More tired dribble (while greenland melts away)about a debate science settled years ago
You can't do any better then a very ex-weatherman? What can't find any climatologist on the Exxon payroll anymore?
BTW
You do know weather and climate are not the same thing? (yes they are very different)
Actually, yes we can find lots and post about them all the time. You're kind of stupid aren't you?
Don't call Mark stupid ... he's not unintelligent just ideologically challenged
Wow neo - you really are stupid aren't you? I don't mean it as an insult you know. No, I mean it more as a definition. So we know how to talk to you.
Lets see, if I remember correctly a moron was an adult with the intelligence of a five year old. No, your not THAT stupid. Maybe it's a combination of low intelligence and ignorance? That could be it. It would explain your posts.
There is NOT a Global Warming consensus. There are different ways to interpret this data.
Tell ya what, how many climatologists are there? I mean an number. Worldwide - how many? How many meteorologists? What other scientific disciplines study historical weather patterns? How many scientists worldwide are involved in the study of weather?
Numbers, or I'll just assume I was right above.
If the following isn't a consensus then put aside your insults and explain how a the opinion of a some guy who ran a cable channel somehow trumps them...
National academy of sciences of
Australia Belgium Brazil Caribbean Canada China France Germany India Indonesia Ireland Italy Japan Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Russia South Africa Switzerland United Kingdom USA
110 Nobel laureates 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885+ scientist
American Geophysical Union (or AGU) with 41,000 members from 130 countries involved in four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences; solid-Earth sciences; hydrologic sciences; and space sciences.
Nope no consesus there -LOL
BTW
Your memory doesn't serve you well.... A Moron was originally a term used to describe a person with a mental age between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale.
Kahn
are the statements by those organizations enough to be considered a "consensus" or do I have to list the other thousands of organizations and scientist that issued statements saying humans are causing global warming
BTW
You seem like a factually driven person so I feel obligated to correct another point of yours.... Moron is no longer in clinical use - the correct clinical definition is actually severe mental retardation.
First of all you can not have a consensus in science. Second it has been proven over and over that all the models for GW are flawed as they have no way to factor in rain or clouds or any other atmospheric phenomena. You show me one so called scientist that can predict where rain is going to fall with 100% accuracy and I might start to believe this.
Think of it this way they're are 3 steps to every issue in a project to prove something 1) you have to present the idea(what you believe) 2) you formulate what you believe to be true 3) you test the idea to prove it.
All GW models go to the first 2 steps and have never completed the third. You find me one that takes in to account the suns output based on a 10000 year model(cant find it) based on accurate models that predict rain/clouds and other nature related phenomena, and prove to me that in 1973 that the next big thing to destroy the earth was going to be Global Cooling not warming.
This is all a bunch of lies made up to scare people with simple minds that cant think for themselves. Do we need to conserve and protect what we have?....without a doubt yes we do. Do I need revert my life back to the 1800's?...Nope I don't. Oh and one more thing neologizer how was the earth created cause I have a big issue with that too. Laws of physics tell me I cant create or destroy energy only change the state it is in. When you can destroy something you cant be created by man let me know cause you would be the first in history to do it.
Have a Blessed Day neologizer
And to answer one more question about who this guy is here
John Coleman is an American meteorologist and the founder of The Weather Channel.
So I guess he knows a bit about weather
consensus in science.
Hey Mark, Kahn I want to get a new movement going if by the GW guys all you have to have is a consensus. If we get enough people to agree we should be able to convince everyone the world is actually flat.
It did work before should be able to get it to work again .....All we have to do is get people to agree to it right?
Okay, take away the debate whether it's factual or not...
Let's see what do we actually get from taking on the goals of the Kyoto treaty...
Hmm...
Cleaner air... yuck who wants that?
Better fuel efficiency... How can that possibly help?
Less dependence upon foreign oil... But, shouldn't we be pouring more money into the Middle East???
-------
I mean come on you neo-stooges... You're towing the party line like a bunch of lemmings being led off a cliff...
What do you possibly gain from big corporations not having to clean up their pollutants??? You think you'll have drastically lower prices?
How many of you make high 6 figure salaries? I do. And you know what? I sit in enough of these board meetings to know that the bottom line isn't what's good for you, or the environment, or good old America.... It's about pleasing the stockholders. period. End of statement.
Initiating the Kyoto treaty protocols simply effects the bottom line which ticks off shareholders which cause them to bail out.
So the reason you don't get to have cleaner air, better fuel efficiency, and less dependence on foreign oil is because big old corporate America is going to get hit right in the wallet.
So tow that party line and keep on supporting those big corporate interests because they obviously care so much about you... Sheesh.
Personally, I don't belong to either party. I'm self aware enough to know that only a fool listens to one side of an argument. I mean if this was a jury you'd only listen to the side that supported your case... What a wonderful nation that would be...
So climb out of your couch, go to the mirror, slap yourself in the face, and learn to love this Country again. My bad... Learn to love this entire planet again.
In the end which argument if proven right causes the most damage in the long run? And can you live with being wrong? Oh I forgot you probably won't live long enough to be proven wrong so you're safe. Personally, I don't want my children watching the news to see if the air quality is acceptable to throw a ball in the back yard.
I've grown so tired of this debate that I'm capitulating. I've alread put CFBs in some of my lamps, and enery-saving floods in some of my outdoor lights. Okay, I confess--I do it because it's cheaper.
Here's what else I'm going to do: I'm cutting back on my recycling. I'm going to start throwing half of my glass/paper in the trash. Also, I'm going to turn on an extra light, and one of my televisions upstairs, while I'm down in the basement watching another. And I'm going to warm my car up each day, for ten minutes, even when the windscreen isn't iced-up.
You see, someday soon, the government is gonna regulate how we live our lives. Until they do, I'm gonna live my own life.
There's only one "consensus" when it comes to global warming--it's the sun!!!
There is still a consensus in this world that the earth is flat and/or it is the center of the universe.
Al Gore (who can't read a graph to save his life) states that the debate is over and the science is in. But, there are those that shoot holes in his so-called documentary.
His main graph shows that "when CO2 levels rise, the temperature rises". HOWEVER, his own graph shows that the rise in temperature LEADS the rise in CO2 - NOT THE REVERSE!!!
GW MAY be happening. But there is data that shows for the past 1000 years it has been hotter with no evidence of 25 foot sea levels above today's level.
It's a scam. What has been proposed is that developed countries (USA) can PURCHASE carbon credits from undeveloped nations (pick one).
REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH!!
It's a scam, scheme or . Neo, stop drinking the koolaid....you and 1000s of others have been duped.
The 'inconvenient' thing about science is that theories abound and can be proven or disproven.
Scientific 'consensus' existed that the earth was the center of the universe.
Scientific 'consensus' existed that said determining longitude could be done by observing the stars and making complex mathematical calculations, rather than relying on a clock.
Scientific 'consensus' existed that said that man could never go faster than 60 miles per hour in a vehicle, because of a risk of disintegration.
Claiming that there is a 'consensus' and shutting off debate simply turns science into a political tool. Much like the various Soviet Union science claims; where adherance to Marxist doctrines was more important than scientific experimentation and reproducable results.
I tend to listen to the vast majority of credible scientist out there. You know, like the 1400 scientists that wrote the recent UN rapport stating that the point of no return is quite near, and that we really have to take action now! I tend to listen less to a bunch of right wing, war mongering moppets that believe the earth is only 6000 years old and that George Bush is a man of intelligence.
Let me explain it to you so that you might be able to understand it. Forget about your hatred for Al Gore for a second. He didn’t invent global warming and the fact that you dislike him as an individual shouldn’t undermine the issue of global warming.
Let’s look at four extreme scenarios and lets pick the worst case scenarios for all 4 possibilities:
1) Global warming is not real and we do nothing. consequence: nothing will happen except perhaps some gloating from the global warming skeptics.
2) Global warming is not real and we do something. Extreme Consequence: cleaner air, water etc but also a worldwide recession.
3) Global warming is real and we do something about it. Extreme consequence: we manage to turn the tides and get cleaner air, water etc but also a worldwide recession.
