Climat Change is not a commie myth.

[orogenicman]

Most scientists do, in fact, have an understanding of the greenhouse effect (a demonstrable natural phenomenon), and agree that you cannot pump 6 billion tons and increasing of GHGs into the world's atmosphere every year and have no effect on the atmosphere. The atmosphere does not exist in isolation from humanity. They are having measurable negative effects. And given the fact that the Carbon cycle takes about 100 years to go full circle, those effects will be around with us for quite some time to come.

Scientists also know that if one builds two greenhouses one with IR reflecting glass and the other without the effect is the same. That means trapped IR is not the cause of the increased temperature of a greenhouse.

According to New Scientist 4 June 2011 pg 6 the human contribution in 2010 for CO2 emissions 30.6 GT up 1.6GT from 2009, G as in giga as in billion tons.

If one prefers "secular" sources this number was repeated in a New York Times article, 12/08/14 31.6 GT human in 2011.

Sure sounds awfuller than the 6GT you mention. But the total atmospheric CO2 750-830 GT making the uncertainty 80GT about +/-5% +/-40GT. One must note the human contribution per year is less than the uncertainty.

If the human contribution were cumulative we can do the following.

As CO2 makes up only 0.03% of the atmosphere this means roughly a 0.04% increase in CO2 per year or or 0.0001% increase in total atmospheric CO2.

So, in other words, you believe that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. I am afraid that you are going to have a difficult time convincing most of the world's scientists that what you believe is true.

---

In fact, it was a joint award given to the authors of the 2007 IPCC climate report and Al Gore. Mann was one of those authors, and received a certificate from the IPCC in recognition of his efforts that contributed to the award, as were all the other authors. End of story.

Of course you don't need to refute any science. Given that it is highly doubtful that you could argue the issue with a 10 year old, I can understand your reluctance.

To assume that a peace prize, Nobel or otherwise, has any bearing upon the science involved is to assume Peres, Arafat and Kissinger and Ho Chi Minh were the supreme advocates of peace. As the peace prize barely addresses peace the suggestion it supports any science at all is ludicrous.

---

I made no such assumption. I was simply pointing out the facts.

That invented save even lead one crackpot to claim warming could result in an ice age. I am sorry but anyone claiming global warming leads to cooling is going to have to give me the definitions of both warming and cooling they are using.

As to shutting of the GULF not jet stream that is no more than a hypothetical from years ago which has since been rejected one grounds of 1) not that simple and 2) if the Arctic melting stops tomorrow the inertial will continue the flow for a thousand years.

Scientists are not saying that global warming leads to cooling. They are saying that it leads to more extreme weather. AGW is causing an increase in atmospheric moisture in some regions, and in many of those regions is causing an increase in precipitation. Add normal cold winter temperatures to the mix and you get an increase in snowfall. We are seeing that in North America, in Eurasia, and in Eastern Antarctica. AGW is also causing decreases in atmospheric moisture in some regions, which is leading to increased and more severe droughts. Extreme weather, not global cooling.

---

Melting of the Arctic sea ice is not a political cause, it is a scientific fact. Second point - you failed top address poppy's point.

And it is a fact that, absent satellite cameras, it appeared nearly as short of ice in the early 1930s as it is today.

And your evidence of this would be?

That aside as I do not know if I can find the article again, the idea that a total absence of arctic sea ice is BAD is a political idea. IF there is no arctic ice that implies the arctic is warmer meaning all the land north of the arctic circle should be opening to food production instead of tourists looking at polar bears.

By all means, please find the article. The Arctic sea ice is the northern Hemisphere's 'air conditioning' in that it moderates temperatures and gives us our four seasons. Without it, plants and animals that depend on those four seasons will instead either have to adapt to two seasons (wet and dry) or go extinct. That would necessarily include ALL of our food crops. Moreover, the Arctic is currently experiencing more warming than just about any other place on the planet. While the planet is seeing an increase of a degree or so, the Arctic has seen an increase over nearly 10 degrees. The argument that more land will open up to farming just doesn't hold up, since that will come at a heavy price in that much of the land that was 'formerly' used for farming will no longer be productive. And that will mean a huge political and economic shift affecting tens of millions of people. And this is just scratching the surface with regard to the likely negative outcome.

Then also the commercial gains of direct shipping between northern Europe and Asia, the fabled Northwest Passage hardly needs be mentioned. Also it will open the arctic oil fields to much easier exploitation.

Yes, it is recognize that there could be gains with respect to shipping lanes. It also means political battles with regard to who controls those lanes and what products will can be shipped. I also think the argument about increased exploitation of the Arctic resources is a huge can of worms.