Pump up the thermostat and leave the SUV idling, researchers are taking a closer look at renewed concerns over global cooling. All the rage in the 1970's and responsible for a host of world events during the last occurrence in the 1700's (The Little Ice Age (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age%22), remember folks, it's OK to reference Wikipedia but don't try to use it as an actual source!). Scientist are starting to worry about a reoccurence.
The sun operates on normal 11 years cycles of high and low activity (as measure by sun spots, magnetic and more importantly radiation activity). Thus far our current "hot" cycle has not been as hot as scientist predict it should be and thus the fear is the oncoming cold cycle will be colder than it should be.
The solar physicists are quick to point out that all climate models and the entire field of climatology is falsely premised on a constant input of energy from the sun. "The sun has more of an impact on our climate than all the smokestacks and SUVs combined." Thus, a reduction in the input of energy regardless of any greenhouse effect will be a problem.
Interestingly, geologists are also dubious of C02 caused global warming, "R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that 'CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.'"
They are seeking more funds to continue their research and the data is not considered conclusive as we lack a full understand of the sun (as we lack a full understand of our climate).
Anyway, found it interesting that at the major universities in a country that is considered "green" they are concerned about global cooling even as politicians around the world pretend like they fully understand the climate.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
Wow thats one jumbled up mixture of different statements if I ever saw one.
First off the global cooling fears of the 70s were predicated on the then new thought that human caused pollution may have an effect on climate. Specifically smog and ozone, remember all the talk about smog in the 70s and the depletion of the ozone layer? And indeed that kind of atmospheric cooling does happen and is still happening. If it werent for that type of pollution the earth would be getting even warmer. For instance during the 3 days after 9-11 when planes were grounded over the US, the entire average temperature in the US went up. The sun did not change during those 3 days. But then they began to factor in the kind of pollutants that cause warming and realized that those will cancel out the cooling types of pollution.
Secondly, I have no idea where you got that "solar physicists are quick to point out that all climate models and the entire field of climatology is falsley premised on a constant input of energy from the sun." Even the average dolt knows better. Everyone knows about the 11 year sunspot cycle and how it effects the earth. I hardly doubt that any climate models do not take that into consideration, let alone ALL of them. Thats absurd. They also consider the different "wobbles" the earth makes as it orbits the sun which has a huge impact. Btw, during the current "wobble phase" the north pole should be getting cooler and adding ice, not getting warmer and losing it.
Interesting you mention that "Thus far our current "hot" cycle has not been as hot as scientist predict it should be..." Well thank goodness because the earth has still been warming, and would thus have been even warmer if it had been as "hot", for the larger message of what you have said here is that the sun has the most impact. So if the sun is in a cooling phase yet the earth is still warming....
Should we do more research to understand the sun more? Absolutely.
The fact that it's a jumbled mess was half the point, no one knows.
As recently as 1989 the New York times published an article definitively declaring no global warming in a 100 year study (no warming trend from 1895 to 1985):
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEED61F3BF935A15752C0A96F948260
Within another 6 years it was publishing the opposite.
3 days no no airplanes caused the US to warm up a measurable amount? Thank god for airplanes or surely we'd all be dead by now. Variations within years, let alone days are meaningless. Day to day the average temperature in the United States swing radically without grounding aircraft. That's why long term trends are measured and not day to day fluctuations. If slight changes over short period matter, then we certainly have nothing to fear - because from 1998 to 2005 global temperatures actually dropped:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
We know things warmed from 11,000 years ago to recorded history (lack of ice). Since keeping track of data we know it warmed from 1918 to 1940, cooled from 1940 to 1965, held steady to 1970, warmed again to 1998, and has since cooled. Does any data suggest that we released, retracted, and then re-released carbon in this period - because as far as I was aware we have been exponentially releasing more and more carbon.
The entire point of posting the article was to show that there are credible scientific institutions that are not sold on Global Warming. Even the most ardent climatologist has to concede that a multitude of cosmic trumps any man made contributions to climate. That the historic trend is not linear and fluctuations far more radical than +/-2 degrees have happen in relatively recent history.
We don't know what's going on, believer or non-believer in global warming the truth is we don't know. Either side pretending they have it figured out as scientific fact is more about politics than science. I don't want commitment to being PC or agreeing with the masses to interfere with science (as scientists are being fired or losing funding for expressing doubt about global warming).
As RECENTLY! as 1989!?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
quote:
data is not considered conclusive
This says it all. They are a bunch of whackos just trying to get their funding funded.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The entire point of posting the article was to show that there are credible scientific institutions that are not sold on Global Warming.
No, it's not that they are denying the unfortunate fact of global warming, it's that they're thinking the predictions may be off somewhat due to issues like increased warming due to reductions in particulate emissions in developed countries thanks to environmental laws.
The question isn't whether or not there will be catastrophic global warming (insofar as sea levels will rise several feet due to land ice melting over the next fifty to a hundred years), barring some drastic change in our behavior, solar output, or whatever, the question these scientists are raising is whether it'll be more like a three degree rise in global average temperature or whether it will be five degrees.
