|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
an inconvenient truth
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| an inconvenient truth
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| ru8up? |
just saw the dvd, great stuff
too bad 5 of the supreme court justices took the presidency away from him, we could of had a president that believes in science instead of the one they appointed that believes in superstitious nonsense |
|
|
| nunpuncher |
| wait ..i cant figure out how this guy can dominate the nfl and make a movie yet alone run for office |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by ru8up?
just saw the dvd, great stuff
too bad 5 of the supreme court justices took the presidency away from him, we could of had a president that believes in science instead of the one they appointed that believes in superstitious nonsense |
And a wonderful peice of fiction it was... |
|
|
| ru8up? |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
And a wonderful peice of fiction it was... |
you know you don't think that |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
And a wonderful peice of fiction it was... |
Hows your stay in fantasy land going LIEMASTER? |
|
|
| artie's_poptart |
Quote: Originally posted by ru8up?
just saw the dvd, great stuff
too bad 5 of the supreme court justices took the presidency away from him, we could of had a president that believes in science instead of the one they appointed that believes in superstitious nonsense |
I saw that recently too, great piece of work - it really makes you start thinking about the little things you can do to reverse this disastrous course we're on. |
|
|
| Bronks Breasts |
| If you want to see a great documentary rent " who killed the electric car ". What a maddening film. |
|
|
| ru8up? |
| i caught part of it on link tv, i have it in my netflix que |
|
|
| SeanWuzHere |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
And a wonderful peice of fiction it was... |
Yeah,.. I don't let little things like facts get in my way either. Facts change,... but my opinion will never change no matter how many facts there are. Right? Meh,.. who needs polar caps anyway. I certainly don't. They just get in my way. I love emitting CO2 emissions. They're good for you. Put some hair on yer chest. 180 degree summers? No biggie,.. perfectly normal. |
|
|
| Bronks Breasts |
Quote: Originally posted by SeanWuzHere
Yeah,.. I don't let little things like facts get in my way either. Facts change,... but my opinion will never change no matter how many facts there are. Right? Meh,.. who needs polar caps anyway. I certainly don't. They just get in my way. I love emitting CO2 emissions. They're good for you. Put some hair on yer chest. 180 degree summers? No biggie,.. perfectly normal. |
Sean what you seem to fail to understand is that the scientists that are supported by energy companies are the only ones that are correct |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
HAHAHA!
The Competitive Enterprise Institute...... Exxon's second favorite whorehouse.
Second only to the White House. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
HAHAHA!
The Competitive Enterprise Institute...... Exxon's second favorite whorehouse.
Second only to the White House. |
Yup..checking in at a stellar 6% of the funding for the CIE… LOLOLOLOLOL
Keep trying…..ignoring the facts, and attacking the sources might work….eventually. |
|
|
| artie's_poptart |
Quote: Originally posted by Bronks Breasts
Sean what you seem to fail to understand is that the scientists that are supported by energy companies are the only ones that are correct |
He was being sarcastic..... |
|
|
| ru8up? |
you know you don't believe what you KNOW |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
so if SUVs are the cause of global warming, then how do they cause it on ALL the other planets in our solar system? are there SUVs on jupiter?
and what good is an electric car going to do? considering they still use the energy, just they funnel it through a plant instead a gas filter... still bad for the environment no? |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by ru8up?
you know you don't believe what you KNOW |
Why not ask your hero ALGore what caused periods of warming which were greater than todays slight warming, and period of significant cooling, all which occurred before the industrial age, before the evil SUV, before the evil capitalist pig ever opened a factory?? Then ask him how does he know that those factors are not in play today, and how he arrived at that answer. Please ask him to be detailed. When you get an answer, please report back.
You might want to also ask how if we can't get the hurricane prediction for this year even close to correct, how exactly does he know how much the rise in global tem will be in the next 100 years. Remember…detail.
Ohh, and go through that link I posted….you might learn some truth based on FACTS. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
so if SUVs are the cause of global warming, then how do they cause it on ALL the other planets in our solar system? are there SUVs on jupiter?
and what good is an electric car going to do? considering they still use the energy, just they funnel it through a plant instead a gas filter... still bad for the environment no? |
Electricity is a step in the right direction because it can be GENERATED by wind/ solar/ hydro power.
Say you had a solar powered charging station for your electric car - you would not be indentured to any energy company to operate your vehicle.
And you are going to be hard pressed to prove there is warming on "all" of the other planets since we have almost no way to monitor that and because many of the other planets atmospheres are no comparison to our own. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Yup..checking in at a stellar 6% of the funding for the CIE LOLOLOLOLOL
Keep trying..ignoring the facts, and attacking the sources might work.eventually. |
You're right. But 6% is a good percentage when CEI's donor list includes nearly all of the wealthiest corporations in the US.
And don't YOU "attack" everyone's sources without disproving facts, Mikey? You dismiss all things that prove you to be an idiot, but whine like a bitch when someone points out the corruption and hypocrisy of your sources....
Welcome to Mike's fantasyland, where HIS rules apply to everyone but himself.
LOL |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
You're right. But 6% is a good percentage when CEI's donor list includes nearly all of the wealthiest corporations in the US.
And don't YOU "attack" everyone's sources without disproving facts, Mikey? You dismiss all things that prove you to be an idiot, but whine like a bitch when someone points out the corruption and hypocrisy of your sources....
Welcome to Mike's fantasyland, where HIS rules apply to everyone but himself.
LOL |
Your ONLY tactic is attack the source…you cannot ever attack the questions raised and facts brought up by climate realists..regardless of who pays a small portion of the bills. AND you conveniently ignore the fact that left wing foundations pay for much of the global alarmist nonsense. I look at the facts regardless, you focus soley on where the facts that you don't like to see, come from…because you cannot rebutt them in any meaningful way.
You are fully aware applying your own rules to eveeryone but yourself….not only in the global alarmist debate, but in the war on terror debate….ain't that right? AB-Chickenhawk?? |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Why not ask your hero ALGore what caused periods of warming which were greater than todays slight warming, and period of significant cooling, all which occurred before the industrial age, before the evil SUV, before the evil capitalist pig ever opened a factory?? Then ask him how does he know that those factors are not in play today, and how he arrived at that answer. Please ask him to be detailed. When you get an answer, please report back.
You're wrong again.
The medieval warming period was a ripple compared to the wave we're getting ready to ride.
You might want to also ask how if we can't get the hurricane prediction for this year even close to correct, how exactly does he know how much the rise in global tem will be in the next 100 years. Remember…detail.
