http://www.physorg.com/news89044872.html
Fantastic article, and along the lines of my criticisms of climatologists going beyond citing data related to Global Heating and making grandiose projections about the results of temperature increases.
As I saw it, this OIL SPILL SPECIALIST criticised predictions on nuclear waste storage and the fishing industry. I'm sure the
2500 scientists and experts in WEATHER from 130 countries
don't find the conclusions of this OIL SPILL SPECIALIST a threat.
Stop grabbing at straws and accept the truth.
2500 scientists and experts in WEATHER from 130 countries
don't find the conclusions of this OIL SPILL SPECIALIST a threat.
Stop grabbing at straws and accept the truth.
QUOTE
2500 scientists and experts in WEATHER from 130 countries
...All just got shot down by the IPCC when they admitted the numbers were WRONG. That says a lot about these "scientists" that stand behind false numbers. LMAO! They KNEW the numbers were wrong.
guest_Tom, Everyone makes mistakes on occasions, even you and me, only the Pope is infallible! To find a few examples of erroneous selectivity criteria does NOT negate the vast majority of science, even when based on mathematical projections. Look at how many times the church has had to "change its tune." 
Science prevails as man's optimum questing toward the truth!
jabailo, Have you seen, "An Inconvenient Truth?" I wish every person on this planet could see that film, in translation if necessary, and discuss it with an atmospheric scientist. These are my personal observations, "I traveled extensively in China over a period of one month and was never away from smog as dense as L.A. in summer days in the 1980's. I traversed most of the Yangtze river, the Li river and as far north as Beijing and Xian and the smoke from their coal fire cooking, heating and power generation was thick, everyday and everywhere. Also, while flying at 30,000 feet over the Amazon rain forest for a period of hours, I observed and photographed fires from slash and burn agriculture that were beyond count and never out of sight throughout the flight. Buenos Aires (good air, in translation) and Sao Paulo had the thickest smog I have ever observed. Most reputable atmospheric scientists would agree that we are trashing the planet and its atmosphere and something must be done to slow or reverse the process."
Wake up, observe, learn, and take action. Our future IS at stake, despite the naysayers caterwauling! I have personally seen it on a scale that shocked me. Depleted fisheries, acid rain, deformed amphibians, extinctions, pollution, WE are bringing this about. Wake up and smell the Rosaceae!
Science prevails as man's optimum questing toward the truth! jabailo, Have you seen, "An Inconvenient Truth?" I wish every person on this planet could see that film, in translation if necessary, and discuss it with an atmospheric scientist. These are my personal observations, "I traveled extensively in China over a period of one month and was never away from smog as dense as L.A. in summer days in the 1980's. I traversed most of the Yangtze river, the Li river and as far north as Beijing and Xian and the smoke from their coal fire cooking, heating and power generation was thick, everyday and everywhere. Also, while flying at 30,000 feet over the Amazon rain forest for a period of hours, I observed and photographed fires from slash and burn agriculture that were beyond count and never out of sight throughout the flight. Buenos Aires (good air, in translation) and Sao Paulo had the thickest smog I have ever observed. Most reputable atmospheric scientists would agree that we are trashing the planet and its atmosphere and something must be done to slow or reverse the process."
Wake up, observe, learn, and take action. Our future IS at stake, despite the naysayers caterwauling! I have personally seen it on a scale that shocked me. Depleted fisheries, acid rain, deformed amphibians, extinctions, pollution, WE are bringing this about. Wake up and smell the Rosaceae!
QUOTE
Depleted fisheries, acid rain, deformed amphibians, extinctions, pollution, WE are bringing this about. Wake up and smell the Rosaceae!
Since these are all PAST TENSE, then NONE of these are related to the relatively small amount of global warming that has occured over the last 100 years (< 1 d).
They ARE ALL however related to POLLUTION.
Which is why we need to attack prollution sources of CFCs, SOx, NOx, CH4, Soot and heavy metals.
The PRIMARY source for all but CFCs (which we HAVE a protocol to reduce) and Methane (which isn't rising) is from burning of COAL.
Switching to CLEAN COAL (via gassification) would DRASTICALLY CUT global pollution while also making a substantial cut in the amount of CO2 released per KWH of power produced.
Arthur
Cutting down pollution
Cutting down emissions
Sequestering CO2 released in the interim.
These seem to be the necessary components.
Cutting down emissions
Sequestering CO2 released in the interim.
These seem to be the necessary components.
i think there are a lot more pressing issues than rainsing global temperatures by a degree.
QUOTE (Guest_matt+Feb 9 2007, 01:59 AM)
i think there are a lot more pressing issues than raising global temperatures by a degree.
There is a belief by some that a rise in temperature of 1.C will mean that in summer, that will mean a normal day of 25.C will be 26.C Wrong. A fall in temperaure of 1.F in 1816 meant many farmers lost their harvests in the western hemisphere and people went hungry, also snow in New York City in July.
As to 1.C , try 4-10.C by 2100.
What is more pressing than global warming?
There is a belief by some that a rise in temperature of 1.C will mean that in summer, that will mean a normal day of 25.C will be 26.C Wrong. A fall in temperaure of 1.F in 1816 meant many farmers lost their harvests in the western hemisphere and people went hungry, also snow in New York City in July.
As to 1.C , try 4-10.C by 2100.
What is more pressing than global warming?
QUOTE (Guest_Tom+Feb 8 2007, 02:34 PM)
...All just got shot down by the IPCC when they admitted the numbers were WRONG. That says a lot about these "scientists" that stand behind false numbers. LMAO! They KNEW the numbers were wrong.
You should go to the toilet instead of posting it on the Physorg forum.
kaneda, You really should check your facts before you spew such BS. Here...read it for yourself. This is the IPCC admitting the truth.
In 2001, the panel said the world’s average temperature would increase somewhere between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit and the sea level would rise between 4 and 35 inches by the year 2100.
The 2007 report will likely have a smaller range of numbers for both predictions largely because of improvements in the climate models, Pachauri and other scientists said.
