Prominent global warming skeptic releases new study

[Strike 5,748]

They come and go in direct alignment with the amount of CO2 and methane that is in the atmosphere at the time. The amount of CO2 and methane in the air in any given geothermal era is measured by digging up millions of year old ice sheaths out of Greenland.

 

I learned that from Al Gore's movie which, unlike anything the deniers side puts out, can and is backed up by real science.

 

/threadkiller

 

So you think the oceans are going to rise by 6-10 feet over the next 100 years?

[Voltaire 5,363]

Well, I can't see youtube links but I do remember what Al Gore looked like when pulled out of a controlled environment with proper framing, editing, and scripting.

 

But he does have quality framing, scripting and editing in the movie, along with plenty of scientific data and real scientist to back him up, and when you give him time to plan a movie or a power point presentation, he's able to deliver a resonant message.

 

Now that I think about it, the 98% # was from Al Gore too. But in fact I was able to find the source of that quote online...

 

again,

 

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

 

Although since this survey of scientific papers came out after the movie, there must have been something earlier done on it.

 

---

 

But again, strawman. Whatever you think of Al Gore, it's the data, the method the data is collected, the way that it's put together, and the conclusions extrapolated from the data that's the important thing.

 

The case for climate change is strong and just gets stronger with each year. And all the changes in the debate are happening where more and more of the holdout 2% are giving ground and switching sides.

 

But believe what you want, even 100% full blown evidence will never been enough to change the minds of stubborn people with airtight opinions.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Ice ages, fellas. Explain how Ice ages have come and gone for thousands of years..........

 

 

/threadkiller

I'm not a climatologist, but how exactly does this refute the possibility of anthropogenic climate change? Perhaps there are multiple forces at work?

 

I thought the Ice Age caused extinction of all the big dumb animals?

[penultimatestraw 473]

So you think the oceans are going to rise by 6-10 feet over the next 100 years?

Let's wait and find out, rather than advancing more efficient, cleaner and sustainable energy over the old stuff that pollutes the environment and comes from a politically unstable, American-hating region of the world. Or ransack our own stores in a pristine wilderness. We could use the jobs, after all.

 

To answer your question, I don't know but think there are many good reasons to wean from the petrol teat that have nothing to do with climate change.

[Voltaire 5,363]

So you think the oceans are going to rise by 6-10 feet over the next 100 years?

 

If you ever want to know how young Chinese children learn English from the physical comedy of a low-quality Michael Richards impersonator, I may well be one of the world's foremost authorities on the subject. I get great results and I'm highly successful at it.

 

Oceans aren't my thing.

 

What I do know about oceans is that they will rise in direct proportion to the amount of once permanent ice that melts from the polar regions. Or maybe not. There may be changes in the crust of the ocean floor that affect things too. I don't know how all the pieces fit together and besides, it's all speculation and models at this point. I don't actually get involved in forecasting any of this. With my credentials and background, I would only qualify to mop the laboratory floor.

 

I just have faith in the people that do make these models and predictions. There are much more serious people out there, smarter than me, that do this for a living and I trust their judgment.

[Strike 5,748]

If you ever want to know how young Chinese children learn English from the physical comedy of a low-quality Michael Richards impersonator, I may well be one of the world's foremost authorities on the subject. I get great results and I'm highly successful at it.

 

Oceans aren't my thing.

 

What I do know about oceans is that they will rise in direct proportion to the amount of once permanent ice that melts from the polar regions. Or maybe not. There may be changes in the crust of the ocean floor that affect things too. I don't know how all the pieces fit together and besides, it's all speculation and models at this point. I don't actually get involved in forecasting any of this. With my credentials and background, I would only qualify to mop the laboratory floor.

 

I just have faith in the people that do make these models and predictions. There are much more serious people out there, smarter than me, that do this for a living and I trust their judgment.

 

I asked this question in the context that you get your information from Al Gore's movie. In his movie he stated as fact that sea levels would rise by 6-10 feet or something in that range within the next 100 years. Not ONE scientist has ever come close to saying those numbers. So if you take other statements from his movie as fact you must agree with this one as well. Or you could do some research where you'd find that there are a bunch of gross inaccuracies in his movie, even based upon the limited understanding we have of climate change at this point.

