E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Eric Kayne / Getty Images
In this file photo, construction worker Chester Gibson wipes sweat from his face on a hot day in Houston, Tex.
Hot and muggy weather over the past few decades has led to about a 10 percent drop in the physiological capacity of people to do their work safely and those drops will be even greater as the climate continues to warm, a new study finds.
People may continue to work in the hot and muggy conditions, "but their misery will increase while they are productive," John Dunne, a research oceanographer with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Princeton, N.J., told NBC News.
Dunne is the lead author of the study, which addresses the impact of rising humidity associated with global warming on the capacity of people to safely do their jobs — from toiling in agricultural fields to crunching numbers at a desk.
The federal government maintains industrial and military guidelines that call for laborers to take breaks when conditions on a widely-used heat-stress index cross certain thresholds.
"Black flag" conditions in military parlance, for example, correspond to a reading of greater than 90 degrees on the wet bulb global temperature index. Under those conditions, all non-mission critical physical training and strenuous exercise is suspended.
Dunne and colleagues combined historical analysis of the heat-stress index and model projections of future climate with the worker safety guidelines.
They found that environmental heat stress has reduced worker capacity over the past few decades to 90 percent during the hottest months of the year and project a further reduction to 80 percent in peak months by 2050 and less than 40 percent by 2200.
The highest plausible warming scenario modeled will expose “mid-latitude regions such as the US east of the Rockies to environmental heat stress experienced only by the most extremely hot regions of the present day” such as parts of India, Dunne and colleagues write in a paper published today in Nature Climate Change.
Dunne noted the findings come with several caveats. For example, uncertainty remains over how much the climate will warm in coming decades and how people will adapt their lifestyles to accommodate warmer conditions. It’s possible that agricultural work will shift to higher latitudes, for example, and afternoon siestas could be routine in mid-latitudes.
"The thing I like about this metric," noted Dunne, "is it is something that people have adapted their life to across the globe in the present day."
John Roach is a contributing writer for NBC News. To learn more about him, check out his website.
Leave a Comment:
This will only make the rich overlords happy, as they sadistically continue to manipulate the fate of their underlings!
Muahahahaha!!!
Doug
Congratulations on beating Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to the punch with the first comment to this article.
That said, your comment is foolish. Most of the global climate change research and support for the theory that humans are indeed causing the Earth's temperature increases associated with global climate change comes from the IPCC, the INTERNATIONAL Panel on Climate Change. If you can tell us how the "rich overlords" are conducting an INTERNATIONAL conspiracy involving thousands of scientists, I would be fascinated to hear the story.
However, if you really believe that the "rich overlords" have a stake in this issue I suggest that you investigate the Koch brothers (you know those rich energy overlords who have a stake in the continued use of fossil fuels). They have funded an extensive disinformation campaign that you have, apparently unknowingly, fallen victim to. In other words, you are a Koch brothers dupe ...... a lackey ........ a stooge ...... a water carrier for the anti-science cause.
Dough,
A rather stupid comment!
Doug, obviously nobody gets you. ;-)
Or there are people like Don who are so keyed up to attack someone they can't tell when someone agrees with them.
jock ...... if it was sarcasm, it was not clever sarcasm
Just for your information ... I am not "keyed up to attack" .... I may, however, be keyed up to defend the climate scientists over the energy companies.
Work is going to be miserable? Oh, no!!
Just one question: How are we going to tell the difference?
It doesn't matter. Because the overlords' envy of the simple working man, with his freer discharge of instinct, and basic homely pleasures, will continue to drive their repressed sadistic energy into its conventional habitual channels as regards the stratification of control. There's no escape!
Muahahahahaha!!
Hey there jock :-)
It doesn't take global warming to make work miserable. An indecisive, insecure, incompetent boss can do that in a heartbeat.
Just a comment with regard to "rich overlords" being unable to manipulate "scientists", who do you think controls their funding?
jcl, the thing about the "rich overlords" is that they can fund the scientists with just their reputations alone and the promise of money without ever delivering. This is is because they are some of the most widely-respected and influential men and women in the world so if you were an unknown, up-and-coming scientist and they asked you to do something for some future seven-figure pay-day you'd do it too. but then when that undisclosed time for payement comes they eliminate these scientists so that their work is never creditted to them and then they manipulate the findings to furhter their own ends. i know all of this because one of my friends was once a scientists who got caught up in the political nautre of the game and after he discovered a new form of rock species he was black-mailed into moving to napal and becoming a carpenter and he's never allowed to practice science again or else his family that's still here and living in a rich overlordd's basement will be destroyed.
They didn't say "climate change", they said "global warming", which was disproved with Al Gore's hockey stick graph hiding the data that had temperature drops. So what happened to climate change? Was it disproven or something? All I see is the left going back to "global warming" hype based on a microscopic timeframe of data that ignores solar cycles and naturally occuring ice ages.
Nobody on either side of the debate is saying mankind doesn't have an effect on the environment. The disagreement is on the "data" presented by the left (not to mention flip flopping names now) and the doom&gloom "In 10 years we'll have <insert something that didn't happen>" every decade. Peeing in the ocean has an effect too, but it's not going to cause levels to rise.
Remember, Houston was supposed to be under water 13 years ago according to Gore in the 80s.
yes, because everyone knows you move to Alaska for heat and Texas for the cold !
idiots act like they just discovered weather, here's a thought google farmers almanac and look at weather trends for the last 200 yrs for ANY area in the U.S. or the whole world for that matter and YOU will see actual data of weather THAT REALLY happened and RECORDED and compare it to the scientists SPECULATION of what MIGHT happen..
These scientist are just overpaid "weatherman" and we know how much they get the local weather correct !
Allen
In fact, lots of people are saying that humans have no effect on climate change. Congratulations on being a skeptic rather than a Rush Limbaugh-style denier.
The term "global climate change" is preferred to "global warming" because although the temperature has risen in almost all parts of the world there is a tiny fraction, mostly near Antarctica, where temperatures have fallen slightly.
The science of climate change and prediction has improved dramatically over time due largely to the improvement in computing power, as well as improvements in climate modeling. Those of you who continually attack current science because the predictions were not perfect make about as much sense as those who would attack medical science because doctors used to bleed patients as treatment.
The fact is that the rise in global temperatures was predicted long ago. The predictions of how much temperature will rise and how quickly that will occur is difficult, but the predictions are improving.
Stop letting fools with an agenda to make monies and such cloud your judgement. read ALL the facts from different sources and expand your mind !
remember the "scientists of the day" claimed world was flat !
Speaking of fools with an agenda - it was the church that claimed a flat Earth, not science.
We should have our Stanford-Binets, personality types, and education credentials under our avatars. These things certainly don't reflect the accuracy or reasonableness of one's opinions, but they could save a lot of time by allowing us to skip over comments by those to the far left of those curves.
mike
Your allegation has no basis ..... NONE. You are a dupe of the right wing media ..... a lackey .... a willfully ignorant water carrier for a cause you do not understand.
That denier argument about scientists making money from a fake global climate change theory is pathetic. None of the bonehead who put forth that argument have any stated basis ..... just goofy allegations, usually involving Al Gore, that claim without evidence that the theory is a conspiracy.
Can anyone imagine how this proposed conspiracy would work? There are thousands of INTERNATIONAL scientists involved and hundreds of scientific organizations, most of which receive no grants or other other payments at all.
The Koch brothers, on the other hand, have a significant financial incentive to keep selling the fossil fuels that add so much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and it is the Koch brothers who have funded a large portion of the denier disinformation on the global climate change issue.
That's right, don. Not to mention the fact that it isn't the rich who fund most research. Aside from Bill Gates, most research dollars come from the federal government. Nonetheless, the government has little control over the research. Other scientists determine which research is well-designed and likely to answer an important question. Other scientists also look over research prior to publication to make sure that it was not influenced by the author's pre-conceived notions. Properly-designed studies will give facts which often contradict what the researcher thought initially. Scientists often have great hypotheses that make perfect sense, but those hypotheses turn out to be wrong. The scientist must then try to develop a new hypothesis and test it to see if that one holds up. Scientists also repeat each other's work to some extent. If a finding can be reproduced by several laboratories, then it is likely to be true. If not, it could be fraud or there could be another flaw with the initial studies. Science is about finding truth, not about finding what is politically expedient.
helicohunter - I like your comment. It somehow reminded me - I'm not sure exactly how or what the connection - of something Dawkins said regarding science in in the context of the general:
“Science replaces private prejudice with public, verifiable evidence.”
I think this is a good, basic statement for those who don't know anything about science.
