Global Warming

[oboe]

With your methodology, its no wonder your study is unfunded.   Just what did you expect to prove by comparing a record high temperature to a record low?

Nevertheless, the biggest problem with your study's credibility is that its not based on a computer model.   Climate scientists go ape over computer models.   I think you should plug the data into a spreadsheet and pitch it to ExxonMobil.  

You might get $10,000 to publish it.

[lazs2]

now this is getting funny..   nashwan admits that a rise in  co2 follows global warming..   if that is correct we are heading out of global warming.  Did you read the article?  Hundreds of the worlds most expert scientists all agreed on the coming ice age and were having a conference...  what happened?  why didn't they get as far as the global warming guys?   no internet and....  we went into a hot spell and drought for a few years in a row...  people who were hot and thirsty and conserving water... well.. you get the idea... Like the Texans who are fighting ice storms now... they are hard to convince with smoke and mirrors.

silat... I will assume that you were serious in asking how the democrats could make things worse with a global warming scare.

If gas went to $6 a gallon and if every product costs 10 cents on the dollar more to become environmentaly friendly (to stop "global warming") and if the government in the form of the epa or some other alphabet soup new and expensive agency... if we paid another 5% taxes to support this...

Talk about your "tipping points"  the economy has a tipping point but... unlike the nebulous and maybe false man made global warming one.. it is real and easy to figure.

Then of course there is always these facts.... When it comes to end of the world scenerios...


The best scientists the world has ever produced have all been wrong every single time on doomsday.

and..... the big inconvienient truth..

ITS THE SUN STUPID.

lazs

[EagleDNY]

It's amazing to me the attacks that get heaped on anyone that doesn't just swallow the global-warming kool-aid that says man is the cause of global climate change.  I'm sorry folks, but scientific "consensus" is not proof - in the 1400s, scientific consensus was the world was flat.  In the 1970's, we were being warned of an impending ice age.  I've seen plenty of peer-reviewed science that has been debunked a few years later by another study.  

The problem with climatology is that it isn't a hard science that uses the scientific method to produce demonstrable, verifiable results.  It uses computer statistical models and data points drawn from a number of sources to try to put together a model of the global climate and predict future events.  Pardon my skepticism, but these are the same computers and models that can't tell me if I'm going to have rain or snow two weeks from now.  

I'm not ready to swallow the alarmism because of the simple fact that this planet has undergone cooling and warming trends many times before.  The sun is demonstrably and provably in a more active (read hot) phase right now, and has been that way for at least the last 30 years.  Yes, there has been a measureable (like .04%) rise in CO2 levels too, but is that caused by man, or a natural result of the oceans being fractionally warmer on average?

My opinion here does not mean that I am some right-wing freak out to pollute the planet for financial gain.  I personally think this country would be a lot better off if we had more nuclear and less coal-fired power plants, and I'm definitely up with replacing oil with renewable fuels as the technology gets better.  If the government mandates all new cars & trucks be multifuel (E85 or biodiesel) capable by 2012 or so, I'd be all over it since that means fewer american dollars going to oil dictators around the world.  I like clean water, prefer to breathe clean air, and even get P.O.ed when some idiot litters because he is too F'in lazy to dispose of his trash properly.  

Some might call me a bit "libertarian" because I have the audacity to expect my local, state, and federal governments to abide by the constitution.  That doesn't mean I'm not aware or concerned about the environment, or haven't looked at the "science" behind the global warming debate.  I studied astrophysics in college, as well as computers and statistics, and I know enough to be skeptical about climatologists claims based on statistical data.  Statistics can be manipulated to prove just about anything, and statistics alone just show what is happening, they don't show why it is happening.

EagleDNY
$.02

[Angus]

Oh?
Our world league of atmosphere scientists just came to these conclusions:
1. Our CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have just risen to very impressive amounts.
2. Our globe is now warming (the globe is a lot bigger than Texas, and the cycle is more than a winter) at an alarming speed.
3. There is hard evidence for the abovementioned.
4. The reason seems to be human influenced.
5. The ball is heavy, so even radical countermeasures will take a long time to work. (normal, - it took a long time getting where we went).
6, 7, 8, 9 etc, all sing the same tune.
Does one compare those to the clinging logics of those who do not recognize the basics (such as recognizing world's main forests as a factor adding to global warming), and then, when confronted with the factum, support total surrender (such as saying that, okay it's warming and it's our fault, but we won't do anything about it anyway)?
Well, some writers on threads like these fall into that category. I'd  rather look better into what the world league just said, and then I might consider looking at Gore's episode, hehe. (didn't see it yet)

[Skuzzy]

I blame all the bean farmers.  We will flatulate our way into an ice age if something is not done!

If you think I do not care about this, then you are quite right.  I don't care about it.  Why should I?  I like beans!

[Angus]

Hehe this one:

"The best scientists the world has ever produced have all been wrong every single time on doomsday."