[Strike 5,748]

Let's wait and find out, rather than advancing more efficient, cleaner and sustainable energy over the old stuff that pollutes the environment and comes from a politically unstable, American-hating region of the world. Or ransack our own stores in a pristine wilderness. We could use the jobs, after all.

 

To answer your question, I don't know but think there are many good reasons to wean from the petrol teat that have nothing to do with climate change.

 

No one is suggesting that we shouldn't be more environmental friendly. It's a red herring to suggest otherwise.

[IGotWorms 4,060]

No one is suggesting that we shouldn't be more environmental friendly. It's a red herring to suggest otherwise.

 

Why do we need to be more environmental friendly?

[Voltaire 5,363]

I asked this question in the context that you get your information from Al Gore's movie. In his movie he stated as fact that sea levels would rise by 6-10 feet or something in that range within the next 100 years. Not ONE scientist has ever come close to saying those numbers. So if you take other statements from his movie as fact you must agree with this one as well. Or you could do some research where you'd find that there are a bunch of gross inaccuracies in his movie, even based upon the limited understanding we have of climate change at this point.

 

One of your problems is that you don't know what facts are. Let me help you out.

 

Facts are measurable or observable. The measure of temperature and rainfall in a certain place for a certain amount of time. How much permafrost disappears in a summer. The size of that block of ice in 2001 and the size of it today is a fact. The amount of snow on that mountaintop in 1990 and the amount there in 2010. These are facts. By their nature, facts are indisputable.

 

100 year projections are not facts, they're guesses that are based on facts. And they're presented as such.

 

If this much ice retreats at this rate over this course of time, this is how much ice will be lost. So the ice is now water, where does that water go? If spread out at sea level over the surface of all the oceans and seas, this much. I'm sure there are a couple of dozen mitigating factors that could throw the projections off. Earth crust activity, prevailing winds, atmospheric pressure, pollution, population growth and migratory patters, deforestation, Mr. Methane's colon, whatever the fock else, if you put in wrong or incomplete data or fail to factor something relevant in, you get screwed up results.

[penultimatestraw 473]

I asked this question in the context that you get your information from Al Gore's movie. In his movie he stated as fact that sea levels would rise by 6-10 feet or something in that range within the next 100 years. Not ONE scientist has ever come close to saying those numbers. So if you take other statements from his movie as fact you must agree with this one as well. Or you could do some research where you'd find that there are a bunch of gross inaccuracies in his movie, even based upon the limited understanding we have of climate change at this point.

No one is suggesting they agree with everything Al Gore states in his film. It is a red herring to suggest otherwise.

[Strike 5,748]

No one is suggesting they agree with everything Al Gore states in his film. It is a red herring to suggest otherwise.

 

Voltaire said he had a belief based solely on that film. Since he chose not to verify the accuracy of the claim independently of the film it's reasonable to assume he believes everything the film asserts.

[Strike 5,748]

Why do we need to be more environmental friendly?

 

It's the smart thing to do. However, causing significant harm to our entire economic system in the name of climate change when we don't even understand the causes very well is idiotic but that's what some politicians would have us do.

[Strike 5,748]

One of your problems is that you don't know what facts are. Let me help you out.

 

Facts are measurable or observable. The measure of temperature and rainfall in a certain place for a certain amount of time. How much permafrost disappears in a summer. The size of that block of ice in 2001 and the size of it today is a fact. The amount of snow on that mountaintop in 1990 and the amount there in 2010. These are facts. By their nature, facts are indisputable.

 

100 year projections are not facts, they're guesses that are based on facts. And they're presented as such.

 

If this much ice retreats at this rate over this course of time, this is how much ice will be lost. So the ice is now water, where does that water go? If spread out at sea level over the surface of all the oceans and seas, this much. I'm sure there are a couple of dozen mitigating factors that could throw the projections off. Earth crust activity, prevailing winds, atmospheric pressure, pollution, population growth and migratory patters, deforestation, Mr. Methane's colon, whatever the fock else, if you put in wrong or incomplete data or fail to factor something relevant in, you get screwed up results.