The global temperature crisis is a trend.
Listen closely, now.
A single year's weather predictions HAVE NOTHING, REPEAT, NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENTIST'S ABILITY TO TRACK WEATHER TRENDS.
Ohh, and go through that link I posted….you might learn some truth based on FACTS.
Your "facts" leave me underwhelmed. |
(When your #1 and #2 arguments are that fossil fuels make life easy and warm weather is a good thing, I can see what level you're operating on. Go try that shit on some children. Apparently, that's your target audience.) |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Your ONLY tactic is attack the sourceyou cannot ever attack the questions raised and facts brought up by climate realists..regardless of who pays a small portion of the bills. AND you conveniently ignore the fact that left wing foundations pay for much of the global alarmist nonsense. I look at the facts regardless, you focus soley on where the facts that you don't like to see, come frombecause you cannot rebutt them in any meaningful way.
You are fully aware applying your own rules to eveeryone but yourself.not only in the global alarmist debate, but in the war on terror debate.ain't that right? AB-Chickenhawk?? |
Bwaaaaahahahahaha!
Climate "realists"......
Mike, we have seen the quality of sources you use. Proven liars and con men like Fred Seitz, for whom we are still waiting for proof of the "independent" verification of his fraud petition, and proof his "paper" was peer reviewed.
Then there is the "statistician" who wrote a NON peer reviewed paper criticizing the peer review methods of another study who's results have been duplicated by many other separate studies.
The National Review, who regularly cites studies and sources who actually concluded the opposite of what they claim....
Please keep using such stellar sources - you are your own worst enemy....
LOL |
|
|
| SeanWuzHere |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Why not ask your hero ALGore what caused periods of warming which were greater than todays slight warming, and period of significant cooling, all which occurred before the industrial age, before the evil SUV, before the evil capitalist pig ever opened a factory?? Then ask him how does he know that those factors are not in play today, and how he arrived at that answer. Please ask him to be detailed. When you get an answer, please report back.
You might want to also ask how if we can't get the hurricane prediction for this year even close to correct, how exactly does he know how much the rise in global tem will be in the next 100 years. Remember…detail.
Ohh, and go through that link I posted….you might learn some truth based on FACTS. |
Evidently you haven't even watched Al Gore's presentation. |
|
|
| FatesWebb |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Electricity is a step in the right direction because it can be GENERATED by wind/ solar/ hydro power.
Say you had a solar powered charging station for your electric car - you would not be indentured to any energy company to operate your vehicle.
And you are going to be hard pressed to prove there is warming on "all" of the other planets since we have almost no way to monitor that and because many of the other planets atmospheres are no comparison to our own. |
ok, I see your point on the electric car thing, even though there are much better answers like hydrogen powered cars etc. but here is my ammo on the other planets experiencing global warming. I wish I could also post the science channel thing too, but it was on tv...
Cows provide more hurt on solar warming, than suvs do...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006112...ns_061129190940
- Space.com: Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.
- Space.com: New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.
- Current Science & Technology Center: Global Warming on Mars?
A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend. If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.
- United Press International: NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
NASA says its Cassini spacecraft has found a hurricane-like storm at Saturn's South Pole, nearly 5,000 miles across -- or two-thirds Earth's diameter.
- Science Agogo: Global Warming Detected on Triton
There may not be much industrial pollution on Neptune's largest moon, but things are hotting up nonetheless. "At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."
- London Telegraph: The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
Bwaaaaahahahahaha!
Climate "realists"......
Mike, we have seen the quality of sources you use. Proven liars and con men like Fred Seitz, for whom we are still waiting for proof of the "independent" verification of his fraud petition, and proof his "paper" was peer reviewed.
Then there is the "statistician" who wrote a NON peer reviewed paper criticizing the peer review methods of another study who's results have been duplicated by many other separate studies.
The National Review, who regularly cites studies and sources who actually concluded the opposite of what they claim....
Please keep using such stellar sources - you are your own worst enemy....
LOL |
HAHAHA...perfect example of what I am talking about...you can't help yourself...all you know is attack attack attack (excpet when it comes to terrorists....)
Keep talking...the hole you are digging keeps getting bigger.. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
(When your #1 and #2 arguments are that fossil fuels make life easy and warm weather is a good thing, I can see what level you're operating on. Go try that shit on some children. Apparently, that's your target audience.) |
Nice.....the warming that we are 'going' to get...based on ridiculously flawed models and pre-conceived notions. The weatherman can't even tell me with any certainty what the temp will be in 10 days, chicken littles like you run around screaming about the coming 'crisis' and global 'heatup'....here's a newsflash for you...most of the warming in the past century occrurred pre 1950....got that.....thats BEFORE all the CO2 emmissions started piling up in the atmosphere...(which, btw, have been much higher in times past)..
Yeah...warm weather is terrible...makes those things grow out of the ground that we eat, and animals eat...called plants, fruits vegetables....a warming climate expands these areas and feeds more people....but you see, that doesn't scare the people like you alarmists like...so the benefits of a warming planet are lost on you (or you choose to ignore them)....
Apparently weak minded people who fall for chicken little nonsense are the target audience of the global alarmists. You and AB have been suckered.....pulled in hook, line and sinker. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
HAHAHA...perfect example of what I am talking about...you can't help yourself...all you know is attack attack attack (excpet when it comes to terrorists....)
Keep talking...the whole you are digging keeps getting bigger.. |
That would almost be an acceptable criticism if it weren't coming from YOU, dumbshit.
You consistently dismiss posts as being from "moonbat leftty" sites, refusing to address a single fact contained in the posts.
Pot....Meet your new best friend, kettle.
You are making a fool out of yourself. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Nice.....the warming that we are 'going' to get...based on ridiculously flawed models and pre-conceived notions. The weatherman can't even tell me with any certainty what the temp will be in 10 days, chicken littles like you run around screaming about the coming 'crisis' and global 'heatup'....here's a newsflash for you...most of the warming in the past century occrurred pre 1950....got that.....thats BEFORE all the CO2 emmissions started piling up in the atmosphere...(which, btw, have been much higher in times past)..
Yeah...warm weather is terrible...makes those things grow out of the ground that we eat, and animals eat...called plants, fruits vegetables....a warming climate expands these areas and feeds more people....but you see, that doesn't scare the people like you alarmists like...so the benefits of a warming planet are lost on you (or you choose to ignore them)....