"I think probably the low value (in the 2001 report) and also the high value came from models that probably had mistakes in them," Trenberth recently told the Rocky Mountain News of Denver. "The confidence in those numbers was probably not that good, and they probably never should have been used in the way in which they were used."
Scientists admit fear mongering
I'm sorry you fell for the alarmists claims.
In 2001, the panel said the world’s average temperature would increase somewhere between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit and the sea level would rise between 4 and 35 inches by the year 2100.
The 2007 report will likely have a smaller range of numbers for both predictions largely because of improvements in the climate models, Pachauri and other scientists said.
"I think probably the low value (in the 2001 report) and also the high value came from models that probably had mistakes in them," Trenberth recently told the Rocky Mountain News of Denver. "The confidence in those numbers was probably not that good, and they probably never should have been used in the way in which they were used."
Scientists admit fear mongering
I'm sorry you fell for the alarmists claims.
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 9 2007, 06:27 AM)
There is a belief by some that a rise in temperature of 1.C will mean that in summer, that will mean a normal day of 25.C will be 26.C Wrong. A fall in temperaure of 1.F in 1816 meant many farmers lost their harvests in the western hemisphere and people went hungry, also snow in New York City in July.
As to 1.C , try 4-10.C by 2100.
What is more pressing than global warming?
Besides getting the facts wrong Kaneda fails to realize that MOST of the warming is predicted to be in the Higher Latitudes and in the WINTER.
As to your reference back to "if you think a little warming won't be bad just look what 1 F of COOLING did back in 1816"..
First the impact of COOLING is quite specific to growing crops. While COOL temps slow them down, a FROST is sufficient for KILLING. There is no similar BARRIER to growing crops with a few degrees of temp rise. In fact they LIKE WARMTH, so your analogy of how bad a degree or 5 degrees of warming would be is BOGUS. In fact a little warming will EXPAND growing seasons allowing more crops in more locations.
We have seen it already as the warming of the 20th century has resulted in a 6% increase in the Net Primary Productivity (BIOMASS) of the planet over the last two decades.
As to what happened in 1816.
To put it in perspective Kaneda leaves out the important point POINT that 1816 was in the MIDDLE OF THE LITTLE ICE AGE, so it was ALREADY DAMN COLD.
Still, it wasn't so much that that summer was particularly cold in comparison to previous summers.
While the GLOBE might have been ~1 degree cooler (our global temp records suck this far back), the SUMMER in the Northern Hemisphere was ~3-5 degrees cooler, because of the lingering effects of the LARGEST VOLCANIC ERUPTION in 10,000 years the year earlier. Since the eruption was in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE its effects were also primarily IN the Northern Hemisphere and so since the GLOBE did not react equally to the eruption then for this comparison, it is not the change in GLOBAL Temp that is of interest, it is the change THAT summer in the northern parts of the NH.
What in fact caused the problem in New England and Northern Europe was the unexpected (big surprise it WAS 1816 after all) LATE FROSTS which killed the new seedlings in the northern parts of the Northern Hemsiphere. By the time they replanted (those that COULD replant) then the cooler temps slowed the growing such that many replantings were then killed by a similar EARLY frost in late August prior to being ready for harvest. Together these two cold snaps led to the widespread crop failures in New England and parts of Northern Europe.
Which is a GOOD example of why COLD is BAD.
But it is a piss poor analogy as to why Global Warming is a problem.
Arthur
As to 1.C , try 4-10.C by 2100.
What is more pressing than global warming?
Besides getting the facts wrong Kaneda fails to realize that MOST of the warming is predicted to be in the Higher Latitudes and in the WINTER.
As to your reference back to "if you think a little warming won't be bad just look what 1 F of COOLING did back in 1816"..
First the impact of COOLING is quite specific to growing crops. While COOL temps slow them down, a FROST is sufficient for KILLING. There is no similar BARRIER to growing crops with a few degrees of temp rise. In fact they LIKE WARMTH, so your analogy of how bad a degree or 5 degrees of warming would be is BOGUS. In fact a little warming will EXPAND growing seasons allowing more crops in more locations.
We have seen it already as the warming of the 20th century has resulted in a 6% increase in the Net Primary Productivity (BIOMASS) of the planet over the last two decades.
As to what happened in 1816.
To put it in perspective Kaneda leaves out the important point POINT that 1816 was in the MIDDLE OF THE LITTLE ICE AGE, so it was ALREADY DAMN COLD.
Still, it wasn't so much that that summer was particularly cold in comparison to previous summers.
While the GLOBE might have been ~1 degree cooler (our global temp records suck this far back), the SUMMER in the Northern Hemisphere was ~3-5 degrees cooler, because of the lingering effects of the LARGEST VOLCANIC ERUPTION in 10,000 years the year earlier. Since the eruption was in the NORTHERN HEMISPHERE its effects were also primarily IN the Northern Hemisphere and so since the GLOBE did not react equally to the eruption then for this comparison, it is not the change in GLOBAL Temp that is of interest, it is the change THAT summer in the northern parts of the NH.
What in fact caused the problem in New England and Northern Europe was the unexpected (big surprise it WAS 1816 after all) LATE FROSTS which killed the new seedlings in the northern parts of the Northern Hemsiphere. By the time they replanted (those that COULD replant) then the cooler temps slowed the growing such that many replantings were then killed by a similar EARLY frost in late August prior to being ready for harvest. Together these two cold snaps led to the widespread crop failures in New England and parts of Northern Europe.
Which is a GOOD example of why COLD is BAD.
But it is a piss poor analogy as to why Global Warming is a problem.
Arthur
I would like to add that Al Gore's main theme on "An inconvenient truth" is that there can be dire consequences if global warming occurs, with far more significance than just a shift in thermometer readings.
The point that spawned this thread, which i undertand to state that, "mathematical models of natural phenomena are often flawed in their original assumptions", makes it even more pertinent that we as a species pay very close attention to the effects of our actions on our environment.
A man made shift of our climate from a stable predictable state to a constantly shifting one would at this point in our species history decimate our numbers. Case in point the effect of late and early frosts in the ability to grow food in the new england area.
