Global Warming

[simple simon]

Quote by: Nono I see. So every last crystal of ice on the planet will have to melt before you'll begin to stroke your chin and think "Hmmm, yes just maybe...".

pretty much ....... 3 feet of snow in January and a high of 30 degrees is by no means a sign of Global Warming

but by all means .... inform me what is .... im all ears

[sevendogs]

If Global Warming is just a part of natural cyclic changes in the system, nothing needs to be done. If it is caused by humans, we all are in trouble no matter what we are trying to do. This is simply because we are still just animals. This is true, we are special animals and can control many natural things, but it does not include our own population growth. All politicians are competing, promising better care of families and promising economic growth. Nobody thinks about sustainability and balance. We are going to destroy our environment and our reduction in numbers or even extinction becomes inevitable.

[Nono]

I think you're probably right, dogs.

Hey, simon, stop being so lazy. Just look at Pooeypants' posts in this very thread. It's all there.

[doc303]

tracked page

tracked page

tracked page

tracked page

tracked page

etc. etc. etc..................

[simple simon]

Quote by: doc303 tracked page tracked page tracked page tracked page tracked page etc. etc. etc..................

exactly ...... you can get scientists to say most anything you want .... even that global warming is real

and if you cross the global warming is real people they will turn it into personal attacks ... nice bunch of folks

[xyzer]

I wonder how you Goreish alarmists can avoid the obvious and continue to ignore the basic facts that global warming and cooling have occurred over the eons well before humans contributed any greenhouse gas? Climate change is natural not human caused.

As I have reopeatedly posted this article exposes the true global picture over the last decade as refuting climate warming predictions and showing us that natural causes are the culprit..Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? - The Boston Globe

Shows that the whole farce is begining to unravel...People seem to ignore that the temps in the southern hemisphere are getting colder? Ignore the fact that global warming has slowed. That inspite of an increase in humans contribuions to greemhouse gases the temps in the northern hemisphere are not wariming much at all in the last decade and are predicted to cool in 08?

Have you been duped by opportunistic demagoguery? Looks like it. Has natural climate change been politicised? Looks like it.

University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.

[Century 25]

I wonder how you Goreish alarmists can avoid the obvious and continue to ignore the basic facts that global warming and cooling have occurred over the eons well before humans contributed any greenhouse gas? Climate change is natural not human caused.

The typical fluctuations have been accounted for. The anomaly in the equation is due to human activities.

[xyzer]

The typical fluctuations have been accounted for. The anomaly in the equation is due to human activities.

Oh really? And I'm sure they appear in the predictive models upon which forecasts of climate change are based? Recently we see that the anomaly is in the models. Actual measuremnts refute the predictions?

They didn't involve natural influence enough and were strongly influenced by the relationship(correlation) of only two climate factors(CO2 and warming)? . Since the original UN climate change summary some 7+ years ago other studies and research have shown significant natural factors involved in the puzzle.

Human contributions to CO2 creation are something like a fraction of the 1% atmospheric CO2. The ocean as it warms releases the major amount. Even the IPCC summary indicated that if humans could cut emissions it would take about two centuries to feel any efects?
This to me as an admission that natural factors rule!

[doc303]

Quote by: Century 25 The typical fluctuations have been accounted for. The anomaly in the equation is due to human activities.

Is that why I have no glaciers in my backyard?

[EnragedParrot]

Quote by: xyzer Oh really? And I'm sure they appear in the predictive models upon which forecasts of climate change are based? Recently we see that the anomaly is in the models. Actual measuremnts refute the predictions?

I've pointed out earlier in the thread that model projections are in very good agreement with observations. Yes, cyclical temperature fluctuations are accounted for in climate models.

They didn't involve natural influence enough and were strongly influenced by the relationship(correlation) of only two climate factors(CO2 and warming)? . Since the original UN climate change summary some 7+ years ago other studies and research have shown significant natural factors involved in the puzzle.

No one has ever denied that there are natural factors contributing to the current climate change. However, it's clear that the most important factors are anthropogenic.

Also, as I've again pointed out several times, climate models which include only natural or only anthropogenic forcings do not match observation. It is only when human and natural factors are brought together that projectiopns match reality.

Even the IPCC summary indicated that if humans could cut emissions it would take about two centuries to feel any efects? This to me as an admission that natural factors rule!

This is actually an admission that the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as well as various feedback mechanisms related to temperature change, will still be active even if we reduce emissions now.

