Global Warming

[doc303]

Quote by: ruiner The only dispute about "apparent stabilisation of average temperatures since 1998" is coming from the political debate, not the science. The science shows that such a stabilization is statistically insignificant. Temperature trend over the last 30 years has been upward, despite similar "apparent stabilisation" events happening before. 1998 was a stronger than expected warm year because of an el nino event. Starting a trend from 1998 is cherrypicking. Both of these links are part of the political debate, not the science, and are subject to what you described earlier - both the links are not entirely rooted in truth and their authors have an agenda.

Any individual - scientist or not - who uses the term "McCarthyism" is a total idiot - ignorant of the most basic facts of that debate. His entire opinion on anything may thereby be ignored as biased and unrealistic.

You have to look long and hard for an honest opinion, but here is one:

Jonah Goldberg's Goldberg File on National Review Online

[gela]

Why would polititans spend millions of dollars fixing something that doesn't exist? Billions of dollars have been spent on this concept - and the overriding answer is that humans are contributing to global warming. That is what most studies have concluded. That is why the kyoto protocol was made. All these wealthy countries have signed up to kyoto - wealthy countries with good scientists. Countries don't spend money like this on fads and conspiracies.
FACT: As CO2 levels have rised and fallen throughout earths history, temperatures have risen and fallen with them.
FACT: Humans are releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere

Do you really think that humans can spew tones of Co2 into the atmosphere, and it would have no effect? We should know from past expeirences that everything in the environment is in balance, everything effects everything.

I don't think there is any real evdence that big oil is fighting new energy development? I dont suscribe to the phantasy of illogical reasoning.

Well, the oil companies were willing to buy out the electric car. Fighting the global warming theory with hired scientists doesn't seem so far off that.

I dont believe the fear campaigns that say we're all going to die within the next 50 years. But the world will eventualy be affected if nothing is done. We owe it to future generations and to our planet to stop this.

Finally, is it really worth the risk? Mabe global warming is all made up, but your risking our planets future by saying it doesn't exist. Better safe then sorry. Cutting down on CO2 isn't that hard. Putting some money into public transport and fuel efficient cars isnt going to hurt the world.

Yes, I know most of what Im saying isn't souced; but I studied it at school. So I know what Im on about, and im over the topic so much that I can't be bothered going and looking up sources.

[sevendogs]

The global warming is proven well enough. Whatever we may try, would not help. All discussions ignore one simple fact, which may contribute in the phenomenon and this is population and economic growth. There is no politician who has courage to address this issue without risking his political life. We are a natural phenomenon on Earth generated by Earth, just like glaciations, volcanoes, earthquakes and likewise we cannot control ourselves. Many of us have a car, but still many want the second car and who has no car, wants one; who has a house, wants a bigger one or a second house and we are craving for all kinds of gadgets. This is unstoppable. Just fold you hands and watch, nothing will help us to control ourselves. Population growth and economic growth to self destruction is an inevitability. Dinosaurs came and gone, trilobites came and gone, etc. We, along with our fauna, will follow this path sooner or later.

[xyzer]

rmnunez posits..

Why is it so reasonable that money could induce some scientists to dispute exagerated claims of global warming, but not that environmentalism would induce any to exagerate this global warming?

Logical deduction rm! As a follow on..Why is it reasonable to assume that the environmentalist lobby which collects billions of dollars "saving the 'critters' and the planet, doesn''t sponsor(fund) climate research? Doesn't spend millions on funding climate studies? If one admits they do then those scientists taking such money can also be corrupted? Whats the difference between oil company money and that of the environmentalist organizations?

[Marilyn Monroe]

I found this and thought it was interesting:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

[gela]

Quote by: xyzer rmnunez posits.. Logical deduction rm! As a follow on..Why is it reasonable to assume that the environmentalist lobby which collects billions of dollars "saving the 'critters' and the planet, doesn''t sponsor(fund) climate research? Doesn't spend millions on funding climate studies? If one admits they do then those scientists taking such money can also be corrupted? Whats the difference between oil company money and that of the environmentalist organizations?

When someone sponsers an organisation like greenpeace then they are giving greenpeace money because they believe in the cause. They are giving them money to do whatever they want with it.
I don't know any environmentalist organisation who collects money just to save animales.. I know of animal welfare organisations who collect money just for animales..
Mabe there is such an organisation, but I'v never heard of it.

Secondly, why would someone want global warming to be true? there is no reason for a conspiracy in support of global warming. It is a terrible thing, and millions of dollars will have to be spent averting it. I would think that environmentalists would much prefer that kind of money going to a better cause then electric cars.
Its far more logical and likely that people against global warming are corrupted, or propelled by wishful thinking.