The bottom line is "Watch out what you do, because you now have the ability to really change things in ways you never intended"
Miguel
The point that spawned this thread, which i undertand to state that, "mathematical models of natural phenomena are often flawed in their original assumptions", makes it even more pertinent that we as a species pay very close attention to the effects of our actions on our environment.
A man made shift of our climate from a stable predictable state to a constantly shifting one would at this point in our species history decimate our numbers. Case in point the effect of late and early frosts in the ability to grow food in the new england area.
The bottom line is "Watch out what you do, because you now have the ability to really change things in ways you never intended"
Miguel
I believe you misunderstood the whole thrust of the article. In it he assails the Army Corps of Engineers models on beach erosion, etc. However, he goes on to say this about climate models:
"While condemning quantitative modeling, the book is more supportive of qualitative models that predict only direction and magnitudes of natural phenomena while accepting the possibility of being "imprecise or wrong to some degree.” As examples of good modeling, the authors cite hurricane-tracking forecasts and global climate models. "
Further, in an article from Gristmill blog (Sept 29, 2006) of questions and answers by Dr. Pilkey, he answers this question:
Q: What factors have contributed most to the degradation of the esteem of science in the public eye during the course of your career? What actions can young scientists take to ensure that their voices are heard clearly so that more public policy can be decided by and based on rational scientific discourse? -- Scott Koranda, Wauwatosa, Wis.
A: Environmental science takes some hard licks, especially in the debate about climate change and sea-level rise. A whole cottage industry funded by Big Coal and Big Oil and encouraged by the present administration lies in wait for any and all new pronouncements by climate-change scientists. It is a form of client science, where the truth is found according to the clients' needs. Client science has the appearance of sophistication, since it is usually based on some kernel of truth.
I presume that is why we see skeptics at work here on this forum?
"While condemning quantitative modeling, the book is more supportive of qualitative models that predict only direction and magnitudes of natural phenomena while accepting the possibility of being "imprecise or wrong to some degree.” As examples of good modeling, the authors cite hurricane-tracking forecasts and global climate models. "
Further, in an article from Gristmill blog (Sept 29, 2006) of questions and answers by Dr. Pilkey, he answers this question:
Q: What factors have contributed most to the degradation of the esteem of science in the public eye during the course of your career? What actions can young scientists take to ensure that their voices are heard clearly so that more public policy can be decided by and based on rational scientific discourse? -- Scott Koranda, Wauwatosa, Wis.
A: Environmental science takes some hard licks, especially in the debate about climate change and sea-level rise. A whole cottage industry funded by Big Coal and Big Oil and encouraged by the present administration lies in wait for any and all new pronouncements by climate-change scientists. It is a form of client science, where the truth is found according to the clients' needs. Client science has the appearance of sophistication, since it is usually based on some kernel of truth.
I presume that is why we see skeptics at work here on this forum?
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Feb 9 2007, 12:33 AM)
Cutting down pollution
Cutting down emissions
Sequestering CO2 released in the interim.
These seem to be the necessary components.
The smartest (and likely only) way to permanently sequester the C from coal is to leave the coal underground in the first place. Leave coal in the ground, don't allow it to burn, at least until ALL alternatives are fully explored.
Cutting down emissions
Sequestering CO2 released in the interim.
These seem to be the necessary components.
The smartest (and likely only) way to permanently sequester the C from coal is to leave the coal underground in the first place. Leave coal in the ground, don't allow it to burn, at least until ALL alternatives are fully explored.
QUOTE (lengould+Feb 12 2007, 12:56 PM)
The smartest (and likely only) way to permanently sequester the C from coal is to leave the coal underground in the first place. Leave coal in the ground, don't allow it to burn, at least until ALL alternatives are fully explored.
Typical Luddite thinking.
For a more PROGRESSIVE view.
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05fal/coal3.asp
Arthur
Typical Luddite thinking.
For a more PROGRESSIVE view.
http://www.nrdc.org/onearth/05fal/coal3.asp
Arthur
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 9 2007, 02:27 AM)
What is more pressing than global warming?
Global dimming?
adoucette, Did you really read my earlier post? You made several mistakes in interpretation and they slipped by until now, when I just re-checked this thread. You said in reference to my mentioning depleted fisheries, acid rain, deformed amphibians, extinctions and pollution that they were all past tense! Nothing could be more wrong. They are all ongoing problems. Then you jumped to the wild and erroneous conclusion that they are all related to pollution. Wrong again! Depleted fisheries is from uncontrolled over fishing and most extinctions are caused by habitat destruction at the hand of man.
Arthur, You really need to analyze a post more fully. Yes we need to attack pollution sources, but there are a lot better alternatives than switching to CLEAN COAL. Clean coal reduces one of the worst problems, but leaves a host of other pollutants still there. Do you own stock in "clean coal?" Are you still denying man's influence on global warming?
Arthur, You really need to analyze a post more fully. Yes we need to attack pollution sources, but there are a lot better alternatives than switching to CLEAN COAL. Clean coal reduces one of the worst problems, but leaves a host of other pollutants still there. Do you own stock in "clean coal?"
Are you still denying man's influence on global warming?
You wrote about them in the past tense, not I.
My point is that NONE of them are related to the small amount of warming recorded over the 20th century.
Am I denying man's involvement in changing the climate?
No.
Man started changing the climate when they cut the first tree down.
But it IS a matter of SCALE.
The amount of CO2 released is incredibly small compared to the overall carbon cycle and the exponential growth of CO2 production does not track at all with the nearly linear rise in atmospheric CO2, so yes man's contribution and its impact IS in question. That's what the IPCC is trying to figure out.
In fact the LATEST IPCC report apparently claims that man is MOST LIKELY responsible for somewhat more than 1/2 of the MINOR RISE IN TEMP over the LAST 50 YEARS.
The biggest issue I have is with the PREDICTIONS of DOOM AND GLOOM.
For instance, the rise in the last century is less then a degree which is NOT going to deplete fisheries, or cause extinctions or generate acid rain etc etc.