The problem is that the warming will be greatest where it does the most damage; where it is cold. I suppose if you don't mind low lying areas being inundated, we can just move our farming around and get by.
If it weren't such a serious subject, I'd find it almost funny how global warming deniers point at research such as this and call it disagreement about global warming, when in fact it's a disagreement as to the degree of warming that we're in for, even when nearly all estimates will be varying degrees of catastrophic.
Now, if we do end up getting lucky by having a period of decreased solar output, we'd be morons to take that as a sign that we need not do anything about the problem, as if the solar output will not return to something closer to the historical average at some point.
I was listening to NPR the other day and some lady from some organization mentioned that because of global warming concerns they were "teaching children in those countries how to swim". It was so sad, but at the same time I just about fell out of my chair laughing. That will fix it, we can keep driving our suv's ,,, we will just teach those poor people how to swim. Problem solved. [:D] Actually, I think it would be quicker and more cost effective to just give them a bunch of those arm-band floaties. [8D]
I figured it would flip back sooner or latter to something else. However, This stuff could be true since it happened in the past and the sun runs on cycles. "The Little Ice Age" back in the 1700's was pretty darn serous. Crops failed all over the globe and summers were short & cool and winters were long and bitter cold. As I see it global warming would be a good thing if it was real. Longer growing seasons and less heating oil needed. I see no problemos with a warmer planet. A colder planet is something to worry about- That can be bad. Rush L read a article about this on his radio show Friday.[8D]
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The entire point of posting the article was to show that there are credible scientific institutions that are not sold on Global Warming.
No, it's not that they are denying the unfortunate fact of global warming, it's that they're thinking the predictions may be off somewhat due to issues like increased warming due to reductions in particulate emissions in developed countries thanks to environmental laws.
The question isn't whether or not there will be catastrophic global warming (insofar as sea levels will rise several feet due to land ice melting over the next fifty to a hundred years), barring some drastic change in our behavior, solar output, or whatever, the question these scientists are raising is whether it'll be more like a three degree rise in global average temperature or whether it will be five degrees.
The problem is that the warming will be greatest where it does the most damage; where it is cold. I suppose if you don't mind low lying areas being inundated, we can just move our farming around and get by.
If it weren't such a serious subject, I'd find it almost funny how global warming deniers point at research such as this and call it disagreement about global warming, when in fact it's a disagreement as to the degree of warming that we're in for, even when nearly all estimates will be varying degrees of catastrophic.
Now, if we do end up getting lucky by having a period of decreased solar output, we'd be morons to take that as a sign that we need not do anything about the problem, as if the solar output will not return to something closer to the historical average at some point.
The globe was much warmer in the past than it is today. 1,000 years ago Greenland was warm enough to grow crops, the globe has since cooled off. At one time the planet had no polar ice. Ice ages will return global warming or not. The planet has survived hits by comets, asteroids and metors. It survived volcano blasts and many oother natural events~- now suddenly man has the power to ruin the planet. Man cannot even get the 3 day weather report right, man is helpless in a snowstorm and can't control that. global warming is a hoax to push a political agenda. The same "experts" talking global warming today were talking ice age and global cooling in the 1970's.
That posted link about global dimming was very intresting. It seems the cause of that is jet fumes and vapor. If the Sun would start to dim just a hair, we'd be in deep doo~doo. It would not take much to chill off the planet big time.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I figured it would flip back sooner or latter to something else. However, This stuff could be true since it happened in the past and the sun runs on cycles. "The Little Ice Age" back in the 1700's was pretty darn serous. Crops failed all over the globe and summers were short & cool and winters were long and bitter cold. As I see it global warming would be a good thing if it was real. Longer growing seasons and less heating oil needed. I see no problemos with a warmer planet. A colder planet is something to worry about- That can be bad. Rush L read a article about this on his radio show Friday.[8D]
Tell that to the New Yorkers, Floridians, and Louisianans who will be underwater. Not to mention the Bangladeshi, British, Dutch, and many other countries that will have the same fate.
Global warming is already causing much lower summer river flows in the west, leading to water shortages, thanks to there being less of a snowpack and its melting faster earlier in the year.
The massive dislocations caused by populations being forced to move around and the rapid change of the location of the world's arable land is not going to be pretty, regardless of what Rush would like you to believe.
You global warming deniers would be funny if the stakes weren't so high. There's a reason nearly every scientist without an agenda paid for by an organization with a vested interest in denying global warming agrees that it is and will continue to happen. The disagreement is on the degree of catastrophe. Will half of Bangladesh disappear under the sea, or will the whole thing be drowned? Will Orlando still be above water in 100 years, or will the problem be confined merely to Miami?
Three degrees or five degrees doesn't sound like a lot, and it isn't, if you're talking about the changes in the tropics or even most of the middle latitudes, aside perhaps from more and stronger weather systems, which is an effect that there really is disagreement about.
Unlike Al Gore, I don't really care about the polar bears not having any Arctic sheet ice to walk on or our submarines not having any to hide under. Melting the water ice only serves to increase the heat absorbed at the poles, which isn't a lot regardless of the change in albedo. The problem is the melting of ice on land, which is accelerating rapidly.
