PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Assumptions



wilbur
08-29-2008, 09:23 AM
It is pretty damn near impossible to take a particular stance on this issue, without people lumping all kinds of other baggage on top of you, assuming other things as well. If you agree with AGW (anthropogenic global warming, man-made) you get branded a socialist. If you disagree with AGW you are a brainless ditto head.

But lets prove each other wrong... so here is my take:


Humans contribute significantly to GW.
I do not endorse extreme environmentalists
I do not endorse the Bush administrations transparent corporatist anti-environmentalist policies.
We need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, discover clean energy for a number of reasons, AGW among them.
Government intervention into climate change will probably help, but it must be within our guiding principles.. not socialism in disguise.
AGW is a well supported scientific theory, even if some go beyond the science and use it to further an unrelated agenda.
Accepting AGW as likely does not commit you to any of those agendas.
AGW deniers are fueled by a hefty amount of disinformation. Look no further than this thread (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=3530) for some firsthand evidence. Obviously false canards that get trotted out, refuted then trotted out again.
If AGW is true, the US needs to do something NOW to develop clean and cheaper energy, or as the rest of the world starts to industrialize, it will start to dwarf the US contributions to AGW.
Global warming denial is part of a larger, extremely disturbing trend: the right wing war on science and any form of intellectualism. Partly fueled by conflicts with religion.


Post your own list, or comments...

Sonnabend
08-29-2008, 09:38 AM
Humans contribute significantly to GW. No.
I do not endorse extreme environmentalists. You're a liberal.All extreme enviros are leftists.
I do not endorse the Bush administrations transparent corporatist anti-environmentalist policies...and?
We need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, discover clean energy for a number of reasons, AGW among them. AGW is a lie. The rest, yes
Government intervention into climate change will probably help, but it must be within our guiding principles.. not socialism in disguise. The most dangerous phrase in the world is "I am from the government and I am here to help" - Reagan
AGW is a well supported scientific theory, even if some go beyond the science and use it to further an unrelated agenda. Horseshit. That's the meme being pushed, not the truth. The truth is that AGW is an unproven theory, there is no "consensus" and a lot of natural phenomena are being put down to "global warming".There is warming on Mars. Oh wait....
Accepting AGW as likely does not commit you to any of those agendas. Wrong.
AGW deniers are fueled by a hefty amount of disinformation. Ah i see....so now we are "ignorant" Look no further than this thread (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=3530) for some firsthand evidence. Obviously false canards that get trotted out, refuted then trotted out again.
If AGW is true, the US needs to do something NOW to develop clean and cheaper energy, or as the rest of the world starts to industrialize, it will start to dwarf the US contributions to AGW. Yes.IF. a huge , massive IF.
Global warming denial is part of a larger, extremely disturbing trend. The right is engaged in a war on science, partly fueled by conflicts with religion. Ordinary people who are neither right nor left tend to keep their own counsel, do not like it or appreciate it when leftists try to squelch debate in favour of "consensus" and NO ONE makes up my mind for me. If you want me to listen to you, it might help to a/ treat me as if I had a mind of my own AND AS AN EQUAL , b/ I am not some kind of religious nut, religion has jack shit to do with this and c / this whole "they are stupid so we must educate them" comes from the Hillary Clinton playbook. "It takes a village"

I am asked if I "believe " in AGW.

No I dont..I also dont believe in the Sasquatch, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of the garden.

If you are asked to "believe" then its a religion, not science.

I do a job that is far more complex than you can imagine, deal with the law and its issues every day, handle complex issues both on a technical and personal basis every day, and do NOT take kindly to being belittled, denigrated, patronised as an "uneducated fool" simply because after making up my own mind, being an educated, highly intelligent adult, I don't buy into your fucking Chicken Little Doomsday scenario.

Does THAT answer your question?

wilbur
08-29-2008, 10:05 AM
I am asked if I "believe " in AGW.

No I dont..I also dont believe in the Sasquatch, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of the garden.

If you are asked to "believe" then its a religion, not science.


Its a matter of convention. Obviously a mistake on someones part to assume you have the smarts to discern the difference between accepting a faith based proposition and accepting a scientific theory as probable based on common usages of the word 'belief'. I think you do have the smarts though.. your just being intellectually dishonest.

