PDA

View Full Version : Arctic Tundra Holds Global Warming Time Bomb



LogansPapa
08-25-2008, 01:52 PM
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/gallery/norway-arctic-324x205.jpg


Michael Reilly, Discovery News

Aug. 25, 2008 -- Locked away in the frozen soils of the Arctic tundra, there lies a ticking time bomb.

Nothing more than accumulated leaves, roots and other plant matter, the unassuming detritus is rich in carbon, giving it the power to dramatically enhance the effects of global warming should it ever get into the atmosphere. But for now it mostly lies dormant, in cold storage in the permafrosts of Siberia, Alaska, and Canada.

That's starting to change, according to some scientists. The planet has already begun to warm as a result of humans pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. The permafrost is starting to melt, and that pent-up carbon is already leaking into the air in the form of carbon dioxide and methane, powerful greenhouse gases.

Even worse, there may be more of the stuff than anyone ever thought.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/warming-arctic-tundra.htm

FlaGator
08-25-2008, 01:55 PM
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/gallery/norway-arctic-324x205.jpg


Michael Reilly, Discovery News

Aug. 25, 2008 -- Locked away in the frozen soils of the Arctic tundra, there lies a ticking time bomb.

Nothing more than accumulated leaves, roots and other plant matter, the unassuming detritus is rich in carbon, giving it the power to dramatically enhance the effects of global warming should it ever get into the atmosphere. But for now it mostly lies dormant, in cold storage in the permafrosts of Siberia, Alaska, and Canada.

That's starting to change, according to some scientists. The planet has already begun to warm as a result of humans pumping billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere each year. The permafrost is starting to melt, and that pent-up carbon is already leaking into the air in the form of carbon dioxide and methane, powerful greenhouse gases.

Even worse, there may be more of the stuff than anyone ever thought.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/08/25/warming-arctic-tundra.htm

There is a lot of methane looked up beneath the polar ice cap that will be released in the event of a total melt. Methane is work than carbon dixoxide when it comes to green house gases.

NonConformist
08-25-2008, 01:58 PM
I dont believe in Global Warming.

Yes we may be in a warming trend, but throughout history the world has dont this itself as it cycles through time and there is NO proof that this is anything we made

LogansPapa
08-25-2008, 02:09 PM
Yep, just another over-humped reaction to a natural occurrence. No global warming possible and Rush is dead on in his assessment of the propaganda that claims their is. Man’s effect on the Earth is insignificant.

wilbur
08-25-2008, 02:51 PM
I dont believe in Global Warming.

Yes we may be in a warming trend, but throughout history the world has dont this itself as it cycles through time and there is NO proof that this is anything we made

There is no 100% positive proof, no. There are extremely strong correlations, and an ever growing body of evidence that supports the theory.

Don't get me wrong, I don't defend the hysteria and all round craziness of the envireligionists... but...

The right wing (talk radio in particular) has slowly but steadily fostered and encouraged a fear and mistrust towards science when it's inconvenient for their desires and agenda. This is most obvious when it comes to global warming... The biggest lie that is pushed on a daily basis by the talking heads is that if you side with science (ie you believe global warming is probable) than you necessarily are committed to a certain political agenda, namely socialism or extreme liberalism. Heck, even some of the left wing socialist environmentalist crazies might say the same thing... but this couldn't be farther from the truth.

I don't think we should counter the environmental extremists with an equally hysterical, yet opposite reaction in the form of global warming (aka climate change) denial... its just as bat shit crazy as the envireligionists at this point... just in at the opposite pole. False dichotomies arent a good thing.

patriot45
08-25-2008, 03:21 PM
There is no 100% positive proof, no. There are extremely strong correlations, and an ever growing body of evidence that supports the theory.

Don't get me wrong, I don't defend the hysteria and all round craziness of the envireligionists... but...

The right wing (talk radio in particular) has slowly but steadily fostered and encouraged a fear and mistrust towards science when it's inconvenient for their desires and agenda. This is most obvious when it comes to global warming... The biggest lie that is pushed on a daily basis by the talking heads is that if you side with science (ie you believe global warming is probable) than you necessarily are committed to a certain political agenda, namely socialism or extreme liberalism. Heck, even some of the left wing socialist environmentalist crazies might say the same thing... but this couldn't be farther from the truth.

I don't think we should counter the environmental extremists with an equally hysterical, yet opposite reaction in the form of global warming (aka climate change) denial... its just as bat shit crazy as the envireligionists at this point... just in at the opposite pole. False dichotomies arent a good thing.

It is cheaper in cost and in lives lost by doing nothing at all. Global warming and global cooling are the same thing, a diversive plot to ruin economies.

Eyelids
08-25-2008, 03:24 PM
Yep, just another over-humped reaction to a natural occurrence. No global warming possible and Rush is dead on in his assessment of the propaganda that claims their is. Man’s effect on the Earth is insignificant.

Usually I can pick up on sarcasm, but I'm a little crossed up here.

wilbur
08-25-2008, 03:36 PM
It is cheaper in cost and in lives lost by doing nothing at all. Global warming and global cooling are the same thing, a diversive plot to ruin economies.

No its a scientific theory which is nearly unanimously accepted among climatologists (the people who actually make a living studying this stuff). I'm sure there are those who have hi-jacked the science for their own "divisive plots", but we don't have to ignore the science just to oppose these people by automatically taking the opposite position. This is exactly how the issue has been framed for the right wing, for years. They trot out quacks of the highest order, all over who will say what they want them to say.... "there is no science behind global warming" etc etc. Its a lie, and a pretty obvious one if you check their claims.

Youre either with us or against us. You either deny global warming, or your a commie liberal who hates America.

Bullshit.

Rebel Yell
08-25-2008, 03:39 PM
Usually I can pick up on sarcasm, but I'm a little crossed up here.

As a general rule, if it starts with Yep, it's sarcasm.

Kinda like stories that start with So at your other home.

patriot45
08-25-2008, 03:55 PM
No its a scientific theory which is nearly unanimously accepted among climatologists (the people who actually make a living studying this stuff). I'm sure there are those who have hi-jacked the science for their own "divisive plots", but we don't have to ignore the science just to oppose these people by automatically taking the opposite position. This is exactly how the issue has been framed for the right wing, for years. They trot out quacks of the highest order, all over who will say what they want them to say.... "there is no science behind global warming" etc etc. Its a lie, and a pretty obvious one if you check their claims.

Youre either with us or against us. You either deny global warming, or your a commie liberal who hates America.

Bullshit.

Only Linda #s can correct my verbage! :D I meant what I wrote.
Diversive - different and varied.

Only one question matters and you can't answer it. What is the correct temperature of the earth?

These 5 bullet points should be taken into consideration.

There’s insufficient evidence for a long-term warming trend
The earth’s warming is not historically significant
The warming is not anthropogenic
The benefits of a warmer earth exceed the costs
Stopping warming is economically impractical or undesirable
Implementing government controls is the wrong response to climate change

LogansPapa
08-25-2008, 04:20 PM
There’s insufficient evidence for a long-term warming trend
The earth’s warming is not historically significant
The warming is not anthropogenic
The benefits of a warmer earth exceed the costs
Stopping warming is economically impractical or undesirable
Implementing government controls is the wrong response to climate change

There is no evidence that would convince you. Nothing. Half the Manhattan skyline could be under water within the decade and that wouldn’t convince you. Arrogance is fueling the global warming ignorance and childish denial, and our great-grandchildren will hate us for it.

patriot45
08-25-2008, 04:47 PM
There is no evidence that would convince you. Nothing. Half the Manhattan skyline could be under water within the decade and that wouldn’t convince you. Arrogance is fueling the global warming ignorance and childish denial, and our great-grandchildren will hate us for it.

Lets just go bankrupt now! You are right there is no evidence to convince me.
This year my pool water hasn't gotten over 90 yet.

Here is a copy and paste-

This doesn’t mean that you can’t challenge absurd claims. If someone claims that the temperature will rise 10 degrees, and oceans will rise 20 feet in the next 100 years, you can point out that temperature rose at less than 1 degree in the 20th century, and oceans are rising at 1-3mm per year according to the alarmists themselves.

Sonnabend
08-25-2008, 07:14 PM
Could the Chicken Littles and the rest of the doomsayers kindly go climb a tree?

The world hasnt warmed since 1998, we are into cooling, not warming, the IPCC them,selves screwed up, there will be no seven metre sea level rises (the IPCC changed its mind and now says seven centimetres)


No its a scientific theory which is nearly unanimously accepted among climatologists (the people who actually make a living studying this stuff).

Thats a lie.


Philip Stott, Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the University of London, wonders how much longer the media can ignore what’s really happening with our climate:

But that is precisely what is happening. Since 1998, according to all the main world temperature records, including the UK Met Office’s ‘HadCRUT3’ data set [a globally-gridded product of near-surface temperatures consisting of annual differences from 1961-90 normals], the world average surface temperature has exhibited no warming whatsoever…

And now a Mexican expert, Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera (National Autonomous University of Mexico), is warning that the Earth will enter a new ‘Little Ice Age’ for up to 80 years due to decreases in solar activity… He describes the predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as “erroneous”.

If this cooling phase really does persist, it will be illuminating to observe how long our media can maintain its befuddled state of ‘cognitive dissonance’. Dr Tim Ball, Natural Resources Stewardship Project chairman and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, agrees the climate just isn’t behaving as the warming alarmists says it should:


“There is not a single case for any period of any duration where CO2 increase precedes temperature increase. All records show temperature increase precedes CO2 increase. But the IPCC have ‘proved’ with computer models they are 90% certain that the current warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases, namely CO2. This is pre-determined because the computer model is programmed to have an increase in temperature if CO2 increases. By their own definitive statements, temperatures cannot go down as long as CO2 increases. Trouble is CO2 has continued to increase but temperatures have declined and many scientists expect them to go lower until at least 2030.
Freeman Dyson says no (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html)

I do not "believe in" global warming, I also dont believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, honest politicians, fairies at the bottom of the garden or that Eyelids has anything even closely resembling brain matter.