Apparently weak minded people who fall for chicken little nonsense are the target audience of the global alarmists. You and AB have been suckered.....pulled in hook, line and sinker. |
But AFTER the industrial revolution, you idiot! Pollution standards were starting to be put in place in the 50s, which would appear to expose you as an even bigger retard than previously known.
As for your other idiotic theories:
Quote:
How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic
'We can't even predict the weather next week'
Objection: Scientists can't even predict the weather next week, so why should we believe what some climate model tells us about 100 years from now?
Answer: Climate and weather are very different things, and the level of predictability is comparably different.
Climate is defined as weather averaged over a period of time -- generally around 30 years. This averaging smooths out the random and unpredictable behaviour of weather. Think of it as the difference between trying to predict the height of the fifth wave from now versus predicting the height of tomorrow's high tide. The former is a challenge -- to which your salty, wet sneakers will bear witness -- but the latter is routine and reliable.
This is not to say it's easy to predict climate changes. But seizing on meteorologists' failures to cast doubt on a climate model's 100-year projection is an argument of ignorance.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/221636/43 |
Quote:
What's Wrong With Warm Weather
(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)
Objection: The Earth has had much warmer climates in the past, what is so special about the current climate?
This is one of those arguments that is true enough, but misses the point. Change, not final state, being the real danger.
Answer :
I don't know if there is a meaningful way to define an "optimum" average temperature. Surely it is better on earth now, not having as much land trapped beneath ice sheets as there was 20K years ago. But between the climate 100 or 200 years ago and the worst one we may be heading for with tropical forests inside the arctic circle, one global mean temperature seems just as good as any other. But the critical issue with what is going on today is not where the temperature is or is not at, but how fast it is moving.
Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviours. The rate at which the global temperature is rising today is very likely unique in the history of our species. It is also very rare in geological history though perhaps not unprecedented. But, once you look at the impact similar changes had on biodiversity at the time, the existence of some historical precedent or another becomes anything but reassuring.
What we know about ecosystems and what geologic history demonstrates is that such dramatic changes - up or down or sideways - are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. And that, all in all, is not likely to be a good thing.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2...rm-weather.html |
Quote:
'Climate models are unproven'
(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: Why should we trust a bunch of contrived computer models that have never had a prediction confirmed? Talk to me in 100 years.
Answer : Given the absence of a few duplicate planets and some large time machines, we can't test a 100-year temperature projection. Does that mean the models can't be validated without waiting 100 years? No.
The climate is an extremely complex system. Our observations of it are by no means complete -- even with regard to what's going on today.
This is a shortcoming we need to work hard to correct, but it is also an opportunity for validating model predictions: Find a measurement we've never taken, see how the models say it should turn out, and then go take it and compare.
Still, there are global temperature predictions that have been validated. We can start with one of the pioneers in climate science. Over 100 years ago, in 1896, Svante Arrhenius predicted that human emissions of CO2 would warm the climate. Obviously he used a much simpler model than current Ocean Atmosphere Coupled Global Climate models, which run on super computers.
Arrhenius overestimated the climate's sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 2. At the same time, he hugely underestimated the degree of warming, assuming CO2 would rise very slowly (who could have predicted the emissions the future held?). Still, it was a pretty impressive early success for models.
Running the clock forward: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
And let's face it, every year of increasing global mean temperature is one more year of success for the climate models. The acceleration of the rise is also playing out as predicted, though to be fair, decades will need to pass before such confirmation is inarguable.
Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:
models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.
It is only long-term predictions that need the passage of time to prove or disprove them, but we don't have that time at our disposal. Action is required in the very near term. We must take the many successes of climate models as strong validation that their long-term predictions, which forecast dire consequences, are accurate.
If we seek even more confidence, there is another way to test a model's predictive power over long time periods: hindcasting. By starting the model at some point in the past -- say, the turn of the 20th century -- and running it forward, feeding it confirmed observational data on GHG, aerosol, solar, volcanic, and albedo forcing, we can directly compare modeled behavior with the actual, observed course of events.
Of course, this has been done many times. Have a look at this page and judge for yourself how the models held up.
Would a prediction made in 1900 of temperature for year 2000 have been validated? Would politicians in 1900 have been wise to heed the warnings of science, had science had today's climate models then?
Clearly, yes.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/19/51921/827 |
 |
|
|
| vegaseric |
| I say the earth should just turn into a ball of fire and we all should die. Nice! |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
ok, I see your point on the electric car thing, even though there are much better answers like hydrogen powered cars etc. but here is my ammo on the other planets experiencing global warming. I wish I could also post the science channel thing too, but it was on tv...
Cows provide more hurt on solar warming, than suvs do...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/2006112...ns_061129190940
- Space.com: Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
In what is largely a reversal of an August announcement, astronomers today said Pluto is undergoing global warming in its thin atmosphere even as it moves farther from the Sun on its long, odd-shaped orbit.
- Space.com: New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
The latest images could provide evidence that Jupiter is in the midst of a global change that can modify temperatures by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit on different parts of the globe.
- Current Science & Technology Center: Global Warming on Mars?
A study of the ice caps on Mars may show that the red planet is experiencing a warming trend. If both Mars and Earth are experiencing global warming, then perhaps there is a larger phenomenon going on in the Solar System that is causing their global climates to change.
- United Press International: NASA looks at a monster storm on Saturn
NASA says its Cassini spacecraft has found a hurricane-like storm at Saturn's South Pole, nearly 5,000 miles across -- or two-thirds Earth's diameter.
- Science Agogo: Global Warming Detected on Triton
There may not be much industrial pollution on Neptune's largest moon, but things are hotting up nonetheless. "At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming," confirms astronomer James Elliot, professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "Percentage-wise, it's a very large increase."
- London Telegraph: The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research. |
Seeing one storm on a planet with an entirely different atmosphere and claiming it is evidence of "global" warming is the same as Mike complaining that because Hurricane predictions weren't spot on, that is evidence there is nothing to worry about. The only common factor for the earth and your planetary examples is the sun, but that doesn't mean any of them are warming, or that they are warming for the same reasons we are warming. And Pluto is just a silly example, period.
I recommend using the link to this so you can use their links to evidence backing their position:
Quote:
'Mars and Pluto are warming too'
Objection : Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUVs on Mars, CO2 can't be causing global warming.
Answer : Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence, but it would not necessarily be driven by the same causes.
The only relevant factor the earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related, that would be the logical place to look. As it happens, the sun is being watched and measured carefully back here on earth, and it is not the primary cause of current climate change.