 

This is one of the most idiotic responses you've ever posted, and that's saying something. Find me ONE scientist that thinks sea levels will rise by even a 10th of what Gore claimed. You won't. They ALL cringed when he made that claim. And if you can't trust him on one thing it's hard to trust him on the other things in his film. You should really try to independently verify any claims you believe based solely on that idiotic film.

[phillybear 366]

Are we really debating the legitimacy of Al Gore.

 

The guy that has a financial stake in hundreds of green companies and produces a movie to help shill his propoganda with made up out of thin air data? Really? This guy is a carnie, and you people are rubes. In between fanning environmental panic, he rapes women and baby seals. Keep throwing those balls at the Jennifer Love Hewitt open mouth; I'm sure one will go through eventually and you can win a stuffed kangaroo. Al Gore will be burning in hell, which he calculates will be 100 degrees hotter by the time he dies from a random ManPigBear attack.

[MTSkiBum 1,625]

First off al gore is a moron. Nobody should listen to anything he says.

 

 

If global warming is true then sea levels will 100% rise, even if the ice caps do not melt. Basic thermodynamics states that as materials are heated up they expand. It would be relativly simple for an engineer to plug the oceans volume into the thermodynamic equations to calculate the projected value for sea level rise.

 

Google "coeficiant of thermal expansion for water"

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Consensus? I think not.

 

 

 

31,487 American scientists have signed this petition,

including 9,029 with PhDs

 

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Voltaire 5,363]

Voltaire said he had a belief based solely on that film. Since he chose not to verify the accuracy of the claim independently of the film it's reasonable to assume he believes everything the film asserts.

 

In which post did you get that impression? I only indicated that I watched the film.

 

More than anyone on this board, you have the ability to misread words and concepts then make up delusional things that you attribute to folks.

[Strike 5,748]

In which post did you get that impression? I only indicated that I watched the film.

 

More than anyone on this board, you have the ability to misread words and concepts then make up delusional things that you attribute to folks.

 

I learned that from Al Gore's movie which, unlike anything the deniers side puts out, can and is backed up by real science.

 

/threadkiller

 

[Voltaire 5,363]

This is one of the most idiotic responses you've ever posted, and that's saying something. Find me ONE scientist that thinks sea levels will rise by even a 10th of what Gore claimed. You won't. They ALL cringed when he made that claim. And if you can't trust him on one thing it's hard to trust him on the other things in his film. You should really try to independently verify any claims you believe based solely on that idiotic film.

 

If you can explain how this response has to do with my post, I'd appreciate it.

 

Thanks.

[Voltaire 5,363]

[Strike 5,748]

 

You might want to watch this clip and read this article before you go relying on Al Gore again:

 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/02/noted-warmist-scientists-endorse-al-gore-even-though-they-know-what-h

 

In particular, this quote:

MULLER: I don’t feel uncomfortable. It’s just a mistake. I’m in the Al Gore camp? That’s ridiculous. I wrote a book, my "Physics and Technology for Future Presidents" book. Look at the last third of that. What I point out is that most of what appears in "An Inconvenient Truth" is either absolutely wrong, exaggerated, or misleading.

[Strike 5,748]

If you can explain how this response has to do with my post, I'd appreciate it.

 

Thanks.

 

Your response was a bunch of gobbly gook. You didn't answer the question. It's sad that you can't answer a straight question.

[Strike 5,748]

Another great quote by Muller that people like Voltaire should take note of:

 

CRNM: I pick up an editorial by Eugene Robinson, Washington Post. It says what Dr. Muller says proves that these skeptics are wrong and they gotta get on this cap-and-trade train.

 

RICHARD MULLER: That’s ridiculous. I mean, some people say, I’ve proved that there was no ClimateGate. No, the ClimateGate thing was a scandal, it’s terrible what they did, it’s shameful the way they hid the data. There’s real skepticism, valid skepticism about the degree of warming that’s caused by humans and at this meeting today, we’re hearing a range of things that were not incorporated in the IPCC report and need to be incorporated in the future. The issue isn’t whether there’s global warming; it’s how much there is. And how much of that is caused by humans? And there’s still a lot of uncertainty that and the skeptics are raising very good points on that issue.