I belive you refer to absolute world-ends-tomorrow theories?

On "doomsday-if we-do-this" there are some, yet to be proved, but sadly somewhat likely.

The typical, reveiled in 70's or was it 80's, Nuclear winter, which would still hold water. Nuclear holocaust and the humans being sent down to a medieval-declining stage, since they're jumping out of urban life to the scrapping chaotic survival of getting food, shelter and water, - it would hold water ( see what already happens in a US city once the power goes out for a couple of days).
So, this is not about the guy standing at the highway with the sign on his back saying "the world will end tomorrow", - it's a warning about that we are driving down a blind alley, and if we do not do something, we're hitting some deep crap. The sign reads "possible melted lava ahead please turn back on the next roundabout", - the old sign read "possible danger ahead, read next sign", so how long do you want to continue? Some pretend not to be able to read, but then the asphalt is getting soft....

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Angus
Oh?
Our world league of atmosphere scientists just came to these conclusions:
 

You left out this disclaimer, from the IPCC report published a few days ago.

Our ability to quantify the human influence on global climate is currently limited because the expected signal is still emerging from the noise of natural variability, and because there are uncertainties in key factors. These include the magnitude and patterns of long_term natural variability and the time _evolving pattern of forcing by, and response to, changes in concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and land surface changes. Nevertheless, the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.  

So basically the world scientific consensus says that:
 
1. It is still difficult to tell
2. The parameters we use are somewhat fuzzy
3. But we think it's happening and is our fault

[Angus]

I belive they still put this at 90%.
Read more, the message is very clear.
Then think about those who are still debating about whether it is warming globally at all...right here and now.

[Skuzzy]

This really is getting funnier by the minute.  They finally state, something is up, humans might be involved, but to what extent, we have no clue.  LOL!

The scientific community and used car sales people have a lot in common.  ROFL!

[Angus]

Ill give you a nice "doomsday" thing.
An asteroid will have a close shave 2029 and 2039.
It will be closer than some of our sattelites - passing inner than our orbit with the moon for instance.
I have no Idea of a gravitational effect, but an impact is unprobable as far as we know. If it should occur, which is not likely, it is not quite big enough to wipe out all of us on earth, but will go well ahead though. (tungulsk is like a pinsalamander).
This is a verision of a non-human effected doomsday, and oddly enough, one we might be able to stop if we got Bruce Willis on the job.
And as for Skuzzy, - the human related part:

"This really is getting funnier by the minute. They finally state, something is up, humans might be involved, but to what extent, we have no clue. LOL"

1. The Final state swings between very bad and very very very bad.
2. Yes we are involved.
3. Extent from very much to absolute.

Sence of realism depending.

(p.s. final statement being  a final state)

[Sabre]

Here's a rather insightful article about the debate on man-made global warming from a climatologist:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Particularly relevant were these two passages:

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Consensus is a lousy way to persue truth.  While the article doesn't explicitly discuss the "CO2 as effect, rather than cause" idea, it certainly seems like a test-able hypothesis.  The idea that a theory is only as good as the assumptions it's based on is one that the public, the politicians, and indeed many scientists seem completely unaware of.

[Angus]

Well, my theory is still, that if you drive into the nearest river you'll go anywhere from wet to dead.
Can't prove either, but you get the picture.
(there are also flat-earth scientists, and people that try to prove that the globe is no more than 6000 years old, even posting here)

Following as of sequence, that's what we know.
- increased materials in the atmosphere, i.e. co2 lead to warming.
- We increased them yeah, multiplied them.
- we predicted that it would be warming, probably
- it is,-mostly.
- fill in the blanks.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Angus
Oh?
Our world league of atmosphere scientists just came to these conclusions:
1. Our CO2 and other greenhouse gasses have just risen to very impressive amounts.
2. Our globe is now warming (the globe is a lot bigger than Texas, and the cycle is more than a winter) at an alarming speed.
3. There is hard evidence for the abovementioned.
4. The reason seems to be human influenced.
5. The ball is heavy, so even radical countermeasures will take a long time to work. (normal, - it took a long time getting where we went).

Regarding 1 & 2: Correlation is not causation.

Regarding 3: Yes, depending on what time scale you consider.

Regarding 4: "The reason seems to be..." Operative word here is "seems", as this conclusion is based on the assumption that 1 is causing 2, rather than a symptom of 2.  A conclusion is an inference from the facts, and is greatly influenced by how dear one holds the assumptions (and attendant paradygm) that colors the interpretation of those facts.

Regarding 5: If your conclusion is false, than any counter-measures would be ineffective at best, counter-productive and distructive at worse.

[Angus]

What?
Dead simple. Quadruple co2 while even anything else would stay static (Including methane, water and forests) and you WILL get a warming effect.
While the princip is known,it got debated, then the effect then the connection, then what next?
What else does it perhaps "seem" to be?

[john9001]

angus is afraid his igloo is going to melt.