"Believe" is religion, not science, science is fact, the fact is that there is no
"consensus", it is a blatant lie to say that it is "nearly unanimously accepted" when it is NOT, and quite frankly, if I had a dollar for every end of the world scenario I've heard, I'd be Donald Trump.

Global warming
before that global cooling
before that the Saturn Conjunction that would send us into the sun
before that the terror that nuclear bombs would send us out of orbit

..whats next, a giant mutant star goat?

Also here (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086)


In fact, many astronomers have announced that Pluto has been experiencing global warming,..must be all those SUV's..

..oh wait.....

Nubs
08-25-2008, 07:53 PM
If all sea ice were to melt tomorrow, sea level would not rise 1 inch

patriot45
08-25-2008, 07:55 PM
If all sea ice were to melt tomorrow, sea level would not rise 1 inch

Ya mean if my ice cubes melt in my full drink it would not spill over!?! :D:rolleyes:

The Night Owl
08-25-2008, 10:01 PM
The world hasnt warmed since 1998, we are into cooling, not warming...


The temperature trend for roughly the past 10 years has been nearly flat but temperatures over any given decade are not necessarily indicative of climate. Scientists typically look at a span of 30 years to establish a climate baseline.

Sonnabend
08-26-2008, 07:29 AM
The temperature trend for roughly the past 10 years has been nearly flat but temperatures over any given decade are not necessarily indicative of climate. Scientists typically look at a span of 30 years to establish a climate baseline.

Which means the models are just that, models, and no one knows for certain. "Science by consensus" reminds me of "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too??"

AGW is a lie, a myth, scaremongering, panic merchanting.


No its a scientific theory which is nearly unanimously accepted among climatologists (the people who actually make a living studying this stuff)

Here is a partial list of people who say otherwise.

W. Dansgaard et al., “North Atlantic Climatic Oscillations Revealed by Deep
Greenland Ice Cores,” in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity (1984), ed., F. E.
Hansen and T. Takahashi, Geophysical Monograph 29, (Washington, D.C.,
American Geophysical Union).
W. Dansgaard, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Hans Oeschger, deceased, retired from the University of Bern, Switzerland
W Dansgaard et al., “Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-kyr
ice-core record,” Nature 364 (1992): 218-220
W. Dansgaard, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
S. J. Johnson, University of Iceland
H.B. Clausen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
D. Dahl-Jensen, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
N.S. Gundestrup, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
C.U. Hammer, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
C.S. Hvidberg, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
J. P. Steffenson, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
A. E. Sveinbjornsdottir, University of Iceland
J. Jouzel, French Atomic Energy Commission
G. Bond, Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, New York.
Claude Lorius et al., “A 150,000-Year Climatic Record from Antarctic Ice, “Nature,
Vol. 316, pp. 591-96, 1985.
Claude Lorius, French National Center for Scientific Research
C. Ritz, French National Center for Scientific Research
J. Jouzel, Geochemical Isotope Laboratory, France
L. Merlivat, Geochemical Isotope Laboratory, France
S. Korotkevich, Geochemical Isotope Laboratory, France
N. I>. Barkov, Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Leningrad
V. M. Kotlyakov, Russian Institute of Geography
T. Cronin, “Climatic Variability in the Eastern U.S. over the past Millennium from
Chesapeake Bay Sediments, Geology, Vol. 28, p 3-6, 2000
T. Cronin, USGS
D. Willard, USGS
A Karlsen, USGS
S. Ishman, USGS
S. Verardo, USGS
J/. McGeehin USGS
Kerhin, Maryland Geological Survey, Baltimore, MD
C Holmes, USGS
S. Colman, USGS
A. Zimmerman, Virginia Inst. Of Marine, Science, Gloucester Pt, VA
Gerald H. Haug, “Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization,” Science 299
(2003): 1731-1735.
Gerald H. Haug, Geopforschungszenfrum, Potsdam, Germany
Detlef Gunther, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
Larry C. Peterson, University of Miami
Daniel M. Sigman, Princeton University
Konrad A Hughen, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Beat Aeschlimann, ETH, Zurich, Switzerland
David Hodell et al., “Solar Forcing of Drought Frequency in the Maya Lowlands,”
Science 292 (2001): 1367-70.
David Hodell, University of Florida
Mark Brenner, University of Florida
Jason H. Curtis, University of Florida
Thomas Guilderson, Livermore National Lab, Livermore, CA
Nicolas Caillon et al., “Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature
Changes Across Termination III,” Science 299 (2003): 1728-31.
Nicolas Caillon, Scripps Institutionion of Oceanography
Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Scripps
Jean Jouzel, French Atomic Energy Commission
Jean-Marc Barnola, Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysics Environment, France
Jiancheng Kang, Polar Research Institute of China
Volodya Lipenkov, Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia

Sonnabend
08-26-2008, 07:30 AM
Here are some more

. Balling, University of Aarhus, Denmark
Paul A. Mayewski et al., “Major features and forcing of high-latitude northern
hemisphere atmosphere circulation using a 110,000-year-long glaciochemical
series,” Journal of Geophysical Research, 102 (1997): 26,345-26,356.
Paul A. Mayewski, Loren D. Mekker, U. N>H>,
Mark S. Twickler, University of New Hampshire
Sallie Whitlow, University of New Hampshire
Qunzhao Yang, University of New Hampshire
W. Berry Lyons, University of Alabama
Michael Prentice, University of New Hampshire
Sharon E Nicolson, “The nature of rainfall variability over Africa on time scales of
decades to millennia,” Global and Planetary Changes 26 (2000): 137-158.
Sharon Nicholson, Florida State
Henry Lamb, “Vegetation Response to Rainfall Variation and Human Impact in
Central Kenya during the Past 1,100 Years” The Holocene 13 (2003):258–92.
Henry Lamb, Institute of Geography and Earth Science, University of Wales
Iain Darbyshire, Institute of Geography and Earth Science, Univ. of Wales
Dirk Verschuren, Institute of Geography and Earth Science, Univ. of Wales
Bettina Schilman et al., “Global Climate Instability Reflected by Eastern
Mediterranean Marine Records during the Late Holocene, Paleogeography,
Paleoclimatology, Paleoecology 176 (2001): 157-76.
Bettina Schilman, Geological Survey of Israel
Miryam Bar-Matthews, Geological Survey of Israel
Ahuva Almogi-Labin, Geological Survey of Israel
Boaz Luz, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
N/ Shaviv and J. Veizer, “Celestial Driver of Phanerozoic climate?” Geological
Society of America 13 (2003): 4-10.
Nir Shaviv, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Jan Veizer, University of Ottawa, Canada
Hubert H. Lamb, Climate, history and the Modern World (New York: Rutledge
1982), 191.
Hubert H. Lamb, East Anglia University, UK
Kang Chao, Man and Land in China: An Economic Analysis (Palo Alto, CA:
Stanford University Press, 1986).
Kang Chao, Tunghai University, China
L. G. Thompson, T. Yao, “A High Resolution Millennial Record of the South Asian
Monsoon from Himalayan Ice Cores,” Science Vol. 289 (2000) 1916-1919.
L. G. Thompson, Ohio State T. Yao, Chinese Academy of Sciences
E. Mosley-Thompson, Ohio State
M. E. Davis, Ohio State
K.A. Henderson, Ohio State
P.-N. Lin, Ohio State
Gerard Bond et al., “A Pervasive Millennial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene
and Glacial Climates,” Science, Vol., 278 (1997) 1257-1266.
Gerard Bond, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, New York.
William Showers, North Carolina State
Maziet Cheseby, Lamont-Doherty Institute
Rusty Lotti, Lamont-Doherty
Peter deMenocal, Lamont-Doherty
Paul Priore, Lamont-Doherty
Heidi Cullen, Lamont-Doherty
Irka Hadas, ETH, Zurich
Georges Bonani, ETH, Zurich,
Peter Almasi, Lamont-Doherty
Gerard Bond et al., “Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during
the Holocene,” Science 294 (2001): 2130-2136.
Gerard Bond, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, New York
Bernd Kromer, Heidelbert Academy of Sciences, Germany
Juerg Beer, Eidgenossische Anstalt fur Wasserversorgung, Switzerland
Raimund Muscheler, University of Arizona
Michael N Evans, University of Arizona
William Showers, North Carolina State University
Sharon Hoffman, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Rusty Lotti-Gond, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
Irka Hajdas, Accelrator Mass Spectrometry
Georges Bonani, Accelerator Mass Spectrometry
P. M. Liew et al., “Holocene thermal optimal and climate variability of East Asian
monsoon inferred from forest reconstruction of a subalpine pollen sequence,
Taiwan,” Earth and Planetary Science Letters 250 (2006): 596-605.
P. M. Liew, National Taiwan University
C.Y. Lee, National Taiwan University
C.M. Kuo, Chinese Petroleum Corporation, Taipei
L. Keigwin, “The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea,”
Science Vol., 274(1996) 1503-1508.

The Night Owl
08-26-2008, 08:32 AM
No its a scientific theory which is nearly unanimously accepted among climatologists (the people who actually make a living studying this stuff)

Here is a partial list of people who say otherwise.



Not so fast. The list you provided comes from the following webpage promoting the idea that the global warming going on now is part of a natural cycle...

http://www.cgfi.org/2007/10/04/the-list-documented-doubts-of-man-made-global-warming-scares/

Figuring prominently at the top of the list is a bit of text which I can only assume you omitted on purpose because it undermines your point...


CITATION OF THE WORK OF THE FOLLOWING SCIENTISTS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THEY NECESSARILY SUPPORT OUR CONCLUSIONS

What? Did you honestly think I wouldn't check?

:D


Which means the models are just that, models, and no one knows for certain.

The instrumental temperature record is not a climate model. The instrumental temperature record is just that... a record of temperatures based on measurements by instruments such as satellites and surface stations. Models are used for prediction purposes.

FlaGator
08-26-2008, 09:08 AM
There is no evidence that would convince you. Nothing. Half the Manhattan skyline could be under water within the decade and that wouldn’t convince you. Arrogance is fueling the global warming ignorance and childish denial, and our great-grandchildren will hate us for it.

