Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Pooey, do you care how many scientist, top scientist dismiss anthropomorphic climate change?

Describe top scientist, please tell me also, how they override a National Academy for science. If we're playing the numbers game, who do you think is going to win?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Ahh see so you don't care, you care that "an organization" holds a view you care about, dissenting opinions need not apply.

That's not science pooey, that's DOGMA.

Thanks for finally proving tome that science, real science, matters not to you.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Ahh see so you don't care, you care that "an organization" holds a view you care about, dissenting opinions need not apply. That's not science pooey, that's DOGMA. Thanks for finally proving tome that science, real science, matters not to you.

Not just any organisation, but one that represents a large body of scientists. Dissenting views are always welcome but denial of majority findings without real evidence is just folly. If real science mattered to you, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[xyzer]

Phobia!? I wasn't aware that questioning the certainty of modes fit that description? From you Myth page...

Given the complexity of our climate system, most scientists agree that models are the best way of making sense of that complexity. For all their failings, models are the best guide to the future that we have.

Though they have failings they are the best guide? Do we make decisions based on flawed data? Or do we attempt to further study what we can't quite pin down?
We have an admittedly complex climate system. It has shown vast changes over the millions of years.Such changes are very slow in human terms. What have species done in the face of these changes? Adapt!

Have you seen any human perscriptions for changing the climate cycles that are given much chance of changing this latest cycle? Even the IPCC concedes that if we can change Anthropogenic C02 levels, if they are an important cause? It will take centuries to see the effects?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Phobia!? I wasn't aware that questioning the certainty of modes fit that description? From you Myth page...

You ask the same questions over and over. Let's not forget that you didn't even understand the concept of greenhouse gases until recently (Remember when you asked why CO2 "magically" stops more heat from escaping than it reflects?).

Quote by: xyzer Though they have failings they are the best guide? Do we make decisions based on flawed data?

On what basis are you accusing the decisions being made on flawed data? If you have a better system than what they are currently using, please present it. You can criticise all you want but unless you've got something better, it's all for nothing.
I also think you're playing with words again, all systems have failings so to use that against computer modelling, especially when there's no alternate (unless you would like to present one) is just illogical.

Quote by: xyzer Or do we attempt to further study what we can't quite pin down? We have an admittedly complex climate system. It has shown vast changes over the millions of years. Such changes are very slow in human terms. What have species done in the face of these changes? Adapt!

You hit the nail on the head, the changes were very slow but the recent warming is relatively dramatic.

Quote by: xyzer Have you seen any human perscriptions for changing the climate cycles that are given much chance of changing this latest cycle? Even the IPCC concedes that if we can change Anthropogenic C02 levels, if they are an important cause? It will take centuries to see the effects?

What we're after now is minimising the warming, if we can created a carbon sink system, there's no reason why we can't see global warming stabilised in our lifetime.

[Mr.Vicchio]

The NSA is not infallible, and there is dissent even there:

Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." (Environment News, 2001 [32] Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia PS Pooey, do read the entire list of VERY respectable scientist that disagree with you.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio The NSA is not infallible, and there is dissent even there: PS Pooey, do read the entire list of VERY respectable scientist that disagree with you.

I never claimed the NAS were infallible, only a god is. But they do represent nearly all the scientists in their country, or do you not understand that? So let's have a quick review on who agrees with me;

1. National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
2. Chinese Academy of Sciences, China
3. Royal Society, United Kingdom
4. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
5. Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Brazil
6. Royal Society of Canada, Canada
7. Academié des Sciences, France
8. Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher, Germany
9. Indian National Science Academy, India
10. Accademia dei Lincei, Italy
11. Science Council of Japan, Japan

Source

Wait, but there's more;

1. American Academy for Advancement of Sciences (AAAS)
2. American Meteorological Society (AMS)
3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
4. American Geophysical Union (AGU)
5. US Geological Survey (USGS)
6. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

etcetera Source that I have already cited previously but you were too busy not caring to read.

So there you have, piles and piles of organisation representing people who are still actively researching this phenomenon, are in agreement with me. You lack of consensus myth has no leg to stand on. Of course, this would never perturb you from sprouting some other rhetoric. What's next? They're all part of a conspiracy to make you change light bulbs and drive less?

