Anthropogenic Global Warming 101

UrRight wrote:

My message earlier today may have not gone thru...my bro had to actually turn his furnace on this past June July...a couple of times/ Texted me yesterday, said he sent the bills to Al GORE. LOL, really!

A prime example of conservative ignorance and stupidity masquerading as skepticism. Three things came to mind reading this:

1) The still bogus "it's cold out, therefore there's no global warming" argument which never seems to die the death its warranted.
2) The false belief that Al Gore is somehow responsible for what we know about AGW as opposed to any of the people actually doing the science (JASONs, NASA, NOAA, National Academies, etc).
3) This has more to do with the failing insulation on his house than AGW. I can't imagine what his energy bills must be like... you know... when it's actually cold outside.

And since reading (even the easy stuff) is apparently too much for "skeptics" anymore, I'll provide another nice easy to watch video:

War planners at the Pentagon are still taking AGW seriously:

Quote :

The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.

Hasn't changed much from the reports the Bush administration ignored.

Quote :

U.S. Chamber of Commerce seeks trial on global warming

The business lobby, hoping to fend off potentially sweeping emission limits, wants the EPA to hold a 'Scopes'-like hearing on the evidence that climate change is man-made.

Reporting from Washington - The nation's largest business lobby wants to put the science of global warming on trial.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, trying to ward off potentially sweeping federal emissions regulations, is pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to hold a rare public hearing on the scientific evidence for man-made climate change.

Chamber officials say it would be "the Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" -- complete with witnesses, cross-examinations and a judge who would rule, essentially, on whether humans are warming the planet to dangerous effect.

"It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."

On the one hand, I say bring it. Let's finally lay bare the complete lack of scientific understanding of the "skeptics", their lies, their misrepresentations. Their complete lack of evidence. NOAA, NASA, the Pentagon vs. . . . The CEI. It'll be Kitzmiller v. Dover all over again.

On the other hand, given as much of a slam dunk as Kitzmiller v. Dover was and how little it did to shut up creationists and prevent our school boards from dumbing down our education further, I'm under no delusion that this would actually change any minds. As I've stated repeatedly, you don't reject decades worth of sound science and research and opt for a massive international conspiracy based on an honest evaluation of the evidence.

Heretic wrote:

War planners at the Pentagon are still taking AGW seriously:

Quote :

The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.

Hasn't changed much from the reports the Bush administration ignored.

Yep, it's the old George Bush is responsible for "Global Warming"...get a grip.

LoisLane wrote:

Heretic wrote:

War planners at the Pentagon are still taking AGW seriously:

Quote :

The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics, military and intelligence analysts say.

Such climate-induced crises could topple governments, feed terrorist movements or destabilize entire regions, say the analysts, experts at the Pentagon and intelligence agencies who for the first time are taking a serious look at the national security implications of climate change.

Recent war games and intelligence studies conclude that over the next 20 to 30 years, vulnerable regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and South and Southeast Asia, will face the prospect of food shortages, water crises and catastrophic flooding driven by climate change that could demand an American humanitarian relief or military response.

Hasn't changed much from the reports the Bush administration ignored.

Yep, it's the old George Bush is responsible for "Global Warming"...get a grip.

Yeah,Bush was just so concerned about the problem,wasn't he?...


Bush Administration: global warming is real and a threat to the U.S. economy May 30, 2008

Quote :

Court ordered report

The new report comes after the Bush administration was ordered last August by Federal District Court Judge Saundra Armstrong to publish an updated research plan and national assessment on climate change. By law the White House is required to publish such a report every four years, yet until now the current administration had failed to do so since it took office. The previous National Assessment was issued in late 2000 under the Clinton administration.

LoisLane wrote:

Yep, it's the old George Bush is responsible for "Global Warming"...get a grip.