As for the alleged extraterrestrial warming, there is extremely little evidence of a global climate change on Mars. The only piece I'm aware of is a series of photographs of a single icy region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a six year period (about three Martian years).
Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice, and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region on another planet strains credulity. And in fact, the relevant scientists believe the observation described above is the result of a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles, like what happened during the earth's glacial cycles.
See Global Warming on Mars? from RealClimate for much more detail about this issue.
Turning to the outer reaches of the solar system: in the icy cold and lonely Kuiper Belt was observed a difference in Pluto's atmospheric thickness, inferred from two occultation observations 14 years apart. But a cursory glance at Pluto's orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from observations spanning less than even a single season, let alone enough years to even establish the climate's normal state.
Anyone trying to draw conclusions about what is happening here on earth from all this might as well be from another planet.
Back to Mars for a quick summary:
On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers worldwide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting, and stratospheric cooling, all of which leads us to believe the earth is undergoing global warming driven by an enhanced greenhouse effect.
One Mars we have one spot melting, which leads us to believe that ... one spot is melting.
Forgive me for not being reassured.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/222712/69
|
Quote:
It's the Sun, Stupid
Objection:
The sun is the source of all the warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is most likely due to changes in solar radiation.
Well, it's not an unreasonable first guess, but why leave it there, why not check and see what the sun is doing?
Answer :
It's very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature is going up or down a reasonable place to find the reason why would be the sun. It turns out that it is more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. After all, one good cloud passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is by taking readings from space.
According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.
There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is responsible for large portion of that trend, together with around the same portion from CO2 forcing. See this chart of the observed trend, the modeled trend and the variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.
Real Climate has also done a couple of more detailed discussions both about what the conclusions about solar forcing are, as well as exactly how they were arrived at. Read them here and here.
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2...sun-stupid.html |
|
|
|
| FatesWebb |
| so you didnt comment on my first post, as to why not become a vegetarian, since the cattle industry is responsible for more co2 emissions than cars are.... |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
We don't have enough data on Pluto to even come close to knowing if it is warming or not. It's orbit is 248 Earth years. We haven't come close to following it for a single orbit, let alone long enough to establish a pattern. Even much closer in Saturn has on orbit of 29.5 years. I don't know when we started being able to estimate the temps there, but certainly not for two full orbits. So I don't know where Fates gets that every planet in the Solar System is warming. (yes I know Pluto isn't a planet any more)
However, NASA is increasingly convinced that Mars is warming. While it certainly isn't proof that an increase in solar output is responsible for the warming there and here, it does point in that direction as Mars has fewer mechanisms for internally created warming. Unless of course our rovers are putting out too much CO2. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by FatesWebb
so you didnt comment on my first post, as to why not become a vegetarian, since the cattle industry is responsible for more co2 emissions than cars are.... |
That is not really the point. We have dramatically altered the earth's ability to adapt to the natural factors, and on top of it, added our own. Warming that typically would take place over thousands of years is now taking place over a couple hundred.
Quote:
'Natural emissions dwarf human emissions'
Objection : According to the IPCC, 150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year. This is almost 30 times the amount of carbon humans emit. What difference can we make?
Answer: It's true that natural fluxes in the carbon cycle are much larger than anthropogenic emissions. But for roughly the last 10,000 years, until the industrial revolution, every gigatonne of carbon going into the atmosphere was balanced by one coming out.
What humans have done is alter one side of this cycle. We put approximately 6 gigatonnes of carbon into the air but, unlike nature, we are not taking any out.
Thankfully, nature is compensating in part for our emissions, because only about half the CO2 we emit stays in the air. Nevertheless, since we began burning fossil fuels in earnest over 150 years ago, the atmospheric concentration that was relatively stable for the previous several thousand years has now risen by over 35%.
So whatever the total amounts going in and out "naturally," humans have clearly upset the balance and significantly altered an important part of the climate system.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/233610/33 |
|
|
|
| FatesWebb |
| Im not saying it is natural, it is not natural to turn cattle, chicken, and such into a production line. It is manmade. |
|
|
| SeanWuzHere |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Nice.....the warming that we are 'going' to get...based on ridiculously flawed models and pre-conceived notions. The weatherman can't even tell me with any certainty what the temp will be in 10 days, chicken littles like you run around screaming about the coming 'crisis' and global 'heatup'....here's a newsflash for you...most of the warming in the past century occrurred pre 1950....got that.....thats BEFORE all the CO2 emmissions started piling up in the atmosphere...(which, btw, have been much higher in times past)..
Yeah...warm weather is terrible...makes those things grow out of the ground that we eat, and animals eat...called plants, fruits vegetables....a warming climate expands these areas and feeds more people....but you see, that doesn't scare the people like you alarmists like...so the benefits of a warming planet are lost on you (or you choose to ignore them)....
Apparently weak minded people who fall for chicken little nonsense are the target audience of the global alarmists. You and AB have been suckered.....pulled in hook, line and sinker. |
Hmm,.. let's see now. On one hand there is Al Gore and nearly the entire scientific community that has spent nearly their entire lives working towards and compiling decades of data that clearly demonstrates a link between increased CO2 emissions and temperature increase and the impact that humans are having on exponentially making the problem worse and then then we have some guy on the internet who just makes random empty claims on a sternfannetwork that Al Gore is wrong. Hmmm,.. who to believe? Such a tough choice. It's easy to just ignore the problem like you are doing but it's takes a leader to actually put in the work and do something about it like Al Gore and the rest of the scientific community is trying to do. To gather the data and put the information out there. And btw, when the sky DOES fall, at least most people will be prepared for it and you will be thankful for that. |
|
|
| acefree |
| wtf cares what al gore says. the reps lose thier miinds when he talks. gore is only pointing out the data. ie the messenger. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
But AFTER the industrial revolution, you idiot! Pollution standards were starting to be put in place in the 50s, which would appear to expose you as an even bigger retard than previously known.
As for your other idiotic theories:
|
You are still stuck on the debunked hokey stick graphs ??? Geez...I think you are about the only one alive who thinks that nonsense has any validity....keep trying though. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
You are still stuck on the debunked hokey stick graphs ??? Geez...I think you are about the only one alive who thinks that nonsense has any validity....keep trying though. |
You have "debunked" nothing, liar.
If they were "debunked", then why did the NAS study say the conclusions were "supported by an array of evidence"?
