Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually I did not. The problem with this entire movement is that it attempts to use sloppy science, evasion of the issue and political tactics to push agenda. Each of the purposed "green" legislation is a position of imposing fines, fees, and control over private industry. Now normally this excessive demands would be shot down before they even really got started and so in steps the urgency claim from "science". Solutions are irrelevant if they are based on false conclusions.
Nobody will argue that being cleaner or more efficient is bad and most are willing to work with ways to improve, yet not if it requires the extent of sacrifice which is being demanded by the green movement.
This is especially poor decision making when the foundation of such claims is based on shoddy research and extremely assumptive conclusions. Again, the only chance this movement has is to stay firmly entrenched in politics for it is losing its battle in the realm of science.
Ferd- First of all, your facts are completely bogus. If you cut out the year 1998, temperatures have been on an upward trend in general, and only back down slightly over the last couple years.
Second- Its incomprehensible to me how people still cant understand how globing warming actually can cause cooling.
Let me give you a very basic experiment you can try at home.
Get a room temperature bowl of water. Now, place an ice cube in. Measure the water temperature. Lower right?
Now, if you also could measure the air temperature right above the bowl, it would be lower as well, and it would drop considerably as you added more ice in to the bowl.
Now, blow that air with a strong fan across the room. After a while, you are going to lower the temperature of the complete and total room.
This is a very basic model of what is happening to the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (even though the Artic caps melting has more to do with salinity), the same principle applies, the temperature of the air traveling across the "gulf stream" is lower.
Because the artic ice caps are melting in to the ocean at an insane rate, it is completely messing up this cycle which is paramount to temperatures in the northern hemisphere.
Well, it seems that our planet has gone through many, many climate changes through out the history of our planet. And scientists don't know the cause of all those changes
And it seems many agree that our planet is in fact, in a constant state of change...or going through constant changing cycles. So I'm not sure it's not normal.
Like I said up above. The only trend that I know for sure, is the that our planet's climate has been in a constant cycle of change for millions upon millions of years.
That would be a safe observation, the problem evolves when we begin to make assumptions about past climate and then attempt to use correlation to predict future cycle. This is the real issue, the debate was never over, only pushed into political realms where evidence is secondary to claiming ones self correct. Just as you do not know for sure... well... neither do they and this is evident in their work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMyTree
Nope. I have no author's names or specific research information for you.
It does seem odd that one group of scientists come to one conclusion, while other groups come comepletly different or opposite conclusions.
The names are important, the specific research is important for it is that which helps us determine the facts of the matter. Also, keep in mind that "Administrative Scientific Organization" is not the science. These are politically oriented organizations concerned with all of the various issues of everyday politics. It is very common for them to "summarize" to fit administrative conclusions even when the actual scientists do not support that conclusion. The IPCC's summaries are perfect examples of how specific work is favored for political position. Read the IPCC's reviewers comments on their releases, the "scientist" and the "administration" do not see eye to eye always.
There are those who think we may have an influence, yet are reserved because they are trying to be objective and know the data does not support any conclusions. They get lumped into the crowd of major supporters. Also keep in mind that the conclusions of the IPCC are strongly based on key research within their reports, the very research that is often in question. You might be surprised to know that of the researchers in the IPCC's reports, only a small percentage of them are pushing hard for AGW and you might also be surprised to learn that it is their very work to which the foundation of this claim relies on. Odd it is indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NMyTree
I think the important thing here is this. We humans need to stop polluting our natural resources (ocean waters, fresh waters, soil and air).
We have a garbage patch island of plastic....styrofoam and other garbage (and contaminents) .......that has been forming out in the pacific ocean.
Our soil, water and air continue to be poisoned every day.
We should be making drastic changes in the products we use, by going back to more natural and biodegradable products. For one example....... Instead of styrofoam peanuts ....hay, other dried grasses, recycled cotton etc... should be used.
Sure, we have issues, we should be cleaner and try to develop technologies that improve our performance in these areas, but we have to be practical as it does us no good to destroy ourselves to meet impractical goals. Most people understand this, the green movement knows that they do, so they must use tactics that demand urgency. Its all related, it is all political and there are major interests involved who are in a position to gain a lot from those demands being fulfilled.
Long term climate change is easier to predict than next year's, or next month's, weather. That is the nature of the problem.
We can negate any offshore price advantage created by ignoring emissions by instituting a set of flexible countervailing tariffs. The tariffs can also cover labor, safety and government subsidies. We do not have to remain victims of the "free trade" nonsense.
You do realize that some of the predictions to climate "over long term" has been showing extreme divergence with their set predictions? Whats long term anyway? 5 years (they already had to revise their estimates for this one due to observational data), 10 years (oops, they are revising again), 50 years? How long do we have to listen to them?
The nature of the problem is simply that when you rely on poor data, use unfounded methodology, and essentially cling to a hypothesis like it was a new born baby, well you "create" the facts rather than discover them.
Would you like to comment on Briffa concerning Yamal as well? We are waiting.
Ferd- First of all, your facts are completely bogus. If you cut out the year 1998, temperatures have been on an upward trend in general, and only back down slightly over the last couple years.
Second- Its incomprehensible to me how people still cant understand how globing warming actually can cause cooling.
Let me give you a very basic experiment you can try at home.
Get a room temperature bowl of water. Now, place an ice cube in. Measure the water temperature. Lower right?
Now, if you also could measure the air temperature right above the bowl, it would be lower as well, and it would drop considerably as you added more ice in to the bowl.
Now, blow that air with a strong fan across the room. After a while, you are going to lower the temperature of the complete and total room.
This is a very basic model of what is happening to the Atlantic thermohaline circulation (even though the Artic caps melting has more to do with salinity), the same principle applies, the temperature of the air traveling across the "gulf stream" is lower.
Because the artic ice caps are melting in to the ocean at an insane rate, it is completely messing up this cycle which is paramount to temperatures in the northern hemisphere.
IF and I say IF you are even close to truth, nothing you said here, debunks anything I have said.
In fact, IF and it is a big IF, you are correct, then what you describe is a self-correcting system and it proves that warming causing cooling will create equilibrium.
Thus disproving the AGW theory!
Wacky stuff dude.
It is true that recently (2007) the arctic cap is melting. However it is also true that we don’t know if it is an insane rate or not. We don’t know what happened in the Midlevel Warming Period... that was warmer than today by the way and also lasted several hundred years….
At the same time, the Antarctic is gaining ice as a very solid rate. So you cannot suggest that the melting in the North has a larger impact than the freezing in the south.
Your little experiment isn’t ground breaking. And it doesn’t prove a blessed thing.
Now if you want to talk about science lets talk about sun spots and deep space radiation and the effect on evaporation rates and cloud cover and cooling.
Or if you like we can get into physics and talk about where CO2 falls on the heat absorption scale and how it is overlapped by water vapor. We can discuss the percentage of that heat absorption CO2 covers verses Water Vapor.
You might want to read up on the physics cuz you will not be pleased as the discussion progresses…. Water Vapor makes of something like 99% of the total green house effect or more. It overlaps CO2 on the heat absorption spectrum and CO2 makes up less than 350 part per MILLION.
Which ever way you want to approach the science, AGW folk have a problem… You can’t get rid of the Medieval Warming Period, or the Little Ice Age. Without flat lining those, the current modern warming is not in any way out of line with typical climate variation.
Sorry. It is the SCIENCE that kills your argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
