I do reply on my own judgment to a great extent. My majors in physics and business help, as well, as my training in logistics and experience around the globe.

I've read extensively on the subject and observed those pushing one side or another. The science I see on the warmist side appears to readily refuted at several points, as I've stated. The agendae of those involved are suspect as well. Progressive desire power and control. Others like Gore appear to be exploiters and massive hypocrites. What else can I call a person whose wealth increases from the cap and trade dodge while hawking his cause thru a movie. Then, living a lifestyle with a carbon footprint the size of a yeti's in snowshoes.
Skep, for the last time, there is no consensus.


US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Link


Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
May 15, 2007

Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )


Link

Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Outpouring of Skeptical Scientists Continues as 59 Scientists Added to Senate Report

‘The ­science has, quite simply, gone awry’



Link to Introduction of Report

Link to Full Printable 255-Page PDF Report

Washington, DC: Fifty-nine additional scientists from around the world have been added to the U.S. Senate Minority Report of dissenting scientists, pushing the total to over 700 skeptical international scientists – a dramatic increase from the original 650 scientists featured in the initial December 11, 2008 release. The 59 additional scientists added to the 255-page Senate Minority report since the initial release 13 ½ weeks ago represents an average of over four skeptical scientists a week. This updated report – which includes yet another former UN IPCC scientist – represents an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial report’s release in December 2007.

The over 700 dissenting scientists are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. The 59 additional scientists hail from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, Netherlands, the U.S. and many are affiliated with prestigious institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force, the Philosophical Society of Washington (the oldest scientific society in Washington), Princeton University, Tulane University, American University, Oregon State University, U.S. Naval Academy and EPA.

The explosion of skeptical scientific voices is accelerating unabated in 2009. A March 14, 2009 article in the Australian revealed that Japanese scientists are now at the forefront of rejecting man-made climate fears prompted by the UN IPCC.
My favorite last. The statement against Al Gore's untrue truths film documented in court. Start reading on page 5.

Link
A couple of articles from USA Today that may be of interest on the sugject:

This past June the 2nd warmest on record : Link

Thinning of sea ice at the polar regions since 2004
Link
Link


Friday, July 10, 2009 9:21 AM
The Year Without A Summer? 1816 vs. 2009

UPDATE: PEI, Canada has had the first July frost in recorded history (thanks Mark).

We took some flack last month for mentioning the term "Year Without A Summer" but this morning there's a tidbit of data that matches that famous season nearly 200 years ago. If you look back in the AccuWeather Almanac, there are a handful of entries from the Summer of 1816, one of which says:

"44 degrees at sunrise in Waltham, Massachusetts (west of Boston) on July 8th."

Well, this morning it was 43 degrees at Taunton, Mass., south of Boston!
Link

Arctic Sea Ice decline in the 21st


— group @ 1:43 pm

Guest Commentary by Cecilia Bitz, University of Washington

Last month a paper I co-authored received considerable media attention. Headlines read “Experts warn North Pole will be ‘ice free’ by 2040″, “The Big Melt: Loss of Sea Ice Snowballs“, and “Arctic Clear for Summer Sailing by 2040: Models Predict Rapid Decline of Sea Ice”. The story also reached NPR, BBC, CBC, the Discovery channel, and Fox News, among others. Dr. Marika Holland, the first author of the paper, was inundated with media attention. About a dozen journalists contacted me too. I was impressed by the questions they posed — questions that probably reflect what the public most wants to know. However, after giving lengthy interviews, I would read the resulting article and see my explanations boiled down to a few lines. In this essay, I’d like to explain the science in the paper and give my answers to the most often asked questions.


In our paper (with co-author Bruno Tremblay), we examined the September Arctic sea ice cover in the 20th and 21st centuries in climate models, and found occasional decades of very rapid retreat. The most extreme case was a decrease from 6 to 2 million square kilometers in a decade (see Fig 1). This is about 4 times faster than the decline that has been observed in the past decade.


Figure 1: (a) Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent in September from one integration of the Community Climate System Model version 3 (CCSM3) with observations from the satellite era shown in red. The light blue line is a 5-yr running mean. The three lower panels show the September ice concentration (ice floes are separated by open water) in three select decades.

It is common practice to run climate models multiple times with slight variations to the initial conditions. Because the system is chaotic, the natural variability in each run is random and uncorrelated from one run to the next. When an ensemble of runs is averaged, the natural variability is reduced in the ensemble mean, and it is easier to detect a significant trend.