Quote:
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century
warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000
years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that
includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced
changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and
the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented
during at least the last 2,000 years. |
Quote: Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only
one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is
occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence. |
You live in a fantasy world. |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by SeanWuzHere
Hmm,.. let's see now. On one hand there is Al Gore and nearly the entire scientific community that has spent nearly their entire lives working towards and compiling decades of data that clearly demonstrates a link between increased CO2 emissions and temperature increase and the impact that humans are having on exponentially making the problem worse and then then we have some guy on the internet who just makes random empty claims on a sternfannetwork that Al Gore is wrong. Hmmm,.. who to believe? Such a tough choice. It's easy to just ignore the problem like you are doing but it's takes a leader to actually put in the work and do something about it like Al Gore and the rest of the scientific community is trying to do. To gather the data and put the information out there. And btw, when the sky DOES fall, at least most people will be prepared for it and you will be thankful for that. |
Yeah...just one guy out on SFN, who just happens to use these folks as a reference...just to name a few......
Quote: Siegfried Frederick Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is an atmospheric physicist. He is best known as President and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit group which disputes the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change.
The group is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion, between ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer[2] [3] [4][5][6] and between second hand smoke and lung cancer[7][8][9]. Singer has also worked with organisations with similar views, such as the Independent Institute, the American Council on Science and Health, and the National Center for Policy Analysis.
Singer is a Distinguished Research Professor at George Mason University and Professor Emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and an Adjunct Fellow of "Frontiers of Freedom" [10]. He is a fellow of a number of scientific bodies, including the American Physical Society. |
Quote: William M. "Bill" Gray, PhD is a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes.
Nicholas Riccardi wrote in the LA Times:
William M. Gray pioneered the concept of "seasonal" hurricane forecasting — predicting months in advance the severity of the coming hurricane season. Gray's prognostications, issued since 1983, are used by insurance companies to calculate premiums.
He is Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU), and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. Gray is noted for his forecasts of Atlantic hurricane season activity. Professor Gray served as a weather forecaster for the United States Air Force, and as a research assistant in the University of Chicago Department of Meteorology. He joined Colorado State University in 1961. He has been advisor of over 70 Ph. D. and M. Sc. students. His team has been issuing seasonal hurricane forecasts since 1984. |
Quote: Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves.
He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Science and Economic Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy.[1] He previously held positions at the University of Chicago and Harvard University.
Lindzen is identified as a contributer to Chapter 4 of the "IPCC Second Assessment", "Climate Change 1995". [2].
He has been a strong critic of anthropogenic global warming theories and wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April wherein he not only contested media assertions that the Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists to oppose climate change principles but insisted that exactly the opposite is taking place: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.”[3] |
Quote: Ross McKitrick is a Canadian environmental economist and global warming skeptic, best known for his statistical reviews of reconstructions of historic temperatures that purport to show dramatic recent global warming relative to history. He is Associate Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario (since 2001[1]) and, since 2002, Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute, a Canadian free-market policy think tank that opposes the Kyoto Protocol.
McKitrick gained his doctorate in 1996 from the University of British Columbia, and in the same year was appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph [2]).
McKitrick co-wrote the 2002 book Taken By Storm [3] with Christopher Essex. It was runner-up for the Donner Prize as the Best Canadian Book on Public Policy, and finalist for the Canadian Science Writers' Association Book Prize.
McKitrick has since published further research on palaeoclimate reconstruction. Some of these papers were cowritten with Stephen McIntyre, including "Hockey Sticks, Principal Components and Spurious Significance", Geophysical Research Letters Vol 32(3), Feb 12 2005, which was nominated as a journal highlight [4]. He continues to publish research in economics, often in the area of environmental policy. |
| Quote: Stephen McIntyre is a former mining executive; prior to 2003 he has been officer or director of several small public mineral exploration companies. He is most prominent as a critic of the temperature record of the past 1000 years, particularly the work of Michael Mann and his co-authors. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada [2]. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree in pure mathematics from the University of Toronto [3]. At the University of Toronto he studied algebraic topology, group theory, differential manifolds, linear algebra, and advanced statistical analysis methods. He was offered a graduate scholarship to study mathematical economics at MIT and another one to study politics and economics at Oxford. He opted for Oxford and graduated with a degree in the mentioned subjects in 1971 |
Quote: Patrick J. Michaels (born c. 1942?) is a Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia. He has been the State Climatologist for Virginia since 1980 [1] although lately there has been some confusion over the status of this role [2]. His professional specialty was the influence of climate on agriculture. Although Michaels agrees with the basics of greenhouse theory and acknowledges a warming earth, he is perhaps the world's best known "global warming skeptic" by contending that the changes will be minor not catastrophic and even beneficial in many cases. Much of his time is now spent counter-arguing doomsday scenarios presented by other scientists and the media in magazines such as Regulation[3].
He is a fellow of the Cato Institute and edits the World Climate Report, published by the Western Fuels Association through WFA's Greening Earth Society. He has received substantial financial support from the energy industry. His work has been published in Climate Research, Climatic Change and Geophysical Research Letters. He is the author of several books including: Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming, 1992, Satanic Gases, as coauthor 2002, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media, published by the Cato Institute, 2004, and Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming as editor and coauthor, 2005. |
Quote: Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. He is also a vocal supporter of intelligent design and denies the predominant scientific view that human activity is responsible for global warming.
Awards
1996: AMS Special Award "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."
1991: NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal
1990: Alabama House of Representatives Resolution #624
1989: MSFC Center Director’s Commendation |
Quote: Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.
Bob has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways). |
Don't want to forget these folks - http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
Yeah...sure sounds like just one guy on the SFN site vs the world :rolleyes: Maybe you need to expand your reference list a little bit. Stop feeling, start thinking. |
|
|
| Billyfromsphily |
MIKEY , Thats what you have been doing , Not engaging the thought process and substituting a feeling, IE Bush hating. Yopu leave it at that and don't reason why someone hates BUSH. That is shear stupidity and you are a carrier,.................................. LIEMASTER.
Nothing like LIEMASTER and his AD HOMINEM attacks. |
|
|
| Da Truth |
What exactly is the benefit of "faking" global warming? Is it a conspiracy that all the scientists from different parts of the world are all making up just for fun?
Just wondering, TIA :hw: |
|
|
| Bronks Breasts |
| The world needs cheap oil more than it needs oxygen too, right NCMike ? |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Ass Boil
You have "debunked" nothing, liar.
