General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

Sneakers, it would already be a huge step forward if you just took the time to google stuff before making bold claims. The 30,000 scientists thing is obviously fake. But you're not interested in facts. You made up your mind a long time ago.

Sneakers, it would already be a huge step forward if you just took the time to google stuff before making bold claims. The 30,000 scientists thing is obviously fake. But you're not interested in facts. You made up your mind a long time ago.

hmmmmm.....ditto
You are again only trying to discredit (standard tactic)......without researching any opposing information.

(good video) Weather Channel Founder, 30,000 Scientists Suing Gore for Global Warming Fraud

Qualifications of Signers (31,487 listed)


---

I do appreciate those who at least acknowledge some of the opposing skepticism. Those arguments that attempt to be objective, are much more interesting to me. It is a real waste of time to debate one-sided GW fantatics claiming that it is me who is not open-minded. Pot calling the kettle black.

To repeat my point, I am a skeptic. In no way, are personal attacks on me (by a couple of people), going to change my mind (or anyone who is really thinking for themselves). They actually strengthen my thinking about the real agendas behind the issue.
.......This is the evidence of why people do not speak up or question.



NOTE: I really do need to get these fricking studies done. Will not be responding immediately to any posts.....especially non-rational, non-objective, or personal attacks. <break>


.

Sorry but this is going back to an earlier Sneakers post:

I posted it above.
It was Crichton's suggestion to put the models up with a 10 year predition. If they cannot do that, why are they predicting castatrophies 100 years from now? They don't, because the numbers keep changing to fit the scenario. Overly convenient and "prejudice" to the outcome of models.

The problem today -- and the reason the public is becoming more skeptical each year -- is because the doomsday alarmists have been wrong about a lot of things. They keep changing the hypothesis of the models when they do not work out as predicted.

Simply put the models to a 10-year test.
Create the hypothesis and let the numbers be presented in the open. True scientists would jump at that proposal. Be the person to prove it. Be the person to solve the climate equation......then refine that to the weather forecasts. The individual or team would probably win a valid Nobel Peace Price. A true hero for everyone.

ooops.....Nobel Peace Price winner, Al Gore, did predict world demise in 10 years due to GW (Jan 2006).
clock is ticking. 3+ years left.


NOTE: again, nothing accomplished today. Behind schedule. Need to catch up on some studies.

In surfing I stumbled across this paper which seem to indicate that over a 16 period, 1990 to 2006, the IPCC based models were reasonable but a little inaccurate - but sadly for the world the wrong way 'round - the models had been a little overly optimistic. The temperature seems to be rising slightly faster than their middle prediction (well within the bounds of their predictions though). Maybe it is time to push the boat out for some more research especially as the sea level rises have exceeded the IPCC model expectations by a fair bit.
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/rahmstorf_etal_science_2007.pdf
None of this proves it is anthropogenic but even if it was due to solar cosmic rays (and there seems more support against this in recent published papers) it seems wise to at least think about reducing the speed of increase of atmospheric CO2.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html

I do encourage you to actually produce any evidence that global warming is not real. But you fail to do that.

Let's assume we can agree that we do in fact pump huge amounts of CO2 into the air, that man is causing the rise in CO2, and that heating of the Earth is bad for us, if for nothing else because we will lose a tremendous amount of real estate to ocean rises. You can debate rising CO2 causing temperature rise.

So 25 years ago scientists started warning that industrial processes were pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, that CO2 was a greenhouse gas (trapped heat in the atmosphere), and that throughout observable history CO2 concentration rises were strongly correlated with increasing temperature. As this continued and data were accrued, there were many warnings of what would happen. In the short term, we would see higher recorded surface temps, higher water surface temps, especially in the North Atlantic, stronger storms, and droughts in certain areas. (To understand why global warming causes worse winter storms, consider the poker analogy of LAG vs. TAG play in a game where LAG is more profitable: LAG can make more money (higher temps) but will experience greater variance (greater weather extremes).

These predictions are on record. So what happened? Well, in the last 15 years we've experienced most of the hottest years on record based on surface air temps, dramatic ocean surface temp rise in the North Atlantic and lesser rise elsewhere, an increase in strong storms including major rainstorms and floods, and an increase in droughts in many of the predicted areas.