No, it really wasn't. Reread it again (or have someone help). It clearly wasn't "George Bush caused AGW", but "he didn't do anything to address the problem while in office." I was merely highlighting the fact that he continued to ignore the problem despite promises of action and regardless of the reports coming out from the various scientific organizations in our government. Given his reputation even in your eyes, I don't understand why you're rushing to his defense.

I was also pointing out that the Pentagon continues to take the threat of AGW seriously, just as they had during Dubya's administration, maintaining "the conspiracy". I was hoping some "skeptics" could explain that.

Is either the Pentagon's stance on AGW or Bush's record of handling it in dispute? Or are you still on the fence about AGW? You never responded.

Care for an actual discussion? Or have you simply accepted your existence here as an insipid and irrelevant little troll?

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Yep, it's the old George Bush is responsible for "Global Warming"...get a grip.

No, it really wasn't. Reread it again (or have someone help). It clearly wasn't "George Bush caused AGW", but "he didn't do anything to address the problem while in office." I was merely highlighting the fact that he continued to ignore the problem despite promises of action and regardless of the reports coming out from the various scientific organizations in our government. Given his reputation even in your eyes, I don't understand why you're rushing to his defense.

I was also pointing out that the Pentagon continues to take the threat of AGW seriously, just as they had during Dubya's administration, maintaining "the conspiracy". I was hoping some "skeptics" could explain that.

Is either the Pentagon's stance on AGW or Bush's record of handling it in dispute? Or are you still on the fence about AGW? You never responded.

Care for an actual discussion? Or have you simply accepted your existence here as an insipid and irrelevant little troll?

Until your last sentence, I was prepared to discuss or debate "global warming", however, you demonstrate the same attitude towards opposing views as does your clique. You may discuss it amongst yourselves.

LoisLane wrote:

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Yep, it's the old George Bush is responsible for "Global Warming"...get a grip.

No, it really wasn't. Reread it again (or have someone help). It clearly wasn't "George Bush caused AGW", but "he didn't do anything to address the problem while in office." I was merely highlighting the fact that he continued to ignore the problem despite promises of action and regardless of the reports coming out from the various scientific organizations in our government. Given his reputation even in your eyes, I don't understand why you're rushing to his defense.

I was also pointing out that the Pentagon continues to take the threat of AGW seriously, just as they had during Dubya's administration, maintaining "the conspiracy". I was hoping some "skeptics" could explain that.

Is either the Pentagon's stance on AGW or Bush's record of handling it in dispute? Or are you still on the fence about AGW? You never responded.

Care for an actual discussion? Or have you simply accepted your existence here as an insipid and irrelevant little troll?

Until your last sentence, I was prepared to discuss or debate "global warming", however, you demonstrate the same attitude towards opposing views as does your clique. You may discuss it amongst yourselves.

Nice dodge,Lois.

LoisLane wrote:

Until your last sentence, I was prepared to discuss or debate "global warming", however, you demonstrate the same attitude towards opposing views as does your clique. You may discuss it amongst yourselves.

Oh, grow a pair. I thought liberals were supposed to be the whiners.

I've tried to engage you in discussion multiple times before, to no avail. You'll need more than a "well, I would have this time, but you hurt my feewings" to convince me you were finally willing to now. If you were so prepared for a discussion, then I imagine you would have offered more than the blatantly false and trollish mischaracterization, "Yep, it's the old George Bush is responsible for 'Global Warming'...get a grip," in the first place.

Two weeks ago, I attended a seminar in Chicago, hosted by the US Green Building Council. The seminar topic was retrofitting existing building to make them more energy efficient. Part of the certification process also involves measuring whether tenants take steps to conserve energy and recycle. It was really a pleasure to attend a meeting filled with people who understand the consequences of AGW and are devoting their professional careers to changing the way we use our energy and resources.

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Until your last sentence, I was prepared to discuss or debate "global warming", however, you demonstrate the same attitude towards opposing views as does your clique. You may discuss it amongst yourselves.

Oh, grow a pair. I thought liberals were supposed to be the whiners.

