One good thing to come from a long Recession/Depression

[humble]

Obviously you are weak in the comprehension area of reading...imho..means In My Humble Opinion. I really feel NO need to prove my opinion, however, records are available to support my "opinion"...if you're not too lazy.

One other note.."scientific studies" are meaningless due to the fact that the resulting data is very subjective/varies greatly, especially when done by "bleeding heart, tree hugging liberals" 

I'm a stone cold republican with no agenda. What I see here is a lot of people murdering the message not the messenger. Personally I think Al Gore is beyond being a total idiot and that the underlying very real issues have been used for political gain. That does not however change the reality that we're witnessing potential major changes in climate. The simple fact is that observable sea ice is down by 50% over the last 40 yrs or so and average thickness of the polar sea ice is diminished. Permafrost temperatures are up and glaciers are "down".

While we can debate global trends, observable effects are just that (it should be noted that temp trends in parts of Antartica are notably colder). We are seeing a tremendous change in polar ice that will affect not only sea level but also weather and current patterns globally.

[bongaroo]

You first.

I did ask you first.

It's a game of chicken, but with science.   

[sluggish]

Doesn't this topic belong in the "general climate discussion" thread?"

[RTHolmes]

Show scientific studies that have been peer reviewed and published that backs your claim dentin.

   how about you show us peer-reviewed data on global temperatures which doesnt show multi-cyclic behaviour. (Indeed try to find any complex dynamic system which doesnt show this behaviour.)

This is something that really bothers me about so many of these "climate scientists", they are quite happy to show you a timeline spanning 10s or 100s of years and draw major conclusions from it when this plainly doesnt have the scope to reveal trends. unfortunately there are so many of these buskers in this field that it makes it almost impossible to single out the scientists and theories of merit

[bongaroo]

Again, I asked first.  I'd like to see what kind of shenanigans we're up against. 

Please find the reports from that crackjob who is in the energy companies pockets who 20 years ago was arguing their was no connection between cigarettes and lung cancer when he was in the tobacco companies pockets.  He's a winner for sure.

[RTHolmes]

there ya go. of course this is just 1000years so almost worthless for discerning trends in global temperature, but even at this resolution you can plainly see cyclic behaviour. your turn.


refs:
The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:

   1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471.
   2. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6: 759-762.
   3. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277.
   4. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.
   5. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563: 2250-2253.
   6. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15: 1820. DOI:10.1029/2003GL017814.
   7. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. DOI:10.1029/2003RG000143
   8. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. DOI:10.1029/2004GL019781
   9. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. DOI:10.1038/nature03265
  10. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. DOI:10.1126/science.1107046

[bongaroo]

And look at the big gray bar representing the average of those findings.  Seems to be taking a big spike in the past 150-200 years.  Hmm...what's been happening in these past 200 odd years?  Oh I know!  Humans industrializing!

This is in no way science.  I'm at work and just feel like stirring the pot up.   

I'll be happy to share some reports for your reading pleasure tonight or tomorrow as time allows.

[RTHolmes]

no need for third-party editorial thanks, the data is freely available and I can make my own mind up.

you see what you did there? despite me signposting it for you, you ignored the blindingly obvious cylic nature of the temps, when you should have admitted that, yes, global temps are indeed cyclic in nature.

next you also ignored my point about needing to look at a suitable scale to discern trends and have done exactly what i posted about before - you've taken the small snapshot of data which happens to fit your conjecture and used that as "proof."

I think you just qualified as a "climate scientist."

[Tom5572]

It is my opinion the global warming "crisis" is a farce.  The world's temperatures have been doing a yo-yo since there was life.  Mother Nature, herself, does more to harm the earths atmosphere through volcanic eruptions and other natural occurrences then man ever could.  The carbon dioxide produced by driving automobiles provides less than 1% of all carbon dioxide produced in a year.
     I found an article from the Senate's committee on climate change, I believe it is dated from 2006.  I has reference to several other statements from respected scientists from around the world.

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

My two cents.

WMTom

PS...In

[bongaroo]

no need for third-party editorial thanks, the data is freely available and I can make my own mind up.

you see what you did there? despite me signposting it for you, you ignored the blindingly obvious cylic nature of the temps, when you should have admitted that, yes, global temps are indeed cyclic in nature.

next you also ignored my point about needing to look at a suitable scale to discern trends and have done exactly what i posted about before - you've taken the small snapshot of data which happens to fit your conjecture and used that as "proof."

I think you just qualified as a "climate scientist."

 

Read the whole post before getting all huffy puffy on me.  Here, I'll repost the important part.

This is in no way science.  I'm at work and just feel like stirring the pot up.  

I'll be happy to share some reports for your reading pleasure tonight or tomorrow as time allows.

Is that clear enough for you?

Yes the temperatures clearly show a cyclic nature.  What's important for us to note is the concerning amplitude increase of the past 150 years. 

Simply stating that it isn't man-made is no reason for science to continue to attempt to come to terms with the changes in our environment and what it means for the future.  Or we could just say "not our fault!" and stick our heads in the sand waiting for whatever comes.

Bringing me to your last point of contention.  Don't get angry at me for posting my interpretation of the data you yourself provided for discussion.  Give us the larger scale to discuss if you want.

Anyways, there is already a thread at 200 pages or so with all this crap.  I doubt anyone will be changing anyone else's mind about things in here.

[Chalenge]

Amplitude increase? You mean the spike caused by placing the instruments for the test next to cities and airports?

[Steve]

The underlying problem is that global warming is very very real and that reality is pacing far far ahead of any scientific modeling.

nope.  Now we are entering a cooling phase.

[RTHolmes]

hehe bong im not angry at all, its just that you used the "provide peer-reviewed data" card and I decided to throw my money on the table and get stuck in. You just happened to provide a useful proxy for the 1000s of "scientists" who, although woefully unqualified, still manage to influence policy and therefore taxation. I resent pissing my money away on carbon credit BS every time I fill my car up or pay my tax bill.

I dont mean to sound ruthless, but I am, so thats the way it comes across

[Anaxogoras]

Our grand children and great grand children are going to have a lot of questions for us.

[dentin]

The underlying question isn't "IF" we're experiencing global warming (we are) or "IF" our actions are contributing but to what degree and why. Further global warming is really a small part of a larger issue. If we view the earth as a host and look at our role mankind acts more as an infection then anything else. We're poisoning our planet and damaging it to an amazing degree in a very short time frame. We're beginning to see more and more cause and effect in our actions in everything from increased mutations in bacteria to increases in Autism and other systemic conditions. The only real "question" is if we're going to succeed in "killing" the planet before it succeeds in killing us or not.

My money says that Mother Earth will make the necessary adjustments to mankind wayy before she allows the planet to go down the tubes. Left to our own devices, as it were, WE, collectively will assure our own population control/demise... to coin a phrase.. "it ain't gettin any better brother". 

On the topic at hand.. " One good thing to come from a long Recession/Depression"??  Nothing "good" ever comes from a Recession/depression. IMMHO