And, just to go slightly off-topic for a sentence or two, after the release of Win95, there was a mad rush of the mainstream to the internet, which is a good thing, of course, but one of the shocking realizations for me in the last 15 years or so was the revelation of how badly educated and how misinformed or disinformed so many people are. It was no secret that the US lacked in basic science and math education (and it seems that it's not just basic math and science), but the degree of ignorance was shocking to me. I don't mean that it was shocking that some guy doesn't have a basic working understanding of cosmology or something, but that even THE most basic ideas that were demonstrated decades and sometimes centuries ago remain unknown. That people don't even have the most basic idea of science, not even the first clue, is still just absolutely amazing to me - that adults still don't comprehend or have knowledge of even the most basic ideas that most of the rest of us learned in grade school - 3rd grade in the case of "What is science?".
But that's really THE problem for us in our society - THE struggle - that we have a rather large percentage of our population who are functionally illiterate, ignorant even of the most basic concepts and knowledge, and so therefore, without basic knowledge or intelligence are left with prejudice and superstition, gullible and defenseless against any propagandist shyster that wants their money or their vote.
It's an intolerable situation.
Let's see which professional denier gets here first. Any bets for economykiller?
OK. I'll bite. Actually, there is no such thing as global warming in the scientific literature. Climatologists do not call it "global warming" - it is correctly referred to as "climate change."
The Koch brothers have spent billions on denying Global Warming. Yeah, they got some pay-off for it. But, all the world's scientists are having an effect. The Koch brothers and their family are being discredited and the rest of mankind is being credited. The Koch brothers are begging for early death at the guillotine and it is coming for them. Republicans will go down with the Koch brothers in the end. It is inevitable. Republicans will be discredited and lose all future elections. This is evolution at work.
Bill - Yes they do. Simply google "climate journals" & "global warming". You will find hundreds of articles specifically mentioning, if not using in their title, the words Global Warming.
In fact, scientists have always preferred the term climate change, because it better fits the complexity of what happens aorunf the world. "Global Warming" is just a specific prediction about averages, and thus not very interesting.
@Jock and Bill: It's actually global warming. Climate change is a direct result of global warming. You're average joe person (economykiller/castor bridge/etc) doesn't understand thermodynamics and how uneven applied heat to an open/closed system can create work inside said system and how increasing the amount of heat/(time unit) or as in this case trapping more heat from escaping an open system, can produce different kind of work, creating different conditions at any given point within that system.
They changed to climate change simply because it wasn't worth trying to explain to people how some areas would actually see a decrease in average temps, nor would they have to bother with explaining averages over the course of years.
Climate change is a direct result of global warming. Of course that also means that global cooling also implies climate change.
I don't know you Bill, but jock I've come across here and there. The fact that I at least had to explain this to you jock is just more reason to not deal with that higher level cause and just simply talk about "change" instead of "warming". Hehe, I'm not putting you down jock btw, you're one of the voices of reason here in the sci/tech forms which we need more of. I'm just pointing out that even with people familiar with the sciences can have sort of wrong impressions about this topic.
Mitchell
I actually think that was what I was trying to say, but no I am not an expert on it. I try to keep it simple for myself as well as for others. Heck, I'm just a biologist.
*laughs* There's no "I'm just a biologist", biology is every bit as hard as any other science field. I've had a few discussions (or "tried to have" which is more the case) about the Kreb cycle, glycolysis, and glycogenesis, glycogenolysis and glyconeogenesis regarding sugars. It didn't go over too well, they were fairly clueless to say the least and this is just molecular 101.
Mitchell
REF @2: There were already seven (7) here before you posted.
That is, ...... Deniers of the fact that H2O vapor (humidity) is the only "greenhouse gas" that has any measureable effect on surface temperatures.
To claim that 395 ppm of CO2 is responsible for greater "warming" than is 20,000+ ppm of H2O vapor is utterly silly.
And worse yet, to claim that said 20,000+ ppm of H2O vapor is the "forcing" feedbacker of the "trapped" thermal (IR) energy .... to said 395 ppm of CO2 which is the "feedbacking" forcer of all increases in surface temperatures and/or global average temperatures ..... is utterly hilarious.
Only to someone who thinks that all greenhouse gases are created equal. Which would you rather have between you and a sniper, an inch of armor plate or 4 feet of jello?
Actually, Climate Change is one effect of Global Warming. It only means that climate patterns are changing as a result of increasing global average temperatures. And climate change is all too often mixed with weather.
Unfortunately, climate change has become a catch-all phrase used interchangeably with global warming because of poor reporting in the media and being a nation of people with little understanding of science, let alone enough education or common sense to have a reasonable discussion about it.
david9, youcan havea reasonable converstaion with my fist if you keep spouting oiff your liberal climate-campaign to scare the public which I agree is often not educated enough about these issues but only time will tell what's going to happen and we refuse to be swayed by your scare-tactics you scientific-tadpole.
good news; you can have it both ways!!! It is both climate change AND global warming. Global warming is a subset of climate change. This is because warming is not the only effect on climate. There are also changes in weather patterns. And if you want to go a step further and include ocean acidification, acid rain, and other deleterious effects of increasing CO2, we might just call it "Global Change". or "CO2 caused alteration of our planet". Whatever you call it, it is going to be the most serious issue dealt with by our grandchildren,
Brave words coming from a moronic coward hiding behind a router in mommy's basement - LOL - only a dumbazz would make threats on the interwebs. You're the perfect example of what I was talking about.
david9 there's a huge difference between threatning one guy like I'm doing and helping to create and foster widespread panic like you're doing by essentially screamng that the world is coming to an end and that only the belleivers of your global fear-mongering sccheme will survive. you and your greed are the real problems not the weather so stop trying to sell your idiot-story and start trying to understand what's making you lash out that way and change or else you'll never grow out of the iggnorance which currently defines your life.
Wow.. you are admitting threatening others on Newsvine. That's brilliant.
And, I guess you've never really read anything I've ever said about GW or climate change either.
You keep making threats and dumbazz assumptions... it just keeps showing your ignorance and small-mindedness. But please, go back to middle school and learn how to form a paragraph and spell.
daivd9, you've proven that you are a very arrogant and self-centered human and those are the worst kinds so I'm afraid that it's time for me to report your last comment to the moderators. You are not allowed to personally attack other users on this webstie and now you've crossed that linea long with the moral-line which you already breached by trying to get others to believe your false global-warming claims. unfortuantely though you are not the only one who's paranoid and ill-informed about this issues so there are many others like you in need of help that only knowleddge can provide and i'll try to help you to obtain more of that if you'd like but only at the condition that you lsiten to information that proves you wrong instead of being stubborn and you must also shape-up and treat other people better.
Are you really so foolish as to believe that anyone would think that ... 395 ppm is equal to 20,000+ ppm?
It wouldn't make much difference which one was chosen given the fact that either one would prevent said sniper from "seeing his target".
Or were you thinking that snipers use bombs for killing people?
Must be you are confusing suicide bombers with snipers, ...... right.
I would rather have the jello between SamC and the sniper.
@ J. Clark - I would rather have feet of jello, you would be suprised at what it would do. (I am a Navy vet who served with the marines.)
I work outside in PA and on hot days, we get there very early then quit early. And, I will see the day were most of the work will be done in winter rather than summer.
Much of the work of building an economy involves cutting down trees, paving, pouring concrete keeping water from going into the ground. So we have fewer carbon filters, less natural water controls, burn more fuel - increasing atmospheric gasses. Our reaction to the heat is to build more AC units for more building, burning more fuel to power them. On our vacations we have to jump on a plane and go to Vegas, or Europe - anywhere that requires us to burn more fuel to get there then we burn in 4 months of doing our jobs. Then on a different day like today, when we see this article we go "aw man, somebody needs to do something". We are funny bunch !
Hehe... more crack smoking fools who call themselves journalists peddling the chicken little warming scam... have they not been told yet that Gore sold out to Al Jazeera and took the big oil money? We reviewed the code of the hacked global scam artists developers and it was the worst thing I have ever seen, very unprofessional, unbelievable comments in the code and blatant manipulation of data to obtain an end result that was biased and unprovable. Anybody pushing this crap should be jailed for treason and punished per treason standards; for that is what they are committing...
Could you share some of these "unbelievable comments" with us?
David, what does Gore have to do with the science of global warming?
You apparently don;t even know what the science is showing, or you wouldn't be so sure it is wrong. And the idea of science being "treason" is a totalitarian sentiment you should be ashamed of.
Denial wasn't just a river in Egypt once upon a time.
Al Jazeera is award-winning journalism and their footage is used by CNN and BBC. You argue against credible science, including NASA. What makes you smarter than a room full of rocket scientists? You are the victim of propaganda and a Poser.
MR Shumate, what rock have you been living under? You can deny anything, you can live your life as if nothing is wrong, you can be blinded by self interest and greed because from your response it seems you make money off the misery perpetrated by the fossil fuel industry OR IT'S PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM'S. The good thing about writing your disbelief of climate change DUE TO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING is that you can do so without anyone knowing AT WORK that you condone those that make money from killing our people and our environment. Your belief's will change, I just wish you would not be forgiven for your sins against reason and scientific thought. You are not part of the solution BUT PART OF THE PROBLEM!