And just FWIW, there is significant disagreement as to the cause of the little ice age, since it was mainly a European and northern North America phenomonon. Some scientists are of the opinion that it was caused by excess fresh water inflows into the Atlantic causing a severe reduction in the volume of the Gulf Stream. If they're right, we're in for that in the next 50 to 100 years, thanks to the accelerating melt from Greenland.
I sure hope they're wrong.
Well thats just the thing. If the earth gets warmer the gulf stream could shift causing the UK and northern europe to dramatically cool. That area may get warmer for a time then if the gulf stream shifts then it will get a lot cooler while other parts of the globe get even warmer. This also reminds me of a comment someone else made about there being more snow in some parts of the globe than before. Some people without thinking, take that as meaning the earth may not be getting warmer. But a warmer earth will put more moisture into the air. Even if the earth were to over all have a dramatic rise in temperature, say 4 or 5 degrees, it would still be cold enough to snow in Kansas and NY for instance. If its usually 25 degrees during an evening or time of the year and its now 29 degrees, its still cold enough to snow but because there is more moisture in the air it will snow even more. Global warming doesnt mean every place is going to be warm and balmy.
One of the concerns I have for any global shift in temperature, warm or cold is habitat loss. Man has encroached with farming, cities, roads etc. on so many habitats that what is available for many animals is quite small and disconnected. Used to be, if the climate shifted, the animals simply shifted to another area. We cant just shift national parks and wildlife preserves to... wherever. For many species they already barely have enough habitat to survive in. What happens when that habitat is destroyed? That almost happened to some animal and plant species when some hurricanes hit Florida. We give them just enough space to live in, then when something happens to that space, where is the backup? "Enough" is not enough when things change. Even if we arent partially responsible for any global climate change, we are smart enough to know that change is going to happen and that we should be responsible stewards of our "furry and feathery little friends" and the shiny, not so furry ones too.
I see some people are still putting Kool-Aid in the melting ice water.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I figured it would flip back sooner or latter to something else. However, This stuff could be true since it happened in the past and the sun runs on cycles. "The Little Ice Age" back in the 1700's was pretty darn serous. Crops failed all over the globe and summers were short & cool and winters were long and bitter cold. As I see it global warming would be a good thing if it was real. Longer growing seasons and less heating oil needed. I see no problemos with a warmer planet. A colder planet is something to worry about- That can be bad. Rush L read a article about this on his radio show Friday.[8D]
Tell that to the New Yorkers, Floridians, and Louisianans who will be underwater. Not to mention the Bangladeshi, British, Dutch, and many other countries that will have the same fate.
Global warming is already causing much lower summer river flows in the west, leading to water shortages, thanks to there being less of a snowpack and its melting faster earlier in the year.
The massive dislocations caused by populations being forced to move around and the rapid change of the location of the world's arable land is not going to be pretty, regardless of what Rush would like you to believe.
You global warming deniers would be funny if the stakes weren't so high. There's a reason nearly every scientist without an agenda paid for by an organization with a vested interest in denying global warming agrees that it is and will continue to happen. The disagreement is on the degree of catastrophe. Will half of Bangladesh disappear under the sea, or will the whole thing be drowned? Will Orlando still be above water in 100 years, or will the problem be confined merely to Miami?
Three degrees or five degrees doesn't sound like a lot, and it isn't, if you're talking about the changes in the tropics or even most of the middle latitudes, aside perhaps from more and stronger weather systems, which is an effect that there really is disagreement about.
Unlike Al Gore, I don't really care about the polar bears not having any Arctic sheet ice to walk on or our submarines not having any to hide under. Melting the water ice only serves to increase the heat absorbed at the poles, which isn't a lot regardless of the change in albedo. The problem is the melting of ice on land, which is accelerating rapidly.
And just FWIW, there is significant disagreement as to the cause of the little ice age, since it was mainly a European and northern North America phenomonon. Some scientists are of the opinion that it was caused by excess fresh water inflows into the Atlantic causing a severe reduction in the volume of the Gulf Stream. If they're right, we're in for that in the next 50 to 100 years, thanks to the accelerating melt from Greenland.
I sure hope they're wrong.
They were saying for past 10 years that NY would be under water from global warming. New York should already be underwater from the way the talk was going in 1990.It's not going to happen it's a hoax. it's a political agenda to fool the people. The globe was much warmer 1,000 years ago and nothing flooded.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
They were saying for past 10 years that NY would be under water from global warming. New York should already be underwater from the way the talk was going in 1990.It's not going to happen it's a hoax. it's a political agenda to fool the people. The globe was much warmer 1,000 years ago and nothing flooded.
[/quote]
Not everything happens in 10 years time. Some things take longer. Like melting the enormous icecap on Greenland, which is melting significantly faster than it has in the last 50 years, BTW.
I guess all that water is going to magically disappear?
Nathan,
Here are my main problems:
1) The models do not hold true. The best computer models do not accurately account for changes in long term climate.
2) The warming has not been anywhere near linear since the start of the industrial revolution and the warming trend stopped in 1998. Neither of which are explained by the "greenhouse effect."
