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.
I have never been a vocal advocate or detractor of global warming theories simply because I don't have the expertise to critically read and evaluate the data, but one thing that I do know, is that in science papers are published and reviewed that knock the legs from under specific aspects of currently held positions but do nothing nothing to dispute the overall theories. Because of that, I am highly suspect of news articles or on-line discussions proclaiming this that or the other, when it is painfully obvious that the authors or discussion participants are no more informed about the science than I.
First problem is that science does not function on being mostly right in a hypothesis, it must be completely right. That is, it must pass its testing every time OR its failure to do so must be properly explained as to why it failed.
So, "overall" is not scientific in the slightest and it is this very approach to which those purporting certain conclusions have been criticized by more traditional fields.
As for the disputes, these aren't "news articles", they are often audits of the existing research using the very principals to which those who purpose the research are required to adhere to. They are evident in their evaluation and can quantify the discrepancies within the research.
Read more about "what" they are talking about concerning their objections to the research and you may understand why this isn't simply subjective evaluation to the current claims.
air pollution... who is going to cap that volcano?
All that pollution is cooling off the UK and most of Europe.
We have to cap that volcano, so they don't find out all the pollution it is pumping out is cooling off the earth, so global warming is not a total loss.
You might, if you had a child, whose public schooling literally revolved around "green" teachings in lieu of the basics of math, reading, social studies, etc.
This is truly the travesty. Some areas suffer more than others in the public system. Some of the systems are down right indoctrination farms, devoid of anything useful to that of individual thought and tailored specifically for collective process.
air pollution... who is going to cap that volcano?
Don't think of CO2 as pollution, those pushing this agenda also try and push that perception. I can justify calling water vapor pollution using the same criteria.
The Paper: A 2000-Year Temperature History of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool Reference
Oppo, D.W., Rosenthal, Y. and Linsley, B.K. 2009. 2,000-year-long temperature and hydrology reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific warm pool. Nature460: 1113-1116.
What it means
Based on a globally significant SST history, "enabling both a direct comparison of proxy data to the instrumental record and an evaluation of past changes in the context of twentieth century trends," we now have substantial evidence that throughout portions of both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, SSTs in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool were essentially equivalent to those of "the late twentieth century," indicating -- once again -- that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current air temperatures in this critically important region of the globe.
Here is a link to the Nature publication page. You will have to pay to read the full paper.
Congratulations! You finally found a peer-reviewed study supporting your side! This is breaking news indeed. Just a few thousand more and you'll have as many as the mainstream climate scientists!
Oh wait, never mind. That doesn't disprove climate change at all.
Congratulations! You finally found a peer-reviewed study supporting your side! This is breaking news indeed. Just a few thousand more and you'll have as many as the mainstream climate scientists!
There are plenty actually.
BTW, how is that IPCC "robust" and "peer reviewed" working out for ya? I have some pamphlets on AGW awareness we can add to their "peer reviewed" list! No worries, its legit, I got it from a interview I read of a phone conversation with a climate scientist who made a speculation without measurement on the rate of decline concerning glaciers. *chuckle*
Doesn't mean much to me. I'm still in favor of increasing energy efficiency and less air pollution.
That is not the point of the opposition. Letting 0bama sign his version of cap & trade, which would cause electricity rates to skyrocket, and force corporations, businesses to pay new taxes, raising the costs of living and everything we purchase to go way up.
Everyone wants cleaner air, water, food, but no one wants an artificial cost burden forced upon us, just because global warming is the new scam for government to claim it needs to expand its control over the people.
BTW, how is that IPCC "robust" and "peer reviewed" working out for ya? I have some pamphlets on AGW awareness we can add to their "peer reviewed" list! No worries, its legit, I got it from a interview I read of a phone conversation with a climate scientist who made a speculation without measurement on the rate of decline concerning glaciers. *chuckle*
Only in climate science!
Hey, you are knocking the IPCC, an institution that gets much of it rock hard scientific data from the homework turned in by college students, and hiking magazines, so how about you start showing proper respect.
The Paper: A 2000-Year Temperature History of the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool Reference
Oppo, D.W., Rosenthal, Y. and Linsley, B.K. 2009. 2,000-year-long temperature and hydrology reconstructions from the Indo-Pacific warm pool. Nature460: 1113-1116.
What it means
Based on a globally significant SST history, "enabling both a direct comparison of proxy data to the instrumental record and an evaluation of past changes in the context of twentieth century trends," we now have substantial evidence that throughout portions of both the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods, SSTs in the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool were essentially equivalent to those of "the late twentieth century," indicating -- once again -- that there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about current air temperatures in this critically important region of the globe.
Here is a link to the Nature publication page. You will have to pay to read the full paper.
Please read the "Where We Stand On the Issue" statement of the organization which did the study:
"There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena."
Incredible! This is not science - they are NOT using data to make an unbiased determination of whether or not CO2 is responsible for warming - they are cherry picking data to meet their pre-determined conclusions!
They have found one data point (which as far as I can tell has not been independently verified) which remotely matches their preconceived conclusion.
OP - quit posting junk from biased sites. This proves nothing.
Please read the "Where We Stand On the Issue" statement of the organization which did the study:
Incredible! This is not science - they are NOT using data to make an unbiased determination of whether or not CO2 is responsible for warming - they are cherry picking data to meet their pre-determined conclusions!
They have found one data point (which as far as I can tell has not been independently verified) which remotely matches their preconceived conclusion.
OP - quit posting junk from biased sites. This proves nothing.
oh my gosh, this is exactly what the climate-gate scientists did!
all of the "data" was not comclusive or any actual data was CHANGED!
so your argument is invalid
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.
