There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[narcimund 0]

Quote

speculation at best.

If George Bush announced that divine marshmallows were roaming the White House basement rushmc would come online screaming that naysayers were just trying to short their Stay Puft stock.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[bodypilot90 0]

here what other experts have said

Quote

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

[rushmc 23]

You proved my point!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

speculation at best.

If George Bush announced that divine marshmallows were roaming the White House basement rushmc would come online screaming that naysayers were just trying to short their Stay Puft stock.

WTF did this come from?

This same kind of climate bull shit was going on back in the 70's when they said man was poluting us into an iceage. GWB has what relavance to this tread other than you hate him and have to make a statement to that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

WTF did this come from?

Oh, sorry! I forgot my axiom about wasting metaphors on dropzone.com. Others will either get it or they won't. No bother to me.

Carry on.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

I was talking about the GWB comment bullshit. Your attempted insults are...... ........ well ..........

insulting

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>So agreed -- I look out the window and see more snow than before.

Ah, so you believe that cold weather = snow. That explains some things!

The fear in California is that global warming would lead to terrible droughts since we rely on the slow release of snow melt to feed the resevoirs into the summer. If temps increased to the point where it rained more in the Sierra rather than snow, we'd be flooded in the spring and dry all summer.

Not the case this year, certainly. After the long drought in the 80s/90s, I don't see any simple way to show the changes that a global warning would cause. It would take decades to show a supportable cause and effect.

And you know better than to make the simple conclusion that the hurricanes of the last 2 years means anything in particular. We've seen bad hurricanes in the past and see a weak decades long pattern up and down.

[billvon 2,990]

>The fear in California is that global warming would lead to terrible droughts . . .

I don't think every place on the planet is getting warmer; one of the reasons 'global warming' is a misnomer. It wouldn't make things warmer for us; a warmer sea would mean more clouds, which would mean cooler temperatures overall (and more rain in places like Julian.)

>And you know better than to make the simple conclusion that the
> hurricanes of the last 2 years means anything in particular. We've
> seen bad hurricanes in the past and see a weak decades long
> pattern up and down.

Right, and that pattern will continue. If the ocean continues to get warmer, though, they will _on_average_ increase in number and intensity.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Right, and that pattern will continue. If the ocean continues to get warmer, though, they will _on_average_ increase in number and intensity.

If, true, yes. But short term hurricane data is poor evidence to use to support - you can't differentiate between cause and effect, and simple variation.

[billvon 2,990]

>But short term hurricane data is poor evidence to use to support -
>you can't differentiate between cause and effect, and simple variation.

Right - it will be the long term patterns that show change. Attached is a graph of hurricane intensities since 1850. Note that there is a lot of year to year variation, but the underlying trend is towards increasing intensity - which mirrors the rise in sea temperatures.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

>it stopped in 1998

Except that 2005 was either the warmest year on record (per NASA) or the second warmest year on record (per british scientists.) D'oh!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4532344.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/01/24/tech/main1235949.shtml

If you read these articles they do not contradict each other. They both agree 2005 was probably (barring errors) the warmest year since 1880 (Brit scientists) and since late 1800's (US scientists) - same thing isn't it?

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

>

I don't think every place on the planet is getting warmer; one of the reasons 'global warming' is a misnomer. It wouldn't make things warmer for us; a warmer sea would mean more clouds, which would mean cooler temperatures overall (and more rain in places like Julian.)

reply]

you are right, the term global warming is misleading, it should be referred to as climate change as northern europe for instance could freeze over if the climate changes.

You are also right about clouds reflecting radiation however we don't know how much cloud cover would increase or the type of clouds that would occur in any given area. In addition cloud cover at night actually contributes to increasing the thermal radiation budget - clouds at night insulate the earth making it warmer. This is one area meteorologists do not fully understand and therefore cannot predict.

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

Two other reports in the UK this weekend also stated that the biggest gas contributing to "global warming" is ................................wait for it......................................................................................water vapor and that water vapor along with (get this) Cleaner air from westen countries are allowing more sun (which is in a high output cycle) is now the greatest contributer to a warmer planet..................................................................................which they surmise is part of the earths natural cycle.