And besides, if it were religion, wouldnt that give it some special constitutional protections? I don't think you want that do you? ;)



I do a job that is far more complex than you can imagine, deal with the law and its issues every day, handle complex issues both on a technical and personal basis every day, and do NOT take kindly to being belittled, denigrated, patronised as an "uneducated fool" simply because after making up my own mind, being an educated, highly intelligent adult, I don't buy into your fucking Chicken Little Doomsday scenario.

Does THAT answer your question?

Good grief. You get insulted and belittled because you cast the first stones you tool. You do what you accuse me of more than any other person on this board.

We can find plenty of smart people that believe any number of dumb things. In fact, your whole position that AGW is a myth is based on that idea. So forgive me if I think it plausible that you of all people have your facts wrong... I am not a scientist, but a fairly well read for a lay person.. From what I can tell, it doesnt look like you can say the same.

Sonnabend
08-29-2008, 11:00 AM
Its a matter of convention. No. Science is precision and fact.If you cannot mean what you say, then you cannot say what you mean.

"Believe" is not science and it is not convention.


Obviously a mistake on someones part to assume you have the smarts to discern the difference between accepting a faith based proposition and accepting a scientific theory as probable based on common usages of the word 'belief'.Ah I see...belittling me again and calling me "ignorant". What's next...telling me that I am a Holocaust denier as well?

You expect me to be more receptive, or less? Treating me like a fool is not the way to get my attention.


I think you do have the smarts though.. your just being intellectually dishonest. Language is as precise a tool as is any scientific instrument. Use it wisely.


And besides, if it were religion, wouldnt that give it some special constitutional protections? I don't think you want that do you? ;)No, because I am an Australian we dont worry about your Constitution, because it means jack shit outside your borders.


Good grief. You get insulted and belittled because you cast the first stones you tool. You do what you accuse me of more than any other person on this board. Read back over your own comments, and tell me just how patronising you sound. How many times is it now you've called me stupid because I wont fall into line?

I dont walk in lockstep with ANYONE. Hasnt that percolated through that thick skull of yours yet?


We can find plenty of smart people that believe any number of dumb thingsLike AGW
.

In fact, your whole position that AGW is a myth is based on that idea.
It is based on my own reading and study,. which leads me to the conclusion it is a lie.


So forgive me if I think it plausible that you of all people have your facts wrong.That is an opinion. Yours. You are welcome to it.


I am not a scientist, but a fairly well read for a lay person.. From what I can tell, it doesnt look like you can say the same.I am a fully qualified and licensed commercial agent, with at least three certifications over five years, I have at least two other trade qualifications and the experience to back it up, fifteen years or so in the emergency services, have a massive library and am the son of a noted poet and writer.

You started this thread with the title Global Warming Assumptions.

Here's a tip. When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

Here's another piece of friendly advice. Don't talk down to people. All you do in the process is prove what a smug, superior prat you can be.

The Night Owl
08-29-2008, 11:16 AM
"Believe" is not science and it is not convention.

Generally, when scientists say that they believe a theory what they mean is that they are convinced that the theory is supported by sufficient evidence.

wilbur
08-29-2008, 12:40 PM
No. Science is precision and fact.If you cannot mean what you say, then you cannot say what you mean.

"Believe" is not science and it is not convention.


Its the English language. Because some people use imprecise language in every day conversation and debate doesn't make your conclusion that global warming is a religion sound. A flippant condescending response is the only response this type of argument deserves frankly. It's a little tired having to explain something that should be obvious to a fourth grader, over and over again.

The stupid part is, if you look back at this post I mostly agree that the wacko's have elevated it to a religion: http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showpost.php?p=36888&postcount=5

The deniars have largely done the same. Unfortunately, I don't think many read most of that post, they just don't immediately hear the words "Global warming is a lie!" and start throwing around the accusations and meme's.


Ah I see...belittling me again and calling me "ignorant". What's next...telling me that I am a Holocaust denier as well?

Stubbornly hinging your argument on an obvious inconsequential technicality deserves nothing less. If you want to argue that many have elevated environmentalism and AGW to a level of religiosity I wont disagree. I would also add the AGW contrarians have done the same. If you want to say the science behind climatology and AGW is religion, you need an actual argument. The world belief as used commonly does not do it. If some left wing extreme enviro-religionists and some opportunistic socialists try to drum up hysteria over AGW doesn't invalidate the science behind it all.