Good thing you're not in charge. You're dangerous if you think it is treasonous to disagree with you.
"Hell hath no fury" like that of a "junk science" believing proponent of CO2 causing AGW.
Questioning someone's religious beliefs will surely produce an irate reaction.
David, I think you got the word "treason" confused with "heresy". Are you looking to have Al Gore burned at the stake too?
@ Joey - The carbon footprint of burning all that fat would be unacceptable ;-p
Poor babies - its hot and I can't work. You can work at night or early AM when it is cooler. You can shut down when conditions are not good, in the same way you don't do construction in Alaska when it is 40 below. This is a minor problem.
The cost of fixing global warming (provided you believe that it is not a natural thing) is too expensive. Global warming can't be fixed anyway - you will never get the worldwide cooperation you need, especially from growing 3rd world countries. The cheap way to deal with the issue (if it is an issue) is to deal with whatever nature gives us, as we have done for all of history.
So which is it? Is it not happening, or is it happening and there's supposedly nothing we can do about it?
Yes, it is especially funny when the deniers can't even seem to keep track of what they are denying.
Typical denier trying to associate it with a conspiracy of financial gain.
Perhaps one of you self-appointed 'experts' could explain to me how a 0.1 degree AVERAGE global temperature increase per decade, with most of that increase happening at night, in the winter, and at high latitudes, can even be perceived by someone working outdoors in the summer, let alone in an air-conditioned office. The article stirkes me as being little better than propaganda.
"The highest plausible warming scenario modeled will expose “mid-latitude regions such as the US east of the Rockies to environmental heat stress experienced only by the most extremely hot regions of the present day” such as parts of India, Dunne and colleagues write in a paper published today inNature Climate Change. "
You do know what an average is, right?
Doesn't everyone know that an "average" is nothing more than a "mid-point" non-quantative figure that is calculated via use of a variable "number set".
"Averages" do not correspond to any actual or real values.
And like was stated in #5.4 above, .... if any monthly/yearly night time and/or winter temperatures increase ..... then it will cause an increase in the "average" temperature for said time period.
HA, a "warmer" winter ... plus a "cooler" summer ..... could still produce an "increase" in that year's average temperature.
You do know that is possible, ...... RIGHT?
It isn't a mid-point, it is a central tendency of a data set.
But that does not mean that an average has zero foundation in reality. There are right ways and wrong ways to use averages, but temperature means is not a wrong way.
Which is why examining a small time period is meaningless. Oh it's hot this week, but it is usually cold. This year was hotter. That all isn't very meaningful. The examination that is performed is a trend over decades.
Which is why looking at a single year isn't very meaningful. Looking at a trend is. And if the trend is continuing to increase, you have to acknowledge at some point that it is getting warmer.
HA, is that the new liberalism, .... claiming inanimate graphical representations capable of behavior modifications.
"DUH", if "fuzzy" math is being used to calculate the "temperature means" then they are wrong and therefore being used wrong. Two (2) "wrongs" do not make a "right".
YUP, sure nuff, .... the daily, weekly and monthly surface temperatures are meaningless, ...... but iffen ya add several decades worth of them all together and calculate the averages ...... then they become meaningful, right? SURE NUFF, that's exactly what they do with Major League baseball "batting" averages, RIGHT?
Which is it, Pragmatic, you trying to confuse and bedazzle me, ..... or trying to convince yourself to actually believe your own commentary piffle?
Pragmatic, the earth's climate has been getting warmer ever since the current warming trend (Holocene Interglacial Period) began some 23,000 years ago when the last Ice Age ended. And the climate will continue to warm until the onset of the next Ice Age. Whether said "onset" has already begun or not, we do not know.
And the "facts of the matter" is, the "junk science" perpetrating Climate Scientists and their minons of proponents of CO2 causing AGW ...... have "hijacked" the effects of said Holocene Interglacial warming, beginning with the year 1880, thru to the present, ..... and have been attributing all HIP "warming" that has occurred during the past 130+ years to atmospheric CO2. An ignorant, devious, dishonest and/or disgenuous act on their part.
DUH, the HIP warming didn't abruptly "STOP" .... just because several Signal Corps Sergeants started recording surface temperatures at their respective US Military Bases.
You're repeating crap that you don't understand.
Also, that's not the meaning of "the New Liberalism", which a term from the 70s.
You also don't know what fuzzy math means.
You're an ignorant, uneducated fool spouting non-sense.
I know what my reference to "fuzzy" math means, given the fact it was referring to the "fuzzy" calculations of Average Monthly/Yearly Temperatures via the use of 130 years of highly questionable surface temperature records ....... whereby they extropolated, interpolated, omitted, inserted and massaged the original data to achieve the "results" that were needed to confirm their claims of CO2 causing AGW.
Just like they are still modifying their older "fuzzily" calculated averages to insure that they are "less than" their current year's calculated average temperatures.
I have a "signed" Diploma, with my name on it, issued by an accredited 4-year College that disagrees with your assessment of my learned intelligence.
So, what is your excuse?
Or will you demand that this post be "collapsed by the community" ...... and then you will be "home free" and in no need of any excuses for your defaming personal attack upon my good name and credibility?
No - all of this is nonsense propagated for political purposes and motivated by profit. The water vapor objection is complete nonsense, and has been easily and convincingly debunked. That information is readily available with a quick google search.
If you were really a skeptic, you would have applied this skepticism to the profit-driven anti-propaganda funded by Oil/Coal, but you haven't.
You're not an honest actor.
P.S. Again, you don't know what fuzzy math means and misused it, believing it to mean something that it does not. This isn't a sin, but it does mean something.
As far as your good name and credibility: your own comments have destroyed your credibility. You are a political partisan espousing anti-science rhetoric publicly, and you're advocating for positions that were created specifically as disinformation and motivated profit, and have been counter-demonstrated.
SamC give it up. You don't have a leg to stand on.
Greq, ya gotta look before you are capable of seeing anything, and given the fact you have refused to look it tis no wonder you don't see the "legs" I'm standing on.
I wonder, particularly in the northern states, if global warming will correspondingly increase worker productivity in the winter? It seems that the research was primarily designed to set rules for worker safety during the hottest months.
Dale, yes there are silver linings, i.e. tradeoffs with climate change. But our ability to predict what and where and when is limited.
HAHAHAHA... Hot And Muggy In Houston! The Science Is Settled! Had to see for myself that this article wasn't a parody. No wonder this idiotic company is on the verge of bankruptcy.
NBC News - The Gold Standard In Embarrassment
Hotter and muggier, joke-a-dope. Or don't you understand the difference?
More to do with the 60% overweight population then the weather. Have another doughnut.
I wonder if and when the myth of human activity causing "global warming" will go away. The same trusted scientists now touting global warming as a result of man's activities are the ones who, a short few years ago, had us all frying into bacon crisps as a result of the ultraviolet light streaming through the hole in the ozone layer (remember that?). In a six month period, we went from scientists crying mass destruction of the planet to ,"Oh, it's fixed itself! How wonderful. No more hole in the ozone layer! We're saved!"
These same climatological scientists can't predict what the weather will be next Tuesday with any degree of accuracy, yet a great many individuals accept anything they say about the imminent destruction of life as we know it as gospel truth.
As for humans causing "global warming," do some reading yourself. Find out how much of the noxious gases and particulate matter supposedly causing global warming is given off by one large volcanic eruption, compared to the amount of the same substances given off by cars, industry, and burning fossil fuels in general.
If you want to wage a bet - the next theory about the change in weather pattens will be attributed to the earth's shifting on its axis. Wait and see.
Finally, tell the people currently freezing their rear ends off & digging out of massive snowfalls in the midwest & New England all about global warming. I'm sure it'll make them feel better to know that their tribulations are transitory.
Remember - statistics never lie, but liars always use statistics!
Redwood Ed
Apparently you did not follow the ozone issue any better than you follow the science concerning human influence on global climate change.
The ozone issue was real. As a result of international cooperation the use of chemicals that were damaging the ozone layer were drastically reduced. These included chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used for air conditioning, aerosols and Styrofoam manufacturing. The ozone layer stabilized and during the past decade the "hole" in the ozone layer has shrunk. The ozone layer, however, will not recover quickly because the CFCs are very stable chemicals and will last in the upper atmosphere for at an average of approximately a hundred years.
Interestingly, many of the same conservative media boneheads (Limbaugh, Hannty, Fox News clown posse) who denied that humans were damaging the ozone layer are currently denying that humans contribute to the global climate change crisis. They are now multi-generational boneheads and you are their disciple.
