When delay becomes denial

I'm not your after class research coach dude. Since you've studied them put out specifically what you want to discuss and we'll kick it around. But of course I'm quite aware that this is just fun and games for you. You haven't read anything and you don't have anything, just a denialist trying to pretend scholarship instead of doing the hard work of actually reading info that is at his finger tips, one google away.

Stick with Rush Limbaugh. You'll never suffer any brain strain.

 

Yeah dude, Common Dreams, a rational honest news service that often exposes the craziness and lies of the rightwingnuts and the AGW deniers. That must be why you sneer at it. Truth hurts.

If true, it's a real shame that you can't seem to either comprehend them or remember the conclusions of all of those scientific studies.

Well now, that's kind of a strange statement and perhaps a bit of a fib. What you said was: "I just finished downloading the 170 MB PDF. Lots of information. What pages do you recommend for their take on AGW?".

Strange....if you just downloaded the report, you must have at least glanced at it. The report is prominently labeled right on the cover as having two sections - the 'Report' and the 'Overview' - so if you actually wanted to know "what pages" (not a "page/paragraph reference" as you just falsely claimed you had asked for) from the report he would "recommend for their take on AGW", you would actually already have known to just read the 'Overview' to get "their take on AGW". if you had wanted to see the technical details of the various studies referenced in the Climate Assessment, you would have known to read through that section. I think you're maybe just blowing smoke...

LOLOL. I'm pretty sure Dingo knows exactly what he linked to - a well written and clear analysis of some of the implications of the next IPCC report, as revealed in some leaked material from the report.

Of course, what you see seems to get distorted by some weird denialist filter, where decades of intensive scientific research by tens of thousands of scientists all around the world are somehow 'suspect' and 'not to be trusted' just because science is warning us about a very real danger that requires a worldwide response that challenges and offends your rightwing, free market, laissez-faire hyper-capitalism ideologies.

No we don't. You use the term for propaganda purposes, to try to denigrate all those (including virtually the entire world scientific community) who rightfully and righteously are trying to warn the world about the very grave dangers CO2 driven global warming poses to our civilization, our biosphere, and perhaps our very survival as a species. They are actually quite correct to be sounding the alarm because our world is in big trouble. Denialists try to trivialize those accurate science based warnings as "alarmism", which is just silly. If a fireman, in full uniform with a fire truck with red lights flashing behind him at the curb, comes to your door and tells you that your garage is on fire, do you dismiss his warning as 'alarmism' and go back to watching TV? That's what you denialists want the world to do so the fossil fuel industry can continue to reap hundreds of billions in profits for selling the very stuff that is creating this enormous climate change problem for the whole world, which will continue to get even more dangerous and disastrous (particularly in the long term over the next century and a few centuries after that) the longer we continue to pump close to 40 billion tons of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere every year.

 

Instead we have you standing outside the door screaming fire when there isn't one.

 

I don't follow the herd. I actually understand the underlying sciences, so I form my own opinions based on science.

 

Why?

All I've seen you come up with is the talking points and links of the AGW crowd. I haven't seen any original work from you.

You just hit bottom... Such ASSumptions really make one look foolish.

 

What ever you are smoking, you should share.

I completely comprehend what they say. I just disagree with the values they place on various factors.

841 pages and I did keyword searches. AGW returned rAGWeed numerous times. It appears to be a non scientific report. I tried other words I was interested in finding with no results.

Again, have a good paragraph/page you think are important?

 

hmmm..scientific studies...... The AR5 is a report about scientific studies, but it in itself is not a study. It is an Observation of a study, someone's interpretation of a study and as such disqualifies from being published a scientific study. FAIL...............

Propaganda puposes is all of what the claim is. Accented heavily by liars and alarmists. That is all it is, and it is that simple. Dude, until you post that experimental evidence that shows the interaction of an added 120 PPM in the atmosphere, then dude you have alarmism pure and simple. LoSiNg...................

 

That's the irrational anti-science denialism propaganda meme being pushed by your puppetmasters but it is completely false, as world's scientists are telling us. You choose to reject the scientific consensus and instead embrace the desperately fraudulent propaganda of the fossil fuel industry. So....go back to watching TV, you poor dupe, and ignore the crackle of the flames as they consume your home.

 

So far, on this forum, you have given no indication whatsoever that you have any understanding of anything about the climate sciences. Your assertions that you do "understand the underlying sciences" is probably just the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

 

LOLOL....so...instead of actually reading any part of the National Climate Assessment, you chose to just do "keyword searches"....no wonder you didn't learn anything from all of the other reports you've supposedly downloaded. You have to actually read them!

In reality, that NCA report is full of scientific detail, graphs, charts, and linked references to numerous published scientific papers. You appear to be a non-scientific person.

LOLOLOL....here's a good start on "getting their take on AGW"....there's much more just in the overview, let alone the actual report, including some interactive graphs that wouldn't download on this forum.