You expect me to be more receptive, or less? Treating me like a fool is not the way to get my attention.

Language is as precise a tool as is any scientific instrument. Use it wisely.

Read back over your own comments, and tell me just how patronising you sound. How many times is it now you've called me stupid because I wont fall into line?


I try very hard not to be, but I do return it in kind.



I am a fully qualified and licensed commercial agent, with at least three certifications over five years, I have at least two other trade qualifications and the experience to back it up, fifteen years or so in the emergency services, have a massive library and am the son of a noted poet and writer.




Thats great. Good for you.



You started this thread with the title Global Warming Assumptions.

Here's a tip. When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me.

And as evidenced by your replies, you are still making them.

I am not a liberal, but I'm sure it makes it easier for you to be dismissive of whatever I say by automatically categorizing me as one. Accepting the plausibility of a well supported scientific theory does not make one a liberal. Not buying into social conservatism does not make one a liberal.
I do not want to squelch debate in the name of consensus. However, there is a time when opposing arguments have been thoroughly refuted and they should be tabled.



Here's another piece of friendly advice. Don't talk down to people. All you do in the process is prove what a smug, superior prat you can be.

http://www.ratemyeverything.net/image/6214/0/Pot_Calling_the_Kettle_Black_T-Shirt.ashx

Bongo55
08-29-2008, 12:43 PM
You know its funny in the 70's these same enviro whack jobs told us another ice age was just around the corner......well what happened JACK SHIT thats what happened.

Then come the 90's and all of the sudden its GW, same crap in a slick new package.
Every time there is a major climatic event ie a bad hurricane season they all point and say, see, see we told you so. then for the next few years nothing, barely a hard rain. during that time we herd nary a peep out of said nut jobs. Why?

Heard anything lately about the Ozone layer?....no, me either thats because it started to shrink.
Maybe these things are cyclic events.

Do I hate the planet? Of course not.
Do I want bad things to happen to people? Well maybe the libs. :)
I want clean air & water who doesn't? but a little rational thought would go a long ways on this issue.

The wack jobs have managed to tie researchers funds to their support of their cockamamie ideas and it seems to have be successful, for a time but it appears as though the worm is starting to turn yet again.
So what do they do. They repackage it again and call it Climate Change.

I'm of the opinion that this planet can shake us off any time she wants, like a dog with a bad case of fleas.

Rant mode off

The Night Owl
08-29-2008, 01:03 PM
You know its funny in the 70's these same enviro whack jobs told us another ice age was just around the corner......well what happened JACK SHIT thats what happened.

I don't know what "enviro whackjobs" were doing in the 1970s but there is no evidence that scientists during that decade predicted an ice age approaching. But don't take my word for anything. Try finding peer reviewed scientific studies from the 1970s predicting an ice age. You won't find them because they don't exist.

LogansPapa
08-29-2008, 01:16 PM
Regarding the crazies in the 70ís and their statements about what might happen: Human Nature, people. The same was said about the 17 m.p.h. break-neck speed of the first passenger train, where it was said that "The air will surely be sucked from ones lungs if it were to go any faster."

Just compare a calculator of the 70ís to something you can buy at Wal-Mart for $5.00 today. That will give you some clue as to where technology is taking our data mining capability.

Do environmental scientists guard their salaries with dire predictions? Some do, sure. Again: Human Nature. But, eventually, theyíre found out, exposed and publicly humiliated.

FlaGator
08-29-2008, 01:36 PM
I don't know what "enviro whackjobs" were doing in the 1970s but there is no evidence that scientists during that decade predicted an ice age approaching. But don't take my word for anything. Try finding peer reviewed scientific studies from the 1970s predicting an ice age. You won't find them because they don't exist.

No, they were predicting either the oil to run and we were in a lot of trouble or there would be overpopulation and we'd be in a lot of trouble. (lot of trouble = end of world as we know it)

Bongo55
08-29-2008, 01:47 PM
I don't know what "enviro whackjobs" were doing in the 1970s but there is no evidence that scientists during that decade predicted an ice age approaching. But don't take my word for anything. Try finding peer reviewed scientific studies from the 1970s predicting an ice age. You won't find them because they don't exist.