More than 97% of climate scientists support the idea that humans are causing the current global climate change event. The Koch brothers and the right wing media clowns disagree ..... and you go with them. Do you also go to a doctor that believes in blood letting? Are you going with the Bible fundamentalist on the creationism vs evolution issue? How are you with the idea of the flat Earth as the center of the Universe?
Redwood Ed, are you aware that the so-called "ozone hole" is a transient phenomenon that occurs when the sun is low on the horizon and the antarctic vortex has not yet broken up? During that time, sunlight enters the ozone layer north of the "hole," in an area with higher than average ozone, and it has a long slant-range providing more opportunity for absorption. Even if the "hole" were to persist, the sun never gets high enough in Antarctica to be directly over the region of low ozone. Thus, the problem has been exaggerated and uncritical readers such as yourself piously support a position you are apparently incapable of analyzing. Therefore, you resort to sarcasm. The professional media 'Know Nothings' who provide you with your reading material are generally as unqualified for scientific analysis as you are.
"I wonder if and when the myth of human activity causing "global warming" will go away."
Since it isn't a myth, it is not likely to go away in our lifetimes or our grandchildren's lifetimes. That's what the deniers really just don't get. Denying doesn't make it go away. It just makes it worse when you finally have to accept it.
I can just my boss letting me get away with that! oOr any other tight ass boss for that matter...
Read well and study on your own after you have read this.
This is not a game or joke our Sun gives off a Solar Wind all day year round if you live in the State of Alaska you see it in the sky above what a sight it is going through our Earth’s Magnet Polls of the North and the South, North Poll. Its Called the Northern Lights or the Aurora Borealis.
The day will come when you will be able to see it all over Earth as in the year 1859 Solar Flare, It was the largest in 500 years. Two Astronomer’s Hodgson and Carrington told the World that the Solar Flare made a Geomagnetic Storm reach Earth in hours not days. Back then it gave new meaning to Reach For The Skies from Telegraph Operators. For hours sparks flew from the key board. Even after the Batteries were disconnected. Nov 3 and 4, 2003 had a X40+ Class Solar Flare.
Our Sun’s UV Rays will get stronger as each passing day go’s by, read and i will tell you why.
The Great big forest have be striped from most of the Earth for Greed of Money by the Wicked. The trees our are Main Source of Oxygen on this Plant.
The Forest Trees scrubs the Pollution out of the air and makes Oxygen from the rain and dirt that it grows in.
The Forest Trees do more then just make Oxygen they stop Soil Erosion, just Look at the 1930 Dust Bowl. Greed by our Government taxes led farmers to clear cut all their Forest and farm all the land they were being Tax on. They had to farm it to pay for the Taxes. Why leave the Trees when food crop makes Money. This Did not Help the Depression that effected most all Worldwide. This year 2012 more then 100 million will suffer from Malnutrition and Dehydration. Many will die!
In the United States of America alone more than 46+ Million Americans Received Food Stamps and that number is going up every day every year for the last 4 years in a row.
The Pollution and CO2 Carbon Dioxide go into the Tree Bark as a shield from most bugs so they do not eat the tree.
Less Forest less Oxygen this is why the moon. That has no Oxygen is very cold on the side with out Sun Light, And hot as ever on the side with Sun Light. Way too cold and too hot to live there. You would need at least 10 times the Energy we use on Earth to even live there and life on the Moon would be very short.
With no blank of Oxygen to lessen or reduce the Sun’s UV Rays and Solar Wind they are deadly there on our Moon. Every Mt. Climber and Aircraft Pilot knows the higher you go the thinner the Oxygen and colder it gets.
Just spend a night on a Mt. top above 13,000 feet with no Sun Light and you will see or should i say feel the cold stinging any of your exposed skin. If you are new to Mt. Climbing stay below 10,000Ft. The Astronauts and the Cosmonauts and Fighter Pilots that i have been with for years know this very well, and the Radiation Hazards to humans at High Altitudes.
Soon the Sun’s Solar Wind and UV rays will be way to strong for most to go out in the Sun Light for even a short time. The Geomagnetic Storm to come and the Bad Weather Storms well you have not seen nothing yet and the Sea Level is Rising the Oceans. Many Millions have been affected by Floods in China and Pakistan just last year. In 2005 Over a Thousand dead in New Orleans flood, and the list going on.
And there shall be famines, and pestilences, and Earthquakes, in divers places such as was not from the beginning of the Creation.
The last 30 years On Earth we have broke all high temp records and the temp it is still going up. All the Worlds Ice Glacier are melting at an Accelerating Rate. The Glaciers and Polar Ice Caps store more water than all the Fresh Water Lakes on Earth.
Look to the (US Gov web site "USGS U.S. Geological Survey" Repeat Photography of Alaskan Glaciers)
The Bad Weather Storms now are Babies compared to what is to come.
They will get even bigger and worse less Oxygen the more UV Rays to the Earth and more Water molecules will evaporate and go up into the Earth’s Atmosphere. Less Oxygen the colder with out sun light and hotter with it.
The Sky full of more water vapor molecules, more snow in the winter and more Flash Floods in the Summer. All earth will see way more fires and the Deserts are growing larger.
If every living person on Earth were to Plant A Tree Today we might have a chance.
FOR A SHORT TIME ALL THE MILITARY ON ALL SIDES PUT DOWN THEIR WEAPONS AND PLANTED TREES IN PAKISTAN MORE THEN A MILLION TREES IN A DAY.
NOW WHY CAN WE NOT DO THIS WORLD WIDE?
The Earth’s Atmosphere Blanket surrounding it protects life on Earth as Our Lord and GOD will all that seek Him.
Then it is written when the tree is full it is harvest time. All the Earth will someday burn away.
This is all Foretold in the Bible Read it
and may our Lord Bless all that do so.
The Lord’s Little Helper
Paul Felix Schott
solardowork@yahoo.com
KI4-AEX
P.S.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the Earth and its works will be burned up.
GOD Bless You and Your Love ones
Give thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ every day.
Read
Luke 21:20-22
Matthew 24: 30-33
Whaaaaaaat???????
PFS - You view of reality is at the same level as your understanding of science. Just below the floor of the Marianas Trench.
Wow! We re supposed to base our scientific studies on what the bible says! I guess Galileo and Copernicus never read it. Most scientists regard the bible as nothing more than good literature.
Louie, it seems you didn't "understand" what Mr Schott was trying to articulate. His religious aspect was a little "over the top" for me but what he meant was so true and is part of the historical record THAT NO DENIER CAN DISPUTE. But dispute they do, and will without so much as a single REPUTABLE scientist to quote. Faux News viewers seem to be as intelligent as the dirt poor nations of Africa and the middle east. Global warming has been denied AND IS PERPETUATED BY EQUALLY IGNORANT LAWMAKERS that derive their fortunes from fossil fuel bribes meant to allow this insanity to continue. You WILL change your mind, it will be when YOU cannot go any further down the road of denial. IT WILL NOT BE PRETTY FOR YOU!
And just where do you rank your "religious aspect", .... just over or just under "the top"?
A REPUTABLE scientist ..... and REPUTABLE science ..... are two (2) different animals.
Actual, factual science speaks for itself, regardless of who is doing the "talking" about it.
Now lets give Paul a nod for at least trying. Some corrections though, most of the oxygen is generated by algae in the oceans, trees help, but they are not the largest generators. The Earth's magnetic field is what protects us from the Sun's radiation. Without it, our atmosphere would have been scrubbed away millions of years ago. The effects of altitude are due to the reduced density of the atmosphere, or thin air. Atmospheric temperature is directly correlated to the density of the atmosphere. The higher the density the more able it is to absorb the energy from the Sun. Less density less energy absorption.
Hey, man, if he wants to plant a tree, let him. I'm all for it.
We know that warming is happening. The cause really doesn't matter at this point. we are over the edge and going to have to change everything we do to survive. We can expect extinctions of species to occur faster. Water to become scarce. Countries and governments to fight over it and Governments to fall.We are at a time of great changes, one way or another. We need to understand that how we live now is ending and try to figure out how the trend will go to even continue. You think the Dems or The Repubs will have the knowhow to survive? They can't even agree on cuts and revenue. Many governments will fail and fall and you can be sure ours will be one.
Don't worry libtards. It will only be conservatives that are hot and miserable. You can stay nice and comfy by taking another refreshing swig of global warming koolaid.
Roasted
You make the typical denialist rebuttal. Nothing. No facts. No curiosity even that 97% of climate scientists believe that humans are influencing climate change. You would rather believe the disinformation campaign from the Koch brothers or the ignorant sarcasm from Rush, Glenn and the Fox News Clown Posse.
You do not even state what it is that you don't believe ..... do you not believe that the climate is changing or do you not believe humans cause the change. Are there facts that you dispute or do you challenge the interpretation of the facts?
