oceans are rising?  Let me know when it's just more than one study that claims to be the trump card, or other global warming 'alarmist' scientists are recanting their position. The study is a month old and its the first I've heard of it. It hasn't made waves.