I've tried to engage you in discussion multiple times before, to no avail. You'll need more than a "well, I would have this time, but you hurt my feewings" to convince me you were finally willing to now. If you were so prepared for a discussion, then I imagine you would have offered more than the blatantly false and trollish mischaracterization, "Yep, it's the old George Bush is responsible for 'Global Warming'...get a grip," in the first place.

Just pile it on, Mr. Wizzard...a discussion with you is beneath me.

LoisLane wrote:

Heretic wrote:

LoisLane wrote:

Until your last sentence, I was prepared to discuss or debate "global warming", however, you demonstrate the same attitude towards opposing views as does your clique. You may discuss it amongst yourselves.

Oh, grow a pair. I thought liberals were supposed to be the whiners.

I've tried to engage you in discussion multiple times before, to no avail. You'll need more than a "well, I would have this time, but you hurt my feewings" to convince me you were finally willing to now. If you were so prepared for a discussion, then I imagine you would have offered more than the blatantly false and trollish mischaracterization, "Yep, it's the old George Bush is responsible for 'Global Warming'...get a grip," in the first place.

Just pile it on, Mr. Wizzard...a discussion with you is beneath me.

Translation: I'm sick and tired of getting humiliated in discussions I know little or nothing about.

LoisLane wrote:

Just pile it on, Mr. Wizzard...a discussion with you is beneath me.

And yet here you still are, discussing our discussions.

Anyway, back on topic. . .

This is the very real danger of AGW, our ability to feed ourselves:

Quote :

While news reports and disaster movies remind us about tipping points for Arctic melt and sea level rise, some things closer to home get less attention. Take food supply: new modelling studies show that there are climate tipping points here too, beyond which crop yields will collapse.

Wolfram Schlenker at Columbia University, New York, and Michael Roberts at North Carolina State University in Raleigh used a high-resolution dataset of weather patterns from 1950 to 2005 to discover how yields of three key US crops would respond to increasing temperatures.

"The single best predictor of a year's yield is the amount of time temperatures exceed about 29 °C and the extent to which they do so," they say.

"Below this, warmer temperatures are beneficial for yields, but the damaging effects above 29 °C are staggeringly large."

This story discusses how beetles are destroying boreal forests in Alasks,Canada and the Ukraine. Millions of acres are already dead as the beetles move in areas that previously were too cold for them to survive. As the dead trees burn, they are feeding a warming cycle that may prove unstoppable. http://www.newsday.com/beetles-wildfire-double-threat-in-warming-world-1.1380314
"The bottom line is if you get more fire, you get more emissions, which contributes to further warming, which contributes to more fires," he said in an interview from Ontario.

"The concern is that things may happen more rapidly than we anticipate. Even our most pessimistic scenarios may not be pessimistic enough."

Quote :

2009: Second Warmest Year on Record; End of Warmest Decade

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade -- due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean -- 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures. The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years -- 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 -- as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began.

Rumors of global cooling have been greatly exaggerated. :bangwall:

Oh Geeze, last summer was freaking cold. This winter is freaking freezing. Politicians better spend their time on someone and everyone else but that full of crap Al Gore. He needed the money, ya know.

Weather is an act of God, You can't change it with any amount of money. We have less pollution in the US than in the '60s. Why? We lost all our steel mills, manufacturing jobs, and stick the climate up your butts. I;m more concerned about the aid-ridden adoptions coming in fron Haiti. I'm more concerned about caring about other countries while our own is sinking to the third world. Screw that global crap.

Like I said before, the EPA shut down my dad's distribution of Lime exported through through the canals that was determined to be shut down after he retired. It's still sitting there with all the left-over "lime" and was given to the EPA to take it down. That place is still there, on Stoney Island, off of 130th Street...steel production went down...but those guys at EPA...man, they were worried about that lime flowing with the wind while being dumped through a shoot to a truck to be transferred to the steel mills.

