Global Warming? Caused by humans?

Joe Biden says it is SOLELY caused by humans, so it must be true.

Scientists say that humans, all seven billion of us, only produce 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. Most is produced by volcanos and other natural sources. Also global temperature does not correlate to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. In the past CO2 levels have been much higher than they are now and the temperature was lower.

Global temperatures correlate with more or less solar radiation. Duh! Our sun is not completely stable, it's output fluctuates. And so far that is out of our control.

In the 1970's they were warning us about the next ice age, now it's global warming.
Why?
Because starting in the mid 1940's temperatures started dropping and they dropped for 40 years. Then they started rising and they have been rising for the past 25 years. So now it's global warming.

"State of Fear" is fiction but it postulates that the public must be kept in fear in order to keep them under control.

In the 1970's they were warning us about the next ice age, now it's global warming.
Why?
Because starting in the mid 1940's temperatures started dropping and they dropped for 40 years. Then they started rising and they have been rising for the past 25 years. So now it's global warming.
.

The "they" who were warning us were Time, quickly followed by Newsweek, based on out of context statements from scientific reports. The "warnings" in the magazines were quickly debunked by the majority of the scientific community. But the worms would never go back in the can. I was a journalism major back when this was going on. And this fiasco was one of our case studies - part of the lesson on researching and writing balanced articles.

As for your weather citations. They are inconsequential to your premise. Area temperatures are distinct from global temperature. Australia is in the middle of record-breaking heat waves right now.

Sorry, but I'll believe the vast bulk of scientists who are actually related to climatology before Fox news pundits.

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp

I don't think that this has anything to do with Fox news. The only article that I linked from Fox news was the Coast Guard icebreaker story. Funny, I could not find a single mention on CNN about the Coast Guard icebreaker going to help the other icebreakers.

I agree that it appears that humans are contributing to global warming (though not the exclusive cause). Temperatures have only been recorded globally since 1880. During this period of time the human population has gone from 1.5 billion people to 7 billion people. Is it time for population limits for humans. In the past this was controlled by disease and famine.

The relatively unusual thing about climate science are the politics involved. Did you watch the video above. The speakers are scientists, some were on the IPCC. They claim that all dissenting opinions were suppressed. I would think that as scientists they should have been discussed and refuted rather than being suppressed.

The other disturbing thing is that when climategate occurred the scientists involved did not react like scientists. The science done by UEA was peer reviewed and accepted. However after the controversy started UEA declined to make their RAW data available. When pressed they admitted that no one during the peer review process had asked to see the raw data. Not a very thorough peer review. They further claimed that the raw data had been destroyed.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf

It seems that in the climate science field it is not common practice to disclose raw data nor is it common to divulge the details of software modeling tools used to produce the academic reports. All models are based on a set of assumptions. Isn't it important to know what those assumptions are? Does this sound like good science? How can a peer review take place without this information?

I mentioned the Michael Crichton book because the scientists in the video above allude to the same things that Crichton mentioned. That fear drives the funding. The more dire the threat of global warming caused by humans the more funding that is poured into climate science. And into organizations that lobby in favor of slowing human production of CO2. The big ramp up in concern over global warming occurred at the end of the cold war when anti-war activists were forced to find a new area in which to express their misgivings about the future. They chose global warming.

Does it concern anyone that the computer models on which the dire future predictions are based do not account for the relative pauses which have occurred first between 1945-1980 and again from 1995-present. The scientists involved in the modeling refuse to divulge the assumptions on which their models are based.

Is this about science or politics and money?

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/09/9135_out_of_9136_scientists_believe_climate_change_is_happening/

9,135 out of 9,136 scientists believe climate change is happening

"Contrary to what conservatives might suggest, there really isn’t a debate in the scientific community over whether climate change is real. The commonly cited statistic is that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is happening, and that it’s caused by human activity. Another way of looking at that consensus comes courtesy of James Lawrence Powell, who examined a year’s worth of climate-related scientific studies and found that virtually all accept man-made global warming.

Powell’s analysis covers 2,258 articles published in peer-reviewed journals between November 2012 and December 2013, written by a total of 9,136 authors. He found but one holdout: S. V. Avakyan who, writing for the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, concluded that “contribution of the greenhouse effect of carbon-containing gases to global warming turns out to be insignificant.”"

I'm not entering into an argument over this - I just thought that 2258 peer-reviewed articles in one year who all agree but one is a pretty interesting number - and I don't think they are all colluding for money. I haven't spent a bunch of time going through the links but this one caught my eye.