My point WASN'T that those aren't occuring (anyone who likes Cod knows about depeleted fisheries) but that they aren't directly related to Global Warming.
My other point is simply that our CURRENT method of generating electricity is a MAJOR problem. Over half of the world's electricity is created by old furnaces burning pulverized coal. This is VERY DIRTY (besides lung damaging soot there is also acid rain from SOx, thousands of tons of mercury and other heavy metals including Radioactive ones are also released), and these ARE related to some of the problems you mentioned.
On the other hand, the gassification of coal allows for a relatively clean smokestack and even the ability to capture and sequester CO2 if that is deemed necessary. If you generate extra power to sequester the CO2 from a clean coal plant you reduce the CO2 per KWh 60 to 70% vs conventional coal plants. When you consider that over half the world's electricity comes from coal, then you realize what a HUGE difference coal gassification could make both to reducing pollution and if desired, reducing CO2 output.
I think gassification is a GREAT idea and I have no particular financial stake in any of this.
I think if you look at it from a financial view I can't see that there is a big investor upside for any one company in particular.
Clean coal uses more coal for a given amount of power produced so that would tend to make the price of coal go up, but it generally requires a higher grade of coal so that would hurt the coal companies, so its not like investing in coal companies is going to make you a mint, plus the transition to this technology will take DECADES since the plants cost in excess of a billion dollars and most of a decade from ground breaking to operation.
There likewise is no one company that has a lock on the clean coal technology so investing in any of the companies trying to bring this to market is like any investment, a risk.
Investing in the power companies tends to be a fairly solid, but usually non-spectacular, investment. Again, not something that the advent of clean coal would appreciably change.
Arthur
My point is that NONE of them are related to the small amount of warming recorded over the 20th century.
Am I denying man's involvement in changing the climate?
No.
Man started changing the climate when they cut the first tree down.
But it IS a matter of SCALE.
The amount of CO2 released is incredibly small compared to the overall carbon cycle and the exponential growth of CO2 production does not track at all with the nearly linear rise in atmospheric CO2, so yes man's contribution and its impact IS in question. That's what the IPCC is trying to figure out.
In fact the LATEST IPCC report apparently claims that man is MOST LIKELY responsible for somewhat more than 1/2 of the MINOR RISE IN TEMP over the LAST 50 YEARS.
The biggest issue I have is with the PREDICTIONS of DOOM AND GLOOM.
For instance, the rise in the last century is less then a degree which is NOT going to deplete fisheries, or cause extinctions or generate acid rain etc etc.
My point WASN'T that those aren't occuring (anyone who likes Cod knows about depeleted fisheries) but that they aren't directly related to Global Warming.
My other point is simply that our CURRENT method of generating electricity is a MAJOR problem. Over half of the world's electricity is created by old furnaces burning pulverized coal. This is VERY DIRTY (besides lung damaging soot there is also acid rain from SOx, thousands of tons of mercury and other heavy metals including Radioactive ones are also released), and these ARE related to some of the problems you mentioned.
On the other hand, the gassification of coal allows for a relatively clean smokestack and even the ability to capture and sequester CO2 if that is deemed necessary. If you generate extra power to sequester the CO2 from a clean coal plant you reduce the CO2 per KWh 60 to 70% vs conventional coal plants. When you consider that over half the world's electricity comes from coal, then you realize what a HUGE difference coal gassification could make both to reducing pollution and if desired, reducing CO2 output.
I think gassification is a GREAT idea and I have no particular financial stake in any of this.
I think if you look at it from a financial view I can't see that there is a big investor upside for any one company in particular.
Clean coal uses more coal for a given amount of power produced so that would tend to make the price of coal go up, but it generally requires a higher grade of coal so that would hurt the coal companies, so its not like investing in coal companies is going to make you a mint, plus the transition to this technology will take DECADES since the plants cost in excess of a billion dollars and most of a decade from ground breaking to operation.
There likewise is no one company that has a lock on the clean coal technology so investing in any of the companies trying to bring this to market is like any investment, a risk.
Investing in the power companies tends to be a fairly solid, but usually non-spectacular, investment. Again, not something that the advent of clean coal would appreciably change.
Arthur
Al Gore is in Big Oil's pocket.
When it became impossible to deny climate change was happening, Big Oil jumped onto the greenhouse gas scenario
Greenhouse gases are real, but what they are supposed to doing is total fantasy. This line of deception is now being pushed by Big Oil, so that their real responsibilities are push off onto every citizen in the world. Nasty people.
Meanwhile along with their blinkered client scientists, and befuddled computer programs they are hoodwinking the world.
Got something important to say ?.... forget it, stone walled silence is the method to still debate... There can be no debate, you are just TOLD.
>> "Watch out what you do, because you now have the ability to really change things in ways you never intended">>>
Yes indeed
To remove greenhouse gases will be the last mistake that mankind will make. Ice Ages last for millions of years.
The micro layer of petroleum oil that is overlaying the waters of the world is of anthropogenic origin. It must be removed/moderated before any other "obvious" climatic problems are addressed
Meanwhile burning coal for energy is fine even transiently beneficial, however irresponsible use of petroleum oil should be forbidden.
Y'all are victims of propaganda, you believe what the players want you to believe.
LOL, I hope you enjoyed your stay on spaceship Earth.
I am sorry to say it is almost time for you to disembark.
If you wish to remain informed through unbiased scientific analysis of the unfolding data.. see
http://omegafour.com/forum/
When it became impossible to deny climate change was happening, Big Oil jumped onto the greenhouse gas scenario
Greenhouse gases are real, but what they are supposed to doing is total fantasy. This line of deception is now being pushed by Big Oil, so that their real responsibilities are push off onto every citizen in the world. Nasty people.
Meanwhile along with their blinkered client scientists, and befuddled computer programs they are hoodwinking the world.
Got something important to say ?.... forget it, stone walled silence is the method to still debate... There can be no debate, you are just TOLD.
>> "Watch out what you do, because you now have the ability to really change things in ways you never intended">>>
Yes indeed
To remove greenhouse gases will be the last mistake that mankind will make. Ice Ages last for millions of years.