An ensemble of runs offers an opportunity to evaluate rare events too, such as extreme sea ice decay. We were in search of evidence for “tipping points“, which several authors have speculated might exist in sea ice. RealClimate places sea ice in the category of systems with “known unknowns” with regard to tipping points. This means we know there are thresholds involving sea ice (e.g., it can cease to exist), but we don’t know when, or if, the climate will arrive at one.

Only one of seven ensemble members had an event as extreme as quoted above, and it resulted in near ice-free conditions for September by 2040 (see Fig 1d). (The sea ice grows back at least for some portion of winter for the duration of the 21st century.) However, every ensemble member had an event 5 years or longer at some time in the 21st century when the sea ice retreat was about 3 times faster than the observed retreat since 2001 (see Fig 2). These ensemble members took about 5–10 years longer to become nearly ice-free in September than the most extreme case.

As illustrated in Fig 1, the sea ice retreat accelerates during the 21st century as the ice decays and more sunlight is absorbed by the ocean (the positive ice-albedo feedback). Increasing ocean heat transport under the sea ice adds to the melt back. The retreat appears abrupt when natural variability in the ocean heat transport into the Arctic Ocean is anomalously high. We did not find clear evidence of a threshold, which can be difficult to identify given the variability and complexity of the climate system. Therefore we can neither verify or rule-out the existence of a tipping point. Regardless, the rapid declines seen in our runs are a serious concern.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Link

Arctic Sea Ice decline in the 21st


Umm, LMM? This is an article that discusses the disappearing north pole ice cap due to GLOBAL WARMING (and placed the blame mostly on emissions).

Thank you. It coincides with the recent data from NASA that I posted earlier that has some shocking data about the thinning of the ice on the poles.
Yes, and if you will look, it admits that they ran seven different scenarios and got seven different answers.
The reason I put it up was that one of the authors was ticked off that the entire report was not looked at, only the part that people wanted to see.

There is no consensus that global warming is any thing more than a cyclic process, controlled by solar rays, that has had temps up and downs for millenniums, without humans and it will continue with or without humans.

The thinning arctic ice is a four year span and you want to bet your future on that?

Obama's carbon credits will run through a company in Chicago, and will rake in millions for all his mafia buddies. Gore will make a bundle as well.

I guess all the scientists bailing OUT of the idiocy did not affect your reasoning.

As I said, you believe what you want to believe until NASA or NOAA gets off Obama's pay roll and actual shows the real data, not skewed numbers.

When you can show me 80% of scientists agreeing, I'll call it a consensus.
God gave us the natural springs, creeks, oceans, clean air, trees, bushes, flowers. When God first created the earth, it was clean and stayed clean for a long time. Then he created Adam and Eve, who could not resist temptation and ate the fruit of knowledge. It's amazing the fruit of knowledge is telling us no such thing as global warming. God also gave us a body and we can either abuse it or take care of it. Most of us choose to destroy it by smoking, abusing drugs and alcohol. But the fruit of knowledge that started from the temptation got us in one hell of a mess.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
When you can show me 80% of scientists agreeing, I'll call it a consensus.


I asked Int and didn't get and answer so I'll ask you: What scientific organizations do you think represent a "consensus" on this issue?

Me? I go with what the National Academies of Science say. They represent sort of a "Supreme Court" of peer reviews journals and their only agenda is good science. THey have issues numerous position statements. I challenge you to find one that does disagrees with the consensus.

You may wish to take a look at the position statements of the American Geophysical Union. They represent about 20,000 members in the US and about 5000 in Europe. No climatologists worth his salt is NOT a member of the AGU. A A significant poll of them indicates 97% agreement:

The survey of 3,146 earth scientists from around the world found overwhelming agreement that in the past 200 years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a "significant contributing factor" in changing mean global temperatures.

Peter Doran, an associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.

The findings appeared Monday in the journal "Eos, Transactions," a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

"The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes," the researchers conclude.


Another study has this to say,

Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change

STATS survey of experts reveals changing scientific opinion on global warming, extent of pressure to play up or down threat.

Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991. However, the survey finds that scientists are still debating the dynamics and dangers of global warming, and only three percent trust newspaper or television coverage of climate change.

The survey, which was conducted for STATS by Harris Interactive®, also found increased concern among climate scientists since the Gallup organization asked them many of the same questions in 1991.