I don't buy in to man made global warming either. Is there climatic change happening? It seems that way. Is man the cause? No one is sure. More and more scientists are now reexamining their position on man made global warming and are leaning to it being a cyclical event. According to the geological record we have been living in an unusually stable period for the climate and change was inevitable with or without mankind’s presence. Can you offer me solid evidence that man is responsible for the current state of climate change?

FlaGator
08-26-2008, 09:12 AM
Not so fast. The list you provided comes from the following webpage promoting the idea that the global warming going on now is part of a natural cycle...

http://www.cgfi.org/2007/10/04/the-list-documented-doubts-of-man-made-global-warming-scares/

Figuring prominently at the top of the list is a bit of text which I can only assume you omitted on purpose because it undermines your point...


CITATION OF THE WORK OF THE FOLLOWING SCIENTISTS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THEY NECESSARILY SUPPORT OUR CONCLUSIONS

What? Did you honestly think I wouldn't check?

:D



The instrumental temperature record is not a climate model. The instrumental temperature record is just that... a record of temperatures based on measurements by instruments such as satellites and surface stations. Models are used for prediction purposes.

It doesn't imply that they all reject it either. The line you quote is very ambiguous. The implication is that some do support the theory that the current climate change is cyclical in nature and some don't.

The Night Owl
08-26-2008, 09:30 AM
It doesn't imply that they all reject it either. The line you quote is very ambiguous. The implication is that some do support the theory that the current climate change is cyclical in nature and some don't.

The disclaimer about the list is not ambiguous. The list itself is ambiguous.

How many of the scientists listed on the CGFI webpage support the CGFI's position? 1%? 50%? 99%? We don't know because all we have is a bulky list of scientists who might or might not support the CGFI's position.

The Night Owl
08-26-2008, 09:51 AM
This is cute...

So, I randomly choose one of the studies cited on the CGFI list Sonnabend posted and looked it up...

Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization
Gerald H. Haug,1* Detlef Günther,2 Larry C. Peterson,3 Daniel M. Sigman,4 Konrad A. Hughen,5 Beat Aeschlimann2

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1731

Why does the CGFI believe that a study about climate change many centuries before the industrial revolution refutes AGW?

No scientists on either side of the global warming debate are claiming that Earth has not gone through natural warming and cooling cycles. Let me repeat that... no scientists on either side of the global warming debate are claiming that Earth has not gone through natural climate changes.

The fact that Earth, like any planet, goes through natural climate changes does not mean that the climate going on now is the result of a natural cycle. It may be but it may not be. This is where science comes in.

Sonnabend
08-26-2008, 09:52 AM
No its a scientific theory which is nearly unanimously accepted among climatologists (the people who actually make a living studying this stuff)

THAT is a LIE.

That was my point. You., Eyelids and LP seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.; Maybe you need a course in the subject, "peer reviewed" of course.

Jackass.

FlaGator
08-26-2008, 09:57 AM
This is cute...

So, I randomly choose one of the studies cited on the CGFI list Sonnabend posted and looked it up...

Climate and the Collapse of Maya Civilization
Gerald H. Haug,1* Detlef Günther,2 Larry C. Peterson,3 Daniel M. Sigman,4 Konrad A. Hughen,5 Beat Aeschlimann2

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1731

Why does the CGFI believe that a study about climate change many centuries before the industrial revolution refutes AGW?

No scientists on either side of the global warming debate are claiming that Earth has not gone through natural warming and cooling cycles. Let me repeat that... no scientists on either side of the global warming debate are claiming that Earth has not gone through natural warming and cooling cycles.

The fact that Earth, like any planet, goes through natural warming and cooling cycles does not mean that the global warming going on now is the result of a natural cycle. It may be but it may not be. This is where science comes in.

It doesn't mean that it is not part of the cycle. In short we are taking positions on something that neither side can valid its position as the true position. Kind of silly argument if you ask me. Is there a problem with both sides saying "hey we just don't know... we're looking in to it" and leave it at that?

The Night Owl
08-26-2008, 10:00 AM
It doesn't mean that it is not part of the cycle. In short we are taking positions on something that neither side can valid its position as the true position. Kind of silly argument if you ask me. Is there a problem with both sides saying "hey we just don't know... we're looking in to it" and leave it at that?

I'm not agnostic about global warming. There is considerable scientific evidence that the global warming going on now is either the result of human activities or partly the result of human activities.

Sonnabend
08-26-2008, 10:00 AM
The fact that Earth, like any planet, goes through natural warming and cooling cycles does not mean that the global warming going on now is the result of a natural cycle.The fact that Earth, like any planet, goes through natural warming and cooling cycles does not mean that the global warming / cooling /" climate change"/ (whatever you liberals rebadge it as in an effort to look "well informed") going on now is the result of Man made influence either.

No one knows. How fucking hard is it for you lot to say four simple words:

"We could be wrong"

Yet all the warmenistas are carrying on and saying "the science is settled" (it isn't by a long shot) "its unanimous" (it isn't, and anyone who says it is, is lying) and calling those who dare to ask questions as akin "holocaust deniers"...anything to shut down debate.

Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.

Every. single. time.

The Night Owl
08-26-2008, 10:01 AM
THAT is a LIE.

That was my point. You., Eyelids and LP seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.; Maybe you need a course in the subject, "peer reviewed" of course.

Jackass.

Wilbur is right. The list of climatologists who outrightly reject AGW is very short.

The Night Owl
08-26-2008, 10:04 AM
"We could be wrong"[/B]


I have always maintained that the science supporting AGW could be all wrong. Science is never certain. Certainty is attainable only in mathematics.

LogansPapa
08-26-2008, 10:10 AM
If all sea ice were to melt tomorrow, sea level would not rise 1 inch

Nice qualification. How much would it rise if the ice melted off, say Greenland?

Sonnabend
08-26-2008, 10:11 AM
Wilbur is right. The list of climatologists who outrightly reject AGW is very short.

Want more names? How many more would you like?

Small?

Oh really? (http://www.petitionproject.org/)

1,072 American scientists have signed this petition,including 9,021 with PhDs

Include Freeman Dyson in that list as well.

Eyelids
08-26-2008, 10:18 AM
I have always maintained that the science supporting AGW could be all wrong. Science is never certain. Certainty is attainable only in mathematics.

This is the how manyeth time you've had to say that?

Sonnabend
08-26-2008, 10:31 AM
This is the how manyeth time you've had to say that?

Another neologism.

Interesting,.

FlaGator
08-26-2008, 10:48 AM
I'm not agnostic about global warming. There is considerable scientific evidence that the global warming going on now is either the result of human activities or partly the result of human activities.

I too believe that Climate Change is going on, but I tend to attribute it to natural cycle. When compared to the green house gases that natural phenomena issue into the environment, man's contribution seems trivial.

LogansPapa
08-26-2008, 10:59 AM
I too believe that Climate Change is going on, but I tend to attribute it to natural cycle. When compared to the green house gases that natural phenomena issue into the environment, man's contribution seems trivial.

And that’s very convenient. If you can trivialise something until people stop talking about it - then it no longer exists, right? Measurements will be taken in our environment in ten years that we, as members of the general public, can’t even begin to conceive of presently. To blow all this off, ala El Rushbo, is irresponsible and to think that we - as a specie - can’t be part of the climate change tipping point is truly blind. "Tell’em what they want to hear" will only work for so long - then the Piper will come for payment. The current administration’s fascist tactics regarding the duties and oversight of the EPA is a complete disgrace. One of many.

Sonnabend
08-26-2008, 11:04 AM
The current administration’s fascist tactics regarding the duties and oversight of the EPA is a complete disgrace. One of many.

http://www.nouvelordremondial.cc/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/its-a-conspiracy.jpg

wilbur
08-26-2008, 11:17 AM
THAT is a LIE.

That was my point. You., Eyelids and LP seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.; Maybe you need a course in the subject, "peer reviewed" of course.

Jackass.

Perhaps you want to go through your list and actually list credentials of the people involved who are climatologists. I don't care about theoretical physicists and mathematicians.

LogansPapa
08-26-2008, 11:21 AM
Perhaps you want to go through your list and actually list credentials of the people involved who are climatologists. I don't care about theoretical physicists and mathematicians.

And, Sonnabend, while at that task - dissect how many of those are members of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, then I’ll be impressed.

The Night Owl
08-26-2008, 11:38 AM
I too believe that Climate Change is going on, but I tend to attribute it to natural cycle. When compared to the green house gases that natural phenomena issue into the environment, man's contribution seems trivial.

Scientists studying climate have considered all the natural forces which can contribute to climate change and have determined that they are not responsible for the climate change observed during the industrial revolution. Right now, most of the science on climate change points to human activites being the primary cause of climate change or at the very least a significant contributing factor.

As I pointed out earlier, the temperature trend has been nearly flat for about a decade. I hope that this short term trend is the start of a long term trend in which temperatures level off or decrease but I see no reason to believe that it is. I would love for my side of the AGW debate to be dead wrong but the weight of evidence right now supports my side of the debate.

Sonnabend
08-26-2008, 11:43 AM
Perhaps you want to go through your list and actually list credentials of the people involved who are climatologists. I don't care about theoretical physicists and mathematicians.

Got a better idea. Go do it yourself. I'm not your secretary.


And, Sonnabend, while at that task - dissect how many of those are members of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, then I’ll be impressed.

Whats this? (http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/32821)

In a December 2007 Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority-staff report, some 400 scientists -- from such respected institutions as Princeton, the National Academy of Sciences, the University of London, and Paris' Pasteur Institute -- declared their independence from the pro-warming "conventional wisdom."

"Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas," asserted climatologist Luc Debontridder of Belgium's Royal Meteorological Institute. "It is responsible for at least 75 percent of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it."

AccuWeather's Expert Senior Forecaster Joe Bastardi has stated: "People are concerned that 50 years from now, it will be warm beyond a point of no return. My concern is almost opposite, that it's cold and getting colder."

And on Wednesday, the respected journal, Nature, indicated that Earth's climactic cycles have stopped global warming through 2015.

If nothing else, all this obliterates the rampant lie that "the scientific debate on global warming is over." That debate rages on.