The micro layer of petroleum oil that is overlaying the waters of the world is of anthropogenic origin. It must be removed/moderated before any other "obvious" climatic problems are addressed
Meanwhile burning coal for energy is fine even transiently beneficial, however irresponsible use of petroleum oil should be forbidden.
Y'all are victims of propaganda, you believe what the players want you to believe.
LOL, I hope you enjoyed your stay on spaceship Earth.
I am sorry to say it is almost time for you to disembark.
If you wish to remain informed through unbiased scientific analysis of the unfolding data.. see
http://omegafour.com/forum/
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 13 2007, 05:45 AM)
Am I denying man's involvement in changing the climate?
- you try not to be caught at it, but we read all that you write.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 13 2007, 05:45 AM)
In fact the LATEST IPCC report apparently claims
- have you read it or not? Apparently? You don't seem to have read it. It actually states very clearly.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 13 2007, 05:45 AM)
that man is MOST LIKELY
- read their foot note, this means between 90% and 99% certainty. Your capitals reveal your attempt to mis-lead 
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 13 2007, 05:45 AM)
responsible for somewhat more than 1/2 of the MINOR
- Minor? everything is relative. You cannot be trusted not to try to spin everything.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 13 2007, 05:45 AM)
RISE IN TEMP over the LAST 50 YEARS.
-they actually refer to far more than just the last 50 years.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 13 2007, 05:45 AM)
The biggest issue I have is with the PREDICTIONS of DOOM AND GLOOM.
- so you can't handle it? Ostrich time? The only sensible reaction is to assess the situation properly and deal with it.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 13 2007, 05:45 AM)
For instance, the rise in the last century is less then a degree which is NOT going to deplete fisheries
- the acidification is the problem here, more mis-leading.
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 13 2007, 05:45 AM)
, or cause extinctions or generate acid rain etc etc.
- I was always taught that 'etc' was a very bad term to use, meaningless/useless, easy to mis-interpret...
Exactly. The 'Asian Brown Cloud' is responsible for most of that.
Exactly. The 'Asian Brown Cloud' is responsible for most of that.
I don't see any recent claim of it being more responsible than CO2 for Global Warming ...
Smithy, Focus.
Smithy, Focus.
My point WASN'T that those aren't occurring (anyone who likes Cod knows about depleted fisheries) but that they aren't directly related to Global Warming.
That's the point, no one is disputing that.
Of course a LOT of people forget the ABOUT part.
Most people also seem to forget that not ALL of this ~ ONE DEGREE is attributed to man.
In fact only ABOUT HALF of it is.
And they ALSO forget that not all of that ~ HALF DEGREE is attributable to CO2.
Get a grip.
The world is NOT
That's the point, no one is disputing that.
Of course a LOT of people forget the ABOUT part.
Most people also seem to forget that not ALL of this ~ ONE DEGREE is attributed to man.
In fact only ABOUT HALF of it is.
And they ALSO forget that not all of that ~ HALF DEGREE is attributable to CO2.
Get a grip.
The world is NOT on the edge of disaster
Arthur
That's the point, no one is disputing that.
Of course a LOT of people forget the ABOUT part.
Most people also seem to forget that not ALL of this ~ ONE DEGREE is attributed to man.
In fact only ABOUT HALF of it is.
And they ALSO forget that not all of that ~ HALF DEGREE is attributable to CO2.
Get a grip.
The world is NOT
Arthur
you will see genius. I'm sorry but if you don't beleive in global warming at this point, then there is no other excuse besides the fact that you are a narrow minded arrogant and ignrant all at the same time. Gosh your talented. PEACE
Again with your Depleted Fisheries, Acid Rain, deformed Amphibians and extinctions?
NOT ONE OF THOSE is related to any Global Warming that has occurred.
I pointed out that the issue with them was mainly pollution, not GW.
If you have evidence to the contrary post it or let it go.
I also posted a rational way to address these issues which is to end the use of dirty coal plants (major contributor to acid rain and mercury poisoning of fish stocks) and switch to clean coal.
A proposed solution, which would ALSO make drastic cuts in CO2, but which you ignored.
Again with your Depleted Fisheries, Acid Rain, deformed Amphibians and extinctions?
NOT ONE OF THOSE is related to any Global Warming that has occurred.
I pointed out that the issue with them was mainly pollution, not GW.
If you have evidence to the contrary post it or let it go.
I also posted a rational way to address these issues which is to end the use of dirty coal plants (major contributor to acid rain and mercury poisoning of fish stocks) and switch to clean coal.
A proposed solution, which would ALSO make drastic cuts in CO2, but which you ignored.
The level of carbon dioxide has increased from 280 parts per million in 1750 to 380 parts per million now. That's well above its natural variation for the past 650,000 years, according to ice core data. The carbon dioxide mostly comes from burning fossil fuels, such as coal, fuel oil and gasoline."
Read those last two sentences and weep! It just blows your stance away completely!
Except only one of them is true, and the other is based on a very limited set of a very limited spatial sample (and so is not really proven, though GWers like to use it that way)
You have to ask yourself though, where is the science report on the ice core samples from 1960 - 1990 that show that THEY agree with the same values that Mona Loa has for those SAME YEARS?
If you were going to use ancient ice cores as a proxy don't you think you would verify the accuracy of more recent ice cores to known measurements?
I've asked several times for someone to show this, so far NADA.
As to the other sentence:
Since CO2 has only increased by 35% the use of MOSTLY is obviously wrong.
If you look at it in an ANNUAL basis it also represents a TINY percent of the Atmospheric flux.
Fossil fuel burning represents < 2% of the annual Global Flux of CO2.
If you look at it in a Carbon Cycle basis it is down right TINY.
Fossil fuel burning represents one hundredth of a percent of the global CO2 cycle.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/carbon_cycle_diagram.jpg
What's MORE important is the Ice Core data you referenced SHOWED that the rise in global temperatures LAGGED the warming that occured by hundreds of years.
(I know you can't tell it from the charts, they are too low res to see that, you HAVE to actually READ THE SCIENCE REPORTS, not just look at the pretty pictures.)