How about Gallup, LMM? They performed a survey of climatologists and found A recent survey of earth scientists found that 97% of climatologists surveyed believe that humans play a role global warming. Link

Honestly, LMM, I cannot find a single legitimate scientific organization whose member do not overwhelmingly (in excess of you "80%" agree that global warming is real and is probably man made.
quote:
Originally posted by Nobluedog:
God gave us the natural springs, creeks, oceans, clean air, trees, bushes, flowers. When God first created the earth, it was clean and stayed clean for a long time. Then he created Adam and Eve, who could not resist temptation and ate the fruit of knowledge.


Thank you for that insightful bit of scientific knowledge.
How Gallop got their numbers.
First, they used the perceived view that it is caused by man then the sample size actually tested is 149-5273. That is a very small size.
They admit over half of the people survey had not even heard of global warming. They also saw a relationship between the richer nations vs the poorer. At best they got about 52% public opinion believing in man caused global warming.

quote:
Whereas the connection between views about global warming and efficiency of GDP production has implications for public policy, the question of causality remains. Any number of factors could be affecting the relationship, ranging from news and policies about global warming to technologies available in each country. A recent survey of earth scientists found that 97% of climatologists surveyed believe that humans play a role global warming. However, policy-makers should be aware that public opinion on the causes of global warming varies widely. Further, such public perceptions may play a role in economic and environmental outcomes.



Results for knowledge of and perceived causes of global warming are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews conducted between 2007 and 2008. Results for perceived causes of global warming have a sample size range of 149 to 5,273. Confidence intervals range from a high of ±8 percentage points in Liberia (n = 149) to a low of ±1 percentage points in China (n = 5,273). In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.


On your STATS survey,

quote:
Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science. A random sample of this size carries a theoretical sampling error of +/- four percentage points. A detailed description of the study’s methodology as well as that of the earlier Gallup survey is available on request.


Again a very small sample size (489) and it was a mail in survey. Who does that? Not to mention, that automatically skewed the results.

Your own AGU may have 25,000 members but only 3,146 earth scientists participated. That's 12% who agreed 97% of the time.
Last edited by LMM
NCAR
Link

Here's a good one for you skippy! no humans needed.

Gore's says a one degree rise (C) will raise ocean levels 20 feet. Well, this show in the past a temp rise of about 12 (C) only caused a 16 foot rise.


New Cause for Past Global Warming Revealed by Massive Modeling Project

July 16, 2009

BOULDER—By simulating 8,000 years of climate with unprecedented detail and accuracy, a team led by scientists from the University of Wisconsin–Madison and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has found a new explanation for the last major period of global warming, which occurred about 14,500 years ago.

In a period called the Bølling-Allerød warming, global sea level rose by 16 feet and temperatures in Greenland soared by up to 27 degrees Fahrenheit over several hundred years. The new study shows how increased carbon dioxide, strengthening ocean currents, and a release of ocean-stored heat could have combined to trigger the warming.

Findings from the experiment appear in the July 17 issue of Science. The study was funded by NCAR's sponsor, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Simulations were conducted on the Community Climate System Model (CCSM), which is a collaborative effort based at NCAR and supported primarily by NSF and DOE.


The study examined the period from 22,000 to 14,000 years ago, as Earth emerged in fits and starts from the extreme cold of the last ice age. Temperatures rose from about 21,000 to 19,000 years ago, then cooled again after glacial meltwater weakened the Atlantic Ocean's warming "conveyor belt," also called the thermohaline circulation.

One mystery the scientists hoped to solve was why global warming resumed so abruptly and strongly during the Bølling-Allerød period, about 14,500 years ago. Previous studies using simpler models had speculated that a sudden shift in the Atlantic Ocean conveyor belt might have caused the Bølling-Allerød warming. However, the new work with the CCSM suggests that three factors each contributed about a third of the warming:

* an increase of about 40 parts per million in atmospheric carbon dioxide
* a strengthening of the Atlantic Ocean's conveyor belt circulation
* the release of heat stored in the ocean over thousands of years

"Once the glacial melt stopped, the enormous subsurface heat that had accumulated for 3,000 years erupted like a volcano and popped out over decades," says Liu. "This huge heat flux melted the sea ice and warmed up Greenland."
One of your own AGU buddies.