Assuming that the very serious scientists cited here are correct, the "inconvenient truth" about global-warming is inconveniently false. If so, mankind should chill out and turn our thinking right side up.

Oh dear.

The Night Owl
08-26-2008, 11:44 AM
This is the how manyeth time you've had to say that?

Some things need to be repeated.

I wonder... if Sonnabend feels that the science on AGW is not settled, will he acknowledge that he might be wrong about it?

patriot45
08-26-2008, 11:44 AM
All the damned chicken littles out there, this is a scam!
Do you think man had anything to do with mars or jupiter getting hotter mabe we pissed off the sun!

Royal Scam (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html)


Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes. Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years." [Telegraph]
Global warming and melting polar ice caps are not just problems here on Earth. Mars is facing similar global changes, researchers say, with temperatures across the red planet rising by around 0.65 degrees over the last few decades. [Register]


Some science-


Looking at annual global temperatures, it is apparent that the last decade shows no warming trend and recent successive annual global temperatures are well within each year's measurement errors. Statistically the world's temperature is flat. The world certainly warmed between 1975 and 1998, but in the past 10 years it has not been increasing at the rate it did. No scientist could honestly look at global temperatures over the past decade and see a rising curve. It is undisputed that the sun of the later part of the 20th century was behaving differently from that of the beginning. Its sunspot cycle is stronger and shorter and, technically speaking, its magnetic field leakage is weaker and its cosmic ray shielding effect stronger. So we see that when the sun's activity was rising, the world warmed. When it peaked in activity in the late 1980s, within a few years global warming stalled.


Uh oh!



Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. [DailyTech 2/27/2008]

You keep believing in man made global anything and the only effect you will have is to throw money at it.

List of global warming activists who are now skeptics (http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=9469)

"If the Earth came with an operating manual, the chapter on climate might begin with a caveat that the system has been adjusted at the factory for optimum comfort, so don't touch the dials."

Sonnabend
08-26-2008, 11:45 AM
Some things need to be repeated.

I wonder... if Sonnabend feels that the science on AGW is not settled, will he acknowledge that he might be wrong about it?

I'm sorry, your comment wasn't peer reviewed.I only read peer reviewed comments...and you're not a climatologist either, so I am not interested in what you have to say.

Rebel Yell
08-26-2008, 11:47 AM
y2k Y2k Y2k Y2k Y2k Y2k!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Night Owl
08-26-2008, 12:05 PM
All the damned chicken littles out there, this is a scam!
Do you think man had anything to do with mars or jupiter getting hotter mabe we pissed off the sun!


The fact that Earth and other planets in our solar system go through natural cycles of warming and cooling doesn't prove that the global warming happening on Earth is natural. Moreover, we have accurate measurements of solar irradiance and it has been more or less constant for the past 30 years or so.

wilbur
08-26-2008, 12:10 PM
I'm sorry, your comment wasn't peer reviewed.I only read peer reviewed comments...and you're not a climatologist either, so I am not interested in what you have to say.

Perhaps next time you feel sick you should go consult a mathematician. If he has a PhD he's technically a doctor!

FlaGator
08-26-2008, 12:12 PM
And that’s very convenient. If you can trivialise something until people stop talking about it - then it no longer exists, right? Measurements will be taken in our environment in ten years that we, as members of the general public, can’t even begin to conceive of presently. To blow all this off, ala El Rushbo, is irresponsible and to think that we - as a specie - can’t be part of the climate change tipping point is truly blind. "Tell’em what they want to hear" will only work for so long - then the Piper will come for payment. The current administration’s fascist tactics regarding the duties and oversight of the EPA is a complete disgrace. One of many.

I didn't trivialize anything. I stated my opinion of how I view things. I make no attempt to win someone over to my opinion because it doesn't matter to me. Show me some solid evidence that man is the main culprit in the current climate change and I'll accept your reasoning. I've heard this all before. In the 50s and 60s we were going all be dead from nuclear radiation by the 70s. In the 70's people had “evidence" that the world would be overcrowded in the 80s and we'd all be starving. In the 80s we were all going to be dead of AIDs. In the 90's Y2K was going to put us back in to the Stone Age. Now come the new millennium and its global warming. Every decade has its own scare and they all have proof and end up being squat. I remember the mini nuclear winter that Carl Sagan predicted after Saddam torched the oil fields in Kuwait. Guess what. Absolutely nothing happened. In all these events, the gloom and doomers gave all sorts of proof of the catastrophe that lay in wait just down the road but in the end there was nothing.

So tell me. What is different this time?

LogansPapa
08-26-2008, 12:21 PM
So tell me. What is different this time?

Where - in dollars and cents, which is all the Republican party understands and respects - is the harm in being prepared and using a gift wisely? Think about your God-given legacy. What will you leave behind? Proud to be the caretaker of a cesspool? Head-on, just don’t ask me to participate. It’s a cowardly way to leave the world. Fifty cents on a hundred dollar purchase now is well worth it and as we drive things like the blue fin tuna into extinction, I shall remind you of that reality.

Kyoto: Another mindless Bush failure.

wilbur
08-26-2008, 12:30 PM
All the damned chicken littles out there, this is a scam!
Do you think man had anything to do with mars or jupiter getting hotter mabe we pissed off the sun!

Royal Scam (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html)


http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

"Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues."

FlaGator
08-26-2008, 12:35 PM
Where - in dollars and cents, which is all the Republican party understands and respects - is the harm in being prepared and using a gift wisely? Think about your God-given legacy. What will you leave behind? Proud to be the caretaker of a cesspool? Head-on, just don’t ask me to participate. It’s a cowardly way to leave the world. Fifty cents on a hundred dollar purchase now is well worth it and as we drive things like the blue fin tuna into extinction, I shall remind you of that reality.

Kyoto: Another mindless Bush failure.

Ok, let's turn this in to a political thing... that really helps your argument. I believe that we will not be leaving this world significantly better or worse for the next generation. It will be different but better or worse, I don't know? I suspect that when everything is balanced out it will be little different. There is a lot of beauty in this world that was here before I got here and will be here long after I've gone. I'm not sure if you are overestimating man's ability to ruin things or you are underestimating the earths ability to take care of it self. The earth as survived lots of ecological disasters and bounced back better than before. It will do so again. Will man survive the next disaster? Who knows. But let’s face facts here. People who spread the gloom and doom of global warming aren't really that concerned about the earth's survival but man's survival. Let's call a spade a spade here. The earth will recover just fine. It always has and always will. Man might not make it if what you believe is true.

patriot45
08-26-2008, 12:38 PM
Where - in dollars and cents, which is all the Republican party understands and respects - is the harm in being prepared and using a gift wisely? Think about your God-given legacy. What will you leave behind? Proud to be the caretaker of a cesspool? Head-on, just don’t ask me to participate. It’s a cowardly way to leave the world. Fifty cents on a hundred dollar purchase now is well worth it and as we drive things like the blue fin tuna into extinction, I shall remind you of that reality.

Kyoto: Another mindless Bush failure.

Liberals always start out small, just $.50 now, but next year more. Every feel good project costs mucho more than what it startd at.
Thats how we got the smoking nazis, the fast food tsars, stop stealing my money for scams!
The world I'm leaving behind will be a cesspool? Can I controll India? China?
If you can just wait 10 more years, we can battle global cooling again!!

wilbur
08-26-2008, 12:44 PM
Only one question matters and you can't answer it. What is the correct temperature of the earth?


That particular question as it is is irrelevant. What is the temperature of the earth now (or in the recent past), and how well will we be able to adapt to significant changes of this temperature?



There’s insufficient evidence for a long-term warming trend


I thought the sun was doing it? So much duplicity from the anti-global warming crowd. Out of one side of their mouths they want to say no warming is occuring, then out of the other they say it is occuring its just not man made. Which is it? Are we warming or not?



The earth’s warming is not historically significant


Can you elaborate?



The warming is not anthropogenic


Not all of it. A significant portion appears to be.



The benefits of a warmer earth exceed the costs


What are these benefits?



Stopping warming is economically impractical or undesirable


Perhaps. But it might be partly manageable. The right seems more interested in shouting down any and all dialog that would seek out possible solutions.



Implementing government controls is the wrong response to climate change

I haven't been arguing that it is the right response. This is part of the problem, right here. Separate the science from the politics.

The Night Owl
08-26-2008, 12:51 PM
I didn't trivialize anything. I stated my opinion of how I view things. I make no attempt to win someone over to my opinion because it doesn't matter to me. Show me some solid evidence that man is the main culprit in the current climate change and I'll accept your reasoning. I've heard this all before. In the 50s and 60s we were going all be dead from nuclear radiation by the 70s. In the 70's people had “evidence" that the world would be overcrowded in the 80s and we'd all be starving. In the 80s we were all going to be dead of AIDs. In the 90's Y2K was going to put us back in to the Stone Age. Now come the new millennium and its global warming. Every decade has its own scare and they all have proof and end up being squat. I remember the mini nuclear winter that Carl Sagan predicted after Saddam torched the oil fields in Kuwait. Guess what. Absolutely nothing happened. In all these events, the gloom and doomers gave all sorts of proof of the catastrophe that lay in wait just down the road but in the end there was nothing.

So tell me. What is different this time?

I think you need to separate science from the sensationalized media coverage of science.

patriot45
08-26-2008, 12:53 PM
That particular question as it is is irrelevant. What is the temperature of the earth now (or in the recent past), and how well will we be able to adapt to significant changes of this temperature?





I haven't been arguing that it is the right response. This is part of the problem, right here. Separate the science from the politics.

Just drop this whole scam and trying to make us pay for it, like I said before, If you just wait 10 years we can start paying for global cooling again!
But hey, I'm just a cabinetmaker and I can read this graph!


http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/greenhouse_sources3.gif


Now then, looking at Carbon Dioxide, we find that only .117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is directly attributable to human technology such as automobiles. .117% is a rather small amount. If we were to measure out .117% of a football field, it comes out to 4.212 inches, barely long enough to get off the touchdown line.

So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of the carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere, assuming all other factors remain stable (which is, of course, silly.)