4) Global warming is real but we do nothing. Extreme consequence: see levels rise several feet during a very short period of time. Mass migration (hundreds of millions of people). Starvation. Sociological problems of biblical proportions….oh, and a worldwide recession.
Hmmm….what to do…what to do. Seems to me like we need to take this seriously just in case the obviously vast majority of the science world happens to be right! I mean, doesn’t that make any sense to you? Then add to the equation the very likely possibility that we can do something about it and still enjoy economic growth if we do it the smart way.
Here are 2 suggestions, but there has got to be hundreds of things we can do:
- Lower every Americans income tax (x%)but then put an environmental tax on things like cars. The more environmentally friendly your car is the less tax you have to pay. This will stimulate consumers to buy cleaner cars which will stimulate car manufactures to produce cleaner cars.
- Make it interesting for private citizens to invest in solar panels, wind energy etc. Allow them to sell any excess energy they might create.
- Vote for someone who cares (dem, republican or independent)
Lets stop debating all the irrelevant things like Al Gore’s personal energy bill. It doesn’t matter if he’s a saint or a sinner. He is irrelevant.
For the sake of your children please Wake up.
This is all a bunch of lies made up to scare people with simple minds that cant think for themselves.
Are you saying that this is a "fear" based agenda that neologizer and others are pushing? Using fear to gain power and to set an agenda? Who woulda thunk it?
Here's some interesting reading for you neologizer:
(Chicago IL - June 29, 2007) On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore's movie and book titled "An Inconvenient Truth."
Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called "scientific consensus" touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:
In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt "climate change" and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.
"It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction," stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.
The Heartland Institute has been running ads in national newspapers calling on Al Gore to debate Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent global warming "skeptic." Starting today, the institute says it is now including Dennis Avery, an economist and coauthor of a book on global warming that is on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list, who Gore has also refused to debate.
If the following isn't a consensus then put aside your insults and explain how a the opinion of a some guy who ran a cable channel somehow trumps them...
National academy of sciences of
Australia Belgium Brazil Caribbean Canada China France Germany India Indonesia Ireland Italy Japan Malaysia Mexico New Zealand Russia South Africa Switzerland United Kingdom USA
110 Nobel laureates 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885+ scientist
American Geophysical Union (or AGU) with 41,000 members from 130 countries involved in four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences; solid-Earth sciences; hydrologic sciences; and space sciences.
Nope no consesus there -LOL
What's stunning about your list is that so many supposedly smart people have gotten it WRONG.
Let me be the voice of reason please. The debate over man made GW is over! It does not exist! Climate change however does, and it always has. That is why we have had several ice ages and thaws. Greenland is melting! Oh no. When it was discovered it was green along the coast, so what. Global warming will cause Antarctica to melt; no it is actually growing in mass. So is the sea level dropping?
Scientist make money from grants. The Liberal agenda right now is GW. Grants for this research are some of the easiest to come by at present. If you come out and prove that GW does not exist, there goes you easy money. Bill Engvall would add, “Here’s your sign”, for killing your own source of income.
ALGore refuses to debate with skeptics because his reason and logic will not stand up to an open debate. That problem is solved by declaring the debate over. The push is on to enact the government taking control of everything. Because time is running out on the warm up and the planet will begin to cool soon. Will the carbon taxes be removed when that happens? No!!!!!
BTW You do know weather and climate are not the same thing? (yes they are very different)
Different - yes, but also closely related in the way predictions are made. Both use sophisiticated computer models. The big difference is that the computer models for Climate are vastly more complex and use a great deal more variables, many of which, as other posters have noted, are not well understood.
Weather models, which have been used a lot longer than climate models, still have great difficulty predicting precipitation more than 5 days out. Heck, how often have you watched a weather report on TV and noted that the weather outside your family room window was not the same as what was being reported by the local TV station a few miles away (from a studio with no windows)?
1) World at the center of the universe was never a scientific consensus because science wasn’t used to arrive at that conclusion (it was a pontification of religious scholars)
2) Climate is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period of time or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years
Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and is a chaotic non-linear dynamical system. On the other hand, climate — the average state of weather — is fairly stable and predictable.
Got that climate is predicatable
Weather is unpredictable
3) Scientist got it prefectly right 20 years ago (before Al Gore even knew what global warming was)
From 1986….. Nature 319, 109 - 115 (09 January 1986); doi:10.1038/319109a0
Future global warming from atmospheric trace gases
ROBERT E. DICKINSON & RALPH J. CICERONE
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA
Human activity this century has increased the concentrations of atmospheric trace gases, which in turn has elevated global surface temperatures by blocking the escape of thermal infrared radiation. Natural climate variations are masking this temperature increase, but further additions of trace gases during the next 65 years could double or even quadruple the present effects, causing the global average temperature to rise by at least 1 °C and possibly by more than 5 °C
All,
Here is a Must Read on Global Warming. I challenge any GW Alarmist to read it and still say that man is causing Global Warming and that we can do anything to change the NATURAL climate cycles.
Some of the key facts presented are:
* Water Vapor has a much more pronounced effect on atmospheric temperature change than CO2 (100 times more) and there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2. (Are we supposed to reduce water vapor emissions too?)
* There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. "Greenhouse gases" absorb all radiation available to them within a few meters. More of the gas cannot absorb more radiation. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance for absorption of radiation from 10 meters to 5 meters, which is not an increase in temperature.
* The Earth has experienced a major Ice Age every 100,000 years or so. They coincide with fluxuations in ocean temperatures. We are currently at a peak of an ocean temperature rise that has been ocurring since the last Ice Age.
* Atmospheric changes can result from variations in solar activity, but they are superficial compared to heat from the earth's core which drives ice age cycles.
* Neither solar radiation nor air temperature have much effect on ocean temperatures. Solar radiation only penetrates a few meters into the ocean, while air temperatures only affect the surface of the ocean.
* The melting that has occurred of the Artic Ice Cap is caused by ocean warming (from the Earth's core), not warming air temperatures. 90% of the Ice Cap, and most ocean ice, is under the surface of the ocean. It is impossible for warming air temperatures to melt ice that is hundreds of feet underwater. (unless you graduated from the Rosie School of Physics where fire cannot melt steel) Only warming ocean temperatures can cause the melting.
* Changes in the Earth's core (it is thought that there is a "hot spot" that migrates within the core) are causing the oceans to warm in a cyclic manner. The "hot spot" has migrated from under a continental mass, to under the oceans, that has caused the oceans to warm, resulting in Artic Ice Cap Melting. (Changes in wind patterns are also a factor, blowing Artic Ice farther south where the warmer ocean temperatures melt it. Scientists are not sure what causes the "hot spot" to migrate, but believe that variations in the Earth's orbit cause gravitations fluxuations causing the "hot spot" to migrate)
To prove this, try this experiment: Place a block of ice in a container filled with 33 degree water. Place another block of ice, of the same size, in an empty container in your refrigerator. (which should be at about 35 degrees) Time how long it takes each to melt. The ice in the water will melt much faster than that in the fridge (which may take hours). Now put a block of ice in 35 degree water, and another of the same size in your fridge, but turn the temperature up to 36 degrees in your fridge. (representing the "Global Warming" of the past 100 years) Time them again. The ice in the 36 degree water will melt even faster than the ice in the 33 degree water, but the ice in the fridge will take almost exactly the same time to melt.
This simple experiment will prove that warmer ocean temperatures will accelerate polar ice cap melting, while warmer air tempertures have no effect on the ice melting.
* The oceans have a heat capacity 1,000 times that of the atmosphere. This means the air cannot easily heat the oceans, but oceans can easily heat the air. The atmosphere would have to heat a lot, before it could heat the oceans a little; yet the opposite is occurring.
Here's the money quote: "..humans only add 1% as much CO2 to the atmosphere per year as already in it. If such a miniscule amount were as critical as propagandists claim, all life would have been destroyed long ago. Nature hasn't been sitting on a 1% knife edge for millions of years."