Global Dimming and Brightening


HYPERLINK "http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N7/EDIT.jsp" Link


Gerald Stanhill of the Institute of Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences at the Volcani Center in Bet Dagan, Israel, raises some questions of real concern in the 30 January 2007 issue of EOS - the "Newspaper of the Earth and Space Sciences" that is published weekly by the American Geophysical Union - which questions are intended, in his words, "to draw attention to the challenge that recently reported changes in solar radiation at the earth's surface, Eg↓, pose to the consensus explanation of climate change."

Stanhill begins his short treatise by noting there was "a widespread reduction in solar radiation at the earth's surface, often referred to as global dimming," which "lasted from the mid-1950s until the mid-1980s when a recovery, referred to as global brightening, started." This dimming over the land surface of the globe led to a 20 W/m2 reduction in Eg↓, between 1958 and 1992, which negative shortwave forcing, in his words, was "far greater than the 2.4 W/m2 increase in the positive longwave radiative forcing estimated to have occurred since the industrial era as a result of fossil and biofuel combustion," which latter forcing, he notes, is "what provides the consensus explanation of global warming."

Reporting that "the cause of these large changes in Eg↓, is not known," but that they totally dwarf the change in longwave radiative forcing claimed to be responsible for 20th-century global warming, Stanhill goes on to further report that "no reference to these findings has appeared in the three massive IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] assessment reports published during the past 15 years," which glaring omission, in his words, "is surprising in view of the important practical consequences of changes in Eg↓, in addition to their theoretical significance for climate change."

Continuing with this line of reasoning, Stanhill contends that "the omission of reference to changes in Eg↓, in the IPCC assessments brings into question the confidence that can be placed in a top-down, 'consensus' science system that ignores such a major and significant element of climate change," which leads him to suggest that "a separate and more fundamental question is whether scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficient to produce a useful consensus view," as we currently have people "asking questions that can be stated in the language of science but that are currently beyond its ability to answer."

We agree with Stanhill's concerns, and contend that until the two-stage global dimming and brightening phenomenon - which involves much greater changes in earth's surface radiative energy balance than that provided by all anthropogenic-induced changes in greenhouse gas concentrations since the start of the Industrial Revolution - can be satisfactorily explained, there is no compelling reason to put any faith whatsoever in what today's climate models imply about the future. And if we have no reason to believe what they suggest, why should we even entertain the foundationless pronouncements of the vast array of politicians who pontificate upon the subject?

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

Reference
Stanhill, G. 2007. A perspective on global warming, dimming, and brightening. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 88: 58.
For me its when I see such a subject treated as a matter of faith, rather scientific principle, I ask the question -- who profits? Then, I follow the money. With global warming, the trail simply reeks of dead skunk, and those shouting loudest for it are those who will profit from the measures demanded.
Lest we forget, Al Gore decreed that "the debate over global warming is over." A whiff of eau de skunk from that direction as well, I imagine.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
How Gallop got their numbers.
First, they used the perceived view that it is caused by man then the sample size actually tested is 149-5273. That is a very small size.
They admit over half of the people survey had not even heard of global warming.


LMM, that was different survey. I was specifically referring to the poll of climatologists that far exceeded your 80% threshold for siding with the consensus.

I've asked you and Int both a few times and neither of you will answer (which is quite telling): What legitimate scientific organization (or polling data) would you trust as an accurate measure of the consensus for this issue?
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
One of your own AGU buddies.

Global Dimming and Brightening
.


Yes, LMM, there is dissent. This is science.

However, I will note that they do agree that the globe has been getting warmer - something you keep denying. These TWO GUYS simply disagree that it will continue to get warmer. They may be right. Who the hell knows? I certainly don't but, unlike you and other deniers, I won't deny the facts simply because I don't like them.

Your article illustrates my point pretty clearly: This is a vastly complex issue that neither you nor I nor anyone else here is qualified to address. When there is such complexity on a scientific issue, the only rational choice is to side with the overwhelming consensus.

As I've stated a half dozen times, I don't really like what the consensus says and disagree with the politicians on how to handle it and I think Gore is a complete moron for overstating the issue.

But that doesn't change the consensus that GW is real and is probably man made.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
For me its when I see such a subject treated as a matter of faith, rather scientific principle,.


That is EXACTLY what you and LMM are doing, Int.

You keep spouting your opinion that you've been hoodwinked before. You cite your past experience with politicians and money yet you have utterly refused to cite any valid, scientific evidence that supports your claims. You refuse to answer very simple questions from me. It is a typical fundamentalist tactic that I would not expect from you.

On the other hand, I have cited link after link of authoritative, representataive consensus views. You refute them as if they don't count simpy beucase you don't like it.

