Global Warming

[Sweet Katie]

Quote by: The Architect Wikipedia.org Type in global warming

Wiki can be edited by anyone.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: xyzer I didn't find my "hemaroids" on that list rm? I thought all that global warming crap was causing the bleeding?

No, the bleeding is being caused by your glasses.

[rmnunez]

What consensus?

Earlier this year the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said it was "90% likely" that man was having an impact on global temperatures. And dailytech.com reports an analysis of scientific papers in 2004 concluded that a majority of researchers supported what it called the "consensus view" that humans were effecting climate change. But now a study of all research papers between 2004 and 2007 indicates only seven percent give an explicit endorsement of that so-called consensus. Forty-five percent give an implicit endorsement. But 48% of the papers are classified as neutral —neither accepting nor rejecting the hypothesis. And only 1 of the 528 papers reviewed makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results. FOXNews.com - How Many Scientists Say That Mankind Is Affecting Global Warming? - Brit Hume | Special Report

Does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" (the only portion usually quoted in the media) is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters (the only text actually written by scientists) are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself. DailyTech - Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: rmnunez What consensus?

It's right here.

[rmnunez]

Was here Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: rmnunez The surfacestations.org is pretty neat. They are attempting to document the physical surroundings of every surface temperature measurement box in the US (the most rigorous and complete measurement system in the world). Obviously the sign of a denialist anti-science skeptic.

I think SurfaceStations.org is the biggest waste of time in the history of GW denial. It's blatantly obvious that the point of the site is to discredit the direct surface station measurements and cast doubt on global warming theory. The whole project lacks even a single ounce of scientific integrity. The idea of analyzing the temperature monitoring stations is good, but the way they're going about doing it is completely ridiculous.

[rmnunez]

On the politicization of science:

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty US government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"? That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program. That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda. Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different. IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily - The Soros Threat To Democracy

How many of you, knowing this, now are reconsidering Hansen's claims?

[jamesbdunn]

So why are we not identifying the Corporations and key people involved with preventing positive efforts in reversing global warming?

Why are we not ethically attacking them and forcing a change?

How can we do more than just complain? What actions can we take against these corporations and key peoples?

50 years is not much time to entertain banter and do anything effectual !
50 years is all we have before seawater encroaches coastal wetlands and eradicates vast numbers of indigenous species.

Losing species does vastly more to our food system stability than just removing interesting plants and animals. We make our food supply less stable.

-
-

I've tried to promote the following with only nodding head responses:

Ethically eliminate corruption:
Yahoo! 360° - Science, Technologies, & Political Reform - Ethically provide NSA oversight & allow the Government & People to think as ONE

Self-funding method to reverse global warming:
Yahoo! 360° - Science, Technologies, & Political Reform - A Self-Funding method to "Reverse" Global Warming

So what else can we do that has far greater IMMEDIATE impact!!!!!!!!!

James

[rmnunez]

I'm not demanding efforts to prevent global warming for two reasons; I don't believe the dire predictions and I think this warming is natural.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez I'm not demanding efforts to prevent global warming for two reasons; I don't believe the dire predictions and I think this warming is natural.

Natural? So what? If global warming is going to cause all the problems anticipated by it's adherents, does it really make a difference who or what causes it?? If we can prevent catastrophe by naturally occurring global warming instead of human caused global warming, isn't it in our best interests to do so? Shall we meekly go the way of the dinosaur because the causes are natural instead of manmade?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: rmnunez I'm not demanding efforts to prevent global warming for two reasons; I don't believe the dire predictions and I think this warming is natural.

Which is where your opinions and those the scientific communities differ.

[Mr. Jaggers]

Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit.
- Juvenal, xiv.321.
. . .

The cause of global warming has been much debated. The establishment view, supported by corporate-funded research (ExxonMobil), holds that global climate changes are cyclical, over which man, for all his science and invention applied to master the universe, has no control. Opposing this conventional wisdom, there is a growing, and increasingly vocal, opposition that point to pollution (specifically hydrocarbon emissions) in the atmosphere as the cause, and accuse the industrialized nations of “trashing the planet.” And in the politics of the issue - which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money - the establishment has thus far prevailed. Still, the evidence is mounting; and we cannot long afford to turn a blind eye to what can be plainly seen. The earth is speaking to us, and we should listen - “for wisdom ever echoes nature’s voice.”