Well then why did the MSM at the time, spout off in the same manor that they do today about GW then.
Here are two articles one by time mag and the other by Newsweek. in them they often mention scientists and other "experts" in the same mannor that they do today I must repeat.

Not to mention I never claimed the sky is falling claims made in the 70's were made by peer reviewed papers and reports. Not to mention some of todays GW scientific papers are also failing to pass "peer review"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/72481?tid=relatedcl

http://neoconexpress.blogspot.com/2007/02/time-like-newsweek-predicted-iceage-in.html#

The Night Owl
08-29-2008, 02:18 PM
Not to mention I never claimed the sky is falling claims made in the 70's were made by peer reviewed papers and reports.


I know. I just want to make sure you understand that those 1970s predictions of a coming ice age did not have widespread support in the scientific community of the time. AGW does have widespread support in the scientific community now.

Bongo55
08-29-2008, 02:33 PM
No Worries

aerojarod
08-29-2008, 02:57 PM
Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman

(an excerpt...)

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html


There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankindís activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call ďInterglacial periodsĒ. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called natureís global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980ís and 1990ís as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, whereís the global warming?


Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.

[A one foot square cube]...contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It canít. Thatís all there is to it; it canít.

wilbur
08-29-2008, 03:09 PM
The sun.... last refuge of global warming denialists.....

Tired of refuting it. It's only been done now about 20 times between these few GW threads.

Not gonna last for much longer anyways before you'll have to move on to something else.

aerojarod
08-29-2008, 03:20 PM
The sun.... last refuge of global warming denialists.....

Tired of refuting it. It's only been done now about 20 times between these few GW threads now.

Not gonna last for much longer anyways before you'll have to move on to something else.

No srsly u guyz, that massive nuclear fireball in the sky has nothing to do with how warm the earth gets.
It's totally all the Hummerz and stuff.

And we should totally wrek our economy and immediatly stop burnign all fossil fuelz that make co2's cuz we're the biggest polluters of the earth (besides the earth itself that is, with all those insignificant volcanic gasses, sea vents, methane producing swamps & bogs).

Oh, and nevermidn that developing the means for clean energies are going to rely on CONVENTIONAL factories and fossil fuels. But we shouldnt' drill at home cuz the middle east is so stable and friendly that they will TOTALLY help us out to get off THEIR oil by giving us some at a reasonable price.

de de deee

wilbur
08-29-2008, 03:36 PM
No srsly u guyz, that massive nuclear fireball in the sky has nothing to do with how warm the earth gets.
It's totally all the Hummerz and stuff.

And we should totally wrek our economy and immediatly stop burnign all fossil fuelz that make co2's cuz we're the biggest polluters of the earth (besides the earth itself that is, with all those insignificant volcanic gasses, sea vents, methane producing swamps & bogs).


You obviously havent read a word of this thread. Honestly what is with all these no post count newbies coming out of the woodworks in the global warming threads spouting the same crap we've already gone over and refuted?

Whether global warming is real or not has nothing to do with politics. Try reading... its good for you.



Oh, and nevermidn that developing the means for clean energies are going to rely on CONVENTIONAL factories and fossil fuels. But we shouldnt' drill at home cuz the middle east is so stable and friendly that they will TOTALLY help us out to get off THEIR oil by giving us some at a reasonable price.

de de deee

Whether global warming is real or not has nothing to do with the middle east. Try reading... its good for you.

4jacks
08-29-2008, 04:04 PM
YEAH!!! Ozone Depletion !!!

Oh wait, what is the topic?

The Night Owl
08-29-2008, 04:13 PM
No srsly u guyz, that massive nuclear fireball in the sky has nothing to do with how warm the earth gets.


Satellite measurements of solar output indicate that irradiance has remained constant for the past few decades. If you want serious people to believe that the Sun is causing global warming then you have to explain why temperatures on Earth have risen while solar irradiance has remained constant. Good luck explaining that.

aerojarod
08-29-2008, 04:21 PM
You obviously havent read a word of this thread. Honestly what is with all these no post count newbies coming out of the woodworks in the global warming threads spouting the same crap we've already gone over and refuted?