You are denying the facts that don't suit your preconceptions.

You, sir, are being true to your faith.
quote:
You are denying the facts that don't suit your preconceptions.

Describes you perfectly.


Is the earth getting warmer right now? No
Does it runs in cycles? Yes
Are you hooked on Gore's Nazi theme? Yes
Am I through with this? YES!
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Am I through with this? YES!


When you can't honestly answer the tough questions without backtracking on your religious stance, I suppose that is the only thing left. It's a common tactic tauht by the "NashBama School of Logic Avoidance." Wink

But if you'd like to come back and answer a very honest question, please tell me what scientific organization you would use for a valid consensus on this issue?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Am I through with this? YES!


When you can't honestly answer the tough questions without backtracking on your religious stance, I suppose that is the only thing left. It's a common tactic tauht by the "NashBama School of Logic Avoidance." Wink

But if you'd like to come back and answer a very honest question, please tell me what scientific organization you would use for a valid consensus on this issue?


So now scientists have to come to a consensus? In other words, they have a committee decide on on what the definition of "is" is. Hardly the "scientific method" I grew up learning.
quote:
Originally posted by marksw59:
So now scientists have to come to a consensus?(...)Hardly the "scientific method" I grew up learning.


No, consensus has nothing to do with the scientific method. My point (that I evidently have to repeat in every single post) is that on such a complicated and seemingly contradictory issue as global warming, the only rational stance is to go with the consensus--and there is a very strong consensus.

What we see here are uneducated people siding with individual scientists who share their preconceived notions about the subject. The posters here see this as a liberal/conservative issue, not a scientific one (and there is some truth to that). The GW deniers are overwhelmingly white, conservative bible thumpers who are towing the conservative line rather than looking at the data objectively.
Broke two record lows Saturday night, broke another last night. Maine has it lowest recorded temp in March of this year. GW, yeeeeah!

What does religion have to do with GW, skeptical?
I have never once used anything other than scientific opinions to support my view.

YOU are the one lumping every one who doesn't agree with YOU into a narrow band of uneducated, irrational, Bible thumpers!

YOU are the only one pushing your opinion, which means, statistically, on this forum of 8962 members, YOU represent 0.01% of people who believe in global warming. So 99.99% don't.

Good statistics.

Get the blankets out, another cool night tonight! Razzer
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Broke two record lows Saturday night, broke another last night. Maine has it lowest recorded temp in March of this year. GW, yeeeeah!


Global warming does not mean there will be an end to record high and record low temps, LMM. It means, on average, that the globe will warm, on average, a couple of tenths of a degree every decade so that, 100 years from now, current models predict an average increase of 4 degrees (if my memory serves me right).

We just finished one of the warmest couple of winters we've had in a while. Remember when it used to snow here a lot? In fact, GW predicts that some areas will moderate, some areas will get colder and most will become a little warmer, most desserts will expand and all sorts of other phenomenon. Predictions are that we will see MORE extremes in weather, not less as you seem to insist.

Here is a fascinating map that I consult often that tells me what plants will grow in my landscape. Link

This map reflects reality, LMM. This site was not designed by evil GW proponents looking to steal money from your wallet. North Alabama used to be firmly in zone 7. We are now on the edge of zone 8 (and there seems to be a small pocket of zone 8 centered right over the Shoals). I am now able to grow plants in my yard that used to only grow in south Alabama.

Click "reset" and "play" back and forth. This is reality, LMM. Again, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Only the future will tell if the VERY REAL prospect of climate change is ultimately a good or bad thing for our race. So far, I gotta tell you that I like a warmer globe.

Would you care to refute this map with a map of your own? Probably not but I'll keep asking, anyway.

quote:
What does religion have to do with GW, skeptical?


Well, that is actually debatable. Here is an interesting chart that summarizes a Pew Forum study: Link

There does appear to be a slight tendency that the more "evangelical" you are, the less likely you are to "believe" in GW but I will admit that the stats are not definitive.

So I retract my statement.

quote:
YOU are the one lumping every one who doesn't agree with YOU into a narrow band of uneducated, irrational, Bible thumpers!

YOU are the only one pushing your opinion,


I am certainly the only one backing their claims with reliable, substantiated scientific data from legitimate scientific sources. You have posted plenty from GW denialist websites that I have proven have a political agenda.

I know there is a tendency for strong believers to believe in a concept or idea despite the contradictory evidence. That is exactly what I am seeing here.