Bottom line: Manmade Global Warming is not occurring. It is a scam being perpetuated by a group of socialist, big-government, tax-happy, environmental wackos. What global warming that has been occurring is natural and will peak, then we will slowly begin a cooling period leading to the next Ice Age. The warming that has occurred is because of the warming oceans heating the air and solar activity, not CO2 emissions. We didn't cause it. We can't stop it.
neologizer,
Are you a Darwinist? I assume you are. So, if in fact you are, wouldn't humans, and all other forms of life, simply adapt to climate change?
Wouldn't we evolve into a stronger species? Could Global Warming be the next evolutionary phase?
"Weather is the day-to-day state of the atmosphere, and is a chaotic non-linear dynamical system. On the other hand, climate — the average state of weather — is fairly stable and predictable." - neologizer
I'm sorry, what climate modeling are you looking at? Most things I've looked at use something like fluid equations, which use higher order non-linear PDEs, these are called chaotic systems.
In fact everything I look at uses an assumed output, uses that to solve for initial conditions and then proves the initial conditions are in a certian range of error. This doesn't even prove global warming exist as far as I can tell, it only seems to prove it's possible.
A-10, I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue every point. But here's one example...
There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. "Greenhouse gases" absorb all radiation available to them within a few meters. More of the gas cannot absorb more radiation. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance for absorption of radiation from 10 meters to 5 meters, which is not an increase in temperature.
If that's the case then the surface temperature of Venus is hard to explain.
Fat Al is a Nobel winner for his GW 'work' and contributions. Yet he won't debate the issue, and dictates it proven and case closed. Great scientist there.
Francois Kerry proclaims the Swiftboat vets liars, claims he will sue them, and promised eons ago to release his full military records. Now he will wait until the next election to set the record straight.
Kucinich has seen aliens and might be closer to telling the truth than Gore, Kerry or Bubba. And the crap their followers come up with is even worse.
I just don't comprehend.
"If that's the case then the surface temperature of Venus is hard to explain."
Not at all........
The high temperature on Venus is not because its atmosphere is mostly CO2. It is because the atmosphere is so dense that surface atmospheric pressure is roughly 90x that of Earth.
You know basic high school chemistry: P1/T1=P2/T2. The higher the pressure of a gas the higher the temperature of that gas. The surface temperature of Venus is hot enough to melt lead.
Ricorun,
Could it be that Venus is much closer to the sun, and thus is exposed to more intense and direct solar radiation?
Could it also be that the length of a "day" on Venus is equal to 243 Earth days, so instead of having relatively short (on average, 12 hours) periods of exposure to solar radiation of various types, followed by an equal period not receiving "sunlight", on Venus, the surface is exposed to very long period of direct exposure to the Sun?
Could it also be that the atmosphere on Venus is 90 times as dense and is mostly CO2, while in Earth's atmosphere CO2 is considered a trace gas and only comprises 0.03% of the atmosphere?
Could it also be what "TiredofLibBullShit" said about the effect of pressure on the temperature of a gas?
Other than all that, there is no difference between Earth and Venus.
If you promise not to tell anyone, I'll let you in on a secret. Promise? OK, here goes. The reason its so hot on Venus is that for years, Bushcheneyhaliburton has been secretly shipping concentrated CO2 to Venus on the Space Shuttle. Everyone thinks the Space Shuttles have been going to the International Space Station, but they've been going to Venus. See, the plan is that the Goracle is going to shut down all the power plants, get rid of cars and trucks, and force us to reduce cow flatulance that the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere will drop to such a low level, plants will start dying for a lack of CO2. Then, they are going to sell the CO2 they have been storing on Venus and make a HUGE profit. BRILLIANT.
homonuclear diatomic molecules such as N2 and O2 (>95% of gases )neither absorb nor emit infrared radiation.
GREENHOUSE effects
H20 - 36-70%
C02 9-26% (human 40% increase)
methane 4-9%
It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive. Low-highs numbers based on interactive or non-interactive calculations.
The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of radiation. The Earth reflects about 30% of the incident solar flux; the remaining 70% is absorbed, warming the land, atmosphere and oceans.
To the extent that the Earth is in a steady state, the energy stored in the atmosphere and ocean does not change in time, so energy equal to the absorbed solar radiation must be radiated back to space. Earth radiates energy into space as black-body radiation, which maintains a thermal equilibrium.
The equilibrium is as such (btw -this has been measured observationally, experimentally many many times)
239.7 watts per square meter are absorbed by the atmosphere from solar irradiation
239.7 watts per square meter are emitted by earth in the form of infrared radiation
Hence stable temperatures.
But....
Human effects on greenhouse gases (since 1860)
H20- none (water vapor levels are directly linked to temperature)
CO2- Humans have increased CO2 40%
Methane- increased 150%"
Human caused increase in greenhouse effects
H20 - none
CO2 - 1.5 W/m2
methane - 0.5 W/m2
If you add 2 W/m2 (which is what is happening due to increased greenhouse gases)
WHAT HAPPENS ??????????
Never mind I'll answer....
You have an imbalance, and what happens when you have an energy input imbalance?
When you have such an energy imbalance on your stove - the water heats up.
When you have such an imbalance in a greenhouse - it gets warmer inside
When you have such an energy imbalance by using a magnifying glass on an ant - the ant gets real warm
And when you have such an energy imbalance in the atmosphere ..... you get warming. No matter what you may believe. -Hence the debate is over
Hence the debate is over
Bwwwwaaaahaaaaahaa!
There never was a debate!
God is in control, my friend, always has been and always will be!!
Jeremiah
Neo,
What is really rather amusing is the way your own data indicates a lot of questions about anthropogenic global warming, and you just miss it because you are wedded to the concept and refuse to think about it.
By your own admission, CO2 accounts for 9-26% of greenhouse gasses...9-26%!!! And your 1986 article had it that IF their theory is correct, it could raise mean temperatures by 1-5 C...a "fudge" of nearly 100% in the effect of CO2, a "fudge" of 500% on the projected rise in temperatures. This isn't science, neo; it's guessing. I'm not going to go into a Goronic crash course of CO2 reductions based upon guesses.
-Hence the debate is over
Algore, is that you?
neologizer, read the following:
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
-Hence the debate is over
Sorry, neoillogicizer....
Al Gore's own "documentary" states that with rises of CO2 the temperature rises. Pull out your DVD and watch the CO2 vs temperature graph.
BUT, his data shows the opposite. With temperature increases FIRST, CO2 levels increase SECOND.
Both of you and your "concensus" can't read a simple graph of collected data. TEMPERATURE LEADS CO2 LEVELS, NOT THE OPPOSITE.
sucker!
Mark
Speaking on guessing.....
Try reading the articles before guessing about them. The 5C figure is for 2050. They are already correct about their figure 20 years later - no fudge there
As even GW Bush admits we've increased CO2 40%. Whether you want to calculate the increase as a greenhouse effect of 9% or 26% of the total that's a major increase in atmospheric energy? Thank you for pointing that out
SO Mark if that energy isn't heating the atmosphere (which is the position of virtually every scientist)
WHERE is the energy magically going?????????????????
neocon (quoting Tim Patterson): "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."
Recent evidence suggests that Dr. Patterson's chronology might be a bit off. In other words, though there was a severe cooling event around 450 million years ago, by that time the concentration of CO2 had decreased dramatically.
neologizer,
"Hence stable temperatures."
Just one little flaw in your mental gymnastics.
What do you consider "stable temperatures?" A fluxuation between 1-2 degrees? A 5-10 degree fluxuation? What?
When has the Earth ever had "stable temperatures?"
I'll answer for you. NEVER. The Earth has had periods of global warming and global cooling for 4.5 billion years. It has always fluxuated. And man had absolutely NOTHING to do with 4.5 billion years of climate change.
So what do we have?
We have scientific proof that the Earth's temperature has fluxuated between periods of global warming and global cooling. So warm that Greenhouse was actually green, not covered with a sheet of Ice. So cold that most of North America was covered by a sheet of ice miles thick. There has been no "stable temperature". If we had a "stable temperature" we would not have the Great Lakes, among other things (created by the receding Ice Age). You're BUSTED.