But all scientist believe man is causeing global warming......

Water vapour does in fact warm the troposphere so the more you have the warmer we get...... and a result of having cleaner air (less pollutants) is a reversal of global dimming - which means less radiation is reflected back into space.... i.e. we get warmer... it's quire compicated apparently.....

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Most people are catching on. Not because of any rhetoric from either side, but because they can look out their windows and see what's happening in their own back yards.

Here in Colorado and surrounding states, the mountain snow pack was 150% this year and last.

So agreed -- I look out the window and see more snow than before. According to me then, we must be heading into a rather severe ice age.

Climate change may actually cause huge areas to freeze over (Northern Europe may if the gulf stream is cut off for instance).

The term global warming is actually referring to the average global temperature - there are bound to be variations however, some places will get colder and some will have more snow.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

All I ever stated was not all agree with your view. I most certainly don't, and nearly all the global warming models have not yet been able to account for the vapor or the sun variation.

Wolf........................wolf comes to mind.....

Yo, weather boy. (I have no idea why I'm even bothering to post this) but water vapor in the air? What kind of air holds more water? Riiiiiiiight! WARM AIR. So if you WARM the air it can hold more WATER VAPOR. Wow, imagine that. That's why you get those pretty white fluffy clouds in the summer time.

Sorry for the tone but this is just a waste of time.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

All I ever stated was not all agree with your view. I most certainly don't, and nearly all the global warming models have not yet been able to account for the vapor or the sun variation.

Wolf........................wolf comes to mind.....

Yo, weather boy. (I have no idea why I'm even bothering to post this) but water vapor in the air? What kind of air holds more water? Riiiiiiiight! WARM AIR. So if you WARM the air it can hold more WATER VAPOR. Wow, imagine that. That's why you get those pretty white fluffy clouds in the summer time.

Sorry for the tone but this is just a waste of time.

Kinda of pissy don't ya think. (nice subtle PI)

Nice non-reponce to the post in any even as even some of the most radical global warming proponets say the models they use do not account for all the factors. WATER VAPOR BEING ONE OF THEM

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>Nice non-reponce to the post in any even as even some of the
>most radical global warming proponets say the models they use do not
>account for all the factors. WATER VAPOR BEING ONE OF THEM

Untrue. You are making up arguments that you can win.

[cam 0]

rushmc - I don't know what your day job is, but even if you're an atmospheric scientist, why do you think your ardently-held opinion better represents the state of scientific knowledge than the assessments of the intergovernmental panel on climate change? you know, the reports issued by teams of international scientists assembled to assess scientific research on climate change... since 2001 they have presented evidence of anthropogenic climate change and refuted the kinds of arguments you run. so why are you right and hundreds of the world's atmospheric scientists wrong?

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Nice non-reponce to the post in any even as even some of the
>most radical global warming proponets say the models they use do not
>account for all the factors. WATER VAPOR BEING ONE OF THEM

Untrue. You are making up arguments that you can win.

Nice try.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

rushmc - I don't know what your day job is, but even if you're an atmospheric scientist, why do you think your ardently-held opinion better represents the state of scientific knowledge than the assessments of the intergovernmental panel on climate change? you know, the reports issued by teams of international scientists assembled to assess scientific research on climate change... since 2001 they have presented evidence of anthropogenic climate change and refuted the kinds of arguments you run. so why are you right and hundreds of the world's atmospheric scientists wrong?

And so you totaly disregard the team of scientists that diagree with them?

I don't. The agruments, theories and data they provide makes way more sense to me than the global alarmists.

Is the earth warming? Yes, I belive it is. Are humans causing it? Not in my opinion.

One site to consider
http://www.cfact.org/site/default.asp

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,990]

>Nice try.........

What you said was untrue. Every climatologist working on the issue of climate change understands the role of water vapor as a factor in radiative forcing. Claiming that you understand it and they don't is like claiming that riggers don't know nylon can rip.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Nice try.........

