Global Warming?

The volcanic contributions to atmospheric interuptions is understood by every genuine scientist. The ones blaming "global warming" on mankind are disingenuous and are probably being compensated by entities who will benefit the fostering of this false notion.

 

But there's no data to support that idea? Perhaps you have a somewhat skewed idea of what a "genuine scientist" is. The "genuine scientists" I know (in this case with PhDs in climatology or related disciplines) seem to think data is important in making that decision.

By the way, even the foot loops who formerly denied it, now admit that it's warming. That issue is ended. The guys who tried to tell us that the climate is cooling off, are very quiet these days.

In fact, we know most of the organizations claiming that there was no warming, were financed by entities who had a financial interest in making people believe there was no warming.

They've now retreated to "well, OK, there's warming, but it's caused by volcanoes.":laugh:

If you ever get that data about the global warming volcanoes, be sure to let us know.

 

If the globe isn't going through a warming cycle, why is the frozen north seeing their water thawing earlier and earlier each year?

I am no scientist, but I can see what is happening. England is getting weather I never saw before; Canada is seeing milder winters and dry summers.

There is a lot of pollution and we are cutting down more forests...We need to cut back on the pollution and cut back on destroying the forests.

Cheers,

Jim

 

C'mon Jim, you Canadians just want to stop the polar bears from knocking over your garbage cans.

Polar bears feed nearly exclusively on ringed seals which they hunt from the ice edge, or through the pack ice itself. The bears do not catch the seals in the water, but wait at holes for them to come through the ice to breathe. The retreat of the sea ice also means that more bears may become trapped on or near shore in the summer and fall, and are more likely to run afoul of humans and garbage dumps..

 

This is an excellent paper that will very, very difficult for anyone to refute. I recommend that it be read in full.

August 23, 2006
Policy Analysis no. 576​

​

Is the Sky Really Falling? A Review of Recent Global Warming Scare Stories​

by Patrick J. Michaels ​

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of natural resources at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and an author of the 2003 climate science “Paper of the Year” selected by the Association of American Geographers. His research has been published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature, and Science. He received his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. His most recent book is Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.​

Executive Summary​

In the last two years, a remarkable amount of disturbing news has been published concerning global warming, largely concentrating on melting of polar ice, tropical storms and hurricanes, and mass extinctions. The sheer volume of these stories appears to be moving the American political process toward some type of policy restricting emissions of carbon dioxide.

It is highly improbable, in a statistical sense, that new information added to any existing forecast is almost always “bad” or “good”; rather, each new finding has an equal probability of making a forecast worse or better. Consequently, the preponderance of bad news almost certainly means that something is missing, both in the process of science itself and in the reporting of science. This paper examines in detail both recent scientific reports on climate change and the communication of those reports.

Needless to say, the unreported information is usually counter to the bad news. Reports of rapid disintegration of Greenland’s ice ignore the fact that the region was warmer than it is now for several decades in the early 20th century, before humans could have had much influence on climate. Similar stories concerning Antarctica neglect the fact that the net temperature trend in recent decades is negative, or that warming the surrounding ocean can serve only to enhance snowfall, resulting in a gain in ice. Global warming affects hurricanes in both positive and negative fashions, and there is no relationship between the severity of storms and ocean-surface temperature, once a commonly exceeded threshold temperature is reached. Reports of massive species extinction also turn out to be impressively flawed.

This constellation of half-truths and misstatements is a predictable consequence of the way that science is now conducted, where issues compete with each other for public support. Unfortunately, this creates a culture of negativity that is reflected in the recent spate of global warming reports.

Full Text of Policy Analysis no. 576 (PDF, 345 KB)

 

The last 3 or 4 winters have been some of the coldest and longest in history in the north east.

Ever fly on an airplane? If you do take a look down every once in a while. The view of the world is obscured by trees. Hundreds of thousands of miles of trees.

Global warming is nothing more than leaving the alter of dissent to move to the alter of Mother Earth. Another popular God.

PS. I did not hear that on Rush Limbaugh

 

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, "As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change" (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

 

Actually, that is the case. The only people pushing this idea are those who want drastically more control of the economy and our personal lives by the government - basically those pushing for a worldwide government.