I am the only one will to answer every question presented to me honestly and openly. Your penchant for dodge my questions is transparent, LMM. You can prove me wrong by answering my questions right now if you'd like.

quote:
YOU are the only one pushing your opinion, which means, statistically, on this forum of 8962 members, YOU represent 0.01% of people who believe in global warming. So 99.99% don't.



According to the stats I just posted, I am one of about 80% of the rest of the nation that agrees with the overwhelming consensus that the globe is getting warmer. I think that moots your point that I am on the side of liberal tree huggers and environmentalist wackos (and I most certainly do NOT side with their stance on this issue).
Not, per Rasmussen:

"Monday, January 19, 2009 Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Link
quote:
According to the stats I just posted, I am one of about 80% of the rest of the nation that agrees with the overwhelming consensus that the globe is getting warmer. I think that moots your point that I am on the side of liberal tree huggers and environmentalist wackos (and I most certainly do NOT side with their stance on this issue).


Again, let's be sure we're debating the same topic. There is general consensus that the mean global temperature is increasing about .4 degrees per decade. If this continues for a century it will result in a 4 degree increase in the temperature. It is not certain that it will continue to increase for a century.

What continues to be in contention is the part human civilization plays in this little drama. We all recall the ozone layer thing that happened years ago; the ozone layer was being depleted due to fluorocarbons, freon, spray can propellant, and other such nasties. We removed them from our environment and-what?-no more ozone problems? The ozone layer protects from solar radiation, but ozone is created by the interaction of solar radiation and atmospheric oxygen. It is likely the problem would have been self-correcting, but we managed without a significant economic dislocation. Well, some were affected very significantly.

Now we come to the role of carbon dioxide. We recognize there MAY be a global increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We assume the cause is human civilization, but it could be a variety of other things...vulcanism, deforestation, ocean cooling for a few. We're not even completely convinced if the CO2 levels are causing GW, or are caused by GW. It's still debated.

Okay, assume it is caused by human civilization. How is a significant economic dislocation to the United States going to significantly impact the amount of CO2 going into the GLOBAL atmosphere, when countries of much weaker development and no environmental regulation continue to pour gigatons of crap into the air?

Nuclear power? I'm all for it. I also believe petroleum is too valuable a chemical than to have to burn it for fuel, so electric cars (reserving gasoline for motorcycles and boats!) should be a high national priority. Green spaces should abound in our country. Clean up waterways, and stop dumping crap in the ocean, killing of algae which happens to account for the generation of most of the oxygen on this planet.

Keep the debate straight. Perhaps global warming is real and is caused by other than human agency. If it continues, we'll need technology to save us. Perhaps we should consider the earth is too fragile a basket to keep humanity in. This whole MMGW thing threatens to pull the underpinnings from the only thing that can save us from whatever disaster may come our way. Let's face it, the US has the ONLY economy that can provide what this planet needs in the coming centuries. We should think long and hard before we kill it.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
Not, per Rasmussen:

"Monday, January 19, 2009 Al Gore’s side may be coming to power in Washington, but they appear to be losing the battle on the idea that humans are to blame for global warming.

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.

Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Link


Int,

Once again, that is a poll that asks what the CAUSES of global warming are. I agree the jury is out. As I've stated over and over and over again, the consensus is that it is "probably" man made.

What you and LMM have been debating against the the fact the GW even exists as a real phenomenon - which is absurd in the face of the overwhelming evidence and consensus.
First, you state:

"According to the stats I just posted, I am one of about 80% of the rest of the nation that agrees with the overwhelming consensus that the globe is getting warmer."

Then, I show a poll to the opposite and you reply:

"Once again, that is a poll that asks what the CAUSES of global warming are. I agree the jury is out. As I've stated over and over and over again, the consensus is that it is "probably" man made.

What you and LMM have been debating against the the fact the GW even exists as a real phenomenon - which is absurd in the face of the overwhelming evidence and consensus."

While it is possible to ride two horses at once, trying to ride two sides of an argument is not logical.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Again, let's be sure we're debating the same topic. There is general consensus that the mean global temperature is increasing about .4 degrees per decade. If this continues for a century it will result in a 4 degree increase in the temperature. It is not certain that it will continue to increase for a century.


Thank you, Zip. Sometimes I feel like I'm preaching to a deaf congregation.

