Independent Group Confirms Global Warming

A group formed after the so-called Climategate has confirmed their findings. The group, partially funded by the Koch Brothers, and designed to prove that the climate scientist of the world were falsifying the proof for global warming has discovered that they aren't lying after all.

Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study

 

Not that there was really any doubt, but that's funny...

 

Yeah, I saw some reports about the preliminary results a few weeks ago. From a scientific perspective, it's always a good idea to have an independent group look over the data, but I think it's absolutely hilarious that the Kock brothers funded them hoping to get global warming disproved.

 

I just don't understand how some people still believe in a global conspiracy, involving tens of thousands of scientists, designed to convince us the world is warming for... what reason? What is the end game of this imaginary conspiracy? Are the lab-coats just having a good laugh at our expense? We're screwing up the planet. Let's quit arguing about it and start looking for ways to fix it!

 

There's plenty of evidence that there is the natural cyclical climate change that occurs with semi-regularity on the planet. Where is all of the evidence that this climate change is caused by humans? As to the question "what is the end game of this [imaginary] conspiracy?" Well . . . I'm not a conspiracy theorist. However, you have to wonder how much of this support for climate change in this country has to do with support for Obama's stated desire to make fuel and power more expensive, to encourage its conservation.

 

First, there is plenty of evidence for the human input in the current climate changes. All carbon is not the same. Different isotopes of carbon can be traced to difference sources. The carbon found in fossil fuels is different from the kind released from volcanoes. You can tell where the carbon is coming from by the kinds of carbon in the atmosphere. The ratios are the telling piece of information.
A direct quote from the article: The human fingerprint in global warming

This is how we can tell that human use of fossil fuels is the major contributor to the current warming.
Another excellent article can be found here: Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

As for the political aspect.
Global warming has nothing to do with politicians, but plenty to do with politics. In other words, it has nothing to do with Barack Obama's plans and neither does it have to do with Al Gore's plans. It existed before anyone ever heard of Al Gore or Barack Obama and most of us have been attempting to get something done about it for years or decades. Despite the accusations of the AGW denial crowd the scientist have known this was a coming problem for years. There never was any real support for any other conclusion because the science is undeniable. Only the projected impact is a subject of debate and that is all coming from a certain portion of the population.

The only people who really protest the issue are the ones at the risk from loss of profit and the people who have been programmed to follow them. They say it isn't happening, which require the complete and willing dismissal of all the scientific evidence, or they deny the impact will be negative.

The evidence is clear and it takes a deliberate will to ignore it.

Oh, and for the record, fossil fuels are going to get more expensive. The " law of diminishing returns " shows that. As the source becomes scarce the price has to go up. We need fossil fuels for certain industrial productions and using it to run our vehicles is eventually going to endanger those uses because it is a non-renewable resource. When it runs out our entire industrial civilization will come to an stop unless we have learned to replace them. Oil, natural gas, and coal aren't just used for fuel. They are the basic feed stocks for the entire plastics and agricultural power house which allows for modern technology. We have to change the way we use them and doing so benefits us in many areas.
It removes the source of pollution which is causing global warming.
It prolongs their use as feedstocks until we learn ways to replace them.
It moves us to more efficient sources of energy.

 

Well, it's all well and good to say that fossil fuels will get more expensive due to their relative scarcity (the law of diminishing returns does not mean what you apparently think it means), but there is about 100 years of fossil fuel left yet, not to mention the shale sands, etc. And I have no doubt that there is a different kind of carbon isotope being expelled into the air, but the question remains--is there enough of that carbon being expelled to have the disastrous effects that have led to $10 light bulbs that don't perform well and Solyndra? With the "science" behind the accusations of agriculture's contribution to global warming being debunked, then why should the rest of it be accepted without a jaundiced eye? Global warming is a fact, but thinking that we have a huge effect on a natural phenomenon and that we have the power to reverse it seems incredibly arrogant to me.

 

As the cost of fossil fuel inputed into the system increases due to scarcity it will impact both the cost of the unit being produced and the amount being produced. Fossil fuel isn't just one aspect of production. It is in all aspects of production. Fossil fuels are both the feedstock and the power source of production. In other words, if you increase the cost of two inputs then you affect the production and the costs.

A hundred years IFF (if and only if) the rate of consumption stays the same. It isn't. In addition, accessing the shale sands is more expensive and is much more damaging to the environment.