Meanwhile, Marblehead Lime is getting away with tons of violations, Tell me this isn't a crooked world. Stick this freezing weather up your butts. Summers are shorter because of all this cold weather.

I can't wait to retreat to a tropical island.

UrRight wrote:

I can't wait to retreat to a tropical island.

Make sure it's located high enough above sea level.

Stephen Colbert on Fox News' fair, balanced, exhaustively researched, and of course, completely honest, "It snows in winter! You're busted, Al Gore!!" analysis of global warming:

Weather is an act of God; everyone needs to learn how to recycle. The steel mills that still exist must come up to the standards....instead of trucking, use the trains.

It's worthless if the USA is the only ones doing what needs to be done. By the way, all those tanks, gunshots in the war....and Brown, in INdiana is determined to get people to quit smoking....by dictating businesses to go smokeless.

I have two things to say on that....why aren't they more concerned about the cancer rate in Whiting/Lake County because of the Steel Mills, and the fact that more trucks tailgaiting on the Borman produced fifty times more pollution than the businesses he dictates should go smokless?

Crack down on the trucking business for spewing out more fumes, throwing trash around the expressways, then we'll talk about Brown's stupid proposal. People aren't going to restaurants as it is, no one complained about this crap....it's a crock of crap...it started in one state and snowballed into others. Just to let you know the crooked politicians take the easy route to make you think they're working "hard".

Go ahead...the economy is so bad, if you haven't noticed the commercials from Applebee's, TGIF, etc., if you want to kill them off, go ahead and blow the gun on them. People aren't eating out, so shove that NO SMOKING bill up your lazy butt.

Global warming is a freaking myth...but if you need to blame anyone, blame those smoke'fueling outdated buses and those stupid truck drivers. Use trains, massive express trains....cut down on your county/city/owned perks of cars being driven around with free gas and insurance, then talk to us taxpayers.

You can't control the weather, but you can't control the public taxpayers. No matter where you go where they passed a law on not smoking, you still find a way around it.

Take the popular "CrowBar" tavern on the south side of Chicago. There's a jar there, that if you want to smoke, throw a five buck bill in. They pay the fines to IL just to keep their devoted patrons in there...willing to pay, drink, eat and smoke...and the pot never runs dry.

It was on the news, and I happen to know the owners....they serve the best damn corned beef on St. Pat's Day, the line is out the door, and that's the only time I go there, but the bar is full everyday with the jar full of bills. Everyone contributes to the pot to help the owner pay the fines just to have the freedom to smoke if they want. Point is, gov't needs to stay out of private businesses.

Did anyone hear a peep out of Al Gore - or see his head protruding from a snow bank?

It was a cold summer...and the snowiest season. If their worried about polar bears, seals, and penquins, ship them to NY or Chicago during the winter. Geeze, worrying about sheets of ice melting......over a bunch of mammals.

Get a life, politicians. Get a life.

We've got homeless people living in sub-zero weather, and they worry about a bunch of mammals.

UrRight wrote:

Weather is an act of God;

No it's not. It is a result atmospheric conditions at a given time is forecasted on the basis of scientific facts and principles. Supernatural or fictional characters don't control it.

UrRight wrote:

Did anyone hear a peep out of Al Gore - or see his head protruding from a snow bank?

No,because cranks and right wing kooks are too busy claiming that single events like record snowstorms somehow negate the overwhelming evidence of climate change.

UrRight wrote:

Global warming is a freaking myth...

Wow. I'm absolutely astonished the teabagger opts for the Global Cabal explanation.



But the smoking ban rant thing was totally on topic.

Artie60438 wrote:

UrRight wrote:

Did anyone hear a peep out of Al Gore - or see his head protruding from a snow bank?

No,because cranks and right wing kooks are too busy claiming that single events like record snowstorms somehow negate the overwhelming evidence of climate change.

What 's funny, just as the pseudo scientists "manipulated" or changed data to support their justification, now the public has changed the term, from Global Warming to Climate Change.