3) Historically, climate has varied greatly from much warmer than it is today to much cooler. Without human intervention.
4) Carbon testing shows no historical correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric C02.
5) No test or study has been conducted that is observable and repeatable that helps convince me of the theory as a fact.
I have no emotional, political, or religious investment in the issue. I just remain unconvinced by the data involved and see it becoming matter somehow above scientific scrutiny. If you doubt it you're an unscientific religious zealot following the beck of Rush Limbaugh and have a good chance of losing funding or your job.
Certainly with such discrepancies and data gaps the matter should not be considered closed.
What's more - no one has suggested the meaning of the data - "so what?" Is there anything we can do to stop it or reverse it? What net effects will there be (new ice age because of messed up ocean currents?)? What areas will bennefit (Canada, eh?)?
Man made or not, what can we do to stop the Earth from warming? Or cooling? If Global Warming is an established fact, shouldn't we be concentrating on these issues? Even ceasing the release of fossil C02 won't roll back the dial if the theory holds.
I'm open to convincing (as mentioned, I'm not invested), but as of yet nothing has sold me on it.
You cant possibly be serious. I dont know where you are getting your information but every thing you listed there was utterly wrong or couched in a way to set up a straw man and be misleading. I am not going to try and convince you, its not worth the effort because what you have said obviously points to the fact that you indeed arent serious and just want to believe nonsense. Either that or you are utterly clueless on how to read and understand science and or tell the difference between "trash science" and good science. I am not going to be drawn into wasting my time, playing your stupid game, and going round and round in circles debating all the garbage one can dredge up out there. Real information is out there on the web for anyone to find if they want it. You clearly do not.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I figured it would flip back sooner or latter to something else. However, This stuff could be true since it happened in the past and the sun runs on cycles. "The Little Ice Age" back in the 1700's was pretty darn serous. Crops failed all over the globe and summers were short & cool and winters were long and bitter cold. As I see it global warming would be a good thing if it was real. Longer growing seasons and less heating oil needed. I see no problemos with a warmer planet. A colder planet is something to worry about- That can be bad. Rush L read a article about this on his radio show Friday.[8D]
Tell that to the New Yorkers, Floridians, and Louisianans who will be underwater. Not to mention the Bangladeshi, British, Dutch, and many other countries that will have the same fate.
Global warming is already causing much lower summer river flows in the west, leading to water shortages, thanks to there being less of a snowpack and its melting faster earlier in the year.
The massive dislocations caused by populations being forced to move around and the rapid change of the location of the world's arable land is not going to be pretty, regardless of what Rush would like you to believe.
You global warming deniers would be funny if the stakes weren't so high. There's a reason nearly every scientist without an agenda paid for by an organization with a vested interest in denying global warming agrees that it is and will continue to happen. The disagreement is on the degree of catastrophe. Will half of Bangladesh disappear under the sea, or will the whole thing be drowned? Will Orlando still be above water in 100 years, or will the problem be confined merely to Miami?
Three degrees or five degrees doesn't sound like a lot, and it isn't, if you're talking about the changes in the tropics or even most of the middle latitudes, aside perhaps from more and stronger weather systems, which is an effect that there really is disagreement about.
Unlike Al Gore, I don't really care about the polar bears not having any Arctic sheet ice to walk on or our submarines not having any to hide under. Melting the water ice only serves to increase the heat absorbed at the poles, which isn't a lot regardless of the change in albedo. The problem is the melting of ice on land, which is accelerating rapidly.
And just FWIW, there is significant disagreement as to the cause of the little ice age, since it was mainly a European and northern North America phenomonon. Some scientists are of the opinion that it was caused by excess fresh water inflows into the Atlantic causing a severe reduction in the volume of the Gulf Stream. If they're right, we're in for that in the next 50 to 100 years, thanks to the accelerating melt from Greenland.
I sure hope they're wrong.
Do you have a brother named alt.....
Artist:
In spite of my statements that I am open to be convinced - all you have done is told me I'm not serious, refuse to look at evidence, and/or am just an idiot. That only serves to buttress by belief that Global Warming is beyond review. Anyone who says otherwise is not worthy of discussion.
What was false? Educate me. To the best of my knowledge all of those things are true. Many are not even open for debate. My sources include Science Daily, The Journal of Nature, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I'm not citing "trash science" I'm citing the same data sources that advocates cite when it suits them. I'm not extrapolating or coaching the data (though I admit I have no read the underlying research nor fully understand the techniques involved with the evaluation of ice core samples nor climate data going back 450,000 years).
1) A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere. (//%22http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm%22) - Science Daily
2) Tulsa weather trend by decade shows a non-linear increase, similar patterns hold for the entire globe but this makes it easy to see:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/science/tulsa_trends.html
3) 450,000 Years of Climate Change has seen the average as low as 10 below the current 50 year average and as high as +4.
Data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.html
Easier to Read Charts (using said data):
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm
4) Vostok Ice Core samples show no statistically significant correlation between C02 levels and temperature.
Journal of Nature (//%22http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v399/n6735/abs/399429a0.html%22)
5) Please provide a link to an observable and repeatable experiment that helps convince me. As I state, I know of none.