We have scientific proof that melting Ice Caps are caused by warming oceans, which is caused by heat radiated by the Earth's core. Warming air temperatures cannot melt ice hundreds of feet below the water surface. You and the Goracle are BUSTED.
We have scientific proof that water vapor has a 100 times greater effect on "greenhouse gas effects" than CO2, and man is not causing any increase in water vapor. Any increase in water vapor is caused by evaporation from oceans, caused by warming oceans, caused by heat radiated by the Earth's core. You and the Goracle are BUSTED again.
We have scientific proof that human production of CO2 is a small faction of the total CO2 produced on Earth. The greatest source is release by the oceans, when they warm, caused by heat radiated by the Earth's core. The oceans are warming. CO2 is released. You and the Goracle are BUSTED yet again.
We have scientific proof that CO2 increases ALWAYS follows temperature increases, not the other way around. There has been a net temperature increase since we emerged from the last Ice Age. CO2 is increasing as a result. AS HAS HAPPENED THOUSANDS OF TIMES BEFORE. You and the Goracle are BUSTED again.
Temperatures are inherently unstable. I'm starting to think you are too.
Is it just me, or does it feel like the climate has cooled a little since NBC went green?
(which is the position of virtually every scientist)
Except for the many scientists that don't take that position. Do they count?
Rico,
You might want to debate Tim Patterson.
neocon,
Certainly has. Had snow flurries here in the upper Midwest today. Current temp is 39, seven degrees below average. Was below freezing last night. Must be global warming. Or cooling. Or typical November weather. I know somthing, or someone, is responsible. If I find out who, I'm going to get my Congressman to levy a tax on him. That will get him, or her, or it, to get us back to normal, whatever that is.
A-10
Who' the "we" you are refering to because it isn't science all your facts are incorrect. I'll give one example because I don't feel like giving anymore
The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/faq.html#Q7
Neocon
speaking on counting....
40,000+ scientist support the consensus
two dozen scientist on Exxon's payroll don't
neocon: Rico, You might want to debate Tim Patterson.
I suppose you're right. It would certainly be more interesting.
Dear tiredofBS
Try listening to what scientist are saying instead of politicians
neologizer,
"Try listening to what scientist are saying instead of politicians"
Oh..I forgot. The Goracle is a renowned scientist, not a politician.
"The 369.5 ppmv of carbon in the atmosphere, in the form of CO2, translates into 787 PgC, of which 174 PgC has been added since 1850. From the second paragraph above, we see that 64% of that 174 PgC, or 111 PgC, can be attributed to fossil-fuel combustion."
Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with any of the scientific facts that I provided. How do you account for the 4700 ppmv of CO2 previously recorded? Produced by Fred Flintstone's SUV?
You obviously refuse to open your eyes and ears to the facts. What part of "CO2 increases ALWAYS following temperature increases, not the other way around" don't you understand.
I've had this debate with closed-minded liberals before. We've had thousands of periods of GW and GC in the past, and man did not cause any of them. The current period of GW is following EXACTLY the same pattern as EVERY previous period during which we emerged from an Ice Age. The increase in CO2 levels is following EXACTLY the same pattern as EVERY previous period of CO2 increase following a temperature increase coming out of an Ice Age. There is ZERO proof that our miniscule contributions of CO2 have had any affect on the Earth's climate.
There are too many factors, totally beyond our control (solar radiation, shifts in the Earth's orbit, migrating "hot spots" in the Earth's core, cloud formation and reflection of solar radiation, sun spots, particulate matter suspended in the atmosphere, etc, etc, etc.), and that man does not completely understand, that affect climate change.
You are being far too judgemental on man to accuse us of being able to have any affect on the Earth's climate. If the temperatures continue to rise, before the historical cooling occurs, we'll adapt, just as nature has adapted during each and every period of GW and GC. It is not worth destroying the world's economy for something that we cannot control and will probably not result in any of the dire predictions of the Goracle and his minions of GW Alarmists.
It would certainly be more interesting.
Not for him.
Try listening to what scientist are saying instead of politicians
Scientists who refute global warming:
Bernard Raab, PhD, FH Raab, PhD, Frederick H Raab, PhD, Daryl Raabe, Kent Raate, Ashley Rabalais, David Rabb, Steven Rabe, Craig Rabeneck, Mj Rabinonitz, PhD, Louis C Raburn, Ken Rachal, Joseph Rachlin, PhD, Jeff Racho, Kenneth Rachocki, PhD, John Rackley, Charles Raczowski, PhD, Richard Radcliffe, Frederick J Radd, PhD, Richard Radeka, Frank Radella, David R Raden, Ken Rader, Ned Radich, MD, Rodney W Radke, PhD, D Rado, Donald Radtke, Michael T Radvan, Keith Rae, Harold Raemer, PhD, Beat U Raess, PhD, Hershel Raff, PhD, Keen Rafferty, PhD, Donal M Ragan, PhD, Robert Ragen, Mohsen K Rahbar, PhD, Perry H Rahn, PhD, Ronald O Rahn, PhD, Milfreed Rainel, Robert Raines, Ted Rains, John R Rairden, III, Elliott Raisen, PhD, Dejan Rajcic, Beth Raker, Robert P Raker, MD, Francis A Rakow, John M Rakowski, Charles Raley, PhD, James A Ralph, George Ramatowski, Dario Ramazzotti, C L Rambo, Frederick Rambow, PhD, William Ramer, Harmon H Ramey, PhD, A Ramirez, Rafael G Ramirez, PhD, Simon Ramo, PhD, Albert A Ramos, PhD, Benjamin F Ramsey, Jerry D Ramsey, PhD, Madeline Ramsey, Mark S Ramsey, Alvin O Ramsley, David C Ramsower, Lawrence D Ramspott, PhD, Paul Ramstad, PhD, John Ramus, Shahida Rana, David Rancour, PhD, James Rancourt, Philip G Rand, PhD, Charles A Randall, PhD, Charles C Randall, MD, Joseph L Randall, PhD, P Randall, Robert Randall, Wm J Randall, PhD, Ann Randolph, PhD, Spencer G Randolph, Robert Raney, MD, William P Raney, PhD, Margene G Ranieri, PhD, Tom Rank, PhD, Thomas J Rankin, C J Ransom, PhD, W. R. Ransone, G J Ransonet, Charles G Ranstrom, Irving Rapaport, Stephen Rapchak, Stephen C Raper, Henry Rapoport, PhD, Donald Rapp, Eric Rascoe, Bob Raser, Marco Rasi, PhD, James B Rasmussen, Lowell Rasmussen, PhD, James Rasor, Ned S Rasor, PhD, Howard Rast, PhD, Lee Ratcliff, Mike Ratcliff, Prescott H Rathborne, Carlisle B Rathburn, Dennis Rathman, PhD, Hukum S Rathor, PhD, Andrew A Rathsack, Jr Ratliff, Steven Ratliff, PhD, Oscar D Ratnoff, MD, Egan J Rattin, Alfred Ratz, PhD, Michael Ratz, Richard Rauch, PhD, Donald O Rausch, PhD, Gerald W Rausch, PhD, Steven Rauzi, Francis H Raven, PhD, Nancy C Raven, Michael Rawley, Kyle Rawlings, PhD, James Rawls, Stanley R Rawn Jr, Derek J Rawson, Clifford H Ray, PhD, Donald R Ray, Michael B Ray, PhD, Sylvian Richard Ray, PhD, Thomas A Ray, Clinton M Rayes, Park Rayfield, PhD, Sharon S. Rayman, Larry C Raymond, Richard L Raymond, PhD, Stuart Raynolds, PhD, Gary D Rayson, PhD, Bill E Raywinkle, David Thomas Read, PhD, Robert G Read, Ernest H Reade Jr, Fred Reader, James Ready, MD, James A Reagan, Michael J Realmuto, Tom Reamsnyder, James A Reas, D L Reasons, Wallace Reaves, Jerry Reaves, Nelson Reavey-Cantwell, MD, Paul R Reay, MD, David N Rebol, Theodore L Rebstock, PhD, John W Rebuck, PhD, Paul A Rechard, Andreas B Rechnitzer, PhD, H C Rechtien Jr, Walter L Records, Charles W Rector, PhD, W Rector, J B Red, John G Reddan III, Larry K Reddig, Foster K Redding, PhD, James D Redding, Harold J Reddy, Richard L Reddy, Allan G Redeker, MD, Immo Redeker, John W Redelfs, MD, Jamie Redenbaugh, Noeman Redford, John G Redic, K Redig, Robert H Rediker, PhD, Brian Redlin, Thomas R Redman, Erick L Redmon, Larry Redmon, PhD, Peter Redmon, Jack Redmond, PhD, Jack Redmond, PhD, Jory Redo, PhD, Redwine, PhD, Cynthia A Reece, Allan H Reed, PhD, C Reed, PhD, David A Reed Jr, Donal J Reed, PhD, Emmett Van Reed, J Arthur Reed, MD, Jack Reed, Jan T Reed, Kenneth R Reed, Max E Reed, PhD, Philip Reed, Sherman Kennedy Reed, PhD, Thomas Reed, PhD.......
