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.
Too bad they didnt have political forums back in the 60s when the Giant Ice Age was coming and we were all going to freeze.
Man made Global Warming will be the death of Liberal causes when people realize it is a hoax. Funny how it gained traction when Communism failed, all those loonies needed a new cause.... environmentalism
Actually, I agree with the scientific community, it is your argument that is the anomaly, not mine. I have no case to make, and it is you who needs to run along.
Yet who is this mysterious "scientific community"? When one looks deeper into the issue, one sees that this is not a "done deal". In fact, if you had happened to read the review comments concerning the AR4, you would know that there is much dissent with the conclusions the summary makes as well as the data used to come to that conclusion.
You agree with the politics concerning the issue otherwise you might be able to actually comment on the specifics I spoke of. Since you are not educated even remotely on the topic, you can merely partake in partisan banter which serves no purpose other than to show your ignorance on the topic as well as your extreme bias for a position.
I see all types of people who attack those who question the political claims of the science being called sheep and ignorant and yet each time, I see people like you who make those assertions displaying those very traits.
Face the facts here. You agree with headlines and talking point summaries. You probably haven't even read the IPCC's AR4 and I wouldn't be surprised if you have no clue about the various issues I speak of much less what the AR4 even is.
Now you can play arrogant if you like, but arrogance + ignorance is a recipe for stupidity. I would hope that this is not your case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by odanny
I know that over 600 billion tons of formerly sequestered fossil fuels can have an impact on temperature, and everything I've seen (and felt) has convinced me that scientific research is accurate.
Have a good 'un.
A common sense fallacy. Again, perspective and context are important. Our contributions are actually small in the big picture of all contributing factors. Though you have to look at the science and not apply fallacies that have no place in scientific analysis.
What you also seem to misunderstand is that much of the "research" being used is based on models which attempt to find correlations with often other modeled data to which are compared with trends in observational data and those models while useful in the pursuit of testing, are severely lacking in ability to account for an enormous amount of variables which are simply being brushed aside in order to obtain a specific support for their hypothesis.
For instance, Hansen who you so idolized was shown to be incorrect in his research. It was due to his willingness to essentially omit or average out severe divergences in his data. That is, if a station did not meet his criteria, he would throw it out or simply adjust its readings to fit in line with this goals. This has been proven and it resulted in GISS actually changing their once claimed "1998" as well as other claimed years in 2000 as being the warmest years. The new data does not support his hypothesis. That is exactly what the link shows. Look at the record of GISS and its changes. Hansen has been proven wrong.
Here is the kicker though, Hansen's old data was used in a lot of research. Some have changed their research, others have not and people like you who are ignorant on the subject keep bringing up old invalidated data and proclaiming "consensus" when "consensus" has nothing to do with scientific discovery in the first place. Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus as you would believe, rather there is political claims of such with manipulations of responses from various climate scientists to push support for it. More of those lies, damned lies, and clever use of statistics to proclaim a bias.
If you are simply going to come back with a response that ignores all of the relevant points and simply evades the issue to attack through partisan BS, then please... do not respond. If you repeat your same ignorant responses, I will simply put you on ignore with all of the others who had nothing relevant to say.
I've seen the condensers before. I didn't want to go into all that, not because it isn't valid, but rather because I wanted to keep those with shorter attention spans focused on the fact that temperatures have remained essentially unchanged in 100 years. But I appreciate your input. Maybe after enough people get off the Kool-Aid we can begin to explain why and how the data has been wrongly collected.
My main point was that the "1998" warmest year claim has already been shown invalid and corrected in a statement by the GISS. The fact that some of their records are not updated is "typical" of that field to be honest. In fact, its a huge problem. I wasn't really commenting on your hypothesis itself.
Natural cycle is more accurate, here's just a few inaccuracies from Gore's Inconvenient Truth:
* The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
* The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
* The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
* The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
* The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
* The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
* The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
* The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
* The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
* The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
* The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government is unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
It's so cute how some people approach a discussion like this. They accuse an individual of lying and offer nothing to substantiate their claim beyond a meaningless personal attack.
Here's a link to the survey. Do with it what you will with it. I'm sure you'll find a way to discredit it:
Again, read my quote. That is not all climate scientists, it is a poll of selected scientists. In the end, what does consensus prove anyway? In science, data validation is the key, the fact that people agree is worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
And, we can also throw this chart in for good measure:
That graph contains the old values, 1934 is warmer than 1998 and 2006 as was acknowledged by GISS. (check back through my posts in this thread, I posted the corrections)
There is debate as those who are looking at the methodology being used to calculate these findings are constantly being brought into question.
Just recently the surface stations in Antarctica and even the satellite data was found to have errors and holes which were being "average" to show an upward bias.
I think you need to do a bit more reading, you are arguing a position from 3 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
So, there's no debate whether it's rising. That's a given. It would be quite serendipitous if our industrial revolution, the exponential increase in greenhouse gases, and this warming trend were unrelated ... but I guess there's a chance, given the fluxuation of temperatures over the course of history (though, so far as I know, there have never been increases this significant over this short of a period, save for when volcanoes covered wide swaths after explosions).