Artist, I'm not a zealot and I'm not acting like one. I am calmly looking at data that raises significant doubts in my mind. I have heard no explanation for the wild fluctuations in temperature over the last 450,000 years that explain why this one is man made. I have not heard an apologetic scientist say they fixed their models. I have heard to reasonable explanation justifying the lack of correlation with previous levels of CO2 and corresponding temperatures.
Why are these not legitimate concerns? I'm not complaining that they don't have it all figured out so it's wrong, nor that my god says otherwise (a la Creationists) - I merely saying there is a volume of reliable data that seems to contradict the theory. It needs to be modified or further researched to explain this data instead of concentrating on shouting loud enough that scientific skepticism goes away.
The scientific method dictates the advancer of a theory prove and justify it's truthfulness. In this instance it is not being tolerated. Even here instead of responding in a meaningful manner I am shouted down as an idiot using "junk science." My sources are sound and my mind is open.
Alright, lets see how certain you are. I will bet you 1,000 dollars I can find refutes and information counter to everything you have set fourth. I have seen every argument you are saying or similar ones a dozen times over. And I have seen followup information and refutes for each and every one many times over as well. But I dont want to go trapsing around the net to do so when you could do it yourself. Why you asking me to do the work? If you dont think its out there, well, make it worth my time to do it for you.
Artist, my entire point is to encourage people to post evidence refuting those items. I'm not pulling things from Ihateglobalwarming.com or making things up with "trash science." I cited recent studies and data from reputable scientific organizations that have made me skeptical.
If I bet you $1,000 I would then be invested in my position, which is entirely contrary to what I have been saying.
So I'd welcome a better study that shows climate models are sufficient, someone who argues with the Journal of Nature about ice core samples, or some other organization that disputes the climate data of the NOAA. I don't have $1,000 of money or any pride on the line here. I have not even argued that I am right, merely that I remain unconvinced. So I have no reason to turn a blind eye to someones arguments.
Also worth noting that this is your 6th post in this thread telling me how easy Global Warming is to prove, but have yet to post anything that might sway an opinion. Do you understand why I feel most people are emotionally invested in the issue instead of scientifically? You are continuously reinforcing my point that anyone who poses a skeptics view is cast off instead of refuted.
quote:
Originally posted by nathanm
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
They were saying for past 10 years that NY would be under water from global warming. New York should already be underwater from the way the talk was going in 1990.It's not going to happen it's a hoax. it's a political agenda to fool the people. The globe was much warmer 1,000 years ago and nothing flooded.
Not everything happens in 10 years time. Some things take longer. Like melting the enormous icecap on Greenland, which is melting significantly faster than it has in the last 50 years, BTW.
I guess all that water is going to magically disappear?
[/quote]Now your talking both ways. First you say global warming is real and we must act fast & NOW before it's too late, then you say not everything happens in 10 years time, global warming can take decades. Well~ What is it? Do we have to act now & fast or does it take decades for global warming to affect something? Did you read the posted link on "global dimming" or what about the "Maunder Min." that some scientists believe we are heading into a period of cold because of low sunspot activity. As for me I don't believe in global warming I think it's a hoax and junk science. If it was so real and so serious why doesn't Al Gore change his lifestyle? Al Gore still flys around on his private jet burning 450 gallons of fuel per hour.[B)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Nathan,
Here are my main problems:
1) The models do not hold true. The best computer models do not accurately account for changes in long term climate.
2) The warming has not been anywhere near linear since the start of the industrial revolution and the warming trend stopped in 1998. Neither of which are explained by the "greenhouse effect."
3) Historically, climate has varied greatly from much warmer than it is today to much cooler. Without human intervention.
4) Carbon testing shows no historical correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric C02.
5) No test or study has been conducted that is observable and repeatable that helps convince me of the theory as a fact.
i really hate to be drawn into these discussions because they are so polarizing but here i go again.
Not that i completely support the global warming concept, but i do feel there is adequate evidence to continue researching its viability.
1) i have heard this claim before and i think it is unsubstantiated.
2)the earths natural temparature and natural CO2 content fluxuat yearly. The data i have seen does not indicate that warming had stopped in 1998 but that it had slowed. Data also points to the fact that much progress has been made in the CFC arena and that the supposed ozone hole has shrunk.
3) i don't think anyone in the GW(global warming) camp denies this. I think thier contention is that human intervention is unnaturally influencing this natural curve in a harmful way.
4) i think there are several studies that show that a correlation MAY exist.
5)the GW people don't claim this.
i feel compelled to mention that previous unsubstantiated claims by the scientific community in the past have no bearing on future studies unless done by the same researcher. Unless of course you feel like science should be discarded completely. Perhaps replaced by religion. That would make the evolution argument easier.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Do you have a brother named alt.....
What?
quote:
First you say global warming is real and we must act fast & NOW before it's too late, then you say not everything happens in 10 years time, global warming can take decades.
If this is your best argument, there's little point in continuing the discussion. There is a lag between the input and the result, sort of like with cooking. You take the food out of the oven, but the interior temperature continues to increase for a while.