Whether global warming is real or not has nothing to do with politics. Try reading... its good for you.



Whether global warming is real or not has nothing to do with the middle east. Try reading... its good for you.

Typical: Dismiss my claims as already refuted and resort to insults. Nice sandbox you have here.

Try connecting the dots between supposed science, politics, and business sometime.. YOU might like it.

I agree with you; whether GW is happening or not should be a purely scientific issue.
Unfortunately though, whether it is Anthropogenic man-made or not, and what to do in response has EVERYTHING to do with politics.

If you've read anything Czech president Klaus has had to say on the issue you should concede that left leaning politicians have essentially tripped over themselves to call and end to the AGW debate and declare a supposed "consensus" on the matter.

Their motivations for doing so are suspect, and in my opinion it's all fear mongering for the purpose of a massive power grab and socialization of industry and world economies through regulation.
Not to defend fear mongering in any form, but at least the neo-cons had difinitive proof in the Sept 11 attacks that Islamic Fundementalism was a real threat that needed immediate action.

All the warmists have to go on is naturally fluctuating climate patterns. Al Gore grossly exaggerated his claims in Inconvenient Truth. The IPCC has revised their figures several times since Gore's alarmist propaganda came out. In Great Britain, their courts of law have deemed similar films unscientific in their claims. The science is not settled. And if and when it is, I doubt we'll find that GW is as big a problem as we think.

I'm all for protecting the environment, reducing fossil fuel dependence, and a HUGE supporter of biofuels.
But what I am not is a naive alarmist, and I will NOT be thrown into a panic over a gradual, natural, subtle change in climate.

The polar bears will be here long after we're gone I suspect.

Let's not get carried away.

Gingersnap
08-29-2008, 05:32 PM
One of the differences between the current GW discussions and the previous "little ice age" alarmism is that the nature of scientific funding has changed a lot. In the 1970s, most (but not all) research dollars went to generally basic research goals. A lot of the money (but not all) was essentially blind: here's a million bucks to study the application of soy as a food source for humans. The grant pool was a lot smaller back then and competition was a lot keener.

As a result, relatively few projects were funded and relatively little mention of the research was made in the media.

Today, everything is changed. Governments and corporations compete to offer research dollars to an enormous number of projects. Scientists compete avidly for these dollars. The peer review process has been changed by the proliferation of publications which have attained status as seminal journals. When it comes to GW, all of these factors have achieved a sort of "perfect storm". GW has become nothing less than super-funded global industry. The sheer amount of money pouring into the research is staggering but a lot of that money is tied to government interests (and to some influential corporate interests). There is a lot of fame and glory for sale right now and people who work in science are just as susceptible to career ambition and recognition as anyone else. Back when, this ambition didn't get much past the journals but now it can feed on a number of very gratifying sources. Add to this the Internet and the 24/7 news-cycle that makes even error-riddled research "newsworthy" (for a minute) and you have a very different environment from the 70s.

Science, politics, and a media-driven alarmism have changed everything. Science was never a simon-pure effort; it has always been driven by social and political whips but it's worse in some ways today. Working in environmental science, I am all too aware of these pressures.

What I've said has no bearing on the arguments for or against GW and I don't intend it to have any but these are points worth keeping in mind. ;)

LogansPapa
08-29-2008, 06:07 PM
Science, politics, and a media-driven alarmism have changed everything. Science was never a simon-pure effort; it has always been driven by social and political whips but it's worse in some ways today. Working in environmental science, I am all too aware of these pressures.

What I've said has no bearing on the arguments for or against GW and I don't intend it to have any but these are points worth keeping in mind. ;)

Right - it's that human nature thing again. Somebody's rice bowl gets filled - taking rice from the group. ;)

The Night Owl
08-30-2008, 06:21 PM
There is a lot of fame and glory for sale right now and people who work in science are just as susceptible to career ambition and recognition as anyone else.

There is fame and glory to be had for people who can overturn the mainstream view on global warming.

Constitutionally Speaking
09-01-2008, 10:13 PM
I don't know what "enviro whackjobs" were doing in the 1970s but there is no evidence that scientists during that decade predicted an ice age approaching. But don't take my word for anything. Try finding peer reviewed scientific studies from the 1970s predicting an ice age. You won't find them because they don't exist.