And therefore global warming does not exist and is not man made.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html says:

When I think I'm having chest pains I don't go to the dermatologist

yet you expect us to listen to one in this thread? Psht!

hmmmmm.....ditto
You are again only trying to discredit (standard tactic)......without researching any opposing information.

(good video) Weather Channel Founder, 30,000 Scientists Suing Gore for Global Warming Fraud

Qualifications of Signers (31,487 listed)


---

I do appreciate those who at least acknowledge some of the opposing skepticism. Those arguments that attempt to be objective, are much more interesting to me. It is a real waste of time to debate one-sided GW fantatics claiming that it is me who is not open-minded. Pot calling the kettle black.

To repeat my point, I am a skeptic. In no way, are personal attacks on me (by a couple of people), going to change my mind (or anyone who is really thinking for themselves). They actually strengthen my thinking about the real agendas behind the issue.
.......This is the evidence of why people do not speak up or question.
.

Polls do not equal science

NOTE: I really do need to get these fricking studies done. Will not be responding immediately to any posts.....especially non-rational, non-objective, or personal attacks. <break>

Ironic.

Someone in this thread pointed out the fallacy about water being far more prevalent in the atmosphere and therefore more important than CO2, so I’ll skip that.

Someone pointed out that Earth’s human population continues to rise. As my aside, our bigger problem as a species is long-term die-out from not reproducing fast enough. The first world has substantially negative population growth, and industrialization is reaching across the globe. The rest of the world is catching up to our standard of living. Once this happens, absent massive government subsidies, populations will start dying out. This could happen astonishingly quickly: at a 0.8 replacement rate (roughly Western Europe today absent immigration) and an overly long 33-year generation time, in a millennium you have 0.8^30=99.88% loss. Ten billion becomes 12 million in a millenium. With continuing tech advances, this could indeed happen. But not in the next century or two. Curiously, a massive decrease in land mass from ocean rise could help economically. With rapid decreasing population, there will be massive deflation. Losing many trillions’ worth of land would help offset that.

Meanwhile, back on topic:

There have been comments in this thread saying that estimated rates of ocean rise have been going downward. This is false. The estimated rates of ocean rise have been revised several times in the past 20 years, upward.

Ocean rise is the worst short-term problem. The main issue for the next two centuries is the Greenland ice cap. The Greenland ice cap carries enough water to raise ocean levels around 10 feet. This would put Florida under water. The rate of loss of the Greenland ice cap has increased significantly over the past decade, with one year logging miles of loss. Greenland is what, 900 miles across?

The total land-based ice masses are sufficient to raise the surface of the ocean around 320 feet if memory serves. Sea-based ice does not count, because when it melts the ocean levels do not rise. Hence the Artic ice cap is not important to ocean levels.

Another major issue, particularly for Europe, is North Atlantic ocean surface temperature. The gulf stream brings warm water from the Caribbean up the Eastern seaboard of the United States, warming those waters. As it travels, wind evaporates water, cooling it. Once in the north, the cold freezes some of it into ice. This ice is mostly fresh water: the salt is left in the ocean. The denser, saltier, colder water sinks. This helps draw more warm water up the Easter seaboard. One branch of this current then travels across the Atlantic and along the coast of Western Europe. This has a major effect of warming Western European weather. If the North Atlantic surface temps rise sufficiently, not enough ice will form, and the gulf stream will diminish and then cease. Western Europe is expected to become much colder when this happens. It’s energy consumption will soar, and the north may become mostly uninhabitable. Haven’t checked in a while, but North Atlantic surface temps have risen a few tenths of a degree. Best estimates are that we are less than three degrees away from dramatic decrease in the gulf stream.

Back to the questions: Does global warming exist? All data point to cycles of heating and cooling of the Earth. The data over the past 100 years says the Earth is heating, and much faster in the past 20 years, and again faster in the past 10 years. This was predicted by those warning about climate change, but they were wrong: it has happened faster than they predicted.