In regards to Al Gore, eh, whatever. He's trying to be the canary in the coal mine. If he was wrong I really don't care. I see the whole "Climategate" as a joke and grasping at straws and dumb mistakes. EVERYTHING is about politics and money - from the air you breathe to your underwear on your butt. Until the world changes someone will always be trying to make a buck or be in control.

A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent.
The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.
Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

The Daily Mail is a tabloid known for overstating and piecemealing facts for the sake of drama. It is not a reliable news source.

Unfortunately while I wish this article was true, it isn't in its entirety, except for the one bit they chose to highlight, which was August 2013 was greater than August 2012. However ice growth is still below normal, arctic ice extents remain below average (and are still record lows), and some areas have retreated unusually early. The Antarctic remains high, and I find the discussion about the variability of the Antarctic interesting. See link below for ice facts for 2013.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

It's all about climate change (global warming is a misnomer) - my personal opinion is it is not entirely man made; however we cannot ignore the role of humans in the current changes on our planet. We also can't point to pockets of extremes and generalize them. The Earth is a complex system and at best we can do a big-picture evaluation. Do I hope "global warming" isn't true, or at the least, is overstated? Of course I do, who wouldn't? But for me that doesn't mean humans should be allowed to be dismissive of their global responsibility for the sake of a political argument.

Musings...

This whole thing I've seen lately about "Al Gore should apologize" - I mean really, who gives a **** about whether he apologizes or not except for people who are emotionally invested in being RIGHT? I find that attitude distasteful and a waste of time. It would be nice if people could work together to figure out correct and incorrect theories, accepting those that work and dismissing those that don't without all the finger pointing and "I told you so!!!" behavior on both extremes of the argument. But people would rather cherry pick and nitpick and "prove" their side of the argument, instead of having the emotional maturity to back away from arguing and hold out a hand of cooperation.

I also find most political conspiracy theories silly - the world is actually run by a bunch of selfish, flawed humans who make mistakes and for the most part are incapable of true independent altruism - and I base a lot of that just on personal observation, I've been around a lot in my life. You can take that premise and manipulate it into any theory you like.

I am not a climate scientist and therefore have no personal insight about the validity of claims made by global warming alarmists except to note that so far every one of their published predictions has been over stated.

Starting back in the 1980s James Hansen with NASA was predicting that by now global average temperatures would rise 1 degree C every 20 years. This has not happened. All of the models seem to over estimate warming trends.

Version 2 of the recently release Fifth Assessment Report from the IPCC scaled back predictions over the first version by 30%.

I have no doubt that humans are having an effect on the environment, we are a virus on planet earth. The best way to control our impact is to control our population.

If we want to continue to increase our numbers we need to expand into space. We have 5 times the world wide population that we had 130 years ago.

We have only been measuring global temperature for 130 years. The primary culprit is identified now as CO2. In the past, according to ice core samples, temperature increase has preceded CO2 increase not the other way around. Now we are saying that CO2 increase causes temperature increase.

i agree. I do think that the alarmists were/are sincere in their convictions - and at the least, they got a conversation started. It's not entirely a bad thing. In a universe of infinite possibilities, we will experience all personality types and ideas. Not all of them can be right, and reality always lies somewhere in the middle of the extremes.

Al Gore, well, whatever. He's made his money. I've never jumped on his bandwagon - my rational nature just won't allow it.

And yes, the Earth would benefit from knocking off a few billion humans - and I have a sense in my gut that nature might take care of that for us at some point.

CO2 is not the only identified greenhouse gas - it is just an easy one to hang a hat upon. Methane and ozone are obvious additional doppelgängers - there are more that are less well known. And whether it's the "chicken or the egg" in regards to CO2, I'm not sure it matters - I'm more concerned about an expressed outcome rather than who is absolutely right or wrong. I'm not a climate scientist but I am a scientist. 😉

Global Warming, Earth, other planets as well?
Swan

http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html

On the bright side.

NOAA: Warmed Global Oceans Produce Less Atlantic Hurricanes
http://www.dailytech.com/NOAA+Warmed+Global+Oceans+Produce+Less+Atlantic+Hurricanes/article10473.htm

I think the title should be "Produce Fewer Atlantic Hurricanes".

On the bright side.