And this is the short list
Here's some more:
Lara H. Baker, PhD, Lee Baker, Lee E. Baker, PhD, Louis Baker, PhD, Mary Ann Baker, PhD, R Baker, PhD, Randal S Baker, Robert Baker, Robert D Baker, PhD, Robert J Baker, Robert W Baker, PhD, Terry Baker, W J Baker, W O Baker, PhD, William Baker, Daniel M Bakker, Lee A Balaklaw, MD, T Balance, Brent P Balcer, Marion Balcerzak, PhD, Orville Balcom, W Loyd Balderson, PhD, W Lloyd Balderston, PhD, Andrew A Baldoni, PhD, Leland B Baldrick, Edgar Baldridge, Ransom Baldwin, PhD, A Richard Baldwin, PhD, Barrett S Baldwin, PhD, David Baldwin, Evart Baldwin, PhD, Cliff Bale, George Balella, MD, R Michael Bales, Amir Balfas, Gary Balint, Stephen J Balint, P Balis, Craig Balistrire, Sallie Baliunas, PhD, Bruno Balke, MD, Frederic M Ball, MD, George Ball, J Austin Ball, MD, Mark Ball, Rayford Ball, PhD, Joseph Ballantyne, PhD, Charels L Ballard, David W Ballard, Glenn A Ballard, Harold N Ballard, Ollie Ballard, Arthur Ballato, PhD, B. Balle, MD, Greg Ballengee, Robert Balling, PhD, Carter Ballinger, MD, Walter E Ballinger, PhD, Tom Ballou Jr, Martin Balow, Robert C Balsam Jr, James Baltar, Arden A Baltensperger, PhD, Judy Balthazor, John S Baltutis, Carole Baltz, John Banchetti, Bruce A Bancroft, PhD, Daniel W Bancroft, George P Bancroft, Lewis C Bancroft, Herman Wm Bandel, PhD, Tom Bane, Debendranath Banerjee, PhD, Richard Banham, Kernan M Banker, Kernen Banker, Cezar Banks, Kerry Eubanks, Randall A Banks, Richard Banks, Willard Banman, Lloyd H Banning, Peter R Bannister, William Bannister, PhD, C S Banquer, Harry Bantham, James W Bantham, Ronald E Banuk, John Paul Barach, PhD, Ronald Barany, PhD, Zot Barazzotto, Bill Barbee, Ted R Barben I I, Anslem H Barber Jr, Art Barber, George A Barber, George Barber, Paul Barber, Paul Barbieri, James Barcikowski, Chloeteele Barclay, Charleton C Bard, PhD, Walter M Barden, Robert A Bardo, Chad J Bardone, Andrew M Bardos, Charles E Bardsley, PhD, Steven Bardwell, PhD, Ernest Barenberg, PhD, Charles Barenfanger, David E Barensfeld, Mark J Bareta, Laurie Barfield, Thomas Barfnecht, PhD, L R Baria, Robert Barish, PhD, Francis J Barker, Frank Barker, Franklin B Barker, PhD, Horace A Barker, PhD, Larry D Barker, Leroy N. Barker, PhD, Roy J Barker, PhD,
And the following is from the Canada Free Press authored by Dr. Tim Ball; climatlogist:
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement.
So tired of this debate. Gas is over $3 dollars a gallon. Technology from solving global warming issues could also be used to reduce our dependence on oil. But that is what this is all about. Big oil is leading the charge to descredit global warming. They saw what happened to the tobacco industry when it refused to change its ways.
Why don't Republicans get Rush Limbaugh to lead his lemmings to the George Washington bridge where you can all piss off of it into the Hudson? That would show Republicans true disdain for environmental protection.
Hey Neocon
You wouldn't happen to be quoting this OSI sham petition would you ???? -LOL
“ Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: "Perry S. Mason" (the fictitious lawyer?), "Michael J. Fox" (the actor?), "Robert C. Byrd" (the senator?), "John C. Grisham" (the lawyer-author?). And then there's the Spice Girl, a k a. Geraldine Halliwell: The petition listed "Dr. Geri Halliwell" and "Dr. Halliwell."
Asked about the pop singer, Robinson said he was duped. The returned petition, one of thousands of mailings he sent out, identified her as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston. "It's fake," he said.
A-10
where's the extra energy CO2 absorbs magically go? Its been measured, its been confirmed and its warming the atmosphere.
If you can't explain where the excess greenhouse energy goes then you can't refute global warming plain and simple
Neocon you have identified Zero credible climatolgists that refute global warming
Timothy Francis Ball, Ph.D., is a retired (in 1996) university professor and global warming skeptic. He heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and formerly headed the activist organization Friends of Science, both of which are funded by energy industries.
Just like I said all you can find are just a few dozen skeptics on Exxon's payroll
thanks for proving me right again -LOL
Why don't Republicans get Rush Limbaugh to lead his lemmings to the George Washington bridge where you can all piss off of it into the Hudson?
I went in the stream in the local park. Does that count?
Neologizer,
The classic liberal rebuttal; discredit the sources. You are correct however about OISM, but very misleading. Out of the tens of thousand scientists that signed the petition, a fraction were found to either be not in support of, or falesly credentialed. Leaving thousands and thousands of legitimate scientists that refute AGW.
Dr. Balls resarch company does receive a portion of their overall budget from the oil industry, much like all of the AGW alarmists research companies receive nearly 100% of their funding from the government. So what?
No one disputes the warmer average temperatures. What is disputed is mans role, and the fact is, we can discredit your GW assertions just as easily as you attack ours. BECAUSE IT'S NOT FACT. It's CONSENSUS and speculation.
"In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence. " Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
In fact, I just discovered the Dr. Balls research company, last year, received $35,000 from the oil industry. $35,000!!!!!!
And neologizer wants everyone to believe that the Dr. and all the researchers at his company sold out for $35,000.
I guess when you work in the fast food industry $35,000 is a lot of money. Right neologizer?
Oregon Petition
"Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist"
A little more food for thought:
The MBH98 hockey stick-shaped NH temperature index discussed here has been extremely influential in discussions of 20th century global warming. Together with a pre-1400 extension derived in Mann et. al. (1999) and a spliced instrumental temperature series, this index figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (IPCC 2001) and numerous other publications. However, the dataset used to make this construction contained collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects. These errors and defects substantially affect the temperature index.
Although not all of the dataset could be audited, it was possible to prepare a data base with substantially improved quality control, by using the most recent data and collating it correctly, by avoiding arbitrary filling in or truncation of data and by computing principal components using standard algorithms. Without endorsing the MBH98 methodology or choice of source data, we were able to apply the MBH98 methodology to a database with improved quality control and found that their own method, carefully applied to their own intended source data, yielded a Northern Hemisphere temperature index in which the late 20th century is unexceptional compared to the preceding centuries, displaying neither unusually high mean values nor variability. More generally, the extent of errors and defects in the MBH98 data means that the indexes computed from it are unreliable and cannot be used for comparisons between the current climate and that of past centuries, including claims like "temperatures in the latter half of the 20th century were unprecedented," and "even the warmer intervals in the reconstruction pale in comparison with mid-to-late 20th-century temperatures" (see press release accompanying Mann et al 1999) or that the 1990s was "likely the warmest decade" and 1998 the "warmest year" of the millennium (IPCC 2001).