[simple simon]

im curious about something

seems many people get all flustered when trees are cut down .... like we need all of them to survive ...... seems to me we need a lot less then people think ...... i mean most of them go dormant in the winter (only in our hemisphere yes i know its summer elsewhere) .... and yet we still seem to breath just fine without their oxygen output

[Century 25]

Quote by: doc303 Is that why I have no glaciers in my backyard?

You had a glacier..?

[Century 25]

Oh really? And I'm sure they appear in the predictive models upon which forecasts of climate change are based?

Yes. And the evidence is startling. The few that deny or trot out data trying to obscure the evidence are either connected to one of the many special interest groups that have ve$ted interests in non-compliance to the Kyoto Protocol, or are merely parroting the FOX-aganda slathered onto their gullible audience.



.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: xyzer I wonder how you Goreish alarmists can avoid the obvious and continue to ignore the basic facts that global warming and cooling have occurred over the eons well before humans contributed any greenhouse gas? Climate change is natural not human caused. As I have reopeatedly posted this article exposes the true global picture over the last decade as refuting climate warming predictions and showing us that natural causes are the culprit..Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? - The Boston Globe Shows that the whole farce is begining to unravel...People seem to ignore that the temps in the southern hemisphere are getting colder? Ignore the fact that global warming has slowed. That inspite of an increase in humans contribuions to greemhouse gases the temps in the northern hemisphere are not wariming much at all in the last decade and are predicted to cool in 08? Have you been duped by opportunistic demagoguery? Looks like it. Has natural climate change been politicised? Looks like it.

It was fun reading some of the reviews of Robert W. Felix's "Not By Fire But By Ice" in which he lays out the case for why we are much more likely to be in the early stages of the next ice age rather than in danger from runaway global warming. Felix is a reporter, not a scientist, but his book does receive favorable reviews from some credentialed scientists. And it is thoroughly slammed by the AGW group.

The most important thing, however, is how credible he makes his case sound, and, if it was politically correct, he would certainly be as much of a climate guru as Al Gore who, so far as I know, barely passed basic science in highschool and didn't take anything other than basic requirements in college.

Felix's book is a good read whether or not you buy into the data he cites or the conclusions he draws from it, by the way.

[Derach]

I sure wish you Pro - Global Warmers and Anti - Global Warmers would come together and demand politicians develop an energy plan to at least state our current intentions on the dependable supply of affordable energy to Western nations over the next 50 yrs.

Instead, we have partisanship bantoring about how important and fragile our environment is on the left ... or how dangerous religious fanatics and terrorists are on the right ... instead, why don't you guys point out to john q public that an energy plan will help them where it counts ... in their pocketbooks, not on CNN or in church .. but in their day to day living.

Instead, we'll probably just trudge around wearing our war cries like 'save the planet' or 'fight terrorism' as abstract ideas instead of the tangible fight for our economic freedom that US energy policy should be.

[doc303]

Quote by: Century 25 You had a glacier..?

Thrice, by last count, here in Central NYS. Their fingerprints are all over the landscape. My favorite commuter is a lovely purple and white banded
(very dense) sandstone from Potsdam, NY - 150 miles directly north.

It is found only there - in situ. The Potsdam sandstone of Late Cambrian age crops out along the N., E., and SE. borders of the Adirondack Mountains in northeastern New York state. It has generally been described as an orthoquartzite. In the Mooers area, however, the Potsdam is mainly a subarkose or arkose. Detailed analysis of 10 thin sections of the Potsdam sandstone from the Mooers Quadrangle provide data for grain-count composition, median grain size, cumulative size curves for individual samples, mean grain size, coefficient of sorting, roundness, and sphericity. The examination of 25 additional thin sections provided data for a lithofacies map. In the Mooers area, the Potsdam can be distinguished from the sandstone in the overlying Theresa dolomite, which, unlike the Potsdam, contains no zircon, very little feldspar, and very well rounded quartz grains. Mean grain roundness in the Potsdam ranges from 0.4 to 0.5; sphericity ranges from 0.73 to 0.79. The relation of roundness to sphericity is similar to that reported in other published studies. The median size decreases and sphericity increases to the N., away from outcropping Precambrian rocks. Sorting is best and median grain size smallest where the beds dip least, suggesting that the dip is probably primary. Sedimentary analysis by thin-section techniques gives abundant, fairly reliable quantitative data for sedimentary studies.

