Climate Skeptic Admits He Was Wrong to Doubt Global-Warming Data

[SiriuslyLong]

"evidently it is". So all of a sudden you acknowledge the planet is warming after claiming you
have no knowledge or point of view on this subject and dont care, and after trying to present
evidence to the contrary. WOW.

I know its hard for you to admit facts sometimes, but do you think you could take a little less than 2 years next time and do it with a little more intellectual honesty and maturity? Nah!

P.S. I enjoy winter.

The experts say it is. I haven't looked at the data myself. I've always said we should be good stewards of the earth. You are the one who is political about it.

I manage well through winter. A new pair of skis always helps.

[Havakasha]

"i havent looked at the data myself". You are a riot. I presented quite a bit of it. I couldnt even get you to admit that 98% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real despite all the data i posted. I presented facts and you ignored them. And THEN you tried to post distortions to the contrary which were easily countered. So you want to tell me you arent "political". Jesus.
I quess for you its always political when one provides information that overcomes misinformation
and ignorance.

I said before to you (after you denied knowing anything on the subject or caring, "havent looked at the data"), that when you say that you "KNOW" that climate change is not important, despite saying your are ignorant on the subject, that you demonstrate a complete lack of logic. You hereby earn the phrase "dumbass".

Remember when you said the atmosphere was too big for pollution to have any effect?

[Havakasha]

Though S&L has claimed that he knows nothing (already proven that is B.S.) and doesnt care to know about the subject of climate change, he miraculously knows that it isn't important. Un****ingbelieveable.


November 3, 2011 3:29 PM

"Monster" greenhouse gas levels seen

(AP) WASHINGTON - The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.
The new figures for 2010 mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst case scenario outlined by climate experts just four years ago.

"The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing," said John Reilly, co-director of MIT's Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change.

Department of Energy's carbon dioxide information center
Global warming skeptic now says: It's true
Berkeley: Earth surface temperature report

The world pumped about 564 million more tons of carbon into the air in 2010 than it did in 2009. That's an increase of 6 percent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries - China, the United States and India, the world's top producers of greenhouse gases.

It is a "monster" increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past.

Extra pollution in China and the U.S. account for more than half the increase in emissions last year, Marland said.

"It's a big jump," said Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab. "From an emissions standpoint, the global financial crisis seems to be over."

Boden said that in 2010 people were traveling, and manufacturing was back up worldwide, spurring the use of fossil fuels, the chief contributor of man-made climate change.

India and China are huge users of coal. Burning coal is the biggest carbon source worldwide and emissions from that jumped nearly 8 percent in 2010.

The world is slowly using more coal and less natural gas when it should be doing just the opposite because of climate change, Marland said.

In 2007 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.

"Really dismaying," said Granger Morgan, head of the engineering and public policy department at Carnegie Mellon University. "We are building up a horrible legacy for our children and grandchildren."

[SiriuslyLong]

I just read this article. In fact, I was going to post it. Now again, please don't launch into the denier BS. This article cites 564,000,000 tons were put into the atmosphere in 2010 which is cause for ALARM. The weight of the atmosphere is 5 x 10^15 tons which makes the amount of "man made emissions" put into the air at 0.00001%. Say we did that for 40 years and the cumulative total is 40 x that = 0.0004% (assuming it is unconsumed).

I don't expect you to see what I'm saying, but would you agree that those are some pretty damn small amounts relative to the entire size of the atmosphere. It must be some really powerful stuff, but in looking at thermal conductivity and specific heat of carbon dioxide, nitrogen and oxygen, they are very similar.

I'm going to have to REEEEEEEEEEEE search why such a small amount of gas causes such a BIG problem.

[Havakasha]

Doesnt your intuition tell you that all the pollution we send up into the atmosphere has to be having some affect?
Also, leave all your biases aside and just think. Does pollution causes asthma and other respiratory diseases? Does it cause damage to the planet and human beings?

Scientists are telling you and me and the world that human beings are causing the planet to heat up.I think you admitted that the other day. No?

You go and do your research. Glad to see you finally "care". LMFAO.

And while you are at it please research this logic. " I dont care" and "I dont know anything" about climate change but I do know "its not important". Good luck.