Rathhaven and Neocon
you should compare notes and then maybe inform Mr Ball of your decision
So what is it Mr Ball took money from oil industry according to Neocon but claims he didn't according to Rathaven
either way you look at it.... he's simply not credible
Regarding the OSI petition
In 2005, Scientific American reported:
“ Scientific American took a sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers –
The petition project verified 17,800 signatures and Scientific American looked at 30 signatures.
Wow, with statistical expertise like that no wonder you buy into the global warming fraud. Good luck with that.
Re: food for though
the authors
Ross McKitrick is a Canadian environmental economist
McIntyre has worked in hard-rock mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies.
meanwhile:
Due to popular demand, we have put together a 'dummies guide' which tries to describe what the actual issues are in the latest controversy, in language even our parents might understand.This guide is in two parts, the first deals with the background to the technical issues raised by McIntyre and McKitrick (2005)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
Besides the fact that the petition is almost a decade old......
In a 2005 op-ed in the Hawaii Reporter, Todd Shelly wrote:
In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an initial (Biolchini), corporate names (Graybeal & Sayre, Inc. How does a business sign a petition?), and an apparently phony single name (Redwine, Ph.D.). These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided. Why the lack of transparency?
verified? -LOL
From the Goracle....and Convenient Lie.....
TEMPERATURE INCREASES PRECEED CO2 INCREASES....NOT THE REVERSE!!!!!
face it neoillogicizer, you've been had. You love to point out who is in the pocket of big oil but you fail to see that your "guys" are in the pockets of big government. Those same governments whether foreign or our own wants "carbon taxes" and "carbon credits".
In other words, a huge influx of cash from prosperous nations to those that have carbon credits for sale - WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION ON A GLOBAL SCALE.
sucker!
ToLBS: TEMPERATURE INCREASES PRECEED CO2 INCREASES....NOT THE REVERSE!!!!!
For the record, could you state where you're getting the data for the above statement? Also for the record, could you tell us what the highest concentration of CO2 was during the time period you are referring to? And what is the concentration now?
neo - you didn't actually answer the question. How many actual scientists study weather? Add to that question how many of them actually agree with global warming.
And since you cited all the above, can you post links to each of those organizations actual statements?
Oh, and sorry I was wrong about your status as a moron. Is that what your paperwork says?
neologizer,
Still stuck on stupid, eh?
"where's the extra energy CO2 absorbs magically go? Its been measured, its been confirmed and its warming the atmosphere.
If you can't explain where the excess greenhouse energy goes then you can't refute global warming plain and simple"
That's your problem. We don't refute global warming. We refute that man is causing global warming.
By the way, if you don't provide citations for your claims, you will not be believed. For all I know, you made up your watts per square meter numbers. (As an aside, when you talk about the amount of watts per square meter of the Earth's surface, you are making sense. But when you talk about watts per square meter of the atmosphere, you're talking nonsense. We measure the atmosphere in cubic meters, not square meters. So right off the bat, unless the atmosphere is only a micron thick, your calculations are way off.)
"climate — the average state of weather — is fairly stable and predictable."
Do you realize that you are proving your entire hypothesis to be wrong. You are claiming that climate is stable and predictable, yet are contradicting your hypothesis. If the climate is so predictable, why were the same scientists who were predicting global cooling just 30 years ago, now predicting global warming. Is the climate that unstable? Were they unable to accurately predict the predictable?
I'm going to put this in simple terms, so you can understand. It's not that I doubt your intelligence. I doubt your common sense and reasoning ability. Those who seem to be intelligent were usually shortchanged in the common sense and reasoning department.
If climate is stable and predictable, we should be able to look at the historical patterns of global warming and cooling periods and occurrances of Ice Ages and predict what is in our future. In each and every case, a previous Ice Age period (the last one was about 50,000 years ago) was followed by a 3-5 degree increase in temperature over the next 50,000 years or so. We are currently at around the peak temperature increase that would be predicted following the last Ice Age. In a few hundred, or thousand years, we'll start heading back into a true Ice Age. Better invest in technology that causes global warming.
Since we have agreed that "climate is stable and predictable", we should be able to accurately predict the relationship of temperature increases and CO2 increases since they are an integral part of the climate. In each and every previous period of temperature increases, it was followed by a CO2 increase about 700-1000 years later. So, we can predict that about 700-1000 years after the Medieval Warm Period (which ended in about 1300 AD) we should experience an increase in CO2 levels. My gosh, that's exactly what happened. Isn't it nice how predictions come true.
But wait. You and the GW Alarmists are claiming that in this one instance, out of thousands of periods of temperature increases, CO2 is driving the temperature increase, instead of the temperature increase driving the CO2 increase. But that's not what we should be able to predict, based on history. Why are you contradicting this scientific prediction?
You see, the problem is not if global warming is occurring. We can look at historical temperature readings and estimates and see that there has been a 3-5 degree increase in the last 50,000 years. Global Warming is a natural occurrance.
The problem is that liberals want to blame anything and everything on man. Why must you insist that man is causing global warming, when every single past period of global warming occurred naturally? Is it a liberal personality flaw to want to blame everything that happens on man?
According to the GW Alarmists, everything can be blamed on Man-Made Global Warming. Too hot, Man-Made Global Warming. Too cold, Man-Made Global Warming. Too dry, Man-Made Global Warming. Too rainy, Man-Made Global Warming. Too much snow, Man-Made Global Warming. Not enough snow, Man-Made Global Warming. More hurricanes, Man-Made Global Warming. Fewer hurricanes, Man-Made Global Warming. Wildfires, Man-Made Global Warming. Increased Stress, Man-Made Global Warming. Hemmoroids, Man-Made Global Warming. And President Bush is to blame for all of them.
To set the record straight, this is not the hottest period in history, or even in the last 100 years (the 30's were hotter on average than today). It is not the coldest on record. The recent hurricane seasons have been below average in number and intensity. The wildfires? You don't suppose the suspected arsonists and the kid playing with matches had anything to do with them, do you? (That and the environmental wacko's blocking the removal of deadfall which fueled the fires.)
As for you being a pain in the @ss, perhaps Global Warming did have something to do with that.
A-10: To set the record straight, this is not the hottest period in history, or even in the last 100 years (the 30's were hotter on average than today).
Are you talking about global temperatures or just temperatures in the US?
I'm not going to pretend to be an expert and I'm definitely not going to waste my time finding some article to plagiarize. I do want to say that whether or not GW is real it is still important that we look at the long term effects we have on our environment. Clear cutting forests and not replanting-BAD. Destroying entire ecosystems and species- BAD. Covering millions of acres of land for refuge disposal of which most can be recycled-BAD. Dumping tons of chemicals into our shrinking water supplies and the ocean- BAD. Damming rivers and levying flood plains- BAD. All of this stuff is bad and those who fear BIG GOVERNMENT (yet blindly support the biggest government we have ever had) might think about being more responsible so they don't have to do it for you.
Here's another thing, many of the people who post here are avid, borderline fanatic, Christians which strikes me as kind of funny. God made man last of all his creations. He did not state that he made Earth for man. He did not build the universe around man. He made the heavens, the earth, light, water, sky, land, vegetation, the sun, the moon, the stars, little fury creatures and birds, a lot of other stuff and then oh yeah man. I'm pretty sure this God that was gracious enough to allow us to live on this perfect world he made would be a little pissed off to see us rape, pillage, and deface it. Though it is obvious in this alone that man believes in God for one reason alone; he fears eternity and uncertainty and needs to believe that something will save him from those things. God Bless all of you.
Ricorun,
Global.
Did you check out the web site I linked to above? It really answers alot of the misconceptions and questions about Global Warming.
Did you also know that the temperature increase since 1997, cited by the Goracle, is based on surface station recordings, which have been proven to be suspect, and that satellite temperature readings for the same period show NO INCREASE?