Not really. They just never made it to the internet.

wineslob
09-02-2008, 04:10 PM
There is fame and glory to be had for people who can overturn the mainstream view on global warming.

REALLY? Pray tell, why is it that ANYONE who defies the GlowBalls Warming meme, is threatened, told to shut up, informed of the "consensus" and how dare they buck the system?
The money is in the BELIEF system of Glowballs Warming. No belief, no money.

Show me MORE than one reliable study that shows there is no correlation between the Sun's output, sunspot activity and the warming and cooling of the oceans, which in turn effect atmosphereic CO2 levels.

gator
09-02-2008, 04:30 PM
I don't know what "enviro whackjobs" were doing in the 1970s but there is no evidence that scientists during that decade predicted an ice age approaching. But don't take my word for anything. Try finding peer reviewed scientific studies from the 1970s predicting an ice age. You won't find them because they don't exist.

There was quite a bit of talk in the 1960s and the 1970s about the coming Ice Age. Just because you can't find the discussion with a quick search of Google doesn't mean it didn't happen. Being an Environmental Engineer I remember discussing it in class while in college and reading articles in the scientific publications. Because the ice age didn't happen the discussion fizzled out then like it is starting to do now with global warming.

Another ice age will come. It is just a matter of time. We are in an interglacial warming period right now.

I also remember a flurry of discussion on it in the mid 1980s. It was very cold in North America for a couple of winters and the subject was revisited in the scientific community.

Climate changes on earth all the time because it is complex. Humans have survived when it is warmer than it is now and they have survived when it was colder. It is called adaptation.

If there are any humans on earth that think they can maintain the earth at some optimal temperature level by government action then they are just plain stupid.

wilbur
09-02-2008, 06:08 PM
REALLY? Pray tell, why is it that ANYONE who defies the GlowBalls Warming meme, is threatened, told to shut up, informed of the "consensus" and how dare they buck the system?
The money is in the BELIEF system of Glowballs Warming. No belief, no money.


Gee, there is absolutely nobody out there who has an interest in making sure AGW denial stays strong. Nobody with anything to gain at all, by ensuring AGW denial is pervasive. Nobody with anything to lose if AGW theory takes root, and informs policy and consumers.

It's all the crazy libs and their agenda! The ferocious, tenacious religiosity of the global warming denial mythology couldn't possibly be fueled and encouraged by powerful parties with their own agenda, no sir.

:rolleyes:



Show me MORE than one reliable study that shows there is no correlation between the Sun's output, sunspot activity and the warming and cooling of the oceans, which in turn effect atmosphereic CO2 levels.

There is a correlation between the sun's temperature and the Earth's... no one has said different. It just hasnt been enough.

The Night Owl
09-02-2008, 06:08 PM
Show me MORE than one reliable study that shows there is no correlation between the Sun's output, sunspot activity and the warming and cooling of the oceans, which in turn effect atmosphereic CO2 levels.

Recent studies...


Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature


Abstract

There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth's pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/h844264320314105/?p=bb44c242405242ffad0ac7f7d72e6e6e&pi=1


No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics


Abstract

A study has confirmed that there are no grounds to blame the Sun for recent global warming. The analysis shows that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html


Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover


Abstract

A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/


Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climate


Abstract

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html

Articles...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=no-sunshine-for-global-wa
http://domino.lancs.ac.uk/Info/lunews.nsf/I/379EA8ED6EEDCA9C802574200040411A

Yeah, I think we can put the solar explanation for global warming to bed.

The Night Owl
09-02-2008, 06:15 PM
There was quite a bit of talk in the 1960s and the 1970s about the coming Ice Age.

I know that warnings of a coming Ice Age were prevalent in the popular press of the 1970s. What I'm saying is that those warnings didn't have a lot of support in the scientific community.


Just because you can't find the discussion with a quick search of Google doesn't mean it didn't happen. Being an Environmental Engineer I remember discussing it in class while in college and reading articles in the scientific publications. Because the ice age didn't happen the discussion fizzled out then like it is starting to do now with global warming.

William Connolley has been conducting an extensive search for 1970s scientific literature predicting an ice age...