For all I know, it may already be too late to fix the problem without actively scrubbing CO2 among other things from the atmosphere, rather than just not producing so much. I hope it's not.
As far as Al Gore is concerned, why are you so obsessed with him? At least he pays to have trees and whatnot planted to offset the carbon he's pumping into the atmosphere. I find it funny how you make things about the messenger, rather than the message. It's a sign of unwillingness to evaluate the facts on their merits.
quote:
2) Tulsa weather trend by decade shows a non-linear increase, similar patterns hold for the entire globe but this makes it easy to see:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/science/tulsa_trends.html
There's a reason many people call it "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming." While the average temperature of the globe will rise, any individual location may see warming, cooling, or no change at all. The problem with this is that it changes rainfall patterns in a way that may be problematic to the continuation of farming in many parts of the world.
There was a study published a few years back that finally explained why northern Africa has seen so little rainfall over the last few decades. It turns out that increased particulate matter over the eastern Atlantic is causing reduced solar heating of the ocean in that area, leading to less evaporation, leading to less rain downwind.
While it's hard to say exactly what the result of global warming will be (beyond melting the icecaps and many mountain glaciers, which is already happening at an accelerating rate), we can look to the past to see that climate change is always significantly disruptive. It therefore behooves us to avoid changing it excessively. Even if you don't care if Miami ends up underwater.
As for the lack of a need for immediate action, what else should we take from the increasing melt rate in
Greenland (//%22http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gtpmTPNQONWGgmgxaUoJVxAc_3kQ%22) and Antarctica (//%22http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/arctic-20070515.html%22)?
dg,
I substantiated all my claims with sources. That includes the one about climate models. All the sources I cited are published and peer reviewed periodicals or source material (government statistics). I'd go into it more, but I really want to get out of the office sometime tonight... look over the study I cited.
i completely understand. Frankly, arguing about Climate change is a bit like competing in teh special Olympics. Even if you win, your still retarded.
Ill see if i can take a closer look at your post later.
The weather man cannot get the 3 day weather report right, what makes everyone so sure he has the 10, 15, 20 year weather report right? I look back at earth's history and found that at one time the poles were ice free, and the Gulf Stream was still there back when the planet was warmer than it is today. The bottom line is that global warmer believers will not look at anything that can prove them wrong, they will not change their mind. I studied the issue and believe it is a hoax too push a political agenda and start new taxes like a "Carbon tax". The earth took impacts from asteroids, comets, metors, and suffered volcano blasts, we have volcanos going off someplace in the world all the time and yet still it's little 'ol man & his SUV that will doom the planet. It's nonsense. The temp of the planet has been falling the past few years not increasing. Then they come out with a new term called "Climate Change" to cover cold snaps that don't fit the global warming theory. I don't buy it.[xx(]
Here's the conclusion we came to at the bar Friday night:
Okay, assume global warming exists if you want to, assume it doesn't if you want to.
No need to buy into costly hysteria and hype.
If everyone will just pay attention to their own corner of the globe and conserve what they rationally can, then all will be well.
The most important thing in this argument is to be open-minded enough to understand there is no absolute science to global warming or cooling.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Here's the conclusion we came to at the bar Friday night:
Okay, assume global warming exists if you want to, assume it doesn't if you want to.
No need to buy into costly hysteria and hype.
If everyone will just pay attention to their own corner of the globe and conserve what they rationally can, then all will be well.
The most important thing in this argument is to be open-minded enough to understand there is no absolute science to global warming or cooling.
There is no science to global warming but by pretending it's real when it's not causes alot of harm and can ruin a economy by forcing factories to close and move overseas... The thing is we can't conserve our way to being free of mid-east oil, we need it. Oil runs our economy and oil runs the world in the 20th & 21st century. We can't go back to the horse & buggy days. I wish we had global warming I think a warmer planet is better, longer growing seasons and more food, less heating oil needed. I don't see any benefits of a colder planet. Anyhow, We need to drill for more oil. There is no oil shortage in the world it's only a man-made shortage by putting all the oil fields off limets we can't drill Alaska, we can't drill in the Gulf or off the coast of California. We are really being held hostage my radical enviromental groups. As a result we are going to be paying $4.00 a gallon at the pump very soon, heating oil is thru the roof. Things will only get worse, high fuel costs will hurt the economy and jobs in the USA... Cuba is drilling a few miles off the FL coast, but we can't drill there. It's also strange that being "green" is so expensive, the new $5.00 light bulbs are not cheap- Conserving is great but we also need to drill for more oil.[:)]
Here's what happens when an issue like global warming becomes politicized and a bunch of restrictions are proposed and eventually issued:
You get one side which is cynical and skeptical, you get the other side which is over the top and isn't thinking of the harm of more government regulation over something which is not absolute.
Give people proper information and let them make their own choices. People will flaunt environmental regs simply because they are pissed off for the government getting deeper up their tail pipe.
Conan, I totally agree. The only reason I brought up the Global Cooling thing was to try and make that point. But as I mentioned repeatedly it is not a matter of scientific debate for many people but an emotional issue... thus I failed.