Is global warming important? If it melts the Greenland ice cap, it is very important. Bangladesh will be uninhabitable, we will lose Florida (almost all of which is 10 feet or less above sea level), and much additional land will be lost to the oceans. There are also the effects of more major weather events, especially massive flooding, such as Nashville, TN experienced when it got an unprecedented 17 inches or so of rain in a day a couple years ago. This is such a problem that even though my house is at the 500-year flood line, I purchased flood insurance on it. Raleigh is quite vulnerable to flooding from heavy rains. 20 inches in a day would be devastating.

Is global warming caused by man? This cannot be proved to a naysayer’s satisfaction. How do you do the experiment? But we’re poker players. Those in this thread talking about EV are spot on. We are raising CO2 levels. We have strong evidence that rising CO2 levels correlate with rising temperatures. We have good chemistry and data suggesting this is causal. We are seeing the warming that was predicted, but more so. Same goes for cow-fart methane. Assign a percentage chance global warming is man-caused. If you assign that chance at 10%, you still have massive incentive to sequester CO2 or stop producing CO2.

My perspective is that assigning that chance at 10% given real data and not just the Fox News extreme edited version is fuzzy thinking. It is far higher. It is not 100% though.

But, it does not matter. Barring a major energy tech advance that obviates the discussion, such as super-cheap solar or fusion, we are not going to do enough to stop it. We might have done so (low probability imo), but the Fox News media has made sure it won’t happen. The anti-global warming meme has “won.” Its proponents just don’t see it yet.

Interesting write-up Matt. Lot of data points.

Between this thread and the Daniel Negreanu threads over at 2+2 my days are pretty full.

I think that Matt Flynn's excellent post underscores the complexities of global warming and also shows why skeptics might very well find inconsistencies when looking for a uniform warming trend. Those inconsistencies can be misleading to those who understand only in black and white.

I think the evidence overwhelmingly points to global warming. Any money that we put into it now will save us money down the road a hundred fold.

A vital part of doing something about global warming involves restricting 3rd world countries ability to industrialize. Taking your acid rain example to emphasize the catch 22, it is the chemical emissions of industry that cause acid rain, but without the development of industry you most likely would not have a car to worry about it rusting in the first place. When it comes to the third world, do they remain in poverty to breathe clean air, or do they industrialize and deal with the pollution as best possible. Its a no-brainer from their point of view. Although I disagree with him, maybe Jeff Rubin might be your cup of tea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg

I think I was being generous to call such a situation a catch 22, I for one can forgive the millions looking to escape poverty for giving the west the finger here. I don't know how I could tell the 3rd world to restrict industrialization(and all the amenities it brings) so they can have less cars so us westerns don't get rust on ours. And Western problems are trivial if its rusting cars your worried about, something that would not take a monumental technological feat to prevent.

Here is a question for Sneakers. In an earlier (different thread) you stated that the "Swindle" film changed your view of global warming, and you are now a skeptic. I was always on the man made, and worried, side of the argument but I have looked through quite a few articles and papers since this thread started (trying to avoid the obviously imbalanced ones) and have found overall that the "Swindle" viewpoint appears flawed in at least a few places. Is any of this discussion and hopefully your own research softening your view in any way?
If not what exactly are the individual points that are keeping your view aligned with "Swindle"?.

Here are a few more data points, 2011 was the 11th warmest (since 1850) even though it was a La Niña year that usually cools the year overall. The report can be read here (24 pages)

In the early part of the last century the suns output (total solar irradiance) rose very slightly but since the 1970's the suns output has fallen overall. The output does rise and fall with the 11 year, on average, solar cycle and for the previous few years this has been dropping. It has recently started to climb again, the peak expected somewhere between 2012 and 2014. During the recent low minima period from ~2004 to the present we have set a good few records. This doesn't mean that much as the data is too short but it definitely doesn't back any non anthropogenic global warming theories.
As far as the cosmic ray flux idea, this is still not considered as a very high driver according to many climate research centres but even if this is the case according to the theory the temperature rises should have been slowing lately as c.r.f. rose from 1991 to 1998 but fell reasonably strongly from 98 to 2004 a very short small bump in 2004, and has been reducing since 2004 to the present day. If you do accept this as a driver, as in the "Swindle" film, it seems we can look forward to some hot times if both increased CO2 and the expected increased cosmic ray flux coincide.

Yay reddit http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/reo35/the_discussion_of_climate_change_is_so_poisoned/

/thread