Do any of the GW Alarmists wonder why the Goracle refuses to debate the issue? (The fact that a non-scientist, politican declares the debate settled should be raising eyebrows) Do any of the GW Alarmists wonder why the Goracle is using inaccurate readings instead of the more accurate satellite readings? Do any of the GW Alarmists wonder about the ethics of the Goracle buying carbon credits from himself?
CallMeTeach,
Don't confuse Man-Made Global Warming skepticism with not wanting a clean environment.
We do think we should reduce pollutants (CO2 is NOT a pollutant. Without CO2, there would be no plantlife). We do think we should practice good forestry management. (Did you know that there are more acres of forest in the US than ever before? Other countries are not as responsible, but the US seems to be the target of all environmental scrutiny) We do support reclaiming land being used for landfills. (As is being done all across America) We do believe that chemicals should not be dumped into our lakes, rivers, and streams. (Our freshwater is cleaner now than in decades, but more should be done) We shouldn't be destroying eco-systems. But tell that to the governments and people who are doing the destruction.
You are also casting a blanket over all who question if global warming is man-made or natural, with the claim that we are being irresponsible, so government has to do it for us. For all you know, I might be far more environmentally conscience than you or any of your friends, without any governmental intervention.
I know that I am far more environmentally conscience than the Goracle. I consume about 2% of the energy he wastes each year. I recycle. I have a swimming pool, but let the sun heat it (and I live about 600 miles north of the Goracle). I don't drive when I can walk or ride a bike, and drive fuel efficient vehicles. (Neither is a SUV)
The Goracle isn't about cleaner air and water. The air and water are cleaner now than in decades. The Goracle is all about increased government control over every aspect of life. The Goracle is all about taxing each and every aspect of life. The Goracle is all about turning soverignity of the US over to the United Nations. The Goracle is all about supressing economic growth in the US, while allowing the greatest polluters (China and India), freedom to continue to grow and pollute. The Goracle is all about raising taxes, increasing government regulations, destroying the global economy, and spending trillions to make everyone feel good that they did their part to stop Global Warming. But they really didn;t do anything. The problem is that we cannot stop Global Warming. It is beyond our control. We didn't cause it, we aren't accelerating it, and we certainly can't stop it. The slight warming will stop and the cooling will start when the Earth continues through its natural warming and cooling cycles. Just as has happened thousands of times before, when man wasn't around.
A-10
for someone that asks for me to cite everything you cite very little (especially given the long diatribes you write)
You really need to fact check and I'm getting tired of constantly correcting you
US temps....
Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939,
However we are talking about GLOBAL warming
Earth's hottest years
2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/2006_warm.html
Also Global cooling was never a consensus nor even a serious scientific scenario. The source of your "global cooling" scare is a 1975 newsweek article that ironically On October 23, 2006, Newsweek issued a correction, over 31 years after the original article.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/45376
neologizer,
I cited my source. You haven't cited yours.
I see your cite on the Global Temps has a lot of quotes from James Hansen, director of NASA GISS, who has been proven to have manipulated the data used to determine the averate temperatures.
It also cites that the averages were based on "surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements for sea surface temperature."
Why weren't satellite measurements used for all data collection since a large number of surface air collection stations have been proven to violate the most basic rules of minimizing the effects of local factors (stations located in the middle of parking lots, on rooftops, near air conditioner outlets, near freeway ramps, etc)?
Did you see my post about the fact that when satellite measurements are used, the temperature averages since 1997 do not show any increase?
I'm still witing on your response to the fact that Global Warming is NOT causing the Artic Ice Cap to melt, as the Goracle has claimed.
I'm also waiting for your response to the fact that for eons, CO2 increase has followed temperature increase by about 700-1000 years, yet for this one instance, you GW Alarmists insist that CO2 is causing a temperature increase. Why is that?(If I could see into the future, I'd bet that in 700-1000 years we'd see another increase in CO2)
I'm also waiting for your response to why you GW Alarmists are claiming the opposite of what one would predict based on historical facts.
Aren't you the least bit concerned that the Goracle has tried to suppress any alternative scientific position on Man-Made Global Warming? If it is settled "science", why are there so many climate scientists coming forward to dispute what the Goracle is saying?
Aren't you the least bit concerned that almost every bit of "evidence" the Goracle has presented to support his theory of Man-made Global Warming has been debunked? Doesn't it bother you that the Goracle has been proven to have mis-stated facts, distorted the truth, and embellished in a court of law?
Aren't you the least bit concerned that while the Goracle and others criticize anyone who has any funding from the energy industry and questions man-made global warming, anyone who get millions from governments to promote man-made global warming do not have their ethics or motivations questioned?
Aren't you the least bit concerned that while the Goracle has claimed that there is a consensus among "scientists" that man is causing global warming, that most of the "scientists" have no training in climatology or related disciplines?
By the way, consensus is not science. As Michael R. Fox, Ph.D. recently stated:
"The concept of consensus means little more than a majority of opinions on a given matter. In politics this is the best we can do in making decisions to proceed with political actions. In the scientific world consensus is meaningless, and often unscientific, and worse, often wrong. Even the act of seeking such a consensus as a form of proof is not science."
But you keep drinking the Gore-ade. What flavor are you into now? Maybe lime, to complement NBC's "Green Theme"?
Neologizer,
Hanson and the rest of the boobs at NASA GISS couldn't find their asses with both hands. They refuse to share data, and Hanson has received funding from both Soros and Teresa Heinz Kerry to the tune of 100's of thousands of dollars. Sorry, try again.
I met John Coleman when I was a boy at a picnic. He was well liked in Chicago and was rather nice in person. I am glad he is still alive.
How old is he now? I am guessing he must be in his eighties by now.
Spook,
Of course, any Global Warming activist/scientist, even a GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE, who takes funds from other environmental activists has only the purest of interest, unreproachable ethics, and has no agenda.
/scarcasm
To be exact, Hansen got $720,000 from the Soros-funded Open Society Institute and a cash prize of $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation. Lets see, $720,000 plus $250,000. My gosh, that's almost a MILLION dollars.
Lets see, Hansen probably makes about $150,000 a year (Including locality pay for NYC. Yes, GISS is located in NYC. At Columbia Univeristy to be exact) as a SES GS employee. So his little $970,000 windfall is just about 6 1/2 times his annual pay. Nice "bonus" for promoting man-made Global Warming.
I don't see a single cite in your diatribe. I can't respond to vague comments about "alarmists" or your vague comments about other things
I don't know what exactly what you are talking about with satellites (again no cites) but I can take a guess remember this - satellites measure radiance and hence infer temps not actual temps.
That's why these are very important papers that clarified observed differences
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/309/5740/1548
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/309/5740/1556
I will say this Al Gore is a politician you will never hear me quote or defend him. I only quote scientific sources and the scientific consensus is clear and debate finished - Human activity is causing global warming and climate change
PS
Spook whatever - you're an ideolog and haven't offered any facts to support your opinion
Ohhhh Hansen took money
OK so don't listen to hansen ..... are you saying Soros also "bought" all these people and societies also?????-LOL
63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies, and over 11,885+ scientist
Union of Concerned Scientists
Woods Hole Research Center
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
American Academy for Advancement of Sciences (AAAS)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
National Research Council
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Federal Climate Change Science Program
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability
American Geophysical Union
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 - commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
American Association of State Climatologists
US Geological Survey (USGS)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – Ocean and Climate Change Institute
World Meteorological Organization
United Nations Environment Program
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences
International Council on Science
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
Pew Center on Climate Change
World Wildlife Fund
All of which have call for action against climate change cause by human activity
PS
there's plenty more so just ask
I only quote scientific sources and the scientific consensus is clear and debate finished - Human activity is causing global warming and climate change
And dem's da facts, folks. LOL!!
Neo, you wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you in the ass. Believe what and who you want to believe. As you said, "whatever". You must be in my granddaughter's generation -- she says that a lot -- she's 13.