Anyway, Gongol.com (economics-ish website) has it right:
quote:
Threats and Hazards Russia uses oil money to pay for bombers to annoy US aircraft carriers:
Four Tupolev-95 bombers were launched from far eastern Russia on Saturday, and one of them flew 2,000 feet above the USS Nimitz. Forget global warming: Energy efficiency and research is a national security issue. Russia's government is making a lot of money by exporting high-priced oil and natural gas in greater volumes than in the past through the nationalized petroleum businesses, and it's using that money to fund a bit of revived militarism. If we could reduce our consumption of energy through efficiency gains, learn to produce more of our own energy, or (better still) do some of both, we could help ease pressure on the world energy market. That would put less money in the pockets of countries and groups that are trying to make things worse in the world. And if that helps the environment, too, then so much the better.
http://www.gongol.com/
Even though I'm not on bored with Global Warming, the efficiency/pollution issue can be asserted from many different perspectives. National security, economics, environment - pick your course. They all amount for a need for a new energy policy.
I don't think you've failed at anything. Don't expect to convert everyone, and don't expect that logic will overcome emotion in every situation.
It's interesting how personal paradigms affect what and who we are either cynical or trusting of in our government.
Case in point- I don't trust Al Gore as a spokesperson on global warming because he has buisness interests which would prosper with increased regulations and fellow Democrats he can help get elected with enviro issues.
If there were someone with more credibility, less to gain, and appeared to heed his/her own advice, I might tend to view it with less skepticism, but I still owe it to myself to learn as many facts as I can about it so I can react appropriately and do my part.
Other's (many who believe global warming without question) don't trust the motives of the Iraq war since Haliburton gets big contracts on rebuilding (nevermind they were already raking in big business in the ME, and there are Democrats with interests in Haliburton and other companies profiting off the war) and the former CEO is our Vice President.
Anyone notice that day-to-day coverage of Iraq is no longer front-page? Things must not be going badly enough to warrant some coverage.
I tend to notice the use of language a bit more than some people, and it has a tendency to make me over-examine some things.
Lately I've noticed that as the new data on CO2 emissions, and Global Warming trends over time have begun to to be less supportive of the theory that the Earth is heating up, the Term "Global Warming" is no longer being used.
The new term is "Climate Change" or "Climate Crisis." Being curious, I visited several of the Pro-Global Warming sites including the mother of them all, Al Gore's Generation Investment Management Company. They have all removed references to Global Warming and replaced them with either "Climate Change" or "Climate Crisis."
I cannot determine a definition of Climate Change that is narrow enough to be useful to a thinking person. However I can see where it can continue to be used to motivate the simple majority.
They even changed Al's quote on the front page to say "Integrating issues such as climate change into investment analysis is simply common sense" - Al Gore
If the Global Warming controversy is disintegrating, I think it is wrong for those with a financial stake in the theory to simply morph the language in an attempt to preserve their interests.
I'm all for a reduction in pollutants, clean air, clean water, and healthy people, plants, trees.
Less usage and more renewable resources simply makes common sense. But creating, morphing, and perpetuating monsters to support this logic is more damaging than simply encouraging people to embrace it!
My two cents!
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. – H.L. Mencken
I never heard anyone say why a colder planet is better than a warmer planet. I don't believe in global warming I think it's a big hoax being played on the American people. I wish the planet was getting warmer though. We'd have longer growing seasons and use less heating fuel and have shorter winters. Sadly the reports came out saying that since 1998 the temp has been falling and the 2007-2008 winter was one of record cold all over the planet. China had it's coldest winter in over 150 years and Australia had it's coolest summer in over 50 years. The planet was much warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today.. I like it warmer.[:)]
and there you go Sauerkraut just proved why it is no longer called "Global Warming", but is instead refered to as "Climate Change"
by the way the statement "The planet was much warmer 1,000 years ago" is an unsubstantiated claim. nothing more
It's a hell of a lot worse than people think, and will unfold a hell of a lot faster.
http://www.physorg.com/news126761406.html
Earth in crisis, warns NASA's top climate scientist
"The industry is misleading the public and policy makers about the cause of climate change. And that is analogous to what the cigarette manufacturers did. They knew smoking caused cancer, but they hired scientists who said that was not the case."
Not sure anyone has mentioned it, but from what I have read, want watched, the little ice age was caused by a combination of our larger rotation (the earth doesn't always have the same rotation around the sun) and less solar flares from the sun.
Thought that might be worth mentioning, if someone else already did sorry for bringing it up.
quote:
Originally posted by hoodlum
by the way the statement "The planet was much warmer 1,000 years ago" is an unsubstantiated claim. nothing more
IN the history of the Earth the temperature has been MUCH MUCH higher and into a deep freeze. Levels of CO2 have risen to extremes and then been all but removed from the atmosphere. The variations will happen, it is the timing and possible human impact that is the point of debate.
Lots of data out there, this one goes back about as far as temperature records go. The further back you go, the more speculative in nature. Further than this and core samples with CO2 levels/fossils and historical accounts are the best record.