Or is it that you feel like if you believe humans cause climate change by use of fossil fuels that you would feel obligated to change your wasteful ways ..... and it is easier to be a denier than to get off of your lazy ass and work for change?
I see you have been drinking the koolaid by the truck load. No I do not listen to ANY of those you list. There are many questions that need to be asked about your so called science. Just for starters, try reading at Climate etc. run by an actual climate scientist, judithcurry dot com.
Roasted
So when 97% of climate scientists support the theory that humans cause global climate change and most of the remaining 3% remain skeptics, not taking a position on the matter, you decide to believe one of the loons that denies human impact because he agrees with your unscientific preconceived belief on the matter.
the 97% number is meaningless and false. You accuse me of listening to Rush and I showw you I listen to real climate scientists and all you can do is denigrate them because they do not agree with the great don.
The 97% number is absolutely real. There are a few climate scientists ..... very few and mostly funded by energy companies ...... who deny the human factor in global climate change. Virtually every science organization backs the global climate change theory. One of the very few science organizations who has not supported the theory is ...... get ready for this surprising revelation ..... the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. SURPRISE!
Listening to the energy funded climate scientists rather than the IPCC and NASA scientists is like listening to the fried bacon rind scientists who deny the cholesterol issue in heart disease over the opinion of cardiologists.
NASA - James Hansen, complete loon. IPCC is totally discredited and eat up with their own agenda. That is not science!
You say you follow Judith Curry, and there is nothing wrong with that, but you fail to understand that she is a skeptic, not a denier, which means that she still has questions that prevent her from accepting the theory that the overwhelming majority of her colleagues believe.
She is asking questions that you are obviously just brushing aside and have no interest in digging any deeper on. You have the answer that suites your anti America anti free enterprise agenda. Yes, she is a skeptic and not an alarmist like you.
“When I saw how the IPCC was responding and began investigating the broader allegations against the IPCC, I became critical of the IPCC and tried to make suggestions for improving the IPCC. As glaring errors were uncovered (especially the Himalayan glaciers) and the IPCC failed to respond, I started to question whether it was possible to salvage the IPCC and whether it should be salvaged. In the meantime, the establishment institutions in the U.S. and elsewhere were mostly silent on the topic.” ~Judith Curry
Actually burnt chicken ..... I have a MS in Chemistry and have studied global climate change for more than a decade. Your presumptions about me are about as valid as your moronic "libtard" insults. It is obvious that you look at this issue as a political issue rather than science. The politics of the issue is what to do about the science reality that most intelligent people accept.
You give conservatism a bad name with the childish, irrational arguments you present.
Roasted must have gotten his BS degree from Oral Roberts or Regency University. And I'm not referring to a baccalaureate degree.
At least I don't consider nbsnews.com a legitimate news organization.
oh yes don, you have really put forth some compelling arguments there your self. NOT!
Roasted. Then why do you visit the site?
I visit all types of sites. From the worst (here) to the best.
Chicken, you don't even understand how the IPCC works. The committees at the top may have political problems. But the Working Group reports are written by scientists for scientists, and are by far the best reviews of climate change science available. That is why the deniers HAVE to discredit the IPCC. Otherwise the public might come to realize the fact of anthropogenic global warming.
You mean the IPCC that went along with and published Mr. hide the decline Michael Mann and his falsified tree ring data so he could show the medieval warming period never existed in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Just so they could claim the warming is "unprecedented" when in fact it was not.
ditzy chick
See my #9.1 My issue with you is that you deny the science without any rational argument and use idiotic terms like "libtard" to describe those who support the science ..... as if global climate change is a political, rather than science, issue and as if insults make your point.
Michael Mann would never claim the current warming was unprecedented. We don't really know whether the medieval warm period was warmer than today or not, but it doesn't matter. The prediction of anthropogenic global warming is not based on the observed temperature record.
Why don't you guys start start quoteing me some of your science you get from SKS. You know the one run by the great scientist John Cook. Oh wait, no he is just an artist and an America hater.
your constant excuses for the IPCC & Michael Mann and blind acceptance is what convinces me this issue is political and nothing but political
chick fil A
Science is a field for open minded skeptics ...... you don't qualify.
You make it political by focusing on a few individuals that you try to smear in order to get people to dismiss them. But there are hundreds of climate scientists around the world in many independent labs, who have devoted their careers to the study of climate change. There are entire scientific journals devoted to the subject, and thousands of peer-reviewed papers every year. Every major scientific academy on the planet agrees uneqivocally that anthropogenic global warming is a serious issue that we need to address.
But no, you've dug up some "dirt" on the couple of guys you have heard of, and you think that negates decades of international scientific research.
And Climate Science is for true believers of the religion. You must accept it and and not question it to be saved.
RoastedChicken,
The problem is not the facts, and they are facts, it is that conservatives have let liberals define solutions to the scientific reality. Rather than take a position on the side of fact, conservatives began a circle of denial. It is patently obvious in many other conservative policies, from intelligent design to looking to cut spending by starting at the NIH. Those of us in scientific disciplines can clearly see an anti-science agenda coming from conservatives.
There's a lot of room for conservatism in issues such as these. Heck, look at solar panels: an individual taking responsibility for their own power generation. Conservatives let tree-huggers and liberals take away that message. They had their choice: small government solutions to actual problems, or stick their fingers in their ears and sing. They opted for the latter and not the former, making themselves look like fools in the process.
The data were actually confirmed by independent studies on different topics. The WSJ article that this claim appears in has been completely and thoroughly debunked for a couple of years now. But I don't know why I would argue with you about that. You're not a scientist, you're starting from a stance of "I'm right" and grabbing anything that supports that belief, no matter how wrong the rationale for it is. Continuing to perpetuate a debunked belief and keeping a controversy on life support in this manner does not make you a man concerned with fact. You are pushing an ideology, which has no place in science. Good day.
and jock, you destroy your so-called science by your refusal to hold them accountable and with the excuses you make for them.
And what facts would that be my great all knowing master of the universe?
1) Global surface temperature has risen over the past century.
2) Emission of carbon dioxide gas has risen over the past century.
3) Carbon dioxide is a gas that traps heat.
4) The burning of fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide gas.
Pragmatic, I agree completely with all 4 of your facts. It is the alarmists conclusions derived from those that I disagree with.
"And Climate Science is for true believers of the religion. You must accept it and and not question it to be saved."
That's just a ridiculous thing to say. I know it helps you justify your refusal to even try to understand the science, but that is not an excuse to slander people you don't even know. Yes of course there are nonscientists who are overly alarmist and political, but that is inevitable. It doesn't prove anything either way about the science itself. The very nature of science makes what you suggest impossible.
Well it's a start.
The conclusions derived from these facts are largely from models. A good model predicts an outcome given a set of circumstances. These climate models can be given historical data and an already known outcome can be "predicted." I can't speak to every model, but many models hold true with what was expected and what actually was. What hasn't occurred yet is a good guess based on the ability of the models to predict future events. Some of those data are emerging to success of the models involved, but again I can't speak to every single one.
Alarmism isn't a big product of science. The scientists just gather, model, and publish data or some mix of those. If it is modeled to make sea levels rise, it is published as such.
It is much more a product of media. Being a scientist, scientific journalism is a massive headache inducing catastrophe to me and I don't often see a well-written piece of journalism on science. Journalists aren't scientists and they are doing their best to grab eyeballs/ears. They do this by terrifying you that a murderer rapist is about to grab your little girl and do terrible things to her in his dungeon of doom, even though such an event is extremely remote. Oh and also your house is going to be swallowed up by a giant wave.
It has done a disservice to both acknowledging the basic facts, which are widely known, and determining a solution.
Well then, given your Chemistry expertise you should easily be capable of calculating the "warming effect" of 395 ppm of atmospheric CO2 verses the "warming effect" of 20,000+ ppm of H20 vapor, given these physical properties, to wit:
REF: Specific Heat Capacity of H2O vapor Specific Heat Capacity of CO2
Do the math for each "greenhouse" gas and then tell me .....
If 395 ppm of CO2 is responsible for a 1 degree increase in Average Surface Temperature ... then how many degrees increase in Average Surface Temperature would 30,000 ppm of H2O vapor cause?
And please, no "weazelwording" rhetolric, ..... just your calculated results.
Doesn't matter whether warming is accepted by people or not. You can reject the idea of tides, currents and wave action. Go to sea on boat not ready for it and you'll find out alright. You can deny it on your way down. You're still going down. The problem with Americans looking for alternative or non-carbon fuels is they simply want them to continue their frivolous travel, over sized houses and environmentally exploitative entertainment habits is the destruction to the environment to produce the alternative (yes we burn carbon fuels to produce the windmills to power the huge houses. The rest of the world wants that American style luxury life. At 7 billion people the world was burning enough carbon fuels to require 3.5 earth's to supply it on a sustained basis. Now we have 8 billion and 9 billion is only 20 years after that. Everybody is burning all they can. The earth's systems are upset and violent weather, rising seas/melting ice, increased droughts and floods are all the result. Deny any or all of it. Doesn't matter. It's still coming. Like the tides and currents - it's doesn't care that you deny it.