 

For the record, this is the SAME scientist who's editorial is being touted in the OP in this thread.

[Voltaire 5,363]

Your response was a bunch of gobbly gook. You didn't answer the question. It's sad that you can't answer a straight question.

Muller is the very same climate denier financed by the petroleum industry that I mentioned earlier who recanted during testimony before Congress this year.

 

Your braindead colleagues have already thrown him under the bus.

 

Just saying.

[Strike 5,748]

Muller is the very same climate denier financed by the petroleum industry that I mentioned earlier who recanted during testimony before Congress this year.

 

Your braindead colleagues have already thrown him under the bus.

 

Just saying.

 

Link?

[Frank M 181]

You know, I re-read this thread, and try as I might, I couldn't find any instance of Voltaire saying he believed the oceans would rise 6-10 feet, or saying that he believed the predictions made in Al Gore's movies. What I did see him say was that he learned some things, like the ice ages were caused by changes in CO2 and methane in the atmosphere which is theorized to be one of the causes, among other things:

 

 

 

Changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are a strong candidate to explain the overall pattern of climatic change. Carbon dioxide influences the mean global temperature through the greenhouse effect. The globally averaged surface temperature for the Earth is approximately 15 degrees Celsius, and this is due largely to the greenhouse effect. Solar radiation entering earth's atmosphere is predominantly short wave, while heat radiated from the Earth's surface is long wave. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and other trace gases in the Earth's atmosphere absorb this long wave radiation. Because the Earth does not allow this long wave radiation to leave, the solar energy is trapped and the net effect is to warm the Earth. If not for the presence of an atmosphere, the surface temperature on earth would be well below the freezing point of water.

 

Through a million year period, the average amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is affected by four fluxes: flux of carbon due to (1) metamorphic degassing, (2) weathering of organic carbon, (3) weathering of silicates, (4) burial of organic carbon. Degassing reactions associated with volcanic activity and the combining of organic carbon with oxygen release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Conversely, the burial of organic matter removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

 

 

I also saw him admit that he didn't know much about oceans when it comes to expanding and contracting, and that not being a scientist, he would trust those that obviously knew more than him.

 

The biggest thing I saw in this thread, though, was a lot of thickness, straw man arguments, word parsing, inserting of words into other peoples' mouths followed by berating them for saying those words even when they didn't, and general dooshiness from Strike.

 

In other words, the same things we always see.

 

 

 

[Strike 5,748]

Muller is the very same climate denier financed by the petroleum industry that I mentioned earlier who recanted during testimony before Congress this year.

 

Your braindead colleagues have already thrown him under the bus.

 

Just saying.

 

I just looked up his testimony. Unless I'm looking at the wrong thing you've got it wrong. The study that he recently released, which his congressional testimony was based on, was partially financed by the Koch brothers. I haven't found anything that says he has a long lasting relationship with the petroleum industry. So he went in front of congress and, despite his study being partially financed by the Koch brothers, told congress global warming was real. How is that recanting, or is there another episode I'm not aware of? I doubt it. I think you're just misinformed as usual.

 

Here's what I found:

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/apr/04/local/la-me-climate-berkeley-20110404

[Strike 5,748]

You know, I re-read this thread, and try as I might, I couldn't find any instance of Voltaire saying he believed the oceans would rise 6-10 feet, or saying that he believed the predictions made in Al Gore's movies. What I did see him say was that he learned some things, like the ice ages were caused by changes in CO2 and methane in the atmosphere which is theorized to be one of the causes, among other things:

 

 

 

 

 

I also saw him admit that he didn't know much about oceans when it comes to expanding and contracting, and that not being a scientist, he would trust those that obviously knew more than him.

 

The biggest thing I saw in this thread, though, was a lot of thickness, straw man arguments, word parsing, inserting of words into other peoples' mouths followed by berating them for saying those words even when they didn't, and general dooshiness from Strike.

 

In other words, the same things we always see.

 

Sorry your reading comprehension skills are on par with Voltaires.

 

He said he learned "that", that being a specific "fact", from Al Gore's movie. That's what I was referring to. If him saying he learned something from Al Gore's movie doesn't mean he learned something from Al Gore's movie I don't know what to tell you except to go back and retake remedial English.