You tell me.
From coal power production we release an average of 2,220,000,000 tons/year of carbon dioxide and 432,000 tons/year of carbon monoxide into the atmosphere from the United States alone. These are my own calculations based on available data. You can read the complete result and find the sources of the information here: Impact of Coal Power Production in the United States.
In addition, global gasoline vehicle usage releases 34,254,000 Tons of Hydrocarbons, 260,462,000 Tons of Carbon Monoxide and 5,086,605,000 Tons of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. This is based on 2007 data and once again from my own calculations. It doesn't include the use of diesel engines because that data was even harder to find than gasoline engines. You can see the full calculations at: What our vehicles leave behind
Can you honestly look at those numbers and think we don't have any impact on natural phenomena and that by changing our habits we can ameliorate that impact.

On Solyndra I fail to understand your point. Is it the fact that the government gave them a $535 million loan. If so I fail to see the relevance. Do you have any idea how much money we give the petroleum companies in the form of subsidies, tax breaks and profit? Compared to the money we give the fossil fuel companies that is a joke. As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Subsidies

If you really want to see who gets the most from the government it is not hard to find the information.

Link please. I don't know anything about this and would love to see the evidence.

 

Whatcha got there, facts?

 

BTW. The new party line is that the skeptics never said the planet wasn't warming. The next time that happens ask them about the Leipzig Declaration which, as recently as 2005, said
"In fact, many climate specialists now agree that actual observations from weather satellites show no global warming whatsoever."

 

See, that's the problem when you use evidence provided by a political group as evidence that speaks for "everyone." Dig deeper and I think you'd find that that statement meant that there was no evidence whatsoever for the disaster predicted by Al Gore et al. On the other hand, speak to the average person who thinks that Al Gore is a fruitcake for his views and you'll probably hear no argument that things are getting warmer. I've said it myself: climate is changing, but there's no evidence that it's changing outside of what is normal for this planet. I don't care if you have 10 or 20 or 100 years of evidence--it's not a representative sample of all of the years this ball of rock has had an atmosphere.

 

Here is a chart people might find interesting

 

Which is why I don't listen to Al Gore or James Inhofe when it comes to global warming. I listen to the scientist who, except for a few outliers, agree that global warming is happening, is caused by humans and is a problem.

 

Yes, rlm, those are some of the swings I was talking about. It's interesting to see them in graphical format. That information, right there, is why there are so many doubters that human intervention has anything to do with climate change. A couple of centuries from now, that Mt. Pinatubo blip won't even be noticeable in this particular warm phase--probably the sudden swing downward in 2011 won't be noticed, either. Honestly, except for the lack of rain this summer and thus far into the fall, the heat was not as bad as it normally is and the weather has actually been a bit more pleasant here in the American Deep South. Right now, we're at 58 degrees--pretty cool for this time of year--although we're likely to be back in the 70s this weekend. I expect that we'll probably have snow in December again--maybe enough for actual accumulation! I'm wondering how all of that is a sign of global warming?

 

I might if I didn't know anything about the people who created the chart.
From the person who wrote helped create the chart.

If you deny the physics of carbon dioxide retaining heat then you are denying basic science and I will talk what you say with a 25 pound bag of salt.
When you start crying about global socialist conspiracies controlled by the UN you lose all reliability.

 

<sigh>
Global warming. Having a cool spot in a certain location doesn't disprove that the earth is heating on a global basis. How many times to people have to point that out?


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3

 

Yes, but we are still part of the globe. The American Southwest is also having record cool temperatures right now--the Texas panhandle got snow yesterday. Colorado got snow as well. New England is facing up to 10 inches of snow--in October. I'm still not seeing how the entire globe is being warmed.

 

Interesting. I still feel that most of the climate change is based upon solar activity and the magnetic poles. However, if people want to save the planet in general then we have to have less people.

 

Just curious, but what degrees do you hold that make you qualified in such matters? BTW, I don't disagree that CO2 retains some heat, but I do deny that it is the sole driver of climate and deny that climate is a 10 year cycle.

Now a couple more questions;
Why is the temperature of Mars rising?
What is the correct temperature for Earth (and why did you pick that temperature)?
When was the last time it snowed in New York City in the month of July and why?
What does CO2 do to the earth's albedo?

 

I'm not trying to cause any fights, but what do people think of this information? I tend to think of NASA as a legitimate agency and trust information that comes from there. I'm just not knowledgeable enough about the either Dr. Spencer or the journal Remote Sensing to offer an informed opinion. Can anyone who knows more than me offer an opinion?

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html