FlaGator
08-26-2008, 12:58 PM
I think you need to separate science from the sensationalized media coverage of science.

I heard the same thing during the overpopulation and y2k scares ;)

Actually I do. I tend to ignore the media point of view and read enough to come to my own conclusions.

wilbur
08-26-2008, 12:58 PM
Liberals always start out small, just $.50 now, but next year more. Every feel good project costs mucho more than what it startd at.
Thats how we got the smoking nazis, the fast food tsars, stop stealing my money for scams!
The world I'm leaving behind will be a cesspool? Can I controll India? China?
If you can just wait 10 more years, we can battle global cooling again!!

Global cooling.... one of the biggest examples of misinformation from the anti-global warming camp. No other myth has been so puffed up and inflated to such a degree as this little global cooling misinformation scam. Can you find all the peer reviewed scientific papers investigating possible global cooling in the 70's?

Here's a paper worth reading, and an excerpt: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf



A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows the myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.


Every time you hear your favorite conservative commentator bring out the old "global cooling" canard, you can now proudly and triumphantly declare him a liar!

Eyelids
08-26-2008, 01:05 PM
Just drop this whole scam and trying to make us pay for it, like I said before, If you just wait 10 years we can start paying for global cooling again!
But hey, I'm just a cabinetmaker and I can read this graph!


http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/greenhouse_sources3.gif

oh wow patriot did it!

go home everybody, this pie chart is unquestionable proof that global warming is false.

Eyelids
08-26-2008, 01:07 PM
I'm sorry, your comment wasn't peer reviewed.I only read peer reviewed comments...and you're not a climatologist either, so I am not interested in what you have to say.

Haha, poor Night Owl... how he keeps his cool putting up with this shit is beyond me.

LogansPapa
08-26-2008, 01:08 PM
I believe that we will not be leaving this world significantly better or worse for the next generation.

And you know this how? Is it just a feeling? Or do you have some actual evidence - world wide evidence?


It will be different but better or worse, I don't know? I suspect that when everything is balanced out it will be little different.

Has the amount of fresh drinking water increased or decreased in your lifespan?


There is a lot of beauty in this world that was here before I got here and will be here long after I've gone. I'm not sure if you are overestimating man's ability to ruin things or you are underestimating the earths ability to take care of it self.

Using my previous example, the blue fin tuna - hundreds of thousands of tons were caught in the early part of the last century. Japanese corporations pay up to $50,000.00 for a single example for their company parties now. Are these supposedly savvy business tycoons stupid, or is the specie about to tip into extinction?


The earth as survived lots of ecological disasters and bounced back better than before.

Is the monument to man’s stupidity in the Ukraine an example of that bouncing back better than before? Can you see yourself as a real estate agent trying to sell homes within a hundred miles of the entombed reactor?


It will do so again. Will man survive the next disaster? Who knows. But let’s face facts here. People who spread the gloom and doom of global warming aren't really that concerned about the earth's survival but man's survival. Let's call a spade a spade here.

Yes - there are some that make a niche for themselves in the world spotlight, like Greenpeace, and pump the drama, but they’re so obvious that it doesn’t require too much critical thinking to expose that type of "activist." What is not so evident are the people that work, actually make a profession of, tireless hours of research to protect the environment - every day. Let’s call a spade a spade: If testicular cancer was scientifically connected with the effects of global warming, how much of an instant outcry would there be from the world’s political leaders?


The earth will recover just fine. It always has and always will. Man might not make it if what you believe is true.

It’s not a matter of plain survival - it is a matter of quality of life. I don’t want my people and their descendants to live like the urban dwellers of Beijing, outside the range of prying Olympic tourists and their cameras.

LogansPapa
08-26-2008, 01:11 PM
The world I'm leaving behind will be a cesspool? Can I controll India? China?


Reference Kyoto: That time has passed and ask Mr. Powell about that reality once GWB is chopping wood again in Crawford.;)

Eyelids
08-26-2008, 01:15 PM
The 3 highest fields from which they got signatures in Sonnabend's petition thing: Engineering (7,289), Electrical Engineering (2,075) and Mechanical Engineering (2,581). Even more telling is only 40 climatalogists signed, 4th smallest total out of the 46 represented.

Worthless link.

patriot45
08-26-2008, 01:25 PM
The 3 highest fields from which they got signatures in Sonnabend's petition thing: Engineering (7,289), Electrical Engineering (2,075) and Mechanical Engineering (2,581). Even more telling is only 40 climatalogists signed, 4th smallest total out of the 46 represented.

Worthless link.


Now that you are in the thread, I'm out. And I'm now convinced you are right! :rolleyes:

Proof!!

http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/Warmings.jpg



http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/further-proof-global-warming.jpg

wilbur
08-26-2008, 01:27 PM
Now that you are in the thread, I'm out. And I'm now convinced you are right! :rolleyes:

Proof!!


I didnt realize you were an advocate of the Cut'N'Run policy ;)

Eyelids
08-26-2008, 01:29 PM
Doesnt take much to corner you guys.

The Night Owl
08-26-2008, 01:40 PM
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i230/patriot45270/greenhouse_sources3.gif

The pie chart you posted is taken from an article on WhatReallyHappened.com (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html), a site which promotes conspiracy theories such as the LIHOP and MIHOP theories. For information on climate change, you should seek out scientists, not crazy people.

A little bit about water vapor and CO2...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

FlaGator
08-26-2008, 01:43 PM
And you know this how? Is it just a feeling? Or do you have some actual evidence - world wide evidence?
A feeling I guess. It comes from feeling that I understand man's place in the grand scheme of things and not putting to much faith in man's ability to do anything to extremely improve or damage a planet that has been around for 4.5 billion years.



Has the amount of fresh drinking water increased or decreased in your lifespan?

How many people outside of a drought area are thristy right now? How many more will be thristy tomorrow?




Using my previous example, the blue fin tuna - hundreds of thousands of tons were caught in the early part of the last century. Japanese corporations pay up to $50,000.00 for a single example for their company parties now. Are these supposedly savvy business tycoons stupid, or is the specie about to tip into extinction?

98 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct but there are a few million different species of things currently on their earth. Other species come along to fill in the gap that the tuna leave. Survival of the fittest you know. :eek:



Is the monument to man’s stupidity in the Ukraine an example of that bouncing back better than before? Can you see yourself as a real estate agent trying to sell homes within a hundred miles of the entombed reactor?
You do make a point with this one. However it is the exception and not the rule as far as I can tell and I don't base my point of view on the either the lowest or high examples of any situation. I tend to gravitate to the middle in order to determine a more realistic expection of outcomes.



Yes - there are some that make a niche for themselves in the world spotlight, like Greenpeace, and pump the drama, but they’re so obvious that it doesn’t require too much critical thinking to expose that type of "activist." What is not so evident are the people that work, actually make a profession of, tireless hours of research to protect the environment - every day. Let’s call a spade a spade: If testicular cancer was scientifically connected with the effects of global warming, how much of an instant outcry would there be from the world’s political leaders?

And whatever the outcry it would still be an overreaction. Cancer has been scientifically linked to just about everything in one study or another. A lot of these substances get banned because of the linkage and we still have cancer. Interesting isn't it. There was a big outcry over silicon breast implants. There was even scientific evidence to support the banning of silicon implants. When all was said and done the ban was determined to be a waste of energy because silicon implants didn't cause the defects that were being blamed on them.



It’s not a matter of plain survival - it is a matter of quality of life. I don’t want my people and their descendants to live like the urban dwellers of Beijing, outside the range of prying Olympic tourists and their cameras.

Just because there is an outcry and there is some science to back it up doesn't mean that there is a problem. The outcry is hype and the science could be wrong. To err is human and scientific experiments are performed by humans and the results are interpreted by humans. Besides, have you taken a gander at the number of environmental laws that are in effect in the United States today? It would amaze you to realize the level of environmental control the government exerts over us and our businesses.

LogansPapa
08-26-2008, 01:47 PM
For information on climate change, you should seek out scientists, not crazy people.

http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/funny-pictures-sad-white-kitten-bambi-mom.jpg

FlaGator
08-26-2008, 01:48 PM
And you know this how? Is it just a feeling? Or do you have some actual evidence - world wide evidence?


Oh yeah, keep in mind that my theological beliefs lean to the Calvinistic. That may explain my point of view ;)

LogansPapa
08-26-2008, 01:55 PM
Just because there is an outcry and there is some science to back it up doesn't mean that there is a problem. The outcry is hype and the science could be wrong. To err is human and scientific experiments are performed by humans and the results are interpreted by humans. Besides, have you taken a gander at the number of environmental laws that are in effect in the United States today? It would amaze you to realize the level of environmental control the government exerts over us and our businesses.


I (via my repair station) produce 50 pounds of nickel-chromium grind swarf each and every work day. I pay $600 a barrel to have it hauled away by a certified company - to a certified waste disposa sitel - under the auspices of the County of Orange, the State of California and the EPA.

Should I just slip it into the dumpster to be hauled off to the local landfill? :confused:

LogansPapa
08-26-2008, 01:58 PM
Oh yeah, keep in mind that my theological beliefs lean to the Calvinistic. That may explain my point of view ;)

* Special Note To Sonnabend: Please take note - this is how adults discuss things.

FlaGator
08-26-2008, 02:16 PM
I (via my repair station) produce 50 pounds of nickel-chromium grind swarf each and every work day. I pay $600 a barrel to have it hauled away by a certified company - to a certified waste disposa sitel - under the auspices of the County of Orange, the State of California and the EPA.

Should I just slip it into the dumpster to be hauled off to the local landfill? :confused:

I suppose that when you stop paying $600 a barrel to have it shipped off it's going to raise some eyebrows with the EPA and because I won't be able to correspond with you via the internet while you're in a California prision I would suggest that you keep getting it hauled away. Otherwise you might need a new screen name... "HectorsBitch" has a certain ring to it. Anyways, I hope that helps with the confusion a little.

LogansPapa
08-26-2008, 02:23 PM
Otherwise you might need a new screen name... "HectorsBitch" has a certain ring to it. Anyways, I hope that helps with the confusion a little.