 

And again, unlike people such as Voltaire and Nikee, I support my contentions with links and documentation. IOW, I don't talk out of my a$$ and make ###### up like Voltaire just did about Muller's testimony in front of congress.

[Frank M 181]

Sorry your reading comprehension skills are on par with Voltaires.

 

He said he learned "that", that being a specific "fact", from Al Gore's movie. That's what I was referring to. If him saying he learned something from Al Gore's movie doesn't mean he learned something from Al Gore's movie I don't know what to tell you except to go back and retake remedial English.

 

And again, unlike people such as Voltaire and Nikee, I support my contentions with links and documentation. IOW, I don't talk out of my a$ and make ###### up like Voltaire just did about Muller's testimony in front of congress.

 

 

Good one.

 

He said he learned that CO2 and methane in the atmosphere was the cause of the ice age. He never said anything about oceans rising or believing everything in the movie. You said all that.

[Strike 5,748]

 

Good one.

 

He said he learned that CO2 and methane in the atmosphere was the cause of the ice age. He never said anything about oceans rising or believing everything in the movie. You said all that.

 

That's why i SPECIFICALLY ASKED HIM IF HE BELIEVED THE OCEAN LEVELS WOULD RISE TO THE LEVELS AL GORE ASSERTED. And he NEVER answered a simple yes or no question. How focking difficult is it to say yes or no? Although he did say this which suggests he goes along with Al Gore on this one:

 

 

What I do know about oceans is that they will rise in direct proportion to the amount of once permanent ice that melts from the polar regions. Or maybe not. There may be changes in the crust of the ocean floor that affect things too. I don't know how all the pieces fit together and besides, it's all speculation and models at this point. I don't actually get involved in forecasting any of this. With my credentials and background, I would only qualify to mop the laboratory floor.

 

I just have faith in the people that do make these models and predictions. There are much more serious people out there, smarter than me, that do this for a living and I trust their judgment.

[Voltaire 5,363]

That's why i SPECIFICALLY ASKED HIM IF HE BELIEVED THE OCEAN LEVELS WOULD RISE TO THE LEVELS AL GORE ASSERTED. And he NEVER answered a simple yes or no question. How focking difficult is it to say yes or no? Although he did say this which suggests he goes along with Al Gore on this one:

Fair enough. I'm going to go on board with the idea that the oceans are rising because they are. If I remember correctly, it was averaging about 2 millimeters a year. Multiply that by a century (100 years) and you have two meters. Maybe the pace will speed up or maybe it'll slow down. I don't know. AndI don't know if that 2mm number is the most up to date either.

 

Best guess, 2 meters.

 

Now I guess I have to go dig up a link.

 

 

edit- this link says 3.3 mm/year: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/climatechange.climatechange

 

edit- this link says over 2 mm/year: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8586961/Sea-levels-rising-at-fastest-rate-in-2000-years.html

[phillybear 366]

First off al gore is a moron. Nobody should listen to anything he says.

 

 

If global warming is true then sea levels will 100% rise, even if the ice caps do not melt. Basic thermodynamics states that as materials are heated up they expand. It would be relativly simple for an engineer to plug the oceans volume into the thermodynamic equations to calculate the projected value for sea level rise.

 

Google "coeficiant of thermal expansion for water"

 

Water is whacky. Water expands as it freezes, which I think is the only known substance to do that, if my memories of physics and chemistry classes remain true. So, if the ice in the Artics is freezing at a more rapid rate, and some scientists say it is, then more ice will cause the oceans to rise. So, either way, when New Jersey goes under water, I'll have ocean front property.

[nikki2200 4]

This is one of the most idiotic responses you've ever posted, and that's saying something. Find me ONE scientist that thinks sea levels will rise by even a 10th of what Gore claimed. You won't. They ALL cringed when he made that claim. And if you can't trust him on one thing it's hard to trust him on the other things in his film. You should really try to independently verify any claims you believe based solely on that idiotic film.

 

Calling other people an idiot, does not make you smart. Voltaire is one of the smartest posters here. That's all I am going to say, but you are quickly becoming one of my least favorite posters.