If they were "debunked", then why did the NAS study say the conclusions were "supported by an array of evidence"?
You live in a fantasy world. |
You mean the same NAS report that essentially tossed out Manns findings pre 400 years ago...WHICH INVALIDATES HIS ENTIRE HOKEY STICK THEORY!!!??? That NAS report???
Read about it, here:
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/...ey-stick-breaks
And read more about the Hokey stick debate here.... (loads of technical information on this site...it doesn't exactly match the talking points of 'how to speak to a global warming skeptic.... :rolleyes: ) BTW....would like to see their credentials....hmmmmmm
http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=166 |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Da Truth
What exactly is the benefit of "faking" global warming? Is it a conspiracy that all the scientists from different parts of the world are all making up just for fun?
Just wondering, TIA :hw: |
You would have to ask those who support the alarmism. However, todays 'environmental movement' has become home to the anti-capitalist crowd. (which is includes, but is not limited to the corporate jihadists, and anti globalization morons) When you control the carbon emmissions of a country, you control that country's economy. Not to mention the fact that significant grant money keeps right on rolling in, as long as you come up with the right results...when you don't...just look at the short Bio of Mr. Lindzen above, (last paragrapgh) |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by Bronks Breasts
The world needs cheap oil more than it needs oxygen too, right NCMike ? |
Its a false choice....we can, and DO have both, and will continue to have both for a long long time. How is it that you drink the global alarmist kool-aid so willingly?? |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/weekwas/2006/July%2015.htm
Someone cue...taps...
The final end -and burial - of the Hockeystick
AQuote: . The Medieval Warm Period was global and at least as warm as the 20th century
Medieval Warm Period (Solar Influence - Other) -- Summary http://www.co2science.org/scripts/C...psolarother.jsp
Clues to past climatic conditions may be found in a wide variety of proxy data pertaining to many more things than simply temperature and precipitation. In the paragraphs that follow, we review the findings of some recent studies of such data that tell us much about the genesis and demise of the Medieval Warm Period, along with what these things imply about the planet's current warmth.
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/C...es/V9/N6/C1.jsp
Maasch et al. (2005) examined changes in eight well-dated high-resolution non-temperature histories covering the past two millennia: (1) K+ concentrations obtained from the GISP2 ice core in Greenland, (2) Na+ concentrations derived from the Siple Dome ice core in Antarctica, (3) percent Ti present in an ocean sediment core retrieved from the Cariaco Basin off the coast of Venezuela, (4) Fe intensity from a marine sediment core extracted near the coast of mid-latitude Chile, (5) oxygen isotope fractions from Punta Laguna near the Yucatan, (6) carbon isotope data from a speleothem in Makapansgat, South Africa, (7) percent of shallow water diatoms found in a sediment core taken from Lake Victoria, and (8) past levels of Lake Naivasha in equatorial Africa. They then compared these histories with a similar history of atmospheric 14C to ascertain if any solar influence might have operated on these parameters. This comparison revealed that over the past 2000 years there had been, in the words of the researchers, a "strong association between solar variability and globally distributed climate change [our italics]," and they say that this "remarkable coherence" among the data sets was particularly noticeable in the Medieval Warm Period to Little Ice Age transition.
In a similar vein, but covering the entire period of the current interglacial or Holocene,
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/C...s/V7/N51/C3.jsp
Mayewski et al. (2005) examined some fifty globally distributed paleoclimate records in search of evidence for what they call rapid climate change (RCC). This terminology is not to be confused with the rapid climate changes typical of glacial periods, but is used in the place of what the sixteen researchers call the "more geographically or temporally restrictive terminology such as 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period'." Hence, RCC events, as they also call them, are multi-century periods characterized by extremes of various climatic properties, rather than the much shorter periods during which the changes that produced them took place.
Mayewski et al. identified six RCCs during the Holocene: 9000-8000, 6000-5000, 4200-3800, 3500-2500, 1200-1000 and 600-150 cal yr BP, the last two of which intervals are the "globally distributed" Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age, respectively. In speaking further of these two periods, they say that "the short-lived 1200-1000 cal yr BP RCC event coincided with the drought-related collapse of Maya civilization and was accompanied by a loss of several million lives (Hodell et al., 2001; Gill, 2000), while the collapse of Greenland's Norse colonies at ~600 cal yr BP (Buckland et al., 1995) coincides with a period of polar cooling."
With respect to the causes of these and other Holocene RCCs, the international team of scientists says that "of all the potential climate forcing mechanisms, solar variability superimposed on long-term changes in insolation (Bond et al., 2001; Denton and Karlen, 1973; Mayewski et al., 1997; O'Brien et al., 1995) seems to be the most likely important forcing mechanism." In addition, they note that "negligible forcing roles are played by CH4 and CO2," and that "changes in the concentrations of CO2 and CH4 appear to have been more the result than the cause of the RCCs."
In another study that shows the pervasiveness of the Medieval Warm Period-Little Ice Age type of cyclical climate change,
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/C...s/V5/N13/C3.jsp
de Garidel-Thoron and Beaufort (2001) reconstructed a 200,000-year history of primary productivity in the Sulu Sea north of Borneo, based on measured abundances of the coccolithophore Florisphaera profunda in a giant piston core. Three time-slices of this core were explored in detail in order to determine high-frequency cycles in the primary production record: one from 160 to 130 ka, one from 60 to 30 ka, and one from 22 to 4.1 ka. The finest-scale repeatable feature observed in all three time-slices was a climate-driven primary production oscillation that had a mean period of approximately 1500 years. With respect to this cycle, they say that its occurrence in the three different time-slices is suggestive of "a common origin and an almost stationary signal across different climatic conditions." They also point out the primary production cycle's similarity to the 1470-year temperature cycle observed by Dansgaard et al. (1984) in the Camp Century d18O ice core record, the ~1500-year d18O and chemical markers cycles observed by Mayewski et al. (1997) in the Summit ice core, the 1470-year climate cycle found by Bond et al. (1997) in North Atlantic deep-sea cores, and the 1500-year climate cycle found by Campbell et al. (1998) in an Alaskan lake. These and other observations led them to suggest that there is also "a common origin" for the documented cyclicity in the climates of both high and low latitudes, which Bond et al. (2001) associated with variable solar activity.