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No. (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/)

gator
09-02-2008, 11:10 PM
William Connolley has been conducting an extensive search for 1970s scientific literature predicting an ice age...

Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No. (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/)


I read your little article and it wasn't very convincing to me. This Connelley character looked at a few articles and that was it.

There was a lot of talk of it in the popular press (which he said he ignored) but just like global warming bullshit the popular talk comes from scientific discussion.

It really doesn't make any difference because we didn't have an ice age within 40 years just like the earth isn't going to burn up in the next 40 years.

wilbur
09-02-2008, 11:53 PM
I read your little article and it wasn't very convincing to me. This Connelley character looked at a few articles and that was it.

There was a lot of talk of it in the popular press (which he said he ignored) but just like global warming bullshit the popular talk comes from scientific discussion.

It really doesn't make any difference because we didn't have an ice age within 40 years just like the earth isn't going to burn up in the next 40 years.

Here, read this PDF... this is a real study, looking at close to 1000 papers in the 70's. They found about 2 that theorized global cooling. The predominant scientific opinion, even in that day, appeared to point towards warming.

http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:FKEe3nY_disJ:ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf+myth+global+cooling+1970%27s+pdf&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Global cooling was the subject of a few overly dramatic articles in popular media, but it doesnt, nor has it ever reflected scientific consensus at all, unlike global warming today. Even today pop scientific journalism is horrendously bad, especially outside of strictly scientific publications. Thats where global cooling came from: the media. Its a media failure, not a science failure.

You know how things that prevent cancer yesterday, suddenly cause it today? Then a week later those things prevent it again? Scientists arent running around saying this crap... 9 times out of 10 its journalists taking liberties with study results and drawing overly dramatic conclusions to entice readers. Global cooling was one such phenomenon.

If you put aside all the pop-sci journalism, the opportunistic politicians, the AGW denialist atroturfers and look at the science, it unfortunately all seems to point to global warming... with a significant contribution caused by humanity.

justsayin
09-03-2008, 12:51 AM
I have about six pages, single spaced of links to peer reviewed studies that question various points used by proponents of the AGW theory. I didnít compile them, and unfortunately I can no longer find the site that did in order to give proper credit (and easy linkage). I canít post them all because the list is HUGE. Here is a sample:

Computer Climate Models:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL020103.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023644.shtml

Hockey Stick:
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/1000yrclimatehistory-d/Jan30-ClimateResearchpaper.pdf
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021750.shtml

Medieval Warming Period:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2004/00000039/00000001/art00020
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/5474/2198
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=TRD&recid=A0312770AH&q=&uid=791398326&setcookie=yes
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/

Temperatures:
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v26/n2/p159-173/
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v10/n1/p27-33/
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/h.j.fowler/fowler&archer_JC2006.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL020212.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/1999GL011167.shtml]

There are literally hundreds more. Doesnít make my view right, but it does call into question the whole consensus mantra.

How many published peer reviewed papers does it take before you admit that the massive scientific consensus is, in a very real sense, a myth? I can give a lot more.

Chuck58
09-03-2008, 02:47 AM
Global Warming? I thought that terminology was done with. Even Heidi Cullen on the Weather Channel, the chief Madam Guru of the nonsense calls it Climate Change now.

If one doesn't work, they just switch names and data and continue. We've had unusually cool weather for the past several years in my area. Our normal daytime temps have rarely gotten above 80; the nights are dropping into the low 40's and our snowfall has been higher than average. Last year we had almost 160 inches total, over three feet above normal.

Send some Global Warming here. It's predicted to be in the upper 30's tonight.

Sonnabend
09-03-2008, 08:51 AM
If you put aside all the pop-sci journalism, the opportunistic politicians, the AGW denialist atroturfers and look at the science, it unfortunately all seems to point to global warming... with a significant contribution caused by humanity.

Uh huh.


If you put aside all the pop-sci journalism, the opportunistic politicians, the AGW denialist atroturfers and look at the science, it unfortunately all seems to point to them making shit up, because theres all that money in grants..and job security doesn't create itself, you know.

FiXX0rEd :D:D

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 09:09 AM
Global Warming? I thought that terminology was done with. Even Heidi Cullen on the Weather Channel, the chief Madam Guru of the nonsense calls it Climate Change now.