[rmnunez]

Whether global warming will be such a disaster is anyone's guess. The more alarmist forecasts suggest sea levels will rise substantially and there will be massive desertification. If those forecasts actually take place over a span of centuries, the effects won't seem so dramatic and can be gradually accomodated.

With Europe, Asia and the US all north of the equator and just Australia, South America and Africa to its south. It looks like global warming would be beneficial for most people as it would warm larger temperate places. The adverse effects of heating up already hot southern climes would impact comparatively fewer people.

I suppose there will be global warming, albeit gradual over centuries. I think environmentalists who were frustrated by their unsuccessful efforts to curb western consumerist pollution, see global warming forecasts as a compelling argument to advance their case. Western consumers wouldn't stop their environmental degradation to preserve delicate habitats and endangered species, and not even rising costs seem to deter their reckless consumerism. Thus the environmentally concerned see exagerated portrayals of global warming (purportedly resulting from anthropogenic CO2) as a more compelling argument to reduce pollution. So far it hasn't worked, but we are sure to see greater exagerations with more dire forecasts of the consequences. Meanwhile I wonder what it would be like if all those Canadian islands in the Arctic enjoyed tropical weather like the Caribbean and if vast tracts of Siberia became warm enough to farm and grow vegetables.

[Dunfunkin']

Quote by: ruiner The only dispute about "apparent stabilisation of average temperatures since 1998" is coming from the political debate, not the science. The science shows that such a stabilization is statistically insignificant. Temperature trend over the last 30 years has been upward, despite similar "apparent stabilisation" events happening before. 1998 was a stronger than expected warm year because of an el nino event. Starting a trend from 1998 is cherrypicking.

I don't claim to be a statistician - my knowledge of this branch of maths is distinctly ropey, being based on stuff remembered from my O levels 32 years ago - but please explain to me how a period of 9 years within this trend of 30 years you mention is "statistically insignificant"? It represents c.30% of the period you quote, compared to a 30 year trend during the 64 billion year history of Planet Earth where the notion of insignificance can be seen in a slightly different light.

Quote by: ruiner Both of these links are part of the political debate, not the science, and are subject to what you described earlier - both the links are not entirely rooted in truth and their authors have an agenda.

I hardly think that the renowned botanist Prof David Bellamy would thank you for grouping him with the very people he is accusing of taking the debate over!

[ruiner]

Quote by: Dunfunkin' I don't claim to be a statistician - my knowledge of this branch of maths is distinctly ropey, being based on stuff remembered from my O levels 32 years ago - but please explain to me how a period of 9 years within this trend of 30 years you mention is "statistically insignificant"? It represents c.30% of the period you quote, compared to a 30 year trend during the 64 billion year history of Planet Earth where the notion of insignificance can be seen in a slightly different light.

You can see what I mean from the graph of the record in question:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/te...ure/nhshgl.gif

1998 is a warm spike, it was abnormally warm due to a very strong el-nino in that year. It wasn't that the temperature trend had gradually climbed to an elevated peak in '98 and the earth hasn't had a warmer year since. Starting a trend in '98 is cherrypicking because if it is started in any other year ('96,'97,'99 for example) there is a very different result. You can see the black trend line (which is a running mean) continues upward past 1998, so the argument that Earth hasn't warmed since 1998 is quite misleading.

While David Belamy might be a decent Botanist, the quality of his arguments in that article are even worse than the usual political mish-mash.

[Nono]

Quote by: rmnuez CO2 heightens or magnifies the effects of global warming, but does not induce it.

Pure fantasy on your part, rum. Check your facts.

Why is it so reasonable that money could induce some scientists to dispute exagerated claims of global warming, but not that environmentalism would induce any to exagerate this global warming?

You're misquoting again, rum. They aren'd disputing exaggeration, they disputing pure and simple. For money.

To dispel the confusion in your mind, just ask yourself what financial interests are involved. Very simple.

[Nono]

Quote by: sevendogs All discussions ignore one simple fact ...

'Cept mine, since I've made the point below already.

... population and economic growth. There is no politician who has courage to address this issue without risking his political life. We are a natural phenomenon on Earth generated by Earth, just like glaciations, volcanoes, earthquakes and likewise we cannot control ourselves. Many of us have a car, but still many want the second car and who has no car, wants one; who has a house, wants a bigger one or a second house and we are craving for all kinds of gadgets. This is unstoppable. Just fold you hands and watch, nothing will help us to control ourselves. Population growth and economic growth to self destruction is an inevitability. Dinosaurs came and gone, trilobites came and gone, etc. We, along with our fauna, will follow this path sooner or later.

