Thread: Global Warming Assumptions
Results 21 to 30 of 48
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. ;)
08-29-2008, 06:07 PMAt Coretta Scott King's funeral in early 2006, Ethel Kennedy, the widow of Robert Kennedy, leaned over to him and whispered, "The torch is being passed to you." "A chill went up my spine," Obama told an aide. (Newsweek)
09-02-2008, 04:10 PM
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.There's no way you can trust her. Her missile is gigantic
gatorGuest09-02-2008, 04:30 PM
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.
09-02-2008, 06:08 PM
- Join Date
- May 2008
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.
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.
09-02-2008, 06:08 PM
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperaturehttp://journals.royalsociety.org/con...7d72e6e6e&pi=1
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.
No solar hiding place for greenhouse scepticshttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/448008a.html
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
Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud coverhttp://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/
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.
Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth's climatehttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture05072.html
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.
Yeah, I think we can put the solar explanation for global warming to bed.
Last edited by The Night Owl; 09-02-2008 at 06:50 PM.Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
09-02-2008, 06:15 PM
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.
Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No.Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
gatorGuest09-02-2008, 11:10 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.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|