Which means EXTERNAL induced warming can also cause the rise of atmospheric CO2.
And Jack, I've been reading the science. TONS of it. For DECADES.
Its not at all as compelling as you think.
But hey, if you are CONVINCED, why let the INCONVENIENT TRUTH of the science get in the way?
Arthur
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm
For JUST his Tenn House Gore's average monthly electric bill is $1,359 and his annual electricity usage is a WHOPPIN 221,000 kilowatt-hours.
But Al has a heated pool and uses Gas lights for "ambiance" and so his annual natural gas usage is $1,080 for a yearly total of $12,960.
So, before we get to his cars and frequent private jet travel, Gore is already spending ~ $30,000 per year on Gas and Electricity.
For this house alone Al uses ~ TWENTY times the Natl Average.
Talk about inconvenient truths.
Arthur
8 miles up is 3 miles higher than the top of Mt Everest.
I'd say that's pretty high.
Not sure your point though?
We have the Montreal Protocol that is supposed to deal with Ozone depleting chemicals. The Kyoto Protocol does not extend these restrictions.
By the way, if you captured ALL the Ozone in the atmosphere, at SL it would be a layer about ~ 3mm thick.
8 miles up is 3 miles higher than the top of Mt Everest.
I'd say that's pretty high.
Not sure your point though?
We have the Montreal Protocol that is supposed to deal with Ozone depleting chemicals. The Kyoto Protocol does not extend these restrictions.
By the way, if you captured ALL the Ozone in the atmosphere, at SL it would be a layer about ~ 3mm thick.
It's us trapping the suns heat by thickening our ozone with greenhouse gasses. Thats one point that was made.
Do you know ANYTHING of the SCIENCE behind what you are posting about?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 13 2007, 05:45 AM)
My point WASN'T that those aren't occurring (anyone who likes Cod knows about depeleted fisheries) but that they aren't directly related to Global Warming.
-so who are you to make an unsubstantiated claim like that against real scientists?
Once again, just more rubbish,
Smithy (posts)
Once again, just more rubbish,
Smithy (posts)
QUOTE
My point WASN'T that those aren't occurring (anyone who likes Cod knows about depleted fisheries) but that they aren't directly related to Global Warming.
Exactly. The 'Asian Brown Cloud' is responsible for most of that.
QUOTE (John A+Feb 13 2007, 07:09 PM)
Exactly. The 'Asian Brown Cloud' is responsible for most of that.
Can we have something more recent than old news from September 13, 2002?
Can we have something more recent than old news from September 13, 2002?
QUOTE (John A+Feb 13 2007, 07:09 PM)
Exactly. The 'Asian Brown Cloud' is responsible for most of that.
I don't see any recent claim of it being more responsible than CO2 for Global Warming ...
QUOTE
"I traveled extensively in China over a period of one month and was never away from smog as dense as L.A. in summer days in the 1980's. I traversed most of the Yangtze river, the Li river and as far north as Beijing and Xian and the smoke from their coal fire cooking, heating and power generation was thick, everyday and everywhere. Also, while flying at 30,000 feet over the Amazon rain forest for a period of hours, I observed and photographed fires from slash and burn agriculture that were beyond count and never out of sight throughout the flight. Buenos Aires (good air, in translation) and Sao Paulo had the thickest smog I have ever observed. Most reputable atmospheric scientists would agree that we are trashing the planet and its atmosphere and something must be done to slow or reverse the process.
I have personally seen it on a scale that shocked me. Depleted fisheries, acid rain, deformed amphibians, extinctions, pollution,"
I have personally seen it on a scale that shocked me. Depleted fisheries, acid rain, deformed amphibians, extinctions, pollution,"
Smithy, Focus.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "I traveled extensively in China over a period of one month and was never away from smog as dense as L.A. in summer days in the 1980's. I traversed most of the Yangtze river, the Li river and as far north as Beijing and Xian and the smoke from their coal fire cooking, heating and power generation was thick, everyday and everywhere. Also, while flying at 30,000 feet over the Amazon rain forest for a period of hours, I observed and photographed fires from slash and burn agriculture that were beyond count and never out of sight throughout the flight. Buenos Aires (good air, in translation) and Sao Paulo had the thickest smog I have ever observed. Most reputable atmospheric scientists would agree that we are trashing the planet and its atmosphere and something must be done to slow or reverse the process. I have personally seen it on a scale that shocked me. Depleted fisheries, acid rain, deformed amphibians, extinctions, pollution," |
Smithy, Focus.
My point WASN'T that those aren't occurring (anyone who likes Cod knows about depleted fisheries) but that they aren't directly related to Global Warming.
QUOTE
Exactly. The 'Asian Brown Cloud' is responsible for most of that.
QUOTE (Smithy+Feb 14 2007, 01:57 PM)
I don't see any recent claim of it being more responsible than CO2 for Global Warming ...
My comment still stands.
My comment still stands.
So Smithy, are YOU a DISCIPLE?
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=71011
Their slogan: we don't know much but we know its bad.
Arthur
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=71011
QUOTE
A dozen Michiganders are helping Al Gore carry the message of his movie "Inconvenient Truth," preaching the gospel of global warming with his slides and their words.
Gore has personally trained 1,000 disciples. Part cheerleaders, part angels of gloom
Gore has personally trained 1,000 disciples. Part cheerleaders, part angels of gloom
Their slogan: we don't know much but we know its bad.
Arthur
"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people"
Scientists have the 'proof' needed to put the debate to bed. But, like the quote said, that is only for rational people.
LINK--- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...ticle516033.ece
Scientists have the 'proof' needed to put the debate to bed. But, like the quote said, that is only for rational people.
LINK--- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...ticle516033.ece
First Dr Barnett frames the argument as a strawman, there is little disagreement that the globe is on a warming trend, the issue has always been more related to attribution.
Then after creating his strawman, Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal,
JUMP THE GUN MUCH?
Sounds just like the IPCC, Submit your CONCLUSIONS to the PRESS, then leak the science out after the discussions are done.