I fear your view is bang on, dogs. Talking turkey is political suicide, until people get really scared by events and demand action. Then it'll be too late.

[xyzer]

If it were not for skeptics scientific knowledge would not advance. Thus those that denigrate others who question what is supposed to be the orthodoxy don't help scientific advancement, do they? It doesn't matter who funds research into the search for truth does it? We dont have all the answers..can't even predict weather very accurately and yet some use computer models to predict climate many years from now? Othere insist we have the answer? The earth is flat? Didn't somebody question that belief?

Climate generally has been warming over the past century..Less than 1 degree centigrade...and we didn't have a good measuring capability until about 25 years ago. What is not known or proved is that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause? So why not continue to study the subject before going off and spending money on chance? As rm posts warming has actually helped some areas of the globe? What to me is foolhardy is getting panicked about the very slow (in human terms) change in climate? We do know that climate changed over the eons before humans had any impact..

[rmnunez]

I've been asking myself about those financial interests involved. For evil and greedy oilcos I see little interest in disputing global warming, after all there's no chance demand for their product will diminsh since there's no competitive substitute, and as oil constantly rises in cost they'd actually make more money discouraging its use and hoarding it for later.

The global warming community has financial interests too, its costs money to run these complicated computer simulations and forecasts. These scientific studies require research, and all sorts of data collection as well as its manipulation. Climatological studies likely are witnessing a boost in financing due to the growing concern promoted through notions the world is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions unless oil use is quickly reduced.

[xyzer]

I think also that in all the arguing we tend to lose sight of a very basic ingredient to climate? Doesn't the evidence we glean from many disciplines reveal that climate has warmed and cooled over the eons of earths existence? Since life developed countless species have appeared and then disappeared as the climate in their environments became too harsh for their existence. And as climate change made it possible for new species adaptations?

Species that cant adapt become extinct. Human beings are probably only here because the age of reptiles ended millions of years ago due to climate(environment) change? This allowed for the age of mammals who could adapt. Does it not make sense to now posit that because climate is warming humans shouldn't adapt using their technology? Instead they should try to change a climate trend that in a geologic time sense will occur very slowly and may even reverse itself naturally?
When one considers the less than 1% CO2 gas in our atmosphere and humans small contribution to that, it doesn't seem logical to me that anthropogenic causes can have much of an effect? Better to adapt.

[rmnunez]

I was reading more than 50 million Chinese were stranded without trains and roads were all blocked as their country endured the worse winder in half a century -despite the global warming. In the US its midwest is also under heavy snow, shouldn't we be feeling some warmer climes by now?

[Century 25]

Quote by: rmnunez I was reading more than 50 million Chinese were stranded without trains and roads were all blocked as their country endured the worse winder in half a century -despite the global warming. In the US its midwest is also under heavy snow, shouldn't we be feeling some warmer climes by now?

And Baghdad had snow several days ago.. that is due to the global jet stream being nudged off it's usual flow as it courses around the earth. The reason: Warming of the big "heat-sink".. ie: the world ocean. The oceans cover 71% of the earth.. and our increasingly CO2 atmosphere is like a pool cover. The warm moist air rising deflects the "normal" flow, resulting in these a-typical events.

You can expect more & more anomalies to occur as the years pass. I wonder how long it takes before enough people realize how they were duped again by Bush, Inc...


.

[Foxfyre]

I know our area is having the longest sustained cold period that we have had for many years. Send some of that global warming our way please.

Have you noticed though that there's no such things as normal weather any more? If it is hot, it's global warming. If it is moderate, it is global warming. If it is colder than a witch's elbow, it's global warming. I imagine when the arctic ice cap and greenland glaciers start reconstituting themselves, that will be global warming too. :)

[Nono]

You guys really have a shallow understanding of how weather works. Micro-variations there have always been.

For those who find the evidence inconvenient, the reasoning goes like this: If it's hot, well ... it's been hot before, right? If it's moderate, hey it's just moderate so what's all this about "global warming"? And if it's cold -- start hootin' cuz it's cold out.
Perfect.

And by the way, fyre, the ice is melting in both the Arctic and the Antarctic. Sorry to intrude with facts, but that's how it is.

[Chris]

Heh, so just because a few hundred square miles in the Desert SW in America is cold = no global warming.

Smart.

[Chris]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I found this and thought it was interesting: Creators of carbon credit scheme cashing in on it

heh,

Scammers exist = global warming does not exist