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.
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index, produced by the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the reported warming trend over land from 1980 by half.
...if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story. Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' - Telegraph
The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".
--------
I believe there is a global climate change, but I also believe realistic facts. The AGW alarmists like Gore, and those Climategate emails, have tarnished their case, making them the biggest detriment to civil discussion.
Man has certainly added plenty of gases into the air over the last two centuries, however to lay all the blame on man for climate change is ridiculous.
I'd like to know what, if anything, man can actually do to cool the planet. Answer that, reasonably, and we'll have something worth a discussion.
I am still waiting for the results of our Terraforming experiment of dumping billions of tons of previously sequestered Carbon in the form of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the last four hundred years or so. Fortunately we are now paying enough attention that the needed observations are being made. The analysis of these observations is still underway. I expect the results of the analysis will become available just about the time fossilized Carbon becomes too scarce to burn for energy in another three hundred years or so. Most geologic scale experiments take geological amounts of time to understand. This is an excellent example.
I am still waiting for the results of our Terraforming experiment of dumping billions of tons of previously sequestered Carbon in the form of Carbon dioxide into the atmosphere over the last four hundred years or so. Fortunately we are now paying enough attention that the needed observations are being made. The analysis of these observations is still underway. I expect the results of the analysis will become available just about the time fossilized Carbon becomes too scarce to burn for energy in another three hundred years or so. Most geologic scale experiments take geological amounts of time to understand. This is an excellent example.
I'm all in favor of spending more time with this kind of thing:
"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
You dont know jack about radiant output of the sun, do you? Yeah, human produced CO2 is far more powerful than what the sun tosses our way, isnt it ....
Shakes head ...
Umm... you do realize that it is not neccesary to put out more energy than the sun to screw up our climate, right? If not, you must believe that volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts can't affect the climate either since their energy output is far, far less than that of the sun...
There's no point in holding a "discussion" with deniers since their denial is based on false "science." For example, the OP's article basically says, "computer modeling = wrong." The other nonsense I've heard is "Well, the climate change computer models haven't accurately predicted: the exact temperature in my city this year, this past winter's cold temperatures, etc. - so clearly they are wrong." That makes as much sense as ignoring an F5 tornado warning targeting your subdivision because the morning news failed to predict a tornado of that exact nature in that exact location even though it did call for severe storms and possible tornadoes.
As for cooling the planet, we already know what will at least help - stop dumping tons of CO2 in the air. One can deny that all one wants, but what I want to know is why are we taking an insane gamble with our climate and civilization as a whole when the problem is clear. We can either confront reality or we can deny it, but denying it doesn't make it go away.
Umm... you do realize that it is not neccesary to put out more energy than the sun to screw up our climate, right? If not, you must believe that volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts can't affect the climate either since their energy output is far, far less than that of the sun...
There's no point in holding a "discussion" with deniers since their denial is based on false "science." For example, the OP's article basically says, "computer modeling = wrong." The other nonsense I've heard is "Well, the climate change computer models haven't accurately predicted: the exact temperature in my city this year, this past winter's cold temperatures, etc. - so clearly they are wrong." That makes as much sense as ignoring an F5 tornado warning targeting your subdivision because the morning news failed to predict a tornado of that exact nature in that exact location even though it did call for severe storms and possible tornadoes.
As for cooling the planet, we already know what will at least help - stop dumping tons of CO2 in the air. One can deny that all one wants, but what I want to know is why are we taking an insane gamble with our climate and civilization as a whole when the problem is clear. We can either confront reality or we can deny it, but denying it doesn't make it go away.
More moronic feedback from another true believer.
Hint: do a little research on Maunder minimums.
Otherwise, crawl back under your true believer AGW rock.
You dont know jack about radiant output of the sun, do you?
Incorrect. I'm sure you're about to provide me with the papers that show temperature increases are due to increased solar output, though.
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.