 

Is Global Warming Getting Colder?
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]By Alan Caruba (April 2006)[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]The first thing we have to do is fire all the reporters, editors and headline writers who have not got a clue about "global warming" except that it scares...readers and sells newspapers.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In late March, my local daily carried an Associated Press article by Randolph E. Schmid with a headline, "Global warming warns Earth of a sea change." It ran the story across six columns and threw in a photo of the Greenland ice sheet.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Such stories are best distinguished by how many times the words "probably", "may", and "could" occur in the body of the text. These are very slippery words used by so-called scientists trying to justify their latest "findings." If you look for something hard enough, you are bound to find some signs, some indicators, some intimations that something is happening or about to happen. Every day people find a reason to buy stocks whose value disappears for unforeseen reasons.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Schmid began his article with his opinion that "The Earth is already shaking beneath melting ice as rising temperatures threaten to shrink polar glaciers and raise sea levels around the world." You had to read to the end of the second paragraph to learn that he was proclaiming all this would occur thanks to "new research appearing in today’s issue of the journal Science." The only problem is that this pathetic excuse for a scientific publication has been banging the global warming drum for so long, its editors are desperate to publish anything to support the theory. [/FONT]​

- rest at www.anxietycenter.com/climate/main.htm​

 

It's still not absolutely certain that human-produced CO2 is mostly responsible. But the fact of global warming is now unquestionable.

This is pure gobbleygook; it means nothing at all, except that the author is upset that no one can seem to find any data that supports his hopes.

In fact no one has said that Greenland's ice cap is disintegrating, and we have had measurable increases in human-generated CO2 since the 1700s.

I'm kinda surprised that this "global warming expert" isn't aware that local cooling and increased snowfall at the poles is part of the global warming model.

Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years.
Emanuel K.
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA. emanuel@texmex.mit.edu
Theory and modelling predict that hurricane intensity should increase with increasing global mean temperatures, but work on the detection of trends in hurricane activity has focused mostly on their frequency and shows no trend. Here I define an index of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes based on the total dissipation of power, integrated over the lifetime of the cyclone, and show that this index has increased markedly since the mid-1970s. This trend is due to both longer storm lifetimes and greater storm intensities. I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and--taking into account an increasing coastal population--a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century.

Well, yes, I suppose so. The energy driving the hurricane comes from the warmth of the water. More warmth, more energy. This is why hurricanes die when they move inland. Water has a much higher specific heat than land, and the hurricane is deprived of the thermal energy it needs to continue.

 

Apparently, according to the "humans are causing global warming" crackpots, everything is the result of human-caused global warming - hotter weather, colder weather, more snow, less snow, more ice, less ice, more rain, less rain, etc., etc., etc.

It is foolish to listen to these crackpots.

 

I don't. Do you? :smilewinkgrin:

 

Barbarian is amused by the self styled "climate expert" who doesn't know that local cooling and increased precipitation at the poles is part of the model for global warming...

Well, perhaps if you learned about it, it would make sense to you. The mountain glaciers at low latitudes and sea ice are going away because the atmosphere is warming generally. The extreme latitudes should see more precipitation as a result of warming, followed by prevailing winds carrying moist air over the poles.

Precipitation in the low continental latitudes should decrease. And there are a few special cases. If the sea ice and glaciers melt in the Arctic, then a lot of fresh water will move down past the Eastern Seabord. If that happens, it will disrupt the Gulf Stream, and England will get a lot cooler.

The model is a lot more complicated than you've been led to believe, and local effects have to be part of it.

 

Im sorry who is this barbarian?

 

I'm no "climate expert" but the author of the Cato Institute policy analysis is and he debunked the "humans are destroying the climate" side quite well.

 

If you don't understand the issues, then almost any fool can "debunk" the truth for you.

This is why it's critical to have a citizenry who can examine such claims competently.

Science education is lagging far behind our need for educated people.

 

I have a decent understanding of science, Galatian. I started off being a chemistry major in college(my grades were fine) before switching to accounting.

Plus I was in the government schools in the 60's and early 70's when they were, by and large, still quite good at educating youngsters.

You and I are simply going to have to agree to disagree about whether or not humans are causing global warming or whether this is a natural climate cycle that we will just have to weather.

 

If Galatian wants to agree with me, that will be fine with me.