Overview
(Government Publication - free to reproduce or reprint)
Climate change is already affecting the American people in far-reaching ways. Certain types of extreme weather events with links to climate change have become more frequent and/or intense, including prolonged periods of heat, heavy downpours, and, in some regions, floods and droughts. In addition, warming is causing sea level to rise and glaciers and Arctic sea ice to melt, and oceans are becoming more acidic as they absorb carbon dioxide. These and other aspects of climate change are disrupting people’s lives and damaging some sectors of our economy.

Climate Change: Present and Future

Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. Scientists and engineers from around the world have meticulously collected this evidence, using satellites and networks of weather balloons, thermometers, buoys, and other observing systems. Evidence of climate change is also visible in the observed and measured changes in location and behavior of species and functioning of ecosystems. Taken together, this evidence tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming, and over the last half century, this warming has been driven primarily by human activity.

Ten Indicators of a Warming World

These are just some of the indicators measured globally over many decades that show that the Earth’s climate is warming. White arrows indicate increasing trends; black arrows indicate decreasing trends. All the indicators expected to increase in a warming world are increasing, and all those expected to decrease in a warming world are decreasing. (Figure source: NOAA NCDC, based on data updated from Kennedy et al. 20101).

Multiple lines of independent evidence confirm that human activities are the primary cause of the global warming of the past 50 years. The burning of coal, oil, and gas, and clearing of forests have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than 40% since the Industrial Revolution, and it has been known for almost two centuries that this carbon dioxide traps heat. Methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agriculture and other human activities add to the atmospheric burden of heat-trapping gases. Data show that natural factors like the sun and volcanoes cannot have caused the warming observed over the past 50 years. Sensors on satellites have measured the sun’s output with great accuracy and found no overall increase during the past half century. Large volcanic eruptions during this period, such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991, have exerted a short-term cooling influence. In fact, if not for human activities, global climate would actually have cooled slightly over the past 50 years. The pattern of temperature change through the layers of the atmosphere, with warming near the surface and cooling higher up in the stratosphere, further confirms that it is the buildup of heat-trapping gases (also known as “greenhouse gases”) that has caused most of the Earth’s warming over the past half century.


The last five decades have seen a progressive rise in the Earth’s average surface temperature. Bars show the difference between each decade’s average temperature and the overall average for 1901-2000. (Figure source: NOAA NCDC).

Projected Global Temperature Change

(Interactive graph on website)

Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a background of natural variations in climate, warming is not uniform over time. Short-term fluctuations in the long-term upward trend are thus natural and expected. For example, a recent slowing in the rate of surface air temperature rise appears to be related to cyclic changes in the oceans and in the sun’s energy output, as well as a series of small volcanic eruptions and other factors. Nonetheless, global temperatures are still on the rise and are expected to rise further.

U.S. average temperature has increased by 1.3°F to 1.9°F since 1895, and most of this increase has occurred since 1970. The most recent decade was the nation’s and the world’s hottest on record, and 2012 was the hottest year on record in the continental United States. All U.S. regions have experienced warming in recent decades, but the extent of warming has not been uniform. In general, temperatures are rising more quickly in the north. Alaskans have experienced some of the largest increases in temperature between 1970 and the present. People living in the Southeast have experienced some of the smallest temperature increases over this period.

Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the United States over the next few decades. Reductions in some short-lived human-induced emissions that contribute to warming, such as black carbon (soot) and methane, could reduce some of the projected warming over the next couple of decades, because, unlike carbon dioxide, these gases and particles have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes.The amount of warming projected beyond the next few decades is directly linked to the cumulative global emissions of heat-trapping gases and particles. By the end of this century, a roughly 3°F to 5°F rise is projected under a lower emissions scenario, which would require substantial reductions in emissions (referred to as the “B1 scenario”), and a 5°F to 10°F rise for a higher emissions scenario assuming continued increases in emissions, predominantly from fossil fuel combustion (referred to as the “A2 scenario”). These projections are based on results from 16 climate models that used the two emissions scenarios in a formal inter-model comparison study. The range of model projections for each emissions scenario is the result of the differences in the ways the models represent key factors such as water vapor, ice and snow reflectivity, and clouds, which can either dampen or amplify the initial effect of human influences on temperature. The net effect of these feedbacks is expected to amplify warming. More information about the models and scenarios used in this report can be found in Appendix 5 of the full report.1

Separating Human and Natural Influences on Climate

Prolonged periods of high temperatures and the persistence of high nighttime temperatures have increased in many locations (especially in urban areas) over the past half century. High nighttime temperatures have widespread impacts because people, livestock, and wildlife get no respite from the heat. In some regions, prolonged periods of high temperatures associated with droughts contribute to conditions that lead to larger wildfires and longer fire seasons. As expected in a warming climate, recent trends show that extreme heat is becoming more common, while extreme cold is becoming less common. Evidence indicates that the human influence on climate has already roughly doubled the probability of extreme heat events such as the record-breaking summer heat experienced in 2011 in Texas and Oklahoma. The incidence of record-breaking high temperatures is projected to rise.2

(interactive graph on website)