Sam C
The climate scientists understand the role of water vapor regarding climate. They also understand that atmospheric water vapor is more or less constant. The rise in the CO2 concentrations, along with some other gases like methane, due to human activities are raising temperatures over and above the temperatures due to water vapor alone. The climate and climate change are results of multiple factors. You have multiple posts ranting about water vapor; water vapor is certainly a factor, but to treat it as the only variable is foolish.
News flash, Sam ..... you are not providing climate scientists with any new revelation. They already know that atmospheric water vapor is a greenhouse gas.
Chicken's an argumentative troll. Why are you paying attention to him?
Anytime the temperature goes over 95 degrees F. the human body cannot keep itself properly cool in strenuous activity without some kind of help, if only cooling help from the wind. So companies are going to need to add cooling capacity for their employees, or else cut back on production, both of which are going to cause an inflationary increase in production prices. In fact, it will actually be necessary to artificially cool many of our farm animals, too, including fish farming. Keep in mind that many farms are going to dry up (this is already happening right now), so even the cost of vegetables and fruits is going to soar. Food production costs will be soaring through the roof even as the temperature soars, along with the cost of pretty much everything else. In addition, this increase in cooling is going to generate more CO2, which will only further aggravate the global warming problem. If you add in the problem of the world population growing to over 9 billion within the next three decades (along with the support animal populations exploding, too), you can clearly see that we will have a monstrous runaway global warming problem on our hands very soon. Eventually the cost of global warming is going to grow into the tens of trillions of dollars, EACH AND EVERY YEAR! - RC
How does anyone save the human race from themselves, when they are so determined to bring their ET designed and installed terminal religious Abrahamic belief systems to fruition in a program "End Time" way? - RC
As far as I can tell this means that the temperature in Boston might become more like that in New York and that in New York might become closer to that in DC etc. If the article is correct then the further south you go the less productive people are. Hmm. Texas, Mississippi. Perhaps that's true. But I doubt that this is the case.
Global warming is happening and it's most likely the result of greenhouse gases. But I get awfully tired of dumb articles like this one.
Janet
If you want to read a good science article go to a good science journal.
All of this is going to happen much faster than they have predicted, because most of these people making these predictions leave out the greatest greenhouse gas of all from their predictions, which just happens to be water vapor or humidity, which goes up when the temperature goes up. But most deniers will always be deniers to the bitter end, no matter what. - RC
(We are seeing greater and greater droughts around our planet because the water vapor in the air is increasing and it is trapping and absorbing more energy at the same time, which keeps this water vapor in the air longer until it eventually the air becomes so super saturated that it has to come down, which in turn is leading to greater and greater floods.)
I have worked out side for the past 25 years in the metro area of Minnesota,the number of 90* days have doubled to 12 from 1988 to 2007.you can do a simple experiment with carbon.get two glass jars and put a thermometer in each one.fill one jar with plan air,the other with exhaust from a warmed up car.put both jars in the sun ,then put them in the shade .the jar with carbon exhaust gas will maintain its sun shine temp longer.science will prove global warming is real.stupid people are closed minded to new ideas.
Dear almighty. Have you been inhaling too much of that exhaust gas?
Do yourself a favor....watch " An Inconsistent Truth"...very enlightening and very factual.............Google it and watch ( I am in no way associated with this film )
Maureen, do you really think a movie made by a conservative talk show host, interviewing conservative politicians and the usual industry-supported denier scientists, is going to give you the real facts?
Maureen
"An Inconsistent Truth" presents its case in the same way that fundamentalists defend the "science" found in the Bible. Instead of interpreting all of the verifiable facts, as scientist do, ........ they try to pick apart the scientific argument with a biased and intellectually dishonest argument that ignores all facts that do not support their position.
"Instead of interpreting all of the verifiable facts, as scientist do" you should rephrase that to "as scientists should"...................always fits the agenda.............
Actually, Maureen, dishonesty in science is always revealed .... if not immediately, soon ..... because of the peer review process that is a constant throughout the scientific discovery process. Peer reviewers are more than happy to discredit any failure to account for all of the data or to misinterpret data.
The data are out there Maureen. Get yourself a fancy climatology degree and show us scientists how it's supposed to be done.
Science is always rejected by the ones who least understand it.
jock59801
Maureen, do you really think a movie made by a conservative talk show host, interviewing conservative politicians and the usual industry-supported denier scientists, is going to give you the real facts?
I would certainly put more faith in this gentlemen than I would Al Gore......you obviously have not watched the movie...you could not be futher off base. Chicken or egg I guess..............
I haven't watched Al Gore's movie either. I get my science from scientists, not politicians, or talk show hosts.
Those movies serve their purpose, but they are to science what Time, Newsweek and the National Review are to news ...... you have to get closer to the real stuff to have a command of the issues, but the mass media stuff can be good for an overall picture if the source is credible.
Don't prejudge..........it may be very embarrassing...well worth the time.........
Maureen, we have been following this issue for a long time. We know the players. That movie is not the first salvo in their propaganda campaign and it won't be the last. There is a lot of money invested in defending the energy establishment, and they are not going to give up easily. But in the end they won't have any choice. And I think most of them probably know that.
Maureen ......... those same scientists were sounding the alarms, with convincing graphs and evidence, of a new devastating ice-age in the 1960s.
Maureen, I know you think they are telling you the truth. They have put a great deal of time and money into making it look that way to the non-scientific public. But you need to know that they are simply lying. The vast majority of climate scientists know that anthropogenic global warming is happening becuase they have seen the evidence. Every major scientific academy on the planet agrees uneqivocally that anthropogenic global warming is a serious issue that we need to address.
know that anthropogenic global warming is happening because they have seen the evidence
Yes. Just as in the past, what they have a harder time doing is determining the root cause. Is the over population of the world contributing? Probably. Is it the root cause the over population levels? Doubtful. What can be done? With world population levels it is impossible to stop using the only viable energy source that maintains those population levels, fossil fuels. Food production, food transportation to those people, etc. are the only thing making the numbers possible. Reduce the number of people using those resources and the problem is reduced (but will not eliminate the natural cycle). It is rather simplistic to think 7 billion people recycling plastic bags is going to have any significant effect one way or the other, but reduce the number of plastic bags used to a total of 1 billion people on the planet and the human contribution to global cycle? NOW you have significant results.
Oh good grief, ..... they have never seen any factual evidence of CO2 causing AGW ....... and that is exactly why they have never presented any verifiable evidence in support of said claims.
Association does not equal causation ...... and a "consensus of opinions" does not equal factual science or proof of anything.
CO2 causing AGW is "junk science" simply because, to wit:
Sam
I suggest that you offer all of your boneheaded ideas to a peer reviewed science journal. You are completely off base and for you to suggest that climate scientists have not considered water vapor in their models is beyond ridiculous.
@samc
This is absolutely false. You are intentionally disseminating disinformation, as if most of us haven't already seen this kind of crap a dozen times before.
You're BS.
GETTA CLUE, ...... Don97, .... "considering" H2O vapor ppm and "including" H2O vapor ppm .... in their computer models ....are two completely different actions.
They can't use H2O vapor ppm in their models because they have no pre-1960 historical temperature records with corresponding humidity measurements, .... nor of any pre-2013 cloud/fog coverage densities per each of said recorded temperatures.
Zen609, you sound just like someone whose bestest friend just got thu telling them that the "love of their life" has been "cheating" on them at least once per week for the past 5 years.
Saying that you have already seen "this kind of crap" is quite easy for you to do. But proving that "it is crap" is something that you are NOT capable of doing.
I've read your spam all over this thread. It's non-sense.
It's clear from your misuse of certain terms and phrases, that you don't have a background in science, and I think not much education at all, given your gullibility and inability to formulate or recognize proper argumentation, despite your false claims of credentials. You clearly do not have any degree whatsoever in chemistry, and I think probably no degree at all.
People like you think that you can just say whatever crap that you want, and fake it, as if others won't immediately recognize a BSer. You quite clearly do not have an educational background in critical thinking or any field that requires rigorous thinking.
In other some other comments, you make it clear that you don't know what fuzzy math is. You've also misinterpreted and misused other common terms and phrases, as if they're terms you've heard or read and to which you've decided that you've understood their meanings from context.
What I'm saying is that it's not hard to spot a bullsh1tter, especially one that's not very good at it.