What you said was untrue. Every climatologist working on the issue of climate change understands the role of water vapor as a factor in radiative forcing. Claiming that you understand it and they don't is like claiming that riggers don't know nylon can rip.

Bill, that is not what I am claiming

All I am saying (in a nutshell) is that there is not agreement in the scientific communtiy and I am pointing out 1 factor (that was reported in a UK paper from a study done in the UK) that those doing the modeling can not fully account for.

I get very tired when the GW proponets start a thread or post saying something like "most scientist agree......" . That statement is bogus.

On a differnet note. Have you looked at cfact.org yet?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[cam 0]

CFACT is an energy industry -funded organization with a track record of misleading analysis -- google for countless examples. it has very clear interests in running the line it does. the IPCC scientists did not.

yes, CFACT has attracted some scientists to its board. as far as I could tell on quick run through of their bio-data, and that of the some of the people they cited, they are NOT the ones who publish in peer-reviewed journals on the issue of climate change.
this is not my area of professional expertise. is it yours?

this is a scientific issue, for a non-expert to go against the MAJORITY opinion of credentialed experts is perverse. bit the like the conspiracy theorists who refuse to vaccinate their children -- and yes, they can find scientists to support them -- despite every source with credible status contradicting their claims.
that is what CFAT is the equivalent of, except rather than just being loony they have financial interests in their 'findings'.
obviously, there are scientists who deny that global warming has an anthropogenic cause. but to infer from the small minority who by and large are not respected by their peers that this represents a serious area of scientific uncertainty is completely fallacious.
there's lots about the *impacts* of climate change that is uncertain, but the fact that human activity is causing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to rise, and that this contributes to a heating effect -- that part is not up for serious debate among people who are experts in this area of science.
as I said, this is not my area of expertise but I understand enough about the scientific peer review process to know whom to believe.

[Royd 0]

***[You want to buy into this politically motivated hype you go right ahead. As for me, I will fight tooth and nail to try and stop it.
/reply]
Old thread, but it's still on the board.
What exactly, are you doing to fight global warming?
Do you run, walk, or ride a bicycle everywhere you go?
When was the last time you hooked up with the forestry service to plant trees?
Did you plant your own garden, so that big desiel trucks don't have to bring you food from across the country?
Other than producing alot of hot air what have you done?

[billvon 2,990]

>All I am saying (in a nutshell) is that there is not agreement in the
>scientific communtiy . . .

That's like saying that scientists cannot agree 100% on the exact mechanism that causes lung cancer when you smoke, or even whether or not a given person will die from lung cancer - so there's no reason to quit smoking.

>and I am pointing out 1 factor (that was reported in a UK paper from a
> study done in the UK) that those doing the modeling can not fully account
>for.

Every climactic thermal model I have seen (unless someone has created an absurd straw man of one just to knock down) takes into account then radiative forcing of all components of the atmosphere - CO2, methane, water vapor, ozone etc.

One of the most absurd statements I've heard recently is "there's no such thing as the greenhouse effect!" If there wasn't we'd all be dead. The greenhouse effect is one of the things that make this world a decent place to live. The issue is how much we want to magnify its effect, which we are doing with our CO2 emissions.

>I get very tired when the GW proponets start a thread or post saying
>something like "most scientist agree......" . That statement is bogus.

Most scientists DO agree that increasing levels of CO2 will result in increased heat retention, and that we are the reason CO2 levels are rising. Sorry, you can't get away fron that even if you don't like it. It's like disagreeing that smoking causes cancer because you smoke and don't want to feel like you're doing something dumb. I imagine you could find a doctor somewhere who doesn't believe smoking has anything to do with cancer, but that's sorta beside the point.

>On a differnet note. Have you looked at cfact.org yet?

Yep. It's a funny site, funded by Chevron, Exxon and Mobil Oil. Some gems:

Pollution does not cause cancer.

You cannot conserve energy by simply using less.

The New Orleans "toxic water" thing is absurd, because two of the pollutants in the mix were industrial zinc and copper compounds, and zinc and copper are in vitamins.