For the most part, yes, that is the current consensus as best I can tell. The jury is out on the causes and mitigating factors. It seems that a new theory on "tipping points" and causes and effects come out every day but no one in their right mind declares that the globe is getting warmer - except for our resident deniers. Wink

quote:
What continues to be in contention is the part human civilization plays in this little drama.


Well, not. Not really. Not in this thread. I think the majority consensus is that GW is man made but readily (and frequently) admit that there is abundant evidence for other causes.

quote:
We're not even completely convinced if the CO2 levels are causing GW, or are caused by GW. It's still debated.


Yup. I've stated that a few times here as well. But, as I've stated a few times, there certainly is a correlation between CO2 and temps. CO2 levels are certainly much, much higher than they have been in millions of years. I've also stated that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.

But IF CO2 levels DO induce temp increases, then we may have a serious problem. May. Might. Ignoring that the data exists is certainly dangerous.


quote:
Okay, assume it is caused by human civilization. How is a significant economic dislocation to the United States going to significantly impact the amount of CO2 going into the GLOBAL atmosphere, when countries of much weaker development and no environmental regulation continue to pour gigatons of crap into the air?


Beyond my pay grade, Zip. I really, honestly don't have an opinion. I tend to side with the people that say there's not a damm thing we can do about it because the tipping point happened years ago. But I just don't know. I'm a defender of science, not politics - in this issue, anyway.

quote:
Let's face it, the US has the ONLY economy that can provide what this planet needs in the coming centuries. We should think long and hard before we kill it.


We can provide the leadership when it is necessary. The solution, if any is offered, will need to be a global one.

But, again, I'm not convinced this whole GW thing is necessarily a bad thing. To deny that is even exists is at least illogical and perhaps even dangerous.

Agreed again.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Again, let's be sure we're debating the same topic. There is general consensus that the mean global temperature is increasing about .4 degrees per decade. If this continues for a century it will result in a 4 degree increase in the temperature. It is not certain that it will continue to increase for a century.



Thank you, Zip. Sometimes I feel like I'm preaching to a deaf congregation.

For the most part, yes, that is the current consensus as best I can tell. The jury is out on the causes and mitigating factors. It seems that a new theory on "tipping points" and causes and effects come out every day but no one in their right mind declares that the globe is getting warmer - except for our resident deniers. Wink



If this continues for a century it will result in a 4 degree increase in the temperature. It is not certain that it will continue to increase for a century.

And so, I deny it.
LMM, there is some evidence to suggest the world is warming up a bit. Now, before you smack me down, there is a margin of error because the global mean temperatures are based on a statistical model using data from a few thousand points on the surface of the land masses of the earth. A century ago, these were not available. As I wrote to cookey, there's no "beyond a reasonable doubt" evidence to call it manmade.

However, there are some really commonsense things we should do that will save us money in the long run. I'm behind those, but I'm squarely opposed to the cap and trade crap that will give the GoreBot a few hundred million dollars more in his bank account.
I never said it has not been warming, I still stand behind my statement that is runs in cycles. According to what I have read, we are ending a warming phase and starting a cooling one. The statistical models cannot even give us the numbers we have today when numbers from 50 to 100 years ago are plugged in.

As for common sense ideas, sure, recycle, do without when possible, use your own energy by walking, make use of all possible energy sources, but don't break the bank on 'iffy' data.

Link

World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.


This does appear to be a reputable oraganization unlike your other links from sources that are funded by oil and gas companies. Good job, LMM.

However, the entire website is devoted to educating people about the potential dangers of GLOBAL WARMING. From the exact same website we see a statement that reflects the consensus.

Their main page says:
There is indisputable evidence from observations that the Earth is warming. Concentrations of CO2, created largely by the burning of fossil fuels, are now much higher, and increasing at a much faster rate, than at any time in the last 600,000 years. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the increased concentrations have contributed to the recent warming and probably most of the warming over the last 50 years.

That statement reflects the general consensus.

Here are some other facts from your site:

Fact 2
Temperatures are continuing to rise.

Fact 3
The current climate change is not just part of a natural cycle.

Fact 4
Recent warming cannot be explained by the Sun or natural factors alone.

Fact 5
If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix.


And finally, LMM there is this one under "myths" that you may find interesting:

Myth 2
Drop in monthly global temperature means global warming has stopped. Link

This link includes the graph that you posted, LMM, then discusses why it is not a legitimate indicator of future predictions.

LMM my friend, really. Nearly every link you have posted thus far actually supports my stance. You are picking the few pieces of data that support your opinion while wholly and transparently ignoring all the contrary data.