In light of the findings of these many multi-parameter analyses, it is becoming ever more clear that the millennial-scale oscillation of climate that has reverberated throughout glacial and interglacial periods alike is indeed the result of similar-scale oscillations in solar activity. Consequently, Mayewski et al. (2005) suggest that "significantly more research into the potential role of solar variability is warranted, involving new assessments of potential transmission mechanisms to induce climate change and potential enhancement of natural feedbacks that may amplify the relatively weak forcing related to fluctuations in solar output." We couldn't agree more, for until these mechanisms have been elucidated to everyone's satisfaction, the world's climate alarmists will continue to ignore the mountains of evidence that link millennial-scale climate cycles with similar solar cycles, and they will push ever harder for the adoption of wrong-headed energy policies to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the serious detriment of man and nature alike.
References
Bond, G., Kromer, B., Beer, J., Muscheler, R., Evans, M.N., Showers, W., Hoffmann, S., Lotti-Bond, R., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 2001. Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene. Science 294: 2130-2136.
Bond, G., Showers, W., Chezebiet, M., Lotti, R., Almasi, P., deMenocal, P., Priore, P., Cullen, H., Hajdas, I. and Bonani, G. 1997. A pervasive millennial scale cycle in North-Atlantic Holocene and glacial climates. Science 278: 1257-1266.
Buckland, P.C., Amorosi, T., Barlow, L.K., Dugmore, A.J., Mayewski, P.A., McGovern, T.H., Ogilvie, A.E.J., Sadler, J.P. and Skidmore, P. 1995. Bioarchaeological evidence and climatological evidence for the fate of Norse farmers in medieval Greenland. Antiquity 70: 88-96.
Campbell, I.D., Campbell, C., Apps, M.J., Rutter, N.W. and Bush, A.B.G. 1998. Late Holocene ca.1500 yr climatic periodicities and their implications. Geology 26: 471-473.
Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Clausen, H.B., Dahl-Jensen, N., Gundestrup, N. and Hammer, C.U. 1984. North Atlantic climatic oscillations revealed by deep Greenland ice cores. In: Hansen, J.E. and Takahashi, T. (Eds.), Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, pp. 288-298.
de Garidel-Thoron, T. and Beaufort, L. 2001. Millennial-scale dynamics of the East Asian winter monsoon during the last 200,000 years. Paleoceanography 16: 1-12.
Denton, G.H. and Karlen, W. 1973. Holocene climatic variations: their pattern and possible cause. Quaternary Research 3: 155-205.
Gill, R.B. 2000. The Great Maya Droughts: Water, Life, and Death. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA.
Maasch, K.A., Mayewski, P.A., Rohling, E.J., Stager, J.C., Karlén, W., Meeker, L.D. and Meyerson, E.A. 2005. A 2000-year context for modern climate change. Geografiska Annaler 87 A: 7-15.
Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Twickler, M.S., Whitlow, S., Yang, Q., Lyons, W.B. and Prentice, M. 1997. Major features and forcing of high-latitude northern hemisphere atmospheric circulation using a 110,000-year-long glaciochemical series. Journal of Geophysical Research 102: 26,345-26,366.
Mayewski, P.A., Rohling, E.E., Stager, J.C., Karlen, W., Maasch, K.A., Meeker, L.D., Meyerson, E.A., Gasse, F., van Kreveld, S., Holmgren, K., Lee-Thorp, J., Rosqvist, G. Rack, F., Staubwasser, M., Schneider, R.R. and Steig, E.J. 2004. Holocene climate variability. Quaternary Research 62: 243-255.
O'Brien, S.R., Mayewski, P.A., Meeker, L.D., Meese, D.A., Twickler, M.S. and Whitlow, S.E. 1995. Complexity of Holocene climate as reconstructed from a Greenland ice core. Science 270: 1962-1964.
Last updated 14 June 2006 |
|
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Its a false choice....we can, and DO have both, and will continue to have both for a long long time. How is it that you drink the global alarmist kool-aid so willingly?? |
Laugh, Bush made sure we'd have oil for the rest of our existence here.
Go to war for Oil! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Let me ask you this.... let's throw global warming aside. There are days I used to wake up in San Jose (I used to live in the east hills) and I would look out over the city and it would be a VERY hazy dull/dark brown cloud that you could hardly see through some days.
Those are the days I stayed home in the hills. The 'carbon emissions' that you say will permanently 'damage the economy' is what caused all that smog, which I then have to go down and breathe if I want to get shit done today.
What about the damage to my lungs? I guess personal health is of no consequence as long as we got that oil! Go get em Bush, keep killing american soldiers for that oil. Isn't capitalism great when we corrupt it to such a way that only the oil executives become super wealthy?
Keep defending the oil execs Mike..... Come on, suck that proverbial Big Oil dick some more |
|
|
| Da Truth |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
You would have to ask those who support the alarmism. |
I guess you only support alarmism if it's perpetrated by the Bush Adm...... ? :scratch: |
|
|
| Halcyon |
Quote: Originally posted by Da Truth
I guess you only support alarmism if it's perpetrated by the Bush Adm...... ? :scratch: |
You mean the 'Iraq has WMDs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' alarmism? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06
Yeah...just one guy out on SFN, who just happens to use these folks as a reference...just to name a few......
Don't want to forget these folks - http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
Yeah...sure sounds like just one guy on the SFN site vs the world :rolleyes: Maybe you need to expand your reference list a little bit. Stop feeling, start thinking. |
Hahahaha!
What a list!
Let's take a quick look at this motley crew...
Fred Singer
Quote:
FACTSHEET: S. Fred Singer
DETAILS
President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project.
Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom. Editorial Advisory Board Member, Cato Institute. Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health. Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis. Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University. Former Fellow, Hoover Institution. Former Fellow, Heritage Foundation. Former Fellow, Independent Institute. Former Advisor, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition. Editor, Global Climate Change newsletter.
Singer, a leading climate change skeptic, is a frequent contributor to the Wall Street Journal and other publications.
In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including 1998 and 2000. In addition, Singer's current CV on the SEPP website states that he served as a consultant to several oil companies. The organizations Singer has recently been affiliated with - Frontiers of Freedom, ACSH, NCPA, etc. - have recieved generous grants from Exxon on an annual basis. Singer Letter to the Editor -Washington Post February 12, 2001 It is ironic that the attempt by two environmental activists to misrepresent my credentials [letters, Feb. 6] coincides with a sustained cold spell in the United States that set a 100-year record. As for full disclosure: My resume clearly states that consulted for several oil companies on the subject of oil pricing, some 20 years ago, after publishing a monograph on the subject. My connection to oil during the past decade is as a Wesson Fellow at the Hoover Institution; the Wesson money derives from salad oil. S. FRED SINGER Singer is listed as a $500 plus contributer to the Center for Individual Rights. Singer's publications include "The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty" (SEPP, 1997), "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate" (The Independent Institute, 1997) Singer signed the Leipzig Delcaration.