Despite your claims of having an MS in chemistry, bla bla bla, I think that you're just an uneducated average Joe, blue collar conservative-type guy who's spouting a bunch of nonsense that he doesn't understand and making grandiose claims of credentials that he doesn't have as an argumentative appeal, which is something an educated person, if they are honest, would never do - and I know that you don't know why they don't.
So, in any event, I don't think that you know what constitutes a proof and what doesn't. You just don't have the education, intelligence, or experience in this kind of stuff to understand or interpret argumentation, and, honestly, you have absolutely no background in science. And there's no fault in that - an education or background in science doesn't mean anything other than just that. The crime is CLAIMING science, while in actuality opposing it, and claiming credentials that you don't have.
So, you don't have the education to understand any real discussion about this kind of stuff - you won't know what a proof is, and you'll just argue blindly with a bunch of nonsense in order to perpetuate this fantasy that you're a "real" scientist or some such crap, but you won't actually understand any of it, even if it's explained to you. You'll just spout crap instead of actually REALLY learning anything. Because for a bullsh1tter, why should you ACTUALLY have to do any real work to develop real knowledge or intellectual skill if you can just lie and SAY that you do?
It would be different if you were someone that actually wanted to be informed in a real way, but that's not you're interest here - you're a political partisan intentionally disseminating false information regarding an issue and a discipline that you do not understand.
You're spouting a bunch of crap, and there's really nothing more to say about it.
Now Zen609, that was quite a mouthful that you "spit" out there for everyone to read.
I suggest you read ...... "this seeded commentary" ..... which I am the author of, ... to see if it is justification for all your above accusations.
Cheers
Samuel C Cogar, ... AB, Physical & Biological Science, GSC 62'
No - all of this is nonsense propagated for political purposes and motivated by profit. The water vapor objection is complete nonsense, and has been easily and convincingly debunked. That information is readily available with a quick google search.
If you were really a skeptic, you would have applied this skepticism to the profit-driven anti-propaganda funded by Oil/Coal, but you haven't.
You're not an honest actor.
P.S. Again, you don't know what fuzzy math means and misused it, believing it to mean something that it does not. This isn't a sin, but it does mean something.
As far as your good name and credibility: your own comments have destroyed your credibility. You are a political partisan espousing anti-science rhetoric publicly, and you're advocating for positions that were created specifically as disinformation and motivated profit, and have been counter-demonstrated.
Addendum: I followed the link to your seeded commentary, as you've suggested. I honestly don't see the relevance.
Also, do you live in West Virginia? And if so: were you employed by the coal industry in some capacity? Neither of these things is of any importance - just curious.
Zen609, mimicking claims of “debunking” only proves your religious beliefs.
And who gave you the authority to tell me what I should apply my learned talents to?
And Zen, just because you are an actor with a “part” in this “global warming scam” doesn’t mean that I am.
And P. S. again to you Zen, …. GETTA CLUE, …. the word “bark” has three (3) different meanings.
And the adjective “fuzzy” has 4 or 5 different meanings, two (2) of which are:
1. Having a frizzy, fluffy, or frayed texture or appearance.
2. Difficult to perceive clearly or understand and explain precisely; indistinct or vague.
And Zen, no one has bestowed upon you the AUTHORITY to tell me which noun(s) that I am permitted to preface with the adjective “fuzzy”. And just because my use of “fuzzy” destroys and discredits your “junk science” beliefs of CO2 caused AGW is your sole reason for claiming my misuse of said. fer shame, fer shame
That doesn't surprise me any, Zen609, ... given the fact you previously posted the following BS rhetoric in a futile attempt to impress someone, ...... anyone. To wit:
Zen, did you tell all of your School Teachers the very same as above ..... and thus you refused to believe anything they tried to teach you? Apparently so.
And Zen, if you "click" my screen-name and then read my short "bio" your other questions should be answered.
First of all, if you're gonna BS about your credentials, you should pick a year and stick to it.
Secondly, fuzzy math is a real thing and has a real meaning. If you don't know what it is or what it means, then fine, but don't try to BS me with semantic weaseling.
Thirdly, you do not have an accurate understanding of the specific mechanics of greenhouse gases. It's not a linear system, it's a dynamic system. Google positive feedback loop.
Fourthly, this "water vapor is the real culprit" crap is disinformation. This objection is clearly not sound, even on it's face.. If you were REALLY a skeptic, you would be skeptical of THAT position. It is not your own position, it is partisan disinformation that are merely repeating, without skepticism. It's a false, and intentionally false objection - it's political rhetoric, not science.
Ah, and that was a good guess on my part about your location - I hadn't read your profile before that - it was a guess.
Also, the common use of the term 'junk science' was popularized in the late 80s/early 90s by proponents of anthropogenic global warming in reference to a denialist claim that 'it's the sun'. So, I always love when the term is used by conservative political types in this context - it's a bit of projection or 'I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I' contrarianism. I just like that kind of consistency across issues - it's stylish and predictable - a hallmark, if you will.
In any event, you're peddling partisan disinformation as "science", while slandering real science.
HA, ..... it is literally impossible to BS anyone who employs the use of their "one track mind" commentary as a means to "win" an argument without having to admit to being "wrong" and/or admitting their "ignorance" of the subject being debated. Said is primarily an emotionally driven feminine and/or girly-man personality trait.
Anyway, "chew on" the following for a couple minutes so we all can read what you "spit out" in your distaste of it.
Wow down to pasting definitions. Weak. Zen has clearly exposed your dis-informational posts.
Yes, I understand your use of the term My point was that if you knew what fuzzy math really was, you wouldn't have used the rhetorical meaning in the context of statistics or probability. The more relevant use of fuzzy math in the context of statistics and probability, even one discussed rhetorically in plain English, wouldn't be this usage from common political rhetoric, because in this context, fuzzy math has a proper meaning.
So, yeah, I think that you were likely not aware that fuzzy math was a real field that is relevant to statistics and probability, and that your understanding of the term was from political rhetoric.
In fact, your entire enterprise here is political rhetoric, not science. You're a political partisan spouting political rhetoric. You're making false statements in public. You're doing it intentionally. You are lying to people in order to manipulate them to support a partisan political position.
It's all a bunch of BS. You're a dishonest person, and not in some small, innocuous way.
OH GOOD GRIEF, ........ and you accuse me of BS'ing.
YADA, ... YADA, ... YADA, just more mimicked "tripe n' piffle" from you. Best you should Google "circular reasoning".
And better yet, you should make a dedicated effort to understand what you are mimicking before you mimic them.
"DUH", ..... the specific mechanics of all per say "greenhouse" gases are exactly the same. They are absorbers and re-emitters of thermal energy, specificalliy in the IR frequency range.
And "YES", .... per say "greenhouse" gases because there is not now and never was any such thing(s) that ever existed.
First of all, actual "greenhouses" are enclosed structures and do not depend upon the "trapped" gases within them to aid, help or maintain their internal warmth or temperature.
And secondly, the earth and its atmosphere is not an enclosed structure and therefore can not be called or referred to as being a "greenhouse" in any shape or form.
But the "dummies" and the "miseducated" do not comprehend the above stated "FACTS" .... and the partisan proponents of CO2 causing AGW could care less whether or not they are "spouting" non-FACTUAL garbage.
The "dummies" and the "miseducated" just assumes that anything that has the word "greenhouse" used as it's descriptor .... is capable of "trapping" thermal (heat) energy ....... while ignoring the FACT that it is the aforementioned "enclosure" that is responsible for said "trapping" of the warm "gases" to prevent them from being intermixed with the colder gases outside of said "enclosure".
GIMME A BREAK. .... to claim that a gradual increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm over the past 150+ years is the cause of a gradual increase in Global Average Temperatures ..... is to be claiming that it is a "linear system".
Zen609, for you to avert your eyes and your mind to the FACT that atmospheric H2O vapor (humidity), which is constantly changing/varying between 10,000 ppm and 30,000 ppm, ..... and which is not only the most potent of all the present, per say, "greenhouse" gases, but also by far constitues the greatest quantity of all said 'greenhouse' gases in the atmosphere ..... is the same as for you to be claiming that it is NOT a "dynamic system".
You "want your cake and eat it too" ...... by claiming that the "lineral" long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm is the "driving force" of increasing temperatures ..... and that the "dynamically" short-term increases in atmospheric H2O vapor (humidity) ppm plays little to no part in/of said "driving force".
Zen609, why don't you spend a week in the desert near Phoenix, AZ, ..... with only a shirt, shoes and your shorts to protect your body, ...... just to see if that 395 ppm of CO2 in the air will keep your arse warm during the night time.
Put your MONEY where your "CO2 WARMING" mouth is, ..... by putting your life on the line, ... prove your "religious" beliefs are true and factual.
This comment is full of a number of basic factual errors and very basic misunderstandings and misinterpretations - nothing esoteric, just plain basic stuff.