A prescription for a subscription to Skeptic Magazine would do you wonders.


I see that you are now claiming that you've not disputed that the globe has been getting warmer (which is the ONLY thing that I have been arguing and the ONLY thing that you have disputed). I guess that is progress but wouldn't it be easier to say, "OK, I was wrong."

Attachments

Images (1)
No skep, I have constantly said it has cycles. The warming phase is ending.

CYCLES, CYCLES, CYCLES, CYCLES, CYCLES.


1850 was the end of the Little Ice Age. I am not going over all this again.

For a review of my comments:
'''Nope, Skep, global warming is a hoax. Makes money and scares people. Just what the dems want. The earth has cycles, and will continue to do so after we are gone.'''

'''And, yes, Mars goes through cycles just like all the other planets. Mars' warming happens to coincide with our warming at the moment but that is utterly meaningless to this conversation. Mars' C02 levels are quite stable.)
Utterly meaningless? Really? Isn't that the trick of ignoring what doesn't agree with your point of view?
There is NO CONSENSUS of the scientific community'''

'''Oldest DNA Ever Recovered Suggests Earth Was Warmer
July 5th, 2007 Reconstruction of Ancient Greenland
New Danish research shows that large parts of Greenland were covered by forest. This was discovered by analysing fossil DNA which had been preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap.'''

'''I see no major consensus to either side. If we could find at least 80% of the scientists agreeing, I could go for it. That ain't happening BUD!'''

'''Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics'''

'''There is no consensus that global warming is any thing more than a cyclic process, controlled by solar rays, that has had temps up and downs for millenniums, without humans and it will continue with or without humans.'''
From the same cite:

The problem is that no real evidence exists for strong positive feedbacks. Worse, they seem contradicted by the paleoclimatic history of the planet, which has never experienced runaway warming even when CO2 levels were ten or more times higher than they are today. Over geologic time, CO2 correlates very poorly with temperature, leading one to conclude that it's a very weak greenhouse gas.

There is other evidence against a high sensitivity. But the real point is this. Whichever side is right, the media (and a few researchers) have forgotten one of the basic rules of science. Until a theory can predict the unexpected, it should always be viewed critically. The ancient Greeks knew the stars moved, and they had a thousand theories to predict why it would keep happening. Until we can explain past climate shifts and successfully predict future trends, global models are educational toys. Not indisputable evidence.

Some pundits are calling 2008 the year global warming was disproven. I prefer to call it the year science triumphed over alarmism.
Here are a few more reasons for The Global Warming Myth. (Climate Chage)
Link

Check out the pics. A lot of the temp monitoring station used to be in the country, now alot are surrounded by big cities full of asphalt, concrete and AC units. Ever hear of the heat island effect!!. Follow the money and you can find the real hot air.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
No skep, I have constantly said it has cycles. The warming phase is ending.


Well duh. Of course there are cycles.

The ONLY thing I have been arguing this whole time is the fact that the globe has been warming. You have disagreed with that stance from the beginning and is the sole reason we are even debating the issue.

I have addressed the "ratcheting" effect of these cycles a few times. Yes, there are cycles. But the scientific consensus is that the mean temps are increasing and will likely continue to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by Creekman62:
Here are a few more reasons for The Global Warming Myth. (Climate Chage)
Check out the pics. A lot of the temp monitoring station used to be in the country, now alot are surrounded by big cities full of asphalt, concrete and AC units. Ever hear of the heat island effect!!. Follow the money and you can find the real hot air.


Wow! This one single blogger has discovered a phenomenon that no other scientist has ever considered. He even includes pictures! Give that blogger a Peace Prize!

On the other hand:
From Link

"Objection: The apparent rise of global average temperatures is actually an illusion due to the urbanization of land around weather stations, the Urban Heat Island effect.

Answer: Urban Heat Island Effect has been examined quite thoroughly (PDF) and found to have a negligible effect on temperature trends. Real Climate has a detailed discussion of this here. What's more, NASA GISS takes explicit steps in their analysis to remove any such spurious signal by normalizing urban station data trends to the surrounding rural stations. It is a real phenomenon, but it is one climate scientists are well aware of and have taken any required steps to remove its influence from the raw data."

Yes, this site is also a blog by "some guy" and I hate that. However, it is sufficiently referenced to legitimate scientific sources that back the claim with facts.

Add Reply

Post

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×