The term "climate change" is not new.

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 09:18 AM
I have about six pages, single spaced of links to peer reviewed studies that question various points used by proponents of the AGW theory. I didn’t compile them, and unfortunately I can no longer find the site that did in order to give proper credit (and easy linkage). I can’t post them all because the list is HUGE. Here is a sample:

Info dumps are a pain in the ass to respond to. Please post no more than 10 studies at a time so that I can have time to assess them. Thanks.

Regarding the list provided thus far...

The good...



http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL020103.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL023644.shtml
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/10...earchpaper.pdf
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/MM03.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL021750.shtml

All legitimate examples of studies which question AGW or some aspect of AGW.

The bad...



http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00020
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../288/5474/2198
http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewreco...&setcookie=yes
http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g01l/
http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v10/n1/p27-33/
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/h.j.fowler/fowler&archer_JC2006.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL020212.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/1999GL011167.shtml]

Some of the studies listed have nothing to do with AGW. None of the studies listed question AGW or any aspect of AGW.



http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.ee.2005.pdf

Climate Audit is not a peer reviewed publication.


http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v26/n2/p159-173/

The primary author of the study is a professor of economics.

So far, we have 6 scientific studies which can be said to question AGW or some aspect of AGW.

wineslob
09-03-2008, 11:28 AM
Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.


Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales,



Uncertainties in understanding the physical relationships between direct magnetic modulation of solar radiative output and heliospheric modulation of cosmogenic proxies preclude definitive historical irradiance estimates, as yet.


Just a few, but almost all pretty much say " we think it might possibly effect the Earth,.... maybe"

Nice try.

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 11:41 AM
Just a few, but almost all pretty much say " we think it might possibly effect the Earth,.... maybe"

Nice try.

Certainty is almost never an option in science.

wineslob
09-03-2008, 12:20 PM
Certainty is almost never an option in science.

You, therefore, admit, that Glowballs Warming, is not certain?

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 12:30 PM
You, therefore, admit, that Glowballs Warming, is not certain?

Of course I admit that AGW is not certain. Do you acknowledge that AGW might be happening?

Chuck58
09-03-2008, 12:34 PM
None of it is certain. Not one of them, regardless of their occupation, can accurately predict the weather for day after tomorrow with 100% accuracy. They all seem very intent on ignoring geological data on past warming and cooling trends.

To admit these patterns are cyclic would cast doubt on their studies and maybe ruin their chances for next year's multi million dollar grant from Uncle Sam.

I look outside for my weather. It's cold, in the 50's, the leaves have changed weeks early, the deer and elk have already moved down from the mountains - weeks early. There's plenty of feed for them in the hills thanks to the unusually heavy rains we've had. They shouldn't be down yet.

It ain't globally warmin' around this neck of the woods. It's looking like another hard, cold, snowy winter.

megimoo
09-03-2008, 12:35 PM
Of course I admit that AGW is not certain. Do you acknowledge that AGW might be happening?Yes the sunshine does it every day bozo !

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 12:35 PM
None of it is certain. Not one of them, regardless of their occupation, can accurately predict the weather for day after tomorrow with 100% accuracy. They all seem very intent on ignoring geological data on past warming and cooling trends.

Weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is far less predictable than climate.

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 12:36 PM
Yes the sunshine does it every day bozo !

The Sun causes anthropogenic global warming? Wow! That's news.

Chuck58
09-03-2008, 12:53 PM
I know weather and climate are two different things, and I know the difference between a climatologist and meteorologist. Neither is an exact science and predictions are just what the word says - predictions.

I predict the sun will rise tomorrow. If it doesn't, I waffle and say that according to all calculations and computer analysis, it should have. If it does, I'm touted as a genius.

wineslob
09-03-2008, 12:54 PM
Of course I admit that AGW is not certain. Do you acknowledge that AGW might be happening?


With all the data I've looked at......NO.

The Night Owl
09-03-2008, 01:16 PM
With all the data I've looked at......NO.

So, the science is settled. Where have I heard that before? Oh, I know...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00682/al-gore-404_682507c.jpg

wineslob
09-03-2008, 03:18 PM
So, the science is settled. Where have I heard that before? Oh, I know...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00682/al-gore-404_682507c.jpg

You use a buffoon.