For those who are actually interested, there's even an empirical way to sort this out.

[Mr.Vicchio]

[edit] Believe global warming is primarily caused by natural processes Scientists in this section conclude that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. * Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the supervisor of the Astrometria project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away." (Russian News & Information Agency, Jan. 15, 2007 [10]) (See also [11], [12], [13]) * Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air." (Capitalism Magazine, August 22, 2002)[14] Baliunas and Soon wrote that "there is no reliable evidence for increased severity or frequency of storms, droughts, or floods that can be related to the air’s increased greenhouse gas content." (Marshall Institute, March 25, 2003) [15] * David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and botanist: "Global warming is a largely natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed."[16] * Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Meterorology: "It’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air." [17]. * Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." (Telegraph, April 9, 2006 [18]) * George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California: "The authors identify and describe the following global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate: (1) solar radiation ..., (2) outgassing as a major supplier of gases to the World Ocean and the atmosphere, and, possibly, (3) microbial activities ... . The writers provide quantitative estimates of the scope and extent of their corresponding effects on the Earth’s climate [and] show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible." (Environmental Geology, vol. 50 no. 6, August 2006 [19]) * Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle." (The Hill Times, March 22, 2004 [20]) * William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential."[21]) "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." [22]) "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."[23]) * Yuri Izrael, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."[24] * George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural." (Gelf Magazine, April 24, 2007) [25] * David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming." (May 15, 2006 [26]) * Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin: "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, ... solar activity, ...; volcanism ...; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned." (M. Leroux, Global Warming - Myth or Reality?, 2005, p. 120 [27]) * Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: global warming "is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity. There is no global warming due to human anthropogenic activities. The atmosphere hasn’t changed much in 280 million years, and there have always been cycles of warming and cooling. The Cretaceous period was the warmest on earth. You could have grown tomatoes at the North Pole"[28] * Tim Patterson [29], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [30] * Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it". [[31]] * Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." (Environment News, 2001 [32]) * Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: "[T]he truth is probably somewhere in between [the common view and that of skeptics], with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. ... [A]bout 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming [over the past century] should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes." His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [33] Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You believe in organizations, I'll post individuals.

[Pooeypants]

It's not about belief, I trust in their judgment of evidence at hand. I can't fathom how you can believe that all my listed organisations have got it wrong compared a mere handful of skeptics in comparison.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Pooey, you list organizations that have credence, but I see far too much political and money games going on to put as much stock as you do in them.

I KNOW meteorology man, it was my job, 10 years of my life. I understand it better then you, I just do. I don't buy into the "man is causing global warming" and neither do some VERY presitgious scientists. I do know that many groups like the NAS and others you cite rely on grants and federal dollars to function, and with all the political fervor over Global Warming I see the bottom line winning out over science.


Think about that angle for a second... if they come out against global warming, those paying them (politicians) will find someone else to fund.

That is one of my BIGGEST problems with the global warming hysteria. How many federal grants are going into studying global warming as a natural phenomenon, even just to counter and ensure what's out there is right, and how much money is going into giving us "solutions" to global warming, all of which happen to empower government.

Yeah, go do the research Pooey, YOU might be surprised to find I've got a valid point.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Pooey, you list organizations that have credence, but I see far too much political and money games going on to put as much stock as you do in them. I KNOW meteorology man, it was my job, 10 years of my life. I understand it better then you, I just do. I don't buy into the "man is causing global warming" and neither do some VERY presitgious scientists. I do know that many groups like the NAS and others you cite rely on grants and federal dollars to function, and with all the political fervor over Global Warming I see the bottom line winning out over science. Think about that angle for a second... if they come out against global warming, those paying them (politicians) will find someone else to fund. That is one of my BIGGEST problems with the global warming hysteria. How many federal grants are going into studying global warming as a natural phenomenon, even just to counter and ensure what's out there is right, and how much money is going into giving us "solutions" to global warming, all of which happen to empower government. Yeah, go do the research Pooey, YOU might be surprised to find I've got a valid point.