I won't even bother to give you a bullet point laundry list, but I think it's enough just to point out that on one hand, you make the statement that "water vapour is the most important greenhouse gas" in one comment , and here it's "the most potent greenhouse gas", and then you say here that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas, or even the greenhouse effect.
So, you've made all these dozens or hundreds of posts trying to advance the idea that 'water vapour, not CO2, is the greenhouse gas responsible for climate change". But at the same time, you make the argument that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas because there's no such thing as the greenhouse effect.
I could go on and on and on - but it's not necessary. You're full of sh1t. You're comments are a bunch of bullsh1t, and you're a liar. It's just really that simple.
HA, so you are finally admitting that "CO2 causing AGW" is based solely on "statistics and probability" and has no basis whatsoever in actual, factual physical science, nor has there ever been any physical scientific evidence or proofs submitted in support of said.
Me thinks you are probably better at "treehugging" than you are at discussing matters of the physical sciences.
What I said was:
Sam
Lindzen is a well known skeptic who has failed to convince the scientific community of his point of view, much as you have failed with us.
Sam -
Speaking of Lindzen: he thinks you're a nutjob ... and not the good kind.
LOL. Sam repeat after me: "I live in denial. My water vapor fallacy isn't working. I live in denial".
It's funny, but it's true.
This is probably not news to 2 of the 3 people still reading this thread, but part of the denialist rhetoric is to hold up someone like Lindzen as a proof of their own positions, which isn't good argumentation anyway, but even worse is to imply that a specific skeptic agrees with or supports a certain denialist proposition, and that's almost always not the case.
For example, In this case, we have Sam advocating the water vapour objection (bold choice - very retro-chic - he's bringing it back, I guess), as well as some kind of objection to the greenhouse effect itself (which contradicts his water vapor objection on it's face, not that it really matters to him). So, Sam invokes Lindzen - but Lindzen's positions on basic climate change are conventional - i.e., CO2 is a greenhouse gas, increased CO2 has warmed the climate, increased CO2 levels are anthropogenic - and he has referred to those that dispute these points as "nutty".
In any event, someone should tell Sam that iris didn't pan out, not that it would mean anything to him, or make any difference.
As the years pass. we will see for ourselves which is the truth. Those that deny Global warming may be right or wrong as we shall see. We can argue till the cows come home and neither side will give an inch. I can see the results of global warming but it's root cause not. We all will just have to live with it if we continue to warm. I'm hoping that it will cool back down but I try to be realistic instead of just skeptical.
John, that kind of talk makes you in the denier camp with me.
The danger is that if we wait long enough to see the real dangers, our planet will reach the tipping point of no return. This danger point is largely defined in a ecological way, because once our world's temperature rises an average of 2.5 degrees C. worldwide, all of our world's carbon sinks will become transformed into carbon sources. Combine this with the fact that our planet's human population will be reaching 9 billion people at the same time, not to mention our support animal populations also exploding at the same time, and you can see that time becomes of great essence, especially since it takes a minimum of 20 years to implement any meaningful solution to the problem of runaway global warming on a global level. Large quantities of methane (and NO2 & CO2) will be released from thawing Arctic clathrates and large undersea methane hydrate deposits (the "Methane Bomb" effect), followed by the "Nitrous Oxide" bomb effect when our dead oceans and dead forests start producing as much as 10,000 times the amount of NO2 as normal healthy oceans do. (The levels of phytoplankton in our oceans have already declined approx. 40% just since the 1950s.) All of these bombs are eventually going to set off the greatest bomb of all, which is the "Water Vapor" bomb, water vapor being the greatest greenhouse gas by far. But no matter how much anyone pleads with mankind, most deniers will still be in denial to the very end. So what else can I possibly say but have fun eveyone while you all still can! Bye, bye! - Rick Carter
Please note that mankind is basically divided more or less equally between "fight or flight" responses to imminent danger, the "fight" portion representing those who acknowledge the problem and want to do something to correct it, and "flight" portion representing those who deny the problem and basically just want it to go away. This is really what is ultimately tearing our nation apart from within, when it comes to dealing with the mounting economic problems which are slowly but surely doing our once proud nation in. The paralysis which results from this kind of indecision will only guarantee the end will eventually come, but that seems to be what most Americans want anyway, so their Lord and Savior King Jesus can supposedly come back to take over our entire world and make everything right here on planet Earth. Like I said before, you can save mankind from a lot of things, but who can possibly save mankind from themselves, especially when most of the elected leadership is also infected with these same program "End Time" viral religious belief systems? - RC
No, Chicken, skepticism and denial are not the same thing.
Sorry both "fight" and "flight" would be on the same side on this issue. The deniers are on a third class that you could define as "deer caught in the headlights".
They don't acknowledge the danger and see no reasons to do anything about it. Until the metaphorical bumper splash them all over the pavement.
SamC
This is absolutely false and you are intentionally disseminating disinformation.
Atmospheric concentrations
and heat absorption ability of “greenhouse” gases
Carbon dioxide
(CO2) 395 ppm -- 0.0395% ----- Specific Heat Capacity - 0.844 kJ/kg K
Water vapor (H2O)
10K to 40K ppm – 2%-4% -- Specific Heat Capacity - 1.930 kJ/kg K
Methane ---- (CH4) 1.745 ppm - 0.0001745% -- Specific Heat Capacity -
2.220 kJ/kg K
Sam
Your denial based on water vapor was debunked long ago and the importance of CO2 and methane in the greenhouse effect have been established science for well over a century.
You are completely without credibility on this issue.
Obviously this guy does not live on the East Coast. If humidity gets too high for animals to live, precipitation will occur, as our friends in the rain forests well know, so the premise of his claim is thus, ridiculous.
Of course high humidity is uncomfortable. Does it support human life well? Absolutely. If people get too uncomfortable, they migrate. That's why this is a West Coast scientist.
I looked for a post that didn't involve blatant political stances or general scientific ignorance. I found none. You people are all shiot for brains...
What a refreshing intellectual contribution to the discussion.
got an idea using Reagans star wars -oil from the spill copper netting-ice explosives and sugar
lets restore the ice cap-details later
Thank goodness for the recent global freezing winters we've been having.
That's why Obama wants to keep us all unemployed. For our saftey! What a mad genius.
I seriously doubt any member of the Democratic Agenda has the slightest intent of doing anything constructive. If any part of that agenda has a beneficial effect or less than destructive end result its strictly by accident.
I seriously doubt that any member of Congress has the slightest intent of doing anything constructive. At this point they're just partying and flipping the bird to their constituents. Whoever is in, whether you think he's doing a good job or not, at the next election vote against him. As long as people keep reelecting the same idiots on the basis that "the other guys" are the problem, nothing is going to be done.
jcl, don't tell me how to vote you pansy I do my own research and will make my own decisions no matter what you and your liberal goon-squad say, you can take my money but you can nvever take my vote you coward.
Interesting. The world climate has in the past been warmer and life continued and people worked and civilizations expanded, the world climate in the past has been colder and people worked and civilizations expanded. The question should be about world population levels and if there will be any jobs for people to do. If politicians put half as much effort into the problem of world population levels the rest of the problems will repair themselves.
I am curious as to when, exactly, you believe that this expansion of civilizations occurred during a period in which the world climate was warmer. The last time it was as warm that I am aware of was about 100,000 years ago, at which time there was no such thing as "civilization". The last time it was significantly higher was about 15 million years ago at which time there was no such thing as "people". So when exactly did these events you assert to have occurred take place?
jcl, they take place each and every day in most places close to the equator you new england-biased moron. We currently have civilizations in the middle east which currently thrive in 120 degree-plus (f) heat and areas in norhtern canada that thrive with temperatures regularly below negative 20-degress (f). you can never puta price tag on human ingenuity and determination and we will continue to be successful no matter what your therrmometer says the temperature is outside you scraw.
J. Clarke, it was a lot warmer than present during three (3) different periods during the past 5,000 years which prompted expansions of civilizations and which are aply named for said expansions, ..... the Minoan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods ...... and there is "written" historical records proving that fact, ..... one of which I am absolutely sure you are familiar with, which is "Hannibal's crossing of the Alps in 218 BC".
Wrong again, sam
Human beings live -- and thrive -- in climatic zones with 210 degrees Fahrenheit worth of variability (90 below in Siberia and 120 above in various deserts). Yet an increase in a single degree (which is what we've seen since 1850, and by the way temperature will always fluctuate) is supposedly noticeable by average people and will make work difficult.
I don't even now where to start to unpack the layers of misunderstandings and outright deception. Oh, wait, I do. I wrote a couple of hundred pages about this: http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Sell-Your-Coat-ebook/dp/B0072VSQFQ/ref=kinw_dp_ke?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2