Shouldn't it be the OTHER WAY ROUND?
Produce the SCIENCE, let people REVIEW IT, then discuss it in the MEDIA.
If you actually had FAITH in your report, that's what you would do.
If on the other hand you just want the media attention.....
Sheesh.
Just look at this board as an example, there are any number of posters that are now quoting from the latest IPCC Summary for Policy Makers but the SCIENCE that is supposedly behind the SPM it has YET TO BE RELEASED.
Arthur
Then after creating his strawman, Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal,
JUMP THE GUN MUCH?
Sounds just like the IPCC, Submit your CONCLUSIONS to the PRESS, then leak the science out after the discussions are done.
Shouldn't it be the OTHER WAY ROUND?
Produce the SCIENCE, let people REVIEW IT, then discuss it in the MEDIA.
If you actually had FAITH in your report, that's what you would do.
If on the other hand you just want the media attention.....
Sheesh.
Just look at this board as an example, there are any number of posters that are now quoting from the latest IPCC Summary for Policy Makers but the SCIENCE that is supposedly behind the SPM it has YET TO BE RELEASED.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 19 2007, 11:19 PM)
First Dr Barnett frames the argument as a strawman, there is little disagreement that the globe is on a warming trend, the issue has always been more related to attribution.
Then after creating his strawman, Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal,
JUMP THE GUN MUCH?
Sounds just like the IPCC, Submit your CONCLUSIONS to the PRESS, then leak the science out after the discussions are done.
Shouldn't it be the OTHER WAY ROUND?
Produce the SCIENCE, let people REVIEW IT, then discuss it in the MEDIA.
If you actually had FAITH in your report, that's what you would do.
If on the other hand you just want the media attention.....
Sheesh.
Just look at this board as an example, there are any number of posters that are now quoting from the latest IPCC Summary for Policy Makers but the SCIENCE that is supposedly behind the SPM it has YET TO BE RELEASED.
Arthur
stubborn mofo's. I will just wait till the world is on the edge of disaster. Then, i will point the proof out for everyone to see.
Then after creating his strawman, Dr Barnett said the results, which are about to be submitted for publication in a major peer-reviewed journal,
JUMP THE GUN MUCH?
Sounds just like the IPCC, Submit your CONCLUSIONS to the PRESS, then leak the science out after the discussions are done.
Shouldn't it be the OTHER WAY ROUND?
Produce the SCIENCE, let people REVIEW IT, then discuss it in the MEDIA.
If you actually had FAITH in your report, that's what you would do.
If on the other hand you just want the media attention.....
Sheesh.
Just look at this board as an example, there are any number of posters that are now quoting from the latest IPCC Summary for Policy Makers but the SCIENCE that is supposedly behind the SPM it has YET TO BE RELEASED.
Arthur
stubborn mofo's. I will just wait till the world is on the edge of disaster. Then, i will point the proof out for everyone to see.
QUOTE
Overall, the reports say, Earth's climate has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900.
That's the point, no one is disputing that.
Of course a LOT of people forget the ABOUT part.
Most people also seem to forget that not ALL of this ~ ONE DEGREE is attributed to man.
In fact only ABOUT HALF of it is.
And they ALSO forget that not all of that ~ HALF DEGREE is attributable to CO2.
Get a grip.
The world is NOT
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Overall, the reports say, Earth's climate has warmed by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. |
That's the point, no one is disputing that.
Of course a LOT of people forget the ABOUT part.
Most people also seem to forget that not ALL of this ~ ONE DEGREE is attributed to man.
In fact only ABOUT HALF of it is.
And they ALSO forget that not all of that ~ HALF DEGREE is attributable to CO2.
Get a grip.
The world is NOT on the edge of disaster
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 20 2007, 12:00 AM)
That's the point, no one is disputing that.
Of course a LOT of people forget the ABOUT part.
Most people also seem to forget that not ALL of this ~ ONE DEGREE is attributed to man.
In fact only ABOUT HALF of it is.
And they ALSO forget that not all of that ~ HALF DEGREE is attributable to CO2.
Get a grip.
The world is NOT
Arthur
you will see genius. I'm sorry but if you don't beleive in global warming at this point, then there is no other excuse besides the fact that you are a narrow minded arrogant and ignrant all at the same time. Gosh your talented. PEACE
Being called "ignrant" by a creationist is in my opinion the HIGHEST compliment.
Thanks
PEACE.
Arthur
Thanks
PEACE.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Feb 20 2007, 12:22 AM)
Being called "ignrant" by a creationist is in my opinion the HIGHEST compliment.
Thanks
PEACE.
Arthur
I'm not usually into name calling and foolish bickering, but damn it i feel need to call you lots of names. I will refrain. Jesus loves you and if you beleive he will save you. God bless and have a golorius night. Peace.
Thanks
PEACE.
Arthur
I'm not usually into name calling and foolish bickering, but damn it i feel need to call you lots of names. I will refrain. Jesus loves you and if you beleive he will save you. God bless and have a golorius night. Peace.
While adoucette and thinkbig! duke it out, the science is being neglected here! 
adoucette, You are still making basic mistakes in interpretation of my and other people's posts. You are still wrong in saying I referred to depleted fisheries, acid rain, deformed amphibians, extinctions and pollution in the past tense. My very next sentence was, "WE are bringing this about." ARE BRINGING, not brought this about! What is it about tenses, that you don't understand? Arthur, You really need to analyze a post more fully and think things through. You never adequately answered Smithy's post from the 13th of Feb. AND this is from the very website you MOCKINGLY referred Smithy to...
"Across the country, global warming is suddenly a hot topic in no small part because of Gore's movie, a favorite for the Academy Award for best documentary on Sunday. After years of studies and statistics, people are paying more attention to what scientists have been saying for decades:
The steep rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere is trapping more of the sun's energy and heating up the earth. The changes are most dramatic at the poles, where glaciers and sheets of ice are melting.
The level of carbon dioxide has increased from 280 parts per million in 1750 to 380 parts per million now. That's well above its natural variation for the past 650,000 years, according to ice core data. The carbon dioxide mostly comes from burning fossil fuels, such as coal, fuel oil and gasoline."