It is thought human activity had little to do with the disappearance of glaciation 15.000 years ago.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Derach I sure wish you Pro - Global Warmers and Anti - Global Warmers would come together and demand politicians develop an energy plan to at least state our current intentions on the dependable supply of affordable energy to Western nations over the next 50 yrs. Instead, we have partisanship bantoring about how important and fragile our environment is on the left ... or how dangerous religious fanatics and terrorists are on the right ... instead, why don't you guys point out to john q public that an energy plan will help them where it counts ... in their pocketbooks, not on CNN or in church .. but in their day to day living. Instead, we'll probably just trudge around wearing our war cries like 'save the planet' or 'fight terrorism' as abstract ideas instead of the tangible fight for our economic freedom that US energy policy should be.

I think that would be an excellent discussion on an energy thread, but would derail a global warming thread.

Nevertheless, as long as the pols who are in charge of making policy in our various countries are divided on the facts of global warming, or more particularly AGW, real solutions to provide sustainable sufficient and affordable energy for the people is likely to be or at least appear elusive. That is why the debate on AGW is so important, why we should not just meekly accept whatever we are being spoonfed by whatever group with a political, social, economic, or religious agenda.

I for one want ALL the science to be considered and evaluated before they make policy that is going to negatively affect me. I don't want our economy or lifestyles radically altered by policy that chases after bad science.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: simple simon Pretty much ....... 3 feet of snow in January and a high of 30 degrees is by no means a sign of Global Warming but by all means .... inform me what is .... im all ears

Betcha looked out'yer winda and din't see none 'o them greenhouse gases floatin' by neither, didja! You certainly don't call yourself simple for nothing.

Quote by: doc303 “Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz.

Dr. Ian Wilson is a well-known global warming skeptic whose claim that Global Warming "Bites the Dust" based on Dr. Schwarz' paper is hyperboly in the extreme, and Senator James Inhofe, whose MINORITY PAGE the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works you are quoting from, is an even more notorious GW denier.

To begin with, even Dr. Schwartz himself does not claim to have disproven global warming. Far from it, he accepts it completely. He simply suggests that the amount of warming per amount of CO2 may be more uncertain than has been claimed.

As to Schwartz' paper, it's all how you read his findings...

--"However, as Schwartz points out in his study, climate recovers at different rates depending on the nature of the forcing causing the perturbation. A short term change such as a volcanic eruption results in a short time constant of a few years. A long term increase in CO2 levels results in a recovery spanning decades. Schwartz rightly points out "as the duration of volcanic forcing is short, the response time may not be reflective of that which would characterize a sustained forcing such as that from increased greenhouse gases because of lack of penetration of the thermal signal into the deep ocean."

Nevertheless, Schwartz filters out long term changes by detrending the time series data which has the effect of biasing the result towards a shorter time constant. The time constant for non-detrended data yields a time constant of 15 to 17 years. Consequently, the estimated time constant of 5 years is questionable - a value the final result hinges on."--

I will assume the rest of doc's links are equally biased nonsense.

Quote by: xyzer Oh really? And I'm sure they appear in the predictive models upon which forecasts of climate change are based? Recently we see that the anomaly is in the models. Actual measuremnts refute the predictions?

You're absolutely right, Xyzer. Actual measurements show the warming trend happening FASTER than predicted.

Quote by: Foxfyre It was fun reading some of the reviews of Robert W. Felix's "Not By Fire But By Ice" in which he lays out the case for why we are much more likely to be in the early stages of the next ice age rather than in danger from runaway global warming.

Exactly, foxfyre. Based on 'historic Natural Fluctuations', we should be, right now, on the downward slope of a 25,000 year cooling trend towards the next Ice Age.

The anomoly of anthropogenic global warming has completely reversed that trend. The famous "Little Ice Age" was very likely the first dip towards that cooling trend, which was reversed 200 years ago.



.

[Derach]

http://http://www.pureenergysystems....et_Pole_Shift/Magnetic pole variations are a bigger environmental threat than global warming.

[Century 25]

doc303, yes.. and the great plains were once the high seas. The earth has experienced many changes through the millions of years, billions actually. Something did happen in the recent past though. I'm sure too that human activity played no part until the last couple hundred years.

The current 'global warming' event is being enhanced, if not precipitated by human activity.

Here is an item of interest:

Ancient Flood Disrupted Ocean Circulation And Triggered Climate Cooling

Derach, your link had a problem. This one looks like what you intended:

EARTH CHANGES: Magnetic Field Reversal