Human-induced climate change means much more than just hotter weather. Increases in ocean and freshwater temperatures, frost-free days, and heavy downpours have all been documented. Global sea level has risen, and there have been large reductions in snow-cover extent, glaciers, and sea ice. These changes and other climatic changes have affected and will continue to affect human health, water supply, agriculture, transportation, energy, coastal areas, and many other sectors of society, with increasingly adverse impacts on the American economy and quality of life.3

Some of the changes discussed in this report are common to many regions. For example, large increases in heavy precipitation have occurred in the Northeast, Midwest, and Great Plains, where heavy downpours have frequently led to runoff that exceeded the capacity of storm drains and levees, and caused flooding events and accelerated erosion. Other impacts, such as those associated with the rapid thawing of permafrost in Alaska, are unique to a particular U.S. region. Permafrost thawing is causing extensive damage to infrastructure in our nation’s largest state.4

 

Translation: You accept the political consensus and only pay attention to government sponsored science while ignoring any science that does not fit your new religion.

 

LOLOL. Translation: You reject the scientific consensus and only pay attention to the fossil fuel industry sponsored pseudo-science and lies while ignoring the mountains of scientific research, data and hard physical evidence that has convinced virtually all of the world's scientists of the reality and dangers of AGW.

 

The CAGW meme is strong in this one Luke.

 

Ignorance of science and unfounded denial of reality are super strong in you.

 

Just because you have a puppet master, doesn't mean we do.

 

I'm sorry you don't understand when I have laid out my reasoning. That's on you, not me.

- - - Updated - - -

Explaining in laymen's terms, and unscientific when F is used instead of C.

Where is their science?

You see, as much as I disagree with the IPCC material, they have a good "technical summary" section.

This material is just spoon feeding you what to believe.

 

Your supposed 'reasoning' amounts to crap. It's a delusion of yours that you imagine your confused, ignorant maunderings have anything to do with 'reason'.

Total gibberish and without meaning.

In the dedicated work of tens of thousands of competent scientists all around the world who have been studying these climate issues for many decades. In the many summary reports that analyze all of the many thousands of research papers that have been published in this field. If you have seen these reports and the research they're based on, as you say you have, then your inability to see the 'science' would indicate some selective blindness on your part, or just a massive, ideologically motivated denial of reality.

LOL. Actually all parts of their reports are "good", very detailed and entirely based on the scientific research that has been done in these fields.

Assessment Reports: These are published materials composed of the full scientific and technical assessment of climate change, generally in three volumes, one for each of the Working Groups of the IPCC, together with their Summaries for Policymakers, plus a Synthesis Report.

Special Reports: These are materials that provide an assessment of a specific issue and generally follow the same structure as a volume of an Assessment Report.

These are published materials composed of the full scientific and technical assessment of climate change, generally in three volumes, one for each of the Working Groups of the IPCC, plus a Synthesis Report. Each of the Working Group volumes is composed of individual chapters, an optional Technical Summary and a Summary for Policymakers. The Synthesis Report synthesizes and integrates materials contained within the Assessment Reports and Special Reports and is written in a non-technical style suitable for policymakers and address a broad-range of policy-relevant but policy-neutral questions. It is composed of a longer report and a Summary for Policymakers

And there's the old 'crackpot conspiracy theory' nonsense again. I just knew you'd get around to that at some point. All of the anti-science reality deniers do. It's a favorite denier cult delusion. Ridiculous beyond belief!

 

Dude, you are the king of regurgitated material on this board. We should call you upchuck.

 

Does that make you the king of debunked denier cult drivel? You certainly seem to work hard to try to win that title!

(denier cult lingo translation) "regurgitated material = all of the solid scientific evidence that I've posted that he can't understand and would deny anyway for purely ideological/political/economic reasons that have nothing to do with science or reality.

 

LOL...

Really...

Do you have any thing of science to offer, or are you going to continue to regurgitate tripe?

 

all you have posted is mumbo JuMbO. The request has been made more than over a hundred times for the lab experiment that shows 120 PPM of CO2 over 280 causes any temperature or climate change. Until you post that, yes, your posts are nothing more than mumbo JuMbO!!!!

 

The numbers that give CO2 forcing are on very old foundations that use correlation = causation, in a time that other factors were less understood. I think the climatologist community is afraid to reevaluate those Numbers, and they will surely crumble their foundation if they do so in an honest manner.

 

Yep, I know this. I ask knowing he can't deliver. I figure with the lack of the experiment on a link, that the tests performed didn't do what they actually talk about and therefore threw out the results. I laugh at this probability. True scientist would not boast without experimenting and gathering the evidence to support a claim. So instead the psuedoscience is to write a peer review and have all your buddies approve it and then claim that as evidence. It is spectacular the mumbo jumbo of it.

 

An area twice the size of Alaska was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice after the arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in a row. Global Warming at it's finest.

 

LOLOLOL.....demonstrating your utter cluelessness again, eh?

Scientific evidence that I've posted just in this thread....

Post #10

Post #56

Post #59

Post #63

Post #110

In looking thru this thread, I noticed that YOU have never posted any scientific evidence at all, just specious claims of personal expertise and loads of hot air lacking any connection to reality.