That's all very well but why did the US government remain, until recently, vehemently in denial of GW? Surely, the champion of capitalism should be cashing in on this conspiracy?
Can you elaborate on how exactly is it that they've kept so many in secrecy over this conspiracy?

Fact remains, an overwhelming majority of the scientific community, especially those currently undertaking its research are in agreement with the status of global warming.

Also, I don't claim to understand climate any better than you, never have and never will do. I merely paraphrase the statements and findings of others who are far more qualified (climate scientists).

So in short, your denial is based on the premise that tackling GW means we have to give more powers to the government? And that climate scientists etc. are all colluding together to setup a global scandal hell bent on making the world more energy efficient?

[tinybear]

Scientists say some ice melting not caused by global warming

RTHK NEWS

2007-06-13 HKT 08:01

Scientists have said the shrinking of some of the world's glaciers and ice-caps is probably not caused by global warming, as many people have alleged. Writing in the journal American Scientist, climatologists said glaciers in temperate regions do not melt but sublimate -- a process whereby ice is converted straight into water vapour, without becoming a liquid. The scientists said that most of the ice-cap on Africa's highest peak, Mount Kilimanjaro, had disappeared decades before there was conclusive evidence of global warming.

[rmnunez]

Is the collective opinion of a highly reputable scientific institution issued as its conclusion worth more than the reputation staked on a differing opinion by an eminent scientist?

[Captain Cardio]

Interesting Argument About Global Warming Video

Regardless of whether you believe global warming is happening or not, this is a good impartial video to use to give some perspective.

[xyzer]

You hit the nail on the head, the changes were very slow but the recent warming is relatively dramatic.

There you go again Pooey using the flawed conclusions from the rigged hockey stick graph? I do notice that you are now qualifying your contention with the word "relatively".

Since evidence of past climate change points to the fact it is an very slow(in human terms) process with variations along the way, how can one really conclude that the detected recent changes will continue? The cooler period in the last century is an example.
Is it prudent to utilize resources on a fools errand? Is it logical to conclude there is certainty when there isn't? Or is a better plan to conduct more study using the most recent technology and see what the results are?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer There you go again Pooey using the flawed conclusions from the rigged hockey stick graph? I do notice that you are now qualifying your contention with the word "relatively".

I've already shown you that the current interpretation of the data is much more solid than you would like to mislead others into thinking.

Quote by: xyzer Since evidence of past climate change points to the fact it is an very slow(in human terms) process with variations along the way, how can one really conclude that the detected recent changes will continue? The cooler period in the last century is an example.

That period has been explained about already and interestingly, it did involve human activity as well.

Quote by: xyzer Is it prudent to utilize resources on a fools errand? Is it logical to conclude there is certainty when there isn't? Or is a better plan to conduct more study using the most recent technology and see what the results are?

And what do you think the IPCC 2007 report is? What do you think the 2001 report was? How much longer do you want to wait? Are you saying we haven't been researching enough into this area? On what basis do you make this accusation?

[Mr.Vicchio]

There is evidence of rapid heating and cooling in the past, how do you explain that in comparison to today's information?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio There is evidence of rapid heating and cooling in the past, how do you explain that in comparison to today's information?

That's like saying, people die naturally all the time, what makes you think it was murder?

[xyzer]

Run this one by us one more time pooey?

That's like saying, people die naturally all the time, what makes you think it was murder?

Are not you the one implying that? Suggesting that dire results are imminent for a recent trend in climate change that has been replicated many times in the existence of this earth we live on? What makes you think it is murder?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Run this one by us one more time pooey? Are not you the one implying that? Suggesting that dire results are imminent for a recent trend in climate change that has been replicated many times in the existence of this earth we live on? What makes you think it is murder?

Because that is the conclusion of the IPCC, it is the conclusion drawn from the assessment of hundreds of independent studies on climate change. It is NOT my personal opinion, it is that of the researchers and experts. It is also the conclusion of all reputable scientific organisations.

We're just going around in circles now....let's get some thing straight, you have no interest in the science. Just your deluded idea that this is all one big conspiracy to make you change your lifestyle...