* Screen spew funny. Going for paper towels.:D

wineslob
08-27-2008, 01:07 PM
There is no evidence that would convince you. Nothing. Half the Manhattan skyline could be under water within the decade and that wouldn’t convince you. Arrogance is fueling the global warming ignorance and childish denial, and our great-grandchildren will hate us for it.

Still stuck on stupid I see.

Co2 lags BEHIND global temp rise, which is caused by solar activity.

Prove me wrong.

The Night Owl
08-27-2008, 02:33 PM
Still stuck on stupid I see.

Co2 lags BEHIND global temp rise, which is caused by solar activity.

Prove me wrong.

As tempertures on Earth have been rising, solar irradiance has remained constant...

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

Prove the satellites wrong.

wineslob
08-27-2008, 03:25 PM
As tempertures on Earth have been rising, solar irradiance has remained constant...

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

Prove the satellites wrong.

You have ZERO understanding of the Sun. Solar Storms anyone? Sun Spots? Constant my ass.

If you spend the time watching this video in all it's parts, you'll understand the hoax being perpetrated on us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlSSwErKWQs&feature=related

The Night Owl
08-27-2008, 03:33 PM
You have ZERO understanding of the Sun. Solar Storms anyone? Sun Spots? Constant my ass.



I may not understand the Sun but many scientists do and according to some of them the Sun is not the cause of global warming...


Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News

September 13, 2006

Sunspots alter the amount of energy Earth gets from the sun, but not enough to impact global climate change, a new study suggests.

The sun's role in global warming has long been a matter of debate and is likely to remain a contentious topic.

Solar astronomer Peter Foukal of Heliophysics, Inc., in Nahant, Massachusetts, points out that scientists have pondered the link between the sun and Earth's climate since the time of Galileo, the famous 17th-century astronomer.

...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060913-sunspots.html


If you spend the time watching this video in all it's parts, you'll understand the hoax being perpetrated on us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlSSw...eature=related

I don't put much stock in conspiracy theories.

LogansPapa
08-27-2008, 03:33 PM
You have ZERO understanding of the Sun. Solar Storms anyone? Sun Spots? Constant my ass.

Yes, there are no regular solar cycles. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
08-27-2008, 05:57 PM
Yes, there are no regular solar cycles. :rolleyes:

Not when it comes to sun spots and solar flares.

You're missing the point. The climate alarmists assume that our current climate is the optimum for the planet, and that any change will be catastrophic. In fact, the Earth's climate has changed many times during the recorded history of mankind, forget the longterm geological record. The planet will continue to warm and continue to cool over the course of time, whether we do anything about it or not, because our impact on it is negligible. A single hurricane expends more energy than our combined nuclear arsenals could, and we have those by the dozen every year.

Chill out, Chicken Little, the sky will still be there tomorrow.

LogansPapa
08-27-2008, 06:02 PM
Not when it comes to sun spots and solar flares.
Chill out, Chicken Little, the sky will still be there tomorrow.

Sorry Odysseus, I was misinformed. I sincerely appologize. NASA retards.


http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

The Night Owl
08-27-2008, 06:40 PM
You're missing the point. The climate alarmists assume that our current climate is the optimum for the planet, and that any change will be catastrophic. In fact, the Earth's climate has changed many times during the recorded history of mankind, forget the longterm geological record. The planet will continue to warm and continue to cool over the course of time, whether we do anything about it or not, because our impact on it is negligible.

As a study cited in this very thread points out, climate change in the past has been catastrophic...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1731

Will the climate change going on now be catastrophic? No one really knows.

Odysseus
08-28-2008, 12:20 AM
As a study cited in this very thread points out, climate change in the past has been catastrophic...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1731
Will the climate change going on now be catastrophic? No one really knows.

Except that the link that you cite is only the first paragraph of a longer article, and since I don't have access, I can't evaluate whether the author's assumption, that drought helped stress the Mayan culture into its eventual collapse, has any validity. In fact, there are multiple theories as to why the Mayan civilization collapsed (88 distinct theories overall, according to one source), which include political conflicts, military defeats (Toltec incursions into the hub of Mayan civilization indicate a longstanding decline and inability to project power withing their borders), internal revolts or local environmental factors, or a combination of these. By the same token, Rome, which was also the epicenter of a great empire, collapsed rapidly in the imperial era, and there was no environmental cause, just social upheaval within and barbarian invasions.

And, the assumption that climate change is catastrophic doesn't bear scrutiny. The little ice age didn't hinder the Enlightenment, and the previous bout of warming heralded an age of exploration. On the other hand, the envionmentalists' remedies will be catastrophic. Reductions in our "carbon footprint" demanded by greens will destroy our economies, plunge billions of people into poverty and crush any semblance of freedom, all in the name of a catastrophe which may or may not be real, which you admit that you can't know.

I'll take my chances with the climate.

Nubs
08-28-2008, 06:04 AM
The 3 highest fields from which they got signatures in Sonnabend's petition thing: Engineering (7,289), Electrical Engineering (2,075) and Mechanical Engineering (2,581). Even more telling is only 40 climatalogists signed, 4th smallest total out of the 46 represented.

Worthless link.

Engineers could not possibly know how to interpret long term data???

Engineers don't know how to apply statistical analysis

wilbur
08-28-2008, 07:20 AM
Engineers could not possibly know how to interpret long term data???

Engineers don't know how to apply statistical analysis

Again, how bout next time you need surgery or a broken bone fixed, you go consult an engineer?

On top of that, the list was in response to my post saying that climatologists nearly unanimously agree that AGW is a real phenomenon. This list was presented as counter proof that climatologists don't have such a consensus. And as Eyelids pointed out, that is the lie.

Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_hypothesis.. it appears that the engineering profession in general seems to draw the kooks. ;)

How many times are people going to be lied to by their trusty right wing media before they admit their opinions are being shaped and molded by competing interests of the extreme-environmentalists? Recognizing this does not mean one has to agree with or side with the extreme-environmentalists. Black and white is a convenience we do not get most of the time.

wilbur
08-28-2008, 07:23 AM
Not when it comes to sun spots and solar flares.

You're missing the point. The climate alarmists assume that our current climate is the optimum for the planet, and that any change will be catastrophic.


Common myth, yet horribly wrong. We know the climate is optimum for our current way of life and that any drastic changes could be catastrophic for our way of life. At the heart of the global warming issue is not fuzzy little bunnies that we just don't want to see killed, the whales or the polar bears, its humanity.

Of course, if this thing ever blows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera) its all moot anyways ;P But till then...

Sonnabend
08-28-2008, 08:04 AM
How many times are people going to be lied to by their trusty left wing media before they admit their opinions are being shaped and molded by competing interests of the extreme-environmentalists?

Fixx0rd.:D

wineslob
08-28-2008, 01:45 PM
As a study cited in this very thread points out, climate change in the past has been catastrophic...

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/299/5613/1731

Will the climate change going on now be catastrophic? No one really knows.

And did we cause it? Can it be stopped?


OK, I'll make it simple, the Suns output does change, it heats or cools the oceans, which in turn changes how much CO2 the oceans will either absorb,or RELEASE. Got it?
The SUN has the greatest effect on our climate, not us.

LogansPapa
08-28-2008, 01:53 PM
The SUN has the greatest effect on our climate, not us.

Not really the issue at hand: The issue of being the 'tipping point' is.

wilbur
08-28-2008, 02:03 PM
And did we cause it? Can it be stopped?


OK, I'll make it simple, the Suns output does change, it heats or cools the oceans, which in turn changes how much CO2 the oceans will either absorb,or RELEASE. Got it?
The SUN has the greatest effect on our climate, not us.

Not quite so simple.... And the amount of C02 (and other gasses) dictates how much of the suns heat we will trap here on earth. "Greenhouse gasses" is not just a clever name... it has a meaning.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11650



How do we know? According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun’s heat.

The Night Owl
08-28-2008, 02:07 PM
And did we cause it?

Probably.


Can it be stopped?

Unknown.


OK, I'll make it simple, the Suns output does change, it heats or cools the oceans, which in turn changes how much CO2 the oceans will either absorb,or RELEASE. Got it?

That is just it. The Sun's output has been constant as temperatures have been increased. Moreover, if the Sun were the primary cause of global warming on Earth, then global warming should be observed on all the planets and moons in our solar system which have atmospheres.


The SUN has the greatest effect on our climate, not us.

I'm not claiming that the Sun has little or no effect on climate. What I'm claiming is that the Sun is not responsible for the climate change going on.

Nubs
08-28-2008, 04:58 PM
Again, how bout next time you need surgery or a broken bone fixed, you go consult an engineer

You miss the point dolt. Global warming theory is derived from the analysis of historical data. When data is analyzed by proper statistical methods, global warming is not proven.

wilbur
08-28-2008, 05:23 PM
You miss the point dolt. Global warming theory is derived from the analysis of historical data. When data is analyzed by proper statistical methods, global warming is not proven.

This just begs the question what you think of computerized climate models that predict global warming trends. I bet you'll throw out that statistical analysis real quick. And global warming isnt proven... it is simply strongly evidenced and extremely well supported.

Got any links to relevant papers/articles?

wilbur
08-28-2008, 05:49 PM
You miss the point dolt. Global warming theory is derived from the analysis of historical data. When data is analyzed by proper statistical methods, global warming is not proven.

Hmm, so far in my digging, I'm not finding much support for this idea: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/30711

LogansPapa
08-28-2008, 05:56 PM
So I’m guessing the ice cores taken in Antarctica over the last half century and the evidence therein is pure crap?

The Night Owl
08-28-2008, 09:50 PM
Hmm, so far in my digging, I'm not finding much support for this idea: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/30711

You're not supposed to actually look.

patriot45
08-28-2008, 10:40 PM
Three days now and no global warming! You guys can argue this for ten more years then you can start on global cooling again! Oh, then you will convienlantly blame the cooling on global warming!!! Gotta love the Moonbats!:D

patriot45
08-28-2008, 10:42 PM
Linda, disregard my spelling of- convienaintly, my bad.

wilbur
08-29-2008, 07:28 AM
Three days now and no global warming! You guys can argue this for ten more years then you can start on global cooling again! Oh, then you will convienlantly blame the cooling on global warming!!! Gotta love the Moonbats!:D

I've already pointed out your global cooling error. At this point its lying. You are wrong. I know its a favorite talking point of the extremist conservative media (El Rushbo)... but what more proof do you need? They lie. The proof is in the research. Read (for the second time) it and see how ignorant this little global cooling canard really is.

