That Mars and other solar bodies experienced a heat rise the same time as the Earth, without CO2 buildup, but is ignored as irrelevant speaks volumes about the so called scientific concensus.

Cycles are recognized, but then ignored! Sorry! It smells and sounds like a political agenda.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
That Mars and other solar bodies experienced a heat rise the same time as the Earth, without CO2 buildup, but is ignored as irrelevant speaks volumes about the so called scientific concensus.


Not ignored at all, Int. We've already discussed this but at risk of repeating myself:

Cyclic weather patterns (as LMM asserts) are the norm. At the present time, Earth and Mars are both experiencing warming. They cycles don't always match up but they are, indeed, synchronized at the moment. Next year or next decade, Mars may experience cooling while Earth continue to warm.

But the CYCLES here on Earth are getting warmer and warmer. That has been the case for a while and predictions are that it will continue to ratchet higher.

Yes, Mars warming certainly hints at another possible cause for global warming other than human-induced. Here on Earth, scientists know that the sun cycles influence the weather. The extent of the influence appears debatable.

Which, again, illustrates the point I have been making all along: None of us are qualified to weigh all the contradictory evidence so the only rational stance is to accept the consensus. And there IS a consensus.

The CONSENSUS is that GW is real and is PROBABLY man made.

If you disagree, then please produce a consensus statement from a reputable, unbiased scientific organization.
Last edited by Cookey
quote:
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!

Now you're just getting snarky.

You believe your science and I'll believe mine.

End of discussion.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Now you're just getting snarky.


I was a snarkworthy post.

Do you really believe this anonymous blogger armed with a $10.00 digital camera and MSPaint.exe came up with something that tens of thousands of scientists haven't taken into consideration?
No, but it was not necessary to be rude.

Several sites to monitor temps started out in desolate ares that have been built up. It is a valid point.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
It is a valid point.


No it isn't. This stupid blogger made the colossally bad assumption that we measure temps by sticking thermometers into the air.

There are dozens (hundreds?) of ways to measure temps including satellite infrared studies, tree rings from all over the earth for the past 1000 years, ice core samples that measure arcane stuff like pollen levels as a measure or global warmth, ocean sediments, direct measurements of deep ocean temps (which are NOT warming, BTW, which is yet another complication possibly due to el Nina siphoning warmth from the oceans into the atmosphere) and so many more.

All these measurements point to an important concept in science called "convergence" or "converging lines of evidence." These converging, unrelated lines of evidence all point to a single conclusion. A consensus: The globe is getting warmer and human activity is probably the reason.
''The globe is getting warmer and human activity is probably the reason.''

Why don't you make that your signature line? That way you don't have to repeat it every time.
LOL.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
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.


"GW deniers are overwhelmingly white, conservative bible thumpers..."? Go ahead why don't you, and abandon ALL objectivity and be one with the High Priest of The Church of Global Thermology, AlGore. Join him and refer to the "deniers" as Nazis, come on you know you're thinking it. Run log into the Daily Kossack, or the Huff 'n Puff to bolster your courage, and just call me a Nazi, for crying out loud, and quit dancing around it by using such phrasing as "overwhelmingly white, conservative bible thumpers"... You KNOW you want to.

There is enough contradictory objective data such that just because a group of scientists say something is so, I am not inclined to accept it. To do so would be irrational. The GW "true believers" are predominately privileged, limousine liberal, atheists who buy into any leftist tripe that furthers the anti-human, anti-American propaganda. Plays well in the other direction.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
That Mars and other solar bodies experienced a heat rise the same time as the Earth, without CO2 buildup, but is ignored as irrelevant speaks volumes about the so called scientific concensus.

Cycles are recognized, but then ignored! Sorry! It smells and sounds like a political agenda.



Bingo! There is some Objective data that contradicts the dogma from The Church of Global Thermology.

BTW, I don't do consensus decisions, or opinions. In others words I might agree with a consensus, but it won't be BECAUSE there is a consensus. My decisions and opinions are based on objective data and are reached regardless of what other people think.
For Cookey, it will make him happy.

Jun
25
Global Recession Cuts Down on Global Warming

Associated Press

The global recession has an up side, at least for people worried about climate change: carbon emissions are growing more slowly than in recent years, Dutch researchers said Thursday.

But they also said the emissions of developing countries were higher than those of the industrialized world for the first time last year.

Less money in the bank, higher oil prices and a growing use of wind, solar and other renewable energy resources put a brake last year on the increase of the most common greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, said the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.

The growth in CO2 emissions halved to 1.7 percent, compared with a growth of 3.3 percent in 2007, and an average annual growth of 4 percent since 2002, said the report.

The world spewed 31.5 billion tons of carbon into the air last year, more than double the amount in 1970, it said.

Emissions actually declined by 3 percent in the United States in 2008 from the previous year, largely because high gasoline prices kept road travel down, said the agency, a government-funded body that advises the Netherlands on environmental policy.

U.S. fossil fuel consumption fell 7 percent last year, which led to global decline of 0.6 percent — the first drop since 1992, the report said.

Also for the first time, carbon emissions were higher from developing countries, including expanding economic powerhouses like China and India, than for the industrialized world.

“Every major economic recession would cause a blip on the energy consumption statistics and on carbon emissions,” said Jos Olivier, the report’s lead author. Whether the trend continues depends on the economic recovery, oil prices and on government policies that could encourage the curbing of pollution, he said in an interview.

The agency based its assessment on data gathered from a variety of sources, including a country-by-country fuel trend report by British Petroleum and statistics from the European Union’s Joint Research Center, the International Energy Agency in Paris and the Energy Information Agency in Washington. Two years ago it was the first to report that China had overtaken the United States as the world’s largest emitter.

The report takes on added significance since it comes five months before 192 countries are due to agree on a new deal to control greenhouse gases, replacing the Kyoto Protocol that expires in 2012. Under Kyoto, industrialized countries agreed to reduce carbon emissions by 5 percent from 1990 levels, while developing countries faced no obligations.

Olivier said one message of the report is that developing countries are equally important in combating climate change.

The report said China’s emissions grew 6 percent last year, the lowest rate since 2001. China’s voracious use of coal and its production of cement and steel have tapered off since peaking in 2004, when its one-year increase in pollution was 17 percent.

In negotiations on a climate change accord to be concluded in Copenhagen, China has refused to accept binding limits on its carbon emissions, arguing that per person it emits far less than the United States and Europe.

The Dutch report said that gap is shrinking. China emitted 2 tons of CO2 per capita in 1990, but that has now reached 5.5 tons. That remains far below U.S. levels, which was 18.5 tons per capita last year.

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×