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/revgraph3.gif)
Further back NOAA extrapolation of temperatures I have found (instead of saying "warmer period, about XYZ):
(http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/Historic%20Temperatures.jpg)[
Very interesting observations. For your information, this is the published paper that caused all of the Enviroterrorists to change their language last year. It was a huge bomb in the scientific community. The media was able to quiet it for a while, but it's out now!
The research was originally intended to show the effects of CO2 increase on humans, and was intended to be written as a piece of medical research, but as the information mounted they made some irrefutable discoveries that caused the scientific community as a whole to change their stride. It's from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson600.pdf
It was unsuccessfully snuffed by the media and has now become the foundation for most of the new research.
The culprit that causes Climate Change is solar activity and the research is nearly impossible to refute, therefore the groups that rely on grants and funding to research Global Warming have had to change their tune to preserve their income.
Unless they find that I have parked my idling SUV on the sun, there is very little we can do about the cycle of solar activity.
in response to above:
The NAS [National Academy of Sciences] Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
click here (//%22http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/skeptics.htm%22)
quote:
Originally posted by hoodlum
in response to above:
The NAS [National Academy of Sciences] Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal," it stated in a news release. "The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy." In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that "even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."
click here (//%22http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/skeptics.htm%22)
Interesting. Thanks Hood. But I still have to go back to language. It seems that this and other studies were enough to cause many organizations to change their language and drop the term Global Warming.
The members of The Nation Academies are scientists and engineers that receive 100% of their funding from research grants, so I can understand how they would choose not to recognize correlations that threaten what they have worked so hard to achieve.
I think we all have our motivations and goals based on self preservation, but what I am commenting on is the use of language, because it is the best long term barometer of truth.
When I see such a massive shift in the terminology for such an important issue, I freak, because with the change in terminology comes a change in definition and therefore the threat purposed becomes altered.
10 years of people telling me that the earth is getting warmer and posing theories based on human actions as the cause, then suddenly in the span of less than a year they change the whole terminology because emerging data no longer supports the original causation and outcome, is beyond disturbing.
I have no doubt that with our technology and uncontrolled use of resources we have the ability to influence our environment, but using theory to alarm a populace and then simply changing the premise, language, and definitions when your theory is no longer supported is wrong! The only purpose it serves is to keep your populace alarmed to support your political, financial, and emotional ambitions.
No one likes to be proved wrong. It's kind of like the "flat-earth" theorists of the past simply changing their movement to the "curved-earth" theory and continuing to ignore that the curve eventually makes a sphere.
I know many web sites that de-bunk global warming... www.junkscience.com has many links.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I know many web sites that de-bunk global warming... www.junkscience.com has many links.
I don't believe that it started that way. I think that the theories behind global warming were honest attempts to explain changes in the climate that were beyond our understanding at the time.
I still don't think you could call it a hoax, it is simply a theory that is no longer valid. This is what happens with science.
It's the attempt to perpetuate the beast by re-naming and re-classifying it that is unethical. Adding ambiguity to the theory, as part of the theory, and continuing to attribute it to the same causal entity is beyond unethical! It reveals that there is an agenda that refuses to go away no matter what the evidence yields.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I know many web sites that de-bunk global warming... www.junkscience.com has many links.
I don't believe that it started that way. I think that the theories behind global warming were honest attempts to explain changes in the climate that were beyond our understanding at the time.
I still don't think you could call it a hoax, it is simply a theory that is no longer valid. This is what happens with science.
It's the attempt to perpetuate the beast by re-naming and re-classifying it that is unethical. Adding ambiguity to the theory, as part of the theory, and continuing to attribute it to the same causal entity is beyond unethical! It reveals that there is an agenda that refuses to go away no matter what the evidence yields.
I don't know how it started, but it was in the early 1990's when the global warming bandwagon took off. It may at one time been thought to be real, but then it just spun out of control. Today even when proof is shown that questions global warming it is ignored or pushed aside. Al Gore has no science training or science degrees yet he is the global warming expert and he says the debate is over. In real science it's up the person with the new theory to prove it's real,- not for established science to dis-prove a theory. We just had the coldest winter world-wide in over 150 years. The sun controls our heat. The planet was much warmer 1,000 years ago than it is today if anything we are too cold and we need to warm up. I think global warming is a political hoax to affect change and to add a new carbon tax on people. No one even knows what the normal temp of the planet Earth is, it's 4.5 billion years old.[B)]
Since the debate is over someone should tell these climate scientists and experts (//%22http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=1%22) that they're wasting their time.
Also, anyone thinking Al Gore doesn't have his hand in the eco profit cookie jar is in denial. He's setup a hedge fund to rake in profits from revenue generated by "eco friendly" companies that all stand to profit from oppressive government regulations.
http://www.hedgeco.net/news/03/2008/gores-5-billion-hedge-fund-restricts-new-investors.html
If you're still interested in buying in, the gate is closing soon...
Good post iplaw the links were great- I understand Al Gore pays himself for carbon credits -what a joke. it's the biggest scam around.. Al Gore is no climate expert anyhoo.[xx(]
The average April temperature down 1 degree for the United States compared with the 1895-2000 trend line.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Not a big deal, but we'd be hearing about it from Al if it was +1 full degree...