OK so don't listen to hansen ..... are you saying Soros also "bought" all these people and societies also?????-LOL
No, they're even worse. Most, if not all of them are living off your and my hard-earned tax dollars -- money that could be going to something important.
that was a good comeback spook
I'd love to hear your response to recent studies that show we have pumped so much CO2 into the atmosphere that we've satured the oceans
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1136188
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0702737104v1
Please get back to me with your valued opinion
-N
Union of Concerned Scientists - $400,000 from George Soros over 2 years.
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) - $720,000 from Goerge Soros.
I'm sure there are more, but it's late and my bed is calling. Some of us do have real jobs to go to in the morning.
A10
you do realize many of the mentioned organizations are federal? Run by the executive branch (ie Bush political appointees)
Are you trying to imply that Soros has bought off parts of the government that's under Bush's control????
Do you realize that Bush himself has stated that humans are contributing to global warming... Are you going to tell us Soros bought him also -LOL
Do you realize that Bush himself has stated tha thumans are contributing to global warming...
ROTFL!! Now that Bush agrees with you on something, he's all of a sudden smart. That's a good one.
Saturated the oceans, huh? That sounds serious, maybe even terminal. I guess I'll have to do some research for the next GW thread.
neologizer,
There'sa significant difference between "contributing to" and "causing". "Contributing to" implies that the activity was already happening and something or someone added to the activity. "Causing" means that the activity would not have occurred without something or someone making the activity happen.
The GW Alarmists are saying humans are CAUSING the current (natural) period of GW. The President said we may be contributing to it. Two different things.
debate finished - Human activity is causing global warming and climate change - neologizer
Apparently neologizer believes in science so much that despite any factual evidence that man is the cause of AGW, he insists that there no longer is a debate.
Effectively wanting to shut the science down before it's conclusion, but at a point that which supports his theory.
NOW THAT'S SCIENCE.
This is equivalent to stopping the game in the third quarter when your team is ahead. WE WON!!!
This morning, former vice president Al Gore appeared on NBC's Today Show to talk about global warming. Host Meredith Vieira brought up a Nov. 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed by climate skeptic John Christy, a former member of the IPCC. In the op-ed, Christy wrote, "I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the activity we see."
When Vieira asked about the op-ed, Gore noted that Christy "no longer belongs to the IPCC" and is "way outside the scientific consensus." He also sharply criticized the media for giving so much air time to such climate skeptics...
As Gore noted, scientists such as Christy are outliers, yet the media continue to give them an overblown amount of airtime.
Christy has a B.A. in mathematics and an M.S. and Ph.D. in atmospheric sciences. Gore earned a degree in government and then attended divinity school and law school.
I guess Ph.D's in atmospheric sciences don't qualify to have an opinion on AGW. Right neologizer?
So the opinions of any PhD's that support AGW need to be disregarded as well.
A-10: Ricorun, Global. Did you check out the web site I linked to above?
You mean the one by Marc Morano, Senate Staffer? Wasn't that intended as a joke?
It really answers alot of the misconceptions and questions about Global Warming.
Oy.
Did you also know that the temperature increase since 1997, cited by the Goracle, is based on surface station recordings, which have been proven to be suspect, and that satellite temperature readings for the same period show NO INCREASE?
Actually, I understand that it was the satellite measurements that were off for a time, because of a software glitch or improper calibration or something. Now that they're fixed the agree closely with the surface measurements. And yes, I understand that a few of the surface station recordings suffered from software glitches as well. And that appears to be fixed, too.
Do any of the GW Alarmists wonder why the Goracle refuses to debate the issue?
Personally, I'd rather hear scientists debate the issue, not pundits.
"For the record, could you state where you're getting the data for the above statement? Also for the record, could you tell us what the highest concentration of CO2 was during the time period you are referring to? And what is the concentration now?" - ricorun
Uh, rico read the first sentence of that post.
The whole point is that rises in CO2 FOLLOW rises in temperature. Higher concentrations of CO2 are a result of rises in temperature and do not cause global warming as erroneously assumed.
First off, the kooks that believe if we eliminate CO2, we'll eliminate GW are morons (Neologizer). But if you'd like Neo, you could cut down all the plant life on earth, use all the water for waterboarding (sounds like fun to me), and since Alfgore is such a blow hard (weird since he lives in a vacuum), use him as your storage vessel of greenhouse gases until we achieve an environmental balance. I'd love to see him try to defeat Manbearpig under pressure...LOL!
Sarcasm off.
Ricorun,
Risregard what Marc Morano wrote. Read what Gary Novak wrote.
neo - post links that the organizations you list actually hold that position. How many members dissented? How many other organizations are there?
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
A-10: Risregard what Marc Morano wrote. Read what Gary Novak wrote.
There are two big problems with Novak's idea that GW is due to earth's interior is warming the oceans:
(1) He has no evidence of regular convection currents in the mantle.
(2) The periodicity between warm/cold periods is consistent with the Milankovitch cycle in the earth's orbit around the sun.
ToLBS, the reason I asked for citations and an exposition of CO2 concentrations was to at least have specific data offered up by you guys in preparation of pointing out that warming periods (within the last 800,000 years or so) appear to begin at the poles (or at least the south pole -- as measured in ice cores) before CO2 concentrations rise and before temperatures rise on the ocean floor and in lattitudes closer to the equator. So to say you're talking about "global" temperatures in the paleoclimate record just isn't specific enough.
The point is that the statement "temperatures rise before CO2 concentrations rise" is dependent upon where you look and what you look at. A second point is that under natural circumstances, where no other influences like major eruptions or gas releases either from the earth's interior or by billions of humans, all of these events are tightly coupled. Excepting such influences, they also occur in a predicable sequence. There are times, however, when those other influences can have a significant impact. When they do they affect the sequence of events but not so much their coupling.
The third point is that CO2 concentrations today exceed any previous peak in the naturally occurring fluctuations on CO2 concentration that has occurred in the time scale of the data we appear to be talking about -- which is to say the last 800,000 years or so.
Rico,
You miss the whole point. If Gore presented this chart and data as fact and it's the basis of his and the "consensus'" argument, then it doesn't matter what is measured and where. IT"S THEIR DATA FOR THE WHOLE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE!!!
If you have to ask that many questions of where I go the data from and then criticize my point that rises in temperature leads the rise in CO2, why can't you be critical of Gore who states the reverse as fact???
Gore's and the consensus' premise is wrong - they present a chart and that same chart shows the reverse of what they present as fact. I take their chart and read it for what it is and you question that as to where I got the conclusion?
Think man.
ToLBS: You miss the whole point. If Gore presented this chart and data as fact and it's the basis of his and the "consensus'" argument, then it doesn't matter what is measured and where. IT"S THEIR DATA FOR THE WHOLE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE!!!
Actually, I think you miss the point. I've never seen Gore's movie. At this point I don't intend to. I certainly won't go out of my way to see it. I prefer to stick with the science. And on that score you're wrong about IT"S THEIR DATA FOR THE WHOLE MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE!!! The scientific argument is that variance in solar radiation due to the Milankovich cycles is probably the causative agent (specifically the orbital eccentricity cycle), but it is insufficient alone to explain the magnitude of global temperature variation. Other factors must be involved. As far as I know, it's unclear exactly what is going on, and exactly what could be considered a cause and what an effect in the whole concert of changes. But those changes almost certainly include GHGs as important factors. As you point out, rises in temperature (at least at the south pole) generally do precede rises in CO2. Then again, rises in methane generally precede rises in temperature even at the poles. And without both, the magnitude of the rise in temperature is hard to explain -- even if you try to rely solely on changes in ocean currents, because they appear to be the last ones to shift. That shift appears to be consistent in time with the temperature rise measured in lower lattitudes.
Anyway, the take-home message is that temperature variations are tightly coupled with GHG concentrations. And that coupling is far tighter than any combination of orbital and/or rotational variations. You say, I take their chart and read it for what it is and you question that as to where I got the conclusion? Think man. The problem is that if you cherry-pick two variables out of many and ignore all the others, you can prove just about any point you want to make. In this case you are concentrating on temperature variations at the south pole and global CO2 concentrations. But that's only part of the story.
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.blogsforbush.com/nav-commenters.gif)