There is plenty of debate, in fact as time goes on, the observed data is conflicting with the predicted trends. You need to do some in depth reading and not simply surfing biased talking point sites. Read the entire Wegman report
It details the failure of methodology being used. It shows major inconsistencies with observed to predicted trends. In some cases, the "conclusions" of research findings are nothing more than wild speculations using poor mathematical approaches and lean heavily towards bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefly
Bottom line: why don't we just stop polluting? Why don't we use our American ingenuity to create the technologies and jobs to end this dependence on fossil fuels. The pollution we see locally is toxic. The old smokestacks that simply got the toxins above the town so they could blow to the next is still how we think of pollution. So long as a wind comes along to take it away, who cares? It's in places where there is no wind - such as LA - that people grow concerned. Same thing globally. There's no wind to take all this pollution away.
Why don't we just use the free markets to get rid of it once and for all?
Bottom line is that AGW is not substaniated. It hasn't even made itself out of the hypothesis stage. It lingers there with constant deviations in its testing with the data being manipulated to fit it rather than it being adjusted to deal with the data.
It seems prudent that we know before we act. Acting before we know is something irresponsible people do. Though considering the number of people backwards on home loans and their debt, I guess it isn't so surprising that this is taking off.
97% would seem quite high, having said that it's the context that matters. I believe where the source of these high numbers often cited is because it's groups of people they are citing. For example you might have 20 scientists in the GW camp, 15 scientists firmly on the other side and lastly 65 scientists on the fence leaning one way or the other. The group is now declared a consensus....
If you read any of the articles some of the most vocal skeptics produce what you'll find is they don't deny global warming. The argument is how much effect human activity is having.
Aye, AGW is the issue and that one is nowhere near being proven. Most accept through observed trends that we are experiencing a warming trend, though that even gets a bit confused as they begin to argue over historical records, surface station issues, satellite problems, and methodology.
I know that the US stations are showing much warmer than they actually are which effects a lot of the research that used the data out there. Problem is, that research is still being used to proclaim truth when it is nothing more than garbage data.
If you read the AR4 review comments, you find that of the entire 2000+ scientists work, only about 11 or so are firmly advocating AGW. Of those 11 or so, 8 of them are the major contributors to the hypothesis. Those undecided take an objective stance on the issue. They give credit to valid factors which may seem to support it, but also notice there are many deviations in that evidence which are not explained. So they don't take a position, they just want to continue research and see where it leads. Those who are strongly for and those who are strongly against are subjecting themselves to a bias and it is affecting their work as you can see with many of the errors found in their work on both sides. The problem is, some of the major supporters for the AGW wrote the summary like many administrative summaries, they speak on behalf of the position, not the evidence.
This research needs to be in the background. Politics need to stay out of it as the underhanded plays of the political realm are severely distorting the actual evidence out there. It is impeding science from doing its job and it is stiring people up into a frenzy who know absolutely nothing about the topic, but religously hold to whatever news claim provides. The field is rather new and it does not follow the same rigours testing and documentation standards that many more traditional sciences do. It is suffering greatly from its disorganized method.
Hundreds of scientists on either side of the global warming fence will never come to concurrence on the issue. Some say we're burning, others say we're freezing. Meanwhile, for the sheeple (otherwise known as liberals), global warming is just another feel-good, warm and fuzzy coat-tail to jump on and ride in their attempt to blame the United States for the world's ills.
Actually all major scientific professional organization that study climate change have come to consensus conclusions about the existence of anthropogenic global warming. I think it's more the Christian fundamentalists who don't believe it because it's not in the Bible.
Well, if your that easily confused by a simple chart I can see why you simply depend on the interpretation of the data from someone who stands gain from a pending disaster,
Yet who is this mysterious "scientific community"? When one looks deeper into the issue, one sees that this is not a "done deal". In fact, if you had happened to read the review comments concerning the AR4, you would know that there is much dissent with the conclusions the summary makes as well as the data used to come to that conclusion.
You agree with the politics concerning the issue otherwise you might be able to actually comment on the specifics I spoke of. Since you are not educated even remotely on the topic, you can merely partake in partisan banter which serves no purpose other than to show your ignorance on the topic as well as your extreme bias for a position.
I see all types of people who attack those who question the political claims of the science being called sheep and ignorant and yet each time, I see people like you who make those assertions displaying those very traits.
Face the facts here. You agree with headlines and talking point summaries. You probably haven't even read the IPCC's AR4 and I wouldn't be surprised if you have no clue about the various issues I speak of much less what the AR4 even is.
Now you can play arrogant if you like, but arrogance + ignorance is a recipe for stupidity. I would hope that this is not your case?
A common sense fallacy. Again, perspective and context are important. Our contributions are actually small in the big picture of all contributing factors. Though you have to look at the science and not apply fallacies that have no place in scientific analysis.