Read the PDF here:
The Myth of the 1970's Scientific Global Cooling Consensus (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)

In fact, the consensus in the 1970's actually seemed to predict *gasp*.... warming!

Sonnabend
08-29-2008, 07:35 AM
. The proof is in the research. Read (for the second time) it and see how ignorant this little global cooling canard really is.

No, it isn't. The "science" is not "settled" and there is no "consensus".

AGW is a myth.

wilbur
08-29-2008, 07:35 AM
No, it isn't. The "science" is not "settled" and there is no "consensus".

AGW is a myth.

You have no ability to actually follow a conversation do you?

FlaGator
08-29-2008, 07:43 AM
I've already pointed out your global cooling error. At this point its lying. You are wrong. I know its a favorite talking point of the extremist conservative media (El Rushbo)... but what more proof do you need? They lie. The proof is in the research. Read (for the second time) it and see how ignorant this little global cooling canard really is.

Read the PDF here:
The Myth of the 1970's Scientific Global Cooling Consensus (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf)

In fact, the consensus in the 1970's actually seemed to predict *gasp*.... warming!

For all pro research there is always counter research, so who's right? It seems that who ever does a study that happens to agree with one's predetermined conclusions is the one that is considered truthful and anything contrary is a lie (any yes Virginia there is "proof" to support either side). When you read stuff from either said you have to ask yourself who benefits by perpetuating the myth.

The Anti-argument (http://www.climatecooling.org/)

wilbur
08-29-2008, 07:48 AM
For all pro research there is always counter research, so who right? It seems that who ever does a study that happens to agree with one's predetermined conclusions is the one that is considered truthful and anything contrary is a lie (any yes Virginia there is "proof" to support either side). When you read stuff from either said you have to ask yourself who benefits by propetuating the myth.

The Anti-argument (http://www.climatecooling.org/)

I would believe the research that actually went through and looked at the peer reviewed scientific literature of the time.

Here's another article, extrapolating consensus based on peer reviewed work:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004

wilbur
08-29-2008, 08:11 AM
...snip...
When you read stuff from either said you have to ask yourself who benefits by perpetuating the myth.
...snip...


That is the truth:

US Climate Scientists Pressured on Climate Change (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html)



US scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change skepticism, a congressional committee heard on Tuesday 30 January. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.

"High-quality science [is] struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo, of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A UCS survey found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years in a total of at least 435 incidents.

"Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.

..snip..

FlaGator
08-29-2008, 08:13 AM
I would believe the research that actually went through and looked at the peer reviewed scientific literature of the time.

Here's another actual study, peer reviewed, extrapolating consensus based on peer reviewed work:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/306/5702/1686?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=oreskes&searchid=1103210845409_5389&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&fdate=10/1/1995&tdate=12/31/2004

Peer reviewed means little when all the peers have basically the same opinion before evaluating a paper, wouldn't you agree?

A lot of these debates have got me thinking lately as to why we believe what we believe. Whether it's global warming or faith or political points of view, we all seem to have an opinion that no amount of contrary evidence will change. Why is this? More importantly what causes us to select one side over the other in the beginning or what causes us to eventually settle on a point of view. I suspect it has little to do with actual facts because facts become meaningless when both sides are presenting facts to prove their case. Something deeper is at work here. We all seem to have a bias we are not aware of, that comes to the surface when we are making a choice between two points on the same issue and the bias causes us to stick to that conclusion no matter what. I suspect that it would take a snow in July for a couple of years in a row before you were convinced that global cooling was real. Likewise it would take a couple of years of sunbathing in January for a global cooling person to accept global warming. Even then I suspect we would look for some scientific loop hole to allow us to explain to others that what we are experiencing actually proves our point.... It is most interesting to think about this stuff.

FlaGator
08-29-2008, 08:17 AM
That is the truth:

US Climate Scientists Pressured on Climate Change (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11074-us-climate-scientists-pressured-on-climate-change.html)


And how do you know this is the truth other than you read it at a site you consider reputable and it tends to agree with a position you already hold? Do you have firsthand knowledge that those who maintain this site are not working with some sort of agenda and will publish information that is complimentary to their point of view while ignoring information that is less flattering?

Sonnabend
08-29-2008, 08:46 AM
"peer reviewed"
"truth to power"

...still bullshit.

The Night Owl
08-29-2008, 08:52 AM
No, it isn't. The "science" is not "settled" and there is no "consensus".

AGW is a myth.

This might help you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

The Night Owl
08-29-2008, 08:59 AM
Peer reviewed means little when all the peers have basically the same opinion before evaluating a paper, wouldn't you agree?


The peer review system is not perfect but it is the best system we have for assessing science. If you want to throw up your hands and give the same amount of consideration to everything written about global warming then go right ahead... but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Sonnabend
08-29-2008, 09:02 AM
Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance)

Leftist slanted, leftist edited, populated by warmeinistas.

Pass.

I'll give you cognitive dissonance: Definition: when you shove your hands over your ears anytime someone presents proof other than what you believe and you discount it because it is not "peer reviewed".

"Peer reviewed" = LALALALALA I cant heaaar youooooooo

The Night Owl
08-29-2008, 09:09 AM
I'll give you cognitive dissonance: Definition: when you shove your hands over your ears anytime someone presents proof other than what you believe and you discount it because it is not "peer reviewed".



I'm willing to listen to all opinions. What I'm not willing to do is to consider all opinions to be equally authoritative.

wilbur
08-29-2008, 09:15 AM
Peer reviewed means little when all the peers have basically the same opinion before evaluating a paper, wouldn't you agree?

But it should matter little what their opinion is, if they rigorously examine it scientifically. It does require a little trust on our part that they approach things honestly.



A lot of these debates have got me thinking lately as to why we believe what we believe. Whether it's global warming or faith or political points of view, we all seem to have an opinion that no amount of contrary evidence will change. Why is this?


I really didn't already agree with the global climate change thing. It's only in the past two years or so that I've gained interest in it. I was just as skeptical as most here, but in a disinterested sort of way... more from a lack of actually knowing anything about it, and hearing healthy doses of conservative media skepticism than being outright opposed to the idea. My opinion can (and has) changed on this issue... I strive to be intellectually honest enough for that to be the case with any issue.



More importantly what causes us to select one side over the other in the beginning or what causes us to eventually settle on a point of view. I suspect it has little to do with actual facts because facts become meaningless when both sides are presenting facts to prove their case. Something deeper is at work here. We all seem to have a bias we are not aware of, that comes to the surface when we are making a choice between two points on the same issue and the bias causes us to stick to that conclusion no matter what.


When it comes to scientific issues, I trust the scientific framework... indeed it is the only option. Quite every other method for 'gaining' knowledge has all it's flaws, but not all of its benefits. In other words, it sucks less.

Science gets things wrong no doubt about it. However, given the built in self-correcting mechanisms of the scientific method and peer review, we can be reasonably sure (as non-scientists) that the current scientific consensus on a well researched hypothesis/theory is the most likely the most reasonable position given the current body of knowledge, even though we know the theory or hypothesis is necessarily incomplete. At the very least, we know something might not be true, or only partly true, but there are well established, empirical, and rational reasons for the idea. Someone may be more correct, simply by guessing, but that is not knowledge... it is a faith based belief. However untrustworthy the scientists and the scientific method may be, faith based beliefs are worse. They suck more... at least in a universe that, as far as we can tell, operates by uniform rules.



I suspect that it would take a snow in July for a couple of years in a row before you were convinced that global cooling was real. Likewise it would take a couple of years of sunbathing in January for a global cooling person to accept global warming. Even then I suspect we would look for some scientific loop hole to allow us to explain to others that what we are experiencing actually proves our point.... It is most interesting to think about this stuff.

While we tend to start throwing around terms that would imply a personal position of certainty on issues like this, I wouldn't seriously take that position... its more of a laziness thing.. it gets to be to cumbersome to actually type out disclaimers before every sentence. I take the scientific position here... speak with certainty out of laziness, with the understood assumption that any fact or point is subject to revision in light of new knowledge. I have no personal attachment to AGW. I think it is the most probable explanation at this point, not incontrovertible fact. In fact, I think most, including myself, would prefer it, if it were junk science. However, if you are going to disagree with the scientific consensus, you better have some really good empirical evidence backing it up.

As it seems around here, the most anyone really has are lists of engineers, mcarthy-istic like cries of "socialist!", or the hysterical anti-hysteria stance.

AmPat
08-29-2008, 09:42 AM
So I'll ask it again;

What is the correct temperature of the earth?

There is evidence of great forests and running streams and rivers under the biggest desert on earth. Must have been Global warming due to the Flintstones' excessive dependance on Dinosaur poop. :rolleyes:

Sonnabend
08-29-2008, 09:43 AM
I'm willing to listen to all opinions. What I'm not willing to do is to consider all opinions to be equally authoritative.

.....All scientists are equal, but some are more equal than others. Specifically the ones that agree with you. All the ones that dont are not "peer reviewed".

http://pro.corbis.com/images/CB055846.jpg?size=572&uid={0A55A746-48AA-4A2A-B09C-18D162FC3CAA}

wilbur
08-29-2008, 09:54 AM
So I'll ask it again;
What is the correct temperature of the earth?


Again I'll tell you the question is irrelevant.

What is the optimum temperature at which we can sustain our current way of life?

AmPat
08-29-2008, 10:07 AM
Again I'll tell you the question is irrelevant.

What is the optimum temperature at which we can sustain our current way of life?
Why is the question irrelevant? Our current way of life is not being threatened by a few hundreths of a degree so why is your question more relevant than mine? We have had a general heating of the earth for thousands of years yet man thrives, just ask China and India.