PhD in Physics, Princeton. Former Director, US Weather Satellite Service. Former Professor of Environmental Science, Univeristy of Virginia. Former Deputy Administrator EPA. |
Bill Gray
Quote:
Monday, November 07, 2005
Bill Gray won't bet on cooling
As you may recall, a couple of months ago Bill Gray appeared in front of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to testify on his area of expertise, hurricane prediction. Unfortunately he didn't restrict himself to things he knew about. Much of his testimony focussed on the obviously bogus line of argument:
How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified?
This is standard septic drivel that is easily disposed of (and if you want more technical details, my own work demonstrates some ideas about how to do it in practice). Note: this does not in itself prove that the models are right, it merely illustrates why Gray's line of reasoning is garbage. But anyway, this isn't really my main point. You won't find it in his written statement, but in the video of the proceedings, he clearly says:
I predict, now I think I know as much as anybody, I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this, I predict in the next 5 or 8 years or so the globe is going to begin to cool as it did in the middle 40's.
I emailed him some time asking if he will back up this statement with a bet. William Connolley and Brian Schmidt at least have done the same. None of us (to my knowledge) has had the courtesy of a reply. Given his statement above, I do not believe it is too much to expect that he should at least quantify his prediction in terms of his confidence (what odds he would place on his prediction being provved correct). To not do so seems to be clearly misleading the Senate Committee hearing.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that something which is so obviously a circus has a few clowns present...
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2...on-cooling.html |
Richard Lindzen
Quote:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.ph...hard_S._Lindzen
Richard S. Lindzen
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a distinguished professor of meteorology at MIT, is one of a small band of global warming skeptics used by industry to undermine and delay any kind of regulatory action meant to address the looming environmental crisis.
Lindzen was reported in 1995 to "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [1]
According to Ross Gelbspan, Lindzen and skeptics like him -- including Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others -- "assert flatly that their science is untainted by funding. Nevertheless, in this persistent and well-funded campaign of [global warming] denial they have become interchangeable ornaments on the hood of a high-powered engine of disinformation. Their dissenting opinions are amplified beyond all proportion through the media while the concerns of the dominant majority of the world's scientific establishment are marginalized. By keeping the discussion focused on whether there is a problem in the first place, they have effectively silenced the debate over what to do about it." [2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
THE HEAT IS ON:
The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial
by Ross Gelbspan.
from HARPER'S MAGAZINE/December, 1995
... The people who run the world's oil and coal companies know that the march of science, and of political action, may be slowed by disinformation. In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate change. It expects to spend another $850,000 on the issue next year. Similarly, the National Coal Association spent more than $700,000 on the global climate issue in 1992 and 1993. In 1993 alone, the American Petroleum Institute, just one of fifty-four industry members of the GCC, paid $1.8 million to the public relations firm of Burson-Marsteller partly in an effort to defeat a proposed tax on fossil fuels. For perspective, this is only slightly less than the combined yearly expenditures on global warming of the five major environmental groups that focus on climate issues -- about $2.1 million, according to officials of the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the World Wildlife Fund.
For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics -- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others -- who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis. Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their influence on decision makers; their contrarian views have allowed conservative Republicans such as Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) to dismiss legitimate research concerns as "liberal claptrap" and have provided the basis for the recent round of budget cuts to those government science programs designed to monitor the health of the planet.
Last May, Minnesota held hearings in St. Paul to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants. Three of the skeptics -- Lindzen, Michaels, and Balling -- were hired as expert witnesses to testify on behalf of Western Fuels Association, a $400 million consortium of coal suppliers and coal-fired utilities. [#1] ...
[#l In 1991, Western Fuels spent an estimated $250,000 to produce and distribute a video entitled "The Greening of Planet Earth," which was shown frequently inside the Bush White House as well as within the governments of OPEC. In near-evangelical tones, the video promises that a new age of agricultural abundance will result from increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide. It portrays a world where vast areas of desert are reclaimed by the carbon dioxide-forced growth of new grasslands, where the earth's diminishing forests are replenished by a nurturing atmosphere. Unfortunately, it overlooks the bugs. Experts note that even a minor elevation in temperature would trigger an explosion in the planet's insect population, leading to potentially significant disruptions in food supplies from crop damage as well as to a surge in insect-borne diseases. It appears that Western Fuels' video fails to tell people what the termites in New Orleans may be trying to tell them now.]
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_R..._S_Lindzen.html |
McIntyre/ McKitrick
Quote:
4 Dec 2004
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction
Filed under:
Paleoclimate
— mike @ 4:03 pm
A number of spurious criticisms regarding the Mann et al (1998) proxy-based temperature reconstruction have been made by two individuals McIntyre and McKitrick ( McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist). These criticisms are contained in two manuscripts (McIntyre and McKitrick 2003 and 2004--the latter manuscript was rejected by Nature; both are collectively henceforth referred to as "MM"). MM claim that the main features of the Mann et al (1998--henceforth MBH98) reconstruction, including the "hockey stick" shape of the reconstruction, are artifacts of a) the centering convention used by MBH98 in their Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the North American International Tree Ring Data Bank ('ITRDB') data, b) the use of 4 infilled missing annual values (AD 1400-1403) in one tree-ring series (the 'St. Anne' Northern Treeline series), and c) the infilling of missing values in some proxy data between 1972 and 1980. Each of these claims are demonstrated to be false below.
[McIntyre and McKitrick have additionally been discredited in a recent peer-reviewed article by Rutherford et al (2004)].
[Added 1/6/05: See also "On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick" which discredits the claimed "Monte Carlo" Experiment Results from the Rejected McIntyre and McKitrick comment to Nature]
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8 |
McIntyre/ McKitrick
Quote:
22 Nov 2004
Rutherford et al 2005 highlights
Filed under:
Supplemental data
— mike @ 7:15 pm
The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al (1998) temperature reconstruction have recently been discredited by the following peer-reviewed article to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of Climate":
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, in press (2005).
Key excerpts from the article are provided below:
1. page 13, 2nd paragraph (through top of page 14)
It should be noted that some falsely reported putative errors in the Mann et al.(1998) proxy data claimed by McIntyre and McKitrick (200 |
| | | | | |