NOAA: Warmed Global Oceans Produce Less Atlantic Hurricanes
http://www.dailytech.com/NOAA+Warmed+Global+Oceans+Produce+Less+Atlantic+Hurricanes/article10473.htm

I think the title should be "Produce Fewer Atlantic Hurricanes".

Oh well now you're going to be a grammar nazi. Sheesh. Pick a cause and stick with it. 😛 *laughs*

On the bright side.

NOAA: Warmed Global Oceans Produce Less Atlantic Hurricanes
http://www.dailytech.com/NOAA+Warmed+Global+Oceans+Produce+Less+Atlantic+Hurricanes/article10473.htm

I think the title shour ld be "Produce Fewer Atlantic Hurricanes".

Oh well now you're going to be a grammar nazi. Sheesh. Pick a cause and stick with it. 😛 *laughs*

Oh no! Now I'm a nerd without a cause. I was just pointing out that education in the US has slipped so far that not only do 47% of the people in the country not believe in evolution but news editors and proofreaders dont know the difference between less and fewer. The next thing you know we'll be worshipping son-of-virgin sky zombies using poisonous snakes.
😉

On the bright side.

NOAA: Warmed Global Oceans Produce Less Atlantic Hurricanes
http://www.dailytech.com/NOAA+Warmed+Global+Oceans+Produce+Less+Atlantic+Hurricanes/article10473.htm

I think the title shour ld be "Produce Fewer Atlantic Hurricanes".

Oh well now you're going to be a grammar nazi. Sheesh. Pick a cause and stick with it. 😛 *laughs*

Oh no! Now I'm a nerd without a cause. I was just pointing out that education in the US has slipped so far that not only do 47% of the people in the country not believe in evolution but news editors and proofreaders dont know the difference between less and fewer. The next thing you know we'll be worshipping son-of-virgin sky zombies using poisonous snakes.
😉

I have to agree.

On the bright side.

NOAA: Warmed Global Oceans Produce Less Atlantic Hurricanes
http://www.dailytech.com/NOAA+Warmed+Global+Oceans+Produce+Less+Atlantic+Hurricanes/article10473.htm

I think the title shour ld be "Produce Fewer Atlantic Hurricanes".

Oh well now you're going to be a grammar nazi. Sheesh. Pick a cause and stick with it. 😛 *laughs*

Oh no! Now I'm a nerd without a cause. I was just pointing out that education in the US has slipped so far that not only do 47% of the people in the country not believe in evolution but news editors and proofreaders dont know the difference between less and fewer. The next thing you know we'll be worshipping son-of-virgin sky zombies using poisonous snakes.
😉

Oh please, quit perpetuating prejudices. Snakes are only poisonous because they're possessed by an evil spirit after one of the original humans manipulated one into taking the fall for her impulsiveness after the planet was created in six days by a extraterrestrial's whim. Everyone knows that. *eyeroll*

Personally, I'm waiting for the aliens to come back.

Polar Vortex and Climate Change: Why Rush Limbaugh and Others Are Wrong

http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/climate-change-skeptics-winter-cold-global-warming-still-real-20140107

An easy read review - and point #3 specifically addresses the fallacies around arctic/antarctic ice caps.

You are quoting the Weather Channel as your source.

The same people that predicted - BASED ON CLIMATE DATA - that this season would be 75% more active than the year before.

They are really dropping to a new low when they have to refute an entertainer for his opinion on weather.

The Weather Channel should stick to what they do best - produce reality TV shows.

The article just does a good job of summing up facts which are easily found on other sources, which is the only reason I posted it. You can run a web search and find other sources which you may consider more reliable.

Did you even look at the article? It is full of links to citable sources, not the Weather channel's own data.

Here's NOAA's "Arctic Report Card" - just one of many independent citations in the article, which is why I posted it, they do a good job summing up other data and findings. But if you want to be just dismissive, I understand.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

I would never dispute facts.

I dispute those that take selected facts and twist them to 'prove' a preconceived position and ignore the facts that counter that position.

NOAA and many climatologists were way off base (wrong)in predicting this hurricane season, a subset of the global climate.

Should we just ignore that they could be wrong about other things as well

Except the facts that are posted are facts that agree with the posting in this article, they are not being "twisted." Taking the time to read and click through citations would reveal that.

I have no issue with a counter-argument, except for when that counter-argument cherry-picks what are correct facts and uses them in support of a fallacy, strictly to make money, gather followers (for more money), and chest-thumping. It's absolutely insane - and just about any scientist will tell you so.

Refer back to the image I posted above.