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Mr. Jaggers Nunquam aliud natura, aliud sapientia dicit. - Juvenal, xiv.321. . . . The cause of global warming has been much debated. The establishment view, supported by corporate-funded research (ExxonMobil), holds that global climate changes are cyclical, over which man, for all his science and invention applied to master the universe, has no control. Opposing this conventional wisdom, there is a growing, and increasingly vocal, opposition that point to pollution (specifically hydrocarbon emissions) in the atmosphere as the cause, and accuse the industrialized nations of “trashing the planet.” And in the politics of the issue - which has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money - the establishment has thus far prevailed. Still, the evidence is mounting; and we cannot long afford to turn a blind eye to what can be plainly seen. The earth is speaking to us, and we should listen - “for wisdom ever echoes nature’s voice.”

And to think that just 30 years ago scientists were talking about the coming ice age.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chancellor And to think that just 30 years ago scientists were talking about the coming ice age.

And due to all the aerosols in the air temperatures really were decreasing. Then, they introduced standards for how much sulfur your coal plant could put into the air to curb acid rain, and the Earth started cooling again...

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Thanatos And due to all the aerosols in the air temperatures really were decreasing. Then, they introduced standards for how much sulfur your coal plant could put into the air to curb acid rain, and the Earth started cooling again...

Are you sure about that?

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chancellor Are you sure about that?

I can find temperature graphs that show the dip in temperature I mentioned, but I can't find the data I need to show the correlation with assorted aerosols (especially sulfur). I read it a long time ago and no I'm not sure where.

Recent Climate Change - Annual Average Global Surface Temperature Anomalies 1880-2006 | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Oh, but while searching for the information I really wanted I did find an article about a proposal by a famous chemist to reverse global warming by flooding the atmosphere with massive quantities heat-reflecting aerosols.

Pollution could be used to fight global warming

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Thanatos I can find temperature graphs that show the dip in temperature I mentioned, but I can't find the data I need to show the correlation with assorted aerosols (especially sulfur). I read it a long time ago and no I'm not sure where. Recent Climate Change - Annual Average Global Surface Temperature Anomalies 1880-2006 | Science | Climate Change | U.S. EPA Oh, but while searching for the information I really wanted I did find an article about a proposal by a famous chemist to reverse global warming by flooding the atmosphere with massive quantities heat-reflecting aerosols. Pollution could be used to fight global warming

I think you missed the point here. Al Gore and company claim there's all this global warming going on (and has been going on for the last 100 years or so) while the "scientific community" in the 1970s were warning about a coming ice age.

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: Chancellor I think you missed the point here. Al Gore and company claim there's all this global warming going on (and has been going on for the last 100 years or so) while the "scientific community" in the 1970s were warning about a coming ice age.

They did no such thing. I challenge you to find me a single article in the scientific literature warning of a coming ice age in the 70's.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Chancellor I think you missed the point here. Al Gore and company claim there's all this global warming going on (and has been going on for the last 100 years or so) while the "scientific community" in the 1970s were warning about a coming ice age.

Actually, I think its you who just missed the point. We will have a cooling period in a few thousand years. There was a little tiny temperature downturn, and people got panicky and silly. If you look at the temperature chart I referenced then you will see an overall trend; the flaw with the doom and gloom people of the 1970's was that they were looking at too small a time period.

Over a slightly longer time period, it seems that CO2 and temperature correlate and that global temperature is going up.

Observing the Global Oceanic Carbon Cycle

Over a ridiculously long time period based on antarctic ice cores it appears that that CO2 is the prime mover for global temperature.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/pr...k-ice-core.jpg

Note that the scale on the above chart only goes up to 300ppm of CO2. The current concentration is 380ppm; the chart says 370ppm but it was published in 2002...

Carbon dioxide level highest in 650,000 years

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Thanatos Actually, I think its you who just missed the point. We will have a cooling period in a few thousand years. There was a little tiny temperature downturn, and people got panicky and silly. If you look at the temperature chart I referenced then you will see an overall trend; the flaw with the doom and gloom people of the 1970's was that they were looking at too small a time period.

But if, as Al Gore and friends claim, the temperature has been rising over the last 100 years or so, there can't have been a period of cooling during that same time. You don't get to have it both ways!

Over a slightly longer time period, it seems that CO2 and temperature correlate and that global temperature is going up. Observing the Global Oceanic Carbon Cycle Over a ridiculously long time period based on antarctic ice cores it appears that that CO2 is the prime mover for global temperature. http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/pr...k-ice-core.jpg Note that the scale on the above chart only goes up to 300ppm of CO2. The current concentration is 380ppm; the chart says 370ppm but it was published in 2002... Carbon dioxide level highest in 650,000 years

Of course, I'm only referring to the last 100 years or so - roughly the period during which we've been keeping records of the weather. You don't get to have both a coming ice age and global warming. Now, if you're going to say the scientists that were predicting an ice age were wrong, what makes you think that scientists crying global warming are not wrong? After all, we're talking about scientists here - the people that you and so many here on Volconvo expect me to defer to.