What you also seem to misunderstand is that much of the "research" being used is based on models which attempt to find correlations with often other modeled data to which are compared with trends in observational data and those models while useful in the pursuit of testing, are severely lacking in ability to account for an enormous amount of variables which are simply being brushed aside in order to obtain a specific support for their hypothesis.
For instance, Hansen who you so idolized was shown to be incorrect in his research. It was due to his willingness to essentially omit or average out severe divergences in his data. That is, if a station did not meet his criteria, he would throw it out or simply adjust its readings to fit in line with this goals. This has been proven and it resulted in GISS actually changing their once claimed "1998" as well as other claimed years in 2000 as being the warmest years. The new data does not support his hypothesis. That is exactly what the link shows. Look at the record of GISS and its changes. Hansen has been proven wrong.
Here is the kicker though, Hansen's old data was used in a lot of research. Some have changed their research, others have not and people like you who are ignorant on the subject keep bringing up old invalidated data and proclaiming "consensus" when "consensus" has nothing to do with scientific discovery in the first place. Not to mention the fact that there is no consensus as you would believe, rather there is political claims of such with manipulations of responses from various climate scientists to push support for it. More of those lies, damned lies, and clever use of statistics to proclaim a bias.
If you are simply going to come back with a response that ignores all of the relevant points and simply evades the issue to attack through partisan BS, then please... do not respond. If you repeat your same ignorant responses, I will simply put you on ignore with all of the others who had nothing relevant to say.
Look.. its like evolution. Most of us accept it is fact even though there are many that claim it is false. Elements of any scientific theory can be adjusted, enhanced or even disproven, but the overall conclusion is accepted by scientific community as factual. I don't think I've heard of ANY climatologists that reject global warming.
The fact is that the earth is already showing many signs of worldwide climate change. Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.
Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004. Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.
Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later. Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.
How much we contribute to global warming in terms of carbon emissions is being debated (and rightfully so) but it doesn't change the fact that global warming is real. The right wing usually refer to issues largely covered by the MSM as political or liberal hysteria, but the fact is that much of the media has embraced global warming because of the evidence behind it and the effects.
A report from the IPCC stated this:
The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.
• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface. (See an interactive feature on how global warming works.)
• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.
• These gases persist in the atmosphere for years, meaning that even if such emissions were eliminated today, it would not immediately stop global warming.
• Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries. Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.
• Other recent research has suggested that the effects of variations in the sun's output are "negligible" as a factor in warming, but other, more complicated solar mechanisms could possibly play a role.
A follow-up report by the IPCC released in April 2007 warned that global warming could lead to large-scale food and water shortages and have catastrophic effects on wildlife.
• Sea level could rise between 7 and 23 inches (18 to 59 centimeters) by century's end, the IPCC's February 2007 report projects. Rises of just 4 inches (10 centimeters) could flood many South Seas islands and swamp large parts of Southeast Asia.
• Some hundred million people live within 3 feet (1 meter) of mean sea level, and much of the world's population is concentrated in vulnerable coastal cities. In the U.S., Louisiana and Florida are especially at risk.
• Glaciers around the world could melt, causing sea levels to rise while creating water shortages in regions dependent on runoff for fresh water.
• Strong hurricanes, droughts, heat waves, wildfires, and other natural disasters may become commonplace in many parts of the world. The growth of deserts may also cause food shortages in many places.
• More than a million species face extinction from disappearing habitat, changing ecosystems, and acidifying oceans.
• The ocean's circulation system, known as the ocean conveyor belt, could be permanently altered, causing a mini-ice age in Western Europe and other rapid changes.
• At some point in the future, warming could become uncontrollable by creating a so-called positive feedback effect. Rising temperatures could release additional greenhouse gases by unlocking methane in permafrost and undersea deposits, freeing carbon trapped in sea ice, and causing increased evaporation of water.
As you can see, of the 70% of stationed surveyed so far, 89% are below acceptable CRN ratings. That means, their readings are subject to bias with many being reported as having a distinct warming bias.
The data is at San Cristobal, Ecuador (Galapagos.)
Hansen et al 1999 stated:
there has been a real reduction since the 1960s in the number of stations making and reporting measurements.
I've observed on many occasions that I believe that there has been no "real reduction" in the number of stations "making: measurements - on previous occasions, we've offered to help NASA locate data from Wellington NZ and Dawson, Canada (and other locations where NASA has been unable to locate data from stations that report data on the internet.) Galapagos is another such situation. NASA only has measurements for 10% of the months since 1991 - with long and puzzling gaps between measurements. It's sort of like the intermittent correspondence between Bronze Age emperors in Egypt or Assyria and Hatti, where years might pass between messages. Readers may reasonably differ as to whether Hansen would be more aptly compared to Hattusilis III or Ramesses II, to pick two of the more prominent such correspondents. I presume that the temperature measurements from the Galapagos arrived at NASA in sealed envelopes after a similar perilous journey.
And yet, we are "certain" we know anything? /boggle
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.