[SiriuslyLong]

Strengthening of the greenhouse effect through human activities is known as the enhanced (or anthropogenic) greenhouse effect.[17] This increase in radiative forcing from human activity is attributable mainly to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.[18]

CO2 is produced by fossil fuel burning and other activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation.[19] Measurements of CO2 from the Mauna Loa observatory show that concentrations have increased from about 313 ppm [20] in 1960 to about 389 ppm in 2010. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data.[21] The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate, a special case of the greenhouse effect first described in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, has also been called the Callendar effect.

Because it is a greenhouse gas, elevated CO2 levels contribute to additional absorption and emission of thermal infrared in the atmosphere, which produce net warming. According to the latest Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".[22]

Over the past 800,000 years,[23] ice core data shows unambiguously that carbon dioxide has varied from values as low as 180 parts per million (ppm) to the pre-industrial level of 270ppm.[24] Paleoclimatologists consider variations in carbon dioxide to be a fundamental factor in controlling climate variations over this time scale.[25][26]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

Crazy - increased from 313 part per million to 389 in a 50 year timeframe. The CAGR is 0.436% per year growth.

But here is something more substantial.

"In particular, the use of fossil fuels has raised the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by about 25 per cent since the Industrial Revolution"

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/19..._mckibbin.aspx

Interesting subject this is.

[SiriuslyLong]

Doesnt your intuition tell you that all the pollution we send up into the atmosphere has to be having some affect?
Also, leave all your biases aside and just think. Does pollution causes asthma and other respiratory diseases? Does it cause damage to the planet and human beings?

Scientists are telling you and me and the world that human beings are causing the planet to heat up.I think you admitted that the other day. No?

You go and do your research. Glad to see you finally "care". LMFAO.

And while you are at it please research this logic. " I dont care" and "I dont know anything" about climate change but I do know "its not important". Good luck.

It's far more important to you; that remains the same.

[Havakasha]

You said climate change "wasnt important". Clearly that is not the case.
Just read and study the science if you care.

Im glad you didnt try to defend your twisted logic.

[Havakasha]

SAT NOV 05, 2011 AT 06:00 AM PDT
This week in science: Busy humans and our active sun
byDarkSyde

Results from the Berkeley Earth Project compared to existing NASA and NOAA temperature records. Note the results fit that existing climate data like a glove.
The fall out from the Berkeley Earth Project, which confirmed climate scientists weren't lying about the global climate record as part of some grand international conspiracy, continues to grow. It even dragged in the eco writer at that hotbed of socialist fundamentalism also known as Forbes:

"The cause is clear, and the solution is obvious – but it’s that solution that has conservatives in a state of paralytic denial. To fix this problem, we must fundamentally change the way our economy prices goods and services so that the cost of environmental degradation is embedded in the cost of production."

If you think that chart is convincing now, imagine where the data might go over the next five years as we churn out even more pollution and the sun enters the active phase of its cycle. Oh, and speaking of the sun, don't forget to fall back this weekend and save some daylight!
Our friends at NASA have spotted a massive crack creeping across the ice shelf of Antarctica's Pine Island Glaciar. Phil Plait has posted some video here and I have a nice satellite image up here.
Many thanks to the Lousy Canuck for posting a link to this wonderful series of YouTube videos sure to satisfy your raging desire for space exploration porn.
This excellent piece by science blogger Ethan Siegal and this one by Sean Carroll, on why we think our universe is part of a larger multiverse rank among the most fascinating space-science posts I've ever read.
An asteroid will graze the earth-moon system on Monday. It won't hit us and that's a good thing. Because I ran an online impact simulation model or two and found this sucker is plenty big enough to do some serious damage.
Anatomically modern humans were in Europe earlier than previously thought; it looks like we also interbred with a poorly understood subspecies called Denosivans; and together with climate change we apparently played a role in the extinction of Ice-age megafauna. Our ancestors were busy!

[SiriuslyLong]

You said climate change "wasnt important". Clearly that is not the case.
Just read and study the science if you care.

Im glad you didnt try to defend your twisted logic.

It's important to you and your party, yet I'm sure your all experts in black body radiation lol. Can't do your own taxes, but an expert in physics. Who'd a thunk that?