[nikki2200 4]

You know, I re-read this thread, and try as I might, I couldn't find any instance of Voltaire saying he believed the oceans would rise 6-10 feet, or saying that he believed the predictions made in Al Gore's movies. What I did see him say was that he learned some things, like the ice ages were caused by changes in CO2 and methane in the atmosphere which is theorized to be one of the causes, among other things:

 

 

 

 

 

I also saw him admit that he didn't know much about oceans when it comes to expanding and contracting, and that not being a scientist, he would trust those that obviously knew more than him.

 

The biggest thing I saw in this thread, though, was a lot of thickness, straw man arguments, word parsing, inserting of words into other peoples' mouths followed by berating them for saying those words even when they didn't, and general dooshiness from Strike.

 

In other words, the same things we always see.

 

This.

[drobeski 3,061]

It's funny to see so many athiests having so much faith in such an unproven theory.

[Voltaire 5,363]

You know, I re-read this thread, and try as I might, I couldn't find any instance of Voltaire saying he believed the oceans would rise 6-10 feet, or saying that he believed the predictions made in Al Gore's movies. What I did see him say was that he learned some things, like the ice ages were caused by changes in CO2 and methane in the atmosphere which is theorized to be one of the causes, among other things:

 

 

 

 

 

I also saw him admit that he didn't know much about oceans when it comes to expanding and contracting, and that not being a scientist, he would trust those that obviously knew more than him.

 

The biggest thing I saw in this thread, though, was a lot of thickness, straw man arguments, word parsing, inserting of words into other peoples' mouths followed by berating them for saying those words even when they didn't, and general dooshiness from Strike.

 

In other words, the same things we always see.

 

Thanks. And to Nikki too.

 

It's like Strike doesn't read or understand anything that I type. Like I'm naomi or something. And it's an ongoing thing between us for many many years.

 

Projections aren't facts. They're opinions based on models that may or may not be flawed and based on data that may be incomplete. Regarding the rise in ocean levels, I don't even recall what the numbers were that Al Gore used in the movie. I'll take Strike at his word that Gore's predictions were 6-10 feet. Since they're growing at 2 mm / year, that's pretty damn accurate. Maybe. Probably. I guess.

 

If Al Gore preceeded his 6-10 meters with "If oceans rise at current rates for a century" there's nothing wrong with that statement. How the fock would I know if that rate will hold for 100 years?

[Frank M 181]

Calling other people an idiot, does not make you smart. Voltaire is one of the smartest posters here. That's all I am going to say, but you are quickly becoming one of my least favorite posters.

 

Strike is the king of "If you say or think X, then you must believe Y. Defend your belief of Y or I will call you an idiot."

 

The dumbass once asked me for a link to my opinion!

 

In other words, he's a tool.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Water is whacky. Water expands as it freezes, which I think is the only known substance to do that, if my memories of physics and chemistry classes remain true. So, if the ice in the Artics is freezing at a more rapid rate, and some scientists say it is, then more ice will cause the oceans to rise. So, either way, when New Jersey goes under water, I'll have ocean front property.

Your understanding of science, word choice and place of residence are all terrible. Care to provide some data to support any of your drivel?

 

For starters:

1. There are a few other substances which expand when frozen.

2. Who is advocating more rapid ice formation, and how would more ice cause the oceans to rise? Better drink your icewater quickly so it doesn't overflow

3. The amount of grease and sh!t in NJ will surely float, no matter the sea level.

 

If this was an attempt at comedy, bravo!

[Voltaire 5,363]

It's funny to see so many athiests having so much faith in such an unproven theory.

 

Believing evidence is better than believing a lie.

 

And I'm willing to change course completely if the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

Which brings me back to that Berkeley scientist Muller. You know, I didn't like him at first but I'm going to give him major credit for admitting a mistake. It takes a lot of cojones to do that. But he does still owe some apologies to folks.

[penultimatestraw 473]

Strike is the king of "If you say or think X, then you must believe Y. Defend your belief of Y or I will call you an idiot."

 

The dumbass once asked me for a link to my opinion!

 

In other words, he's a tool.

Trapped in Piaget's concrete operational stage, unable to think abstractly or understand everything isn't black and white. The Geek Club is a refuge for people like this.