If man is changing the earth's temp-
If the USA does something to change/reverse the effects-
What will the other countrys do?

Answer= They will step in and scarf up all the newly available oil and spew the exhaust into the atmosphere. The point is that if all the hoopla surrounding GW is correct, the whole world would have to make the same changes or the net gain will be worse than zero.

wilbur
08-29-2008, 10:26 AM
Why is the question irrelevant? Our current way of life is not being threatened by a few hundreths of a degree so why is your question more relevant than mine?


What is the correct color of the earth? It's a question with no answer, nor is it useful to us in anyway. There is certainly a range of temperatures at which this giant ball of rock currently known as earth can maintain its form. There is certainly a much smaller range of temperatures at which we can survive. An even tinier range of temperatures at which we can live that won't massively disrupt economies, and civilizations all over the planet. Very tiny. The speed of any change of temperature (within our livable range) will of course impact the severity of any disruption it may cause.



We have had a general heating of the earth for thousands of years yet man thrives, just ask China and India.


Surviving and surviving well are two different things.



If man is changing the earth's temp-
If the USA does something to change/reverse the effects-
What will the other countrys do?


A good and fair question.



Answer= They will step in and scarf up all the newly available oil and spew the exhaust into the atmosphere. The point is that if all the hoopla surrounding GW is correct, the whole world would have to make the same changes or the net gain will be worse than zero.

Then we need to figure out a way to scoop the C02 out... or some other solution. The solution isnt denial.

AmPat
08-29-2008, 12:31 PM
What is the correct color of the earth? It's a question with no answer, nor is it useful to us in anyway. There is certainly a range of temperatures at which this giant ball of rock currently known as earth can maintain its form. There is certainly a much smaller range of temperatures at which we can survive. An even tinier range of temperatures at which we can live that won't massively disrupt economies, and civilizations all over the planet. Very tiny. The speed of any change of temperature (within our livable range) will of course impact the severity of any disruption it may cause.
Surviving and surviving well are two different things.
A good and fair question.

Then we need to figure out a way to scoop the C02 out... or some other solution. The solution isnt denial.
The point I am attempting to make is that we don't know what the average temperature is supposed to be. Are we now seeing a correction for climate that has been too cool? Are we in a cycle that will reverse next year? Will the next ten years show us a trend toward cooler climate? Are the theories supporting global warming more correct than those supporting global cooling?

Our ancestors didn't write the average daily temps on the cave walls so history is rather sparse in this area.

LogansPapa
08-29-2008, 12:47 PM
Our ancestors didn't write the average daily temps on the cave walls so history is rather sparse in this area.

And with sensor technology, data entry, and storage becoming astoundingly cheap in the present - future science will be able to gauge our planet’s weather cycles to an accuracy only dreamed about now. The evidence, for one position or the other is there - we just can't see it yet.

AmPat
08-29-2008, 12:59 PM
And with sensor technology, data entry, and storage becoming astoundingly cheap in the present - future science will be able to gauge our planet’s weather cycles to an accuracy only dreamed about now. The evidence, for one position or the other is there - we just can't see it yet.

If the evidence is there, we should be able to see it. If we are around a sufficient amount of time to gather meaningful data, we are obviously not in danger of extinction.:cool:

We cannot validate the present and future average temps against a historical constant. What is the right temperature?

LogansPapa
08-29-2008, 01:06 PM
What is the right temperature?

What will you do with it - once you obtain this knowledge?

Sounds like the question: How many angels can fit on the head of a pin? Just might be silly.:rolleyes:

If evolution has taught us anything - the right temperature is whatever we and other species can adapt to. But that takes a great deal of time, sometimes - and if you’ll recall the story of the frog in a boiling pot of water - we might have, via our ignorance of where we live, already crossed the line.

The Night Owl
08-29-2008, 01:08 PM
We cannot validate the present and future average temps against a historical constant. What is the right temperature?

Scientists have temperature record reconstructions going back thousands of years.

FlaGator
08-29-2008, 01:12 PM
The peer review system is not perfect but it is the best system we have for assessing science. If you want to throw up your hands and give the same amount of consideration to everything written about global warming then go right ahead... but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Since I am not a climatologist, my opinion is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things as is yours. You may feel that you opinion has more weight than others but you’d be wrong about this. If anyone is taking either of our opinions seriously or basing their decisions on what we think I have to question their critical thinking skills. You and I are just disseminating information that we acquired from others who did the same thing. We merely have opinions based on which set of facts we choose to believe. The choice of facts we make is based on some biased point of view that we harbored before any concept of climate change entered our mine. If you choose not to believe this then don’t be surprised if a lot of people don’t take you seriously

As for the peer review process, one can only put faith in it if contains a cross section of beliefs which is not the case for the issue of global warming. Because of that any research that they put their seal of approval on is suspect. How many articles have been peer reviewed and published that were later determined to be dead wrong? Many of Fred Hoyle’s articles for the steady state theory of the universe where peer reviewed and yet we now believe that the big bang theory is the correct theory.

wilbur
08-29-2008, 01:14 PM
If the evidence is there, we should be able to see it. If we are around a sufficient amount of time to gather meaningful data, we are obviously not in danger of extinction.:cool:


Extinction? I think it would take a lot. Hardships, and unpleasantness? Thats a lot easier.



We cannot validate the present and future average temps against a historical constant. What is the right temperature?

We can validate present temperatures vs historical ones to a sufficient degree a long ways back, by our standards. We can also detect spikes and major up or downswings of global temperatures in the past. The upswing in the late 20th century was unprecedented.

I don't advocate catastrophism or hysteria, but I do advocate action on our part, but not at the expense of liberties or our ability to maintain our status as economic leader of the world.

AmPat
08-29-2008, 01:23 PM
Extinction? I think it would take a lot. Hardships, and unpleasantness? Thats a lot easier.



We can validate present temperatures vs historical ones to a sufficient degree a long ways back, by our standards. We can also detect spikes and major up or downswings of global temperatures in the past. The upswing in the late 20th century was unprecedented.

I don't advocate catastrophism or hysteria, but I do advocate action on our part, but not at the expense of liberties or our ability to maintain our status as economic leader of the world.
We're not that far off philosophically. I too believe we should be proactive and responsible with all our resources. I don't have much patience with enviro-whackos.

The Night Owl
08-29-2008, 01:28 PM
How many articles have been peer reviewed and published that were later determined to be dead wrong? Many of Fred Hoyle’s articles for the steady state theory of the universe where peer reviewed and yet we now believe that the big bang theory is the correct theory.

It goes without saying that accepted science can always be overturned by some new discovery but science which has been subjected to professional scrutiny is usually more trustworthy than science which has not been subjected to professional scrutiny.

LogansPapa
08-29-2008, 01:30 PM
"Belief" in a theory in the scientific community is analogous with a "Subscription" to same. Us commoners are put off by the latter and "Belief" is what we more readily relate to: Hence Joe Public’s perspective that all scientists are "Eggheads", ego driven and pompous.

Reference Curtis LeMay’s opinions of Robert Oppenheimer prior to the "Gadget" actually working.;)

FlaGator
08-29-2008, 01:33 PM
But it should matter little what their opinion is, if they rigorously examine it scientifically. It does require a little trust on our part that they approach things honestly.

I tend to read a lot about any particular subject that interests me and then I determine what I believe to be true. I also understand that I have biases that predispose me to certain views over others.



I really didn't already agree with the global climate change thing. It's only in the past two years or so that I've gained interest in it. I was just as skeptical as most here, but in a disinterested sort of way... more from a lack of actually knowing anything about it, and hearing healthy doses of conservative media skepticism than being outright opposed to the idea. My opinion can (and has) changed on this issue... I strive to be intellectually honest enough for that to be the case with any issue.

I accept as fact that there is climate change going on. I don't believe that it is a man made crisis and I don't believe that we are the tipping point either. The odds are greatly against the fact that we just happen to be so close to the imaginary edge of some unknown value that our contribution will cause the climate change to be substantially worse than what it is going to be any ways.



When it comes to scientific issues, I trust the scientific framework... indeed it is the only option. Quite every other method for 'gaining' knowledge has all it's flaws, but not all of its benefits. In other words, it sucks less.

Science gets things wrong no doubt about it. However, given the built in self-correcting mechanisms of the scientific method and peer review, we can be reasonably sure (as non-scientists) that the current scientific consensus on a well researched hypothesis/theory is the most likely the most reasonable position given the current body of knowledge, even though we know the theory or hypothesis is necessarily incomplete. At the very least, we know something might not be true, or only partly true, but there are well established, empirical, and rational reasons for the idea. Someone may be more correct, simply by guessing, but that is not knowledge... it is a faith based belief. However untrustworthy the scientists and the scientific method may be, faith based beliefs are worse. They suck more... at least in a universe that, as far as we can tell, operates by uniform rules.

There are self correcting mechanisms in scientific research. Unfortunately only time gives us the true answer to any scientific issue. We make assumptions and base policy and actions on the often incomplete data at hand and only later find out how wrong our scientists got it. The peer review process only tells us that something is possible and makes logical sense. It doesn't tell us if it is true or no. Unicorns are possible their existence doesn't contradict logic. That doesn't change the fact that they aren't real.



While we tend to start throwing around terms that would imply a personal position of certainty on issues like this, I wouldn't seriously take that position... its more of a laziness thing.. it gets to be to cumbersome to actually type out disclaimers before every sentence. I take the scientific position here... speak with certainty out of laziness, with the understood assumption that any fact or point is subject to revision in light of new knowledge. I have no personal attachment to AGW. I think it is the most probable explanation at this point, not incontrovertible fact. In fact, I think most, including myself, would prefer it, if it were junk science. However, if you are going to disagree with the scientific consensus, you better have some really good empirical evidence backing it up.

As it seems around here, the most anyone really has are lists of engineers, mcarthy-istic like cries of "socialist!", or the hysterical anti-hysteria stance.

Man isn't perfect and is often prone to error, especial when his emotions and biases come in to play. It's hard to know what is true and what is misinterpretation of facts. I tend to believe scientists, but when things are as up in the air as they are about climate change I tend to hold a skeptical attitude about what is being told to me.