Read those last two sentences and weep! It just blows your stance away completely!
"The biggest issue I have is with the PREDICTIONS of DOOM AND GLOOM." adoucette quote.
I think it's time you re-evaluated this and other people's posts relating to this issue. Your views are no longer tenable.
"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
adoucette, Slow down, think about the science, its hundreds of backing studies from hundreds of different sources, without bias or agenda, re-read this and other related threads and pull your head out of the sand! What more evidence do you need?
adoucette, You are still making basic mistakes in interpretation of my and other people's posts. You are still wrong in saying I referred to depleted fisheries, acid rain, deformed amphibians, extinctions and pollution in the past tense. My very next sentence was, "WE are bringing this about." ARE BRINGING, not brought this about! What is it about tenses, that you don't understand? Arthur, You really need to analyze a post more fully and think things through. You never adequately answered Smithy's post from the 13th of Feb. AND this is from the very website you MOCKINGLY referred Smithy to...
"Across the country, global warming is suddenly a hot topic in no small part because of Gore's movie, a favorite for the Academy Award for best documentary on Sunday. After years of studies and statistics, people are paying more attention to what scientists have been saying for decades:
The steep rise in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere is trapping more of the sun's energy and heating up the earth. The changes are most dramatic at the poles, where glaciers and sheets of ice are melting.
The level of carbon dioxide has increased from 280 parts per million in 1750 to 380 parts per million now. That's well above its natural variation for the past 650,000 years, according to ice core data. The carbon dioxide mostly comes from burning fossil fuels, such as coal, fuel oil and gasoline."
Read those last two sentences and weep! It just blows your stance away completely!
"The biggest issue I have is with the PREDICTIONS of DOOM AND GLOOM." adoucette quote.
I think it's time you re-evaluated this and other people's posts relating to this issue. Your views are no longer tenable.
"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
adoucette, Slow down, think about the science, its hundreds of backing studies from hundreds of different sources, without bias or agenda, re-read this and other related threads and pull your head out of the sand! What more evidence do you need?
QUOTE
You are still wrong in saying I referred to depleted fisheries, acid rain, deformed amphibians, extinctions and pollution in the past tense. My very next sentence was, "WE are bringing this about." ARE BRINGING, not brought this about!
Again with your Depleted Fisheries, Acid Rain, deformed Amphibians and extinctions?
NOT ONE OF THOSE is related to any Global Warming that has occurred.
I pointed out that the issue with them was mainly pollution, not GW.
If you have evidence to the contrary post it or let it go.
I also posted a rational way to address these issues which is to end the use of dirty coal plants (major contributor to acid rain and mercury poisoning of fish stocks) and switch to clean coal.
A proposed solution, which would ALSO make drastic cuts in CO2, but which you ignored.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are still wrong in saying I referred to depleted fisheries, acid rain, deformed amphibians, extinctions and pollution in the past tense. My very next sentence was, "WE are bringing this about." ARE BRINGING, not brought this about! |
Again with your Depleted Fisheries, Acid Rain, deformed Amphibians and extinctions?
NOT ONE OF THOSE is related to any Global Warming that has occurred.
I pointed out that the issue with them was mainly pollution, not GW.
If you have evidence to the contrary post it or let it go.
I also posted a rational way to address these issues which is to end the use of dirty coal plants (major contributor to acid rain and mercury poisoning of fish stocks) and switch to clean coal.
A proposed solution, which would ALSO make drastic cuts in CO2, but which you ignored.
The level of carbon dioxide has increased from 280 parts per million in 1750 to 380 parts per million now. That's well above its natural variation for the past 650,000 years, according to ice core data. The carbon dioxide mostly comes from burning fossil fuels, such as coal, fuel oil and gasoline."
Read those last two sentences and weep! It just blows your stance away completely!
Except only one of them is true, and the other is based on a very limited set of a very limited spatial sample (and so is not really proven, though GWers like to use it that way)
You have to ask yourself though, where is the science report on the ice core samples from 1960 - 1990 that show that THEY agree with the same values that Mona Loa has for those SAME YEARS?
If you were going to use ancient ice cores as a proxy don't you think you would verify the accuracy of more recent ice cores to known measurements?
I've asked several times for someone to show this, so far NADA.
As to the other sentence:
Since CO2 has only increased by 35% the use of MOSTLY is obviously wrong.
If you look at it in an ANNUAL basis it also represents a TINY percent of the Atmospheric flux.
Fossil fuel burning represents < 2% of the annual Global Flux of CO2.
If you look at it in a Carbon Cycle basis it is down right TINY.
Fossil fuel burning represents one hundredth of a percent of the global CO2 cycle.
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/carbon_cycle_diagram.jpg
What's MORE important is the Ice Core data you referenced SHOWED that the rise in global temperatures LAGGED the warming that occured by hundreds of years.
(I know you can't tell it from the charts, they are too low res to see that, you HAVE to actually READ THE SCIENCE REPORTS, not just look at the pretty pictures.)
Which means EXTERNAL induced warming can also cause the rise of atmospheric CO2.
And Jack, I've been reading the science. TONS of it. For DECADES.
Its not at all as compelling as you think.
But hey, if you are CONVINCED, why let the INCONVENIENT TRUTH of the science get in the way?
Arthur
QUOTE (kaneda+Feb 9 2007, 10:30 AM)
You should go to the toilet instead of posting it on the Physorg forum.
Would you believe I got a warning for this euphemism instead of using the word *** which appears 41 times on this forum (something I have mentioned a number of times and the moderators have ignored). Very obviously there is one rule for some where minor infringements can get a warning and one rule for another where major infringements get nothing.
Would you believe I got a warning for this euphemism instead of using the word *** which appears 41 times on this forum (something I have mentioned a number of times and the moderators have ignored). Very obviously there is one rule for some where minor infringements can get a warning and one rule for another where major infringements get nothing.
The S*** word appears 41 times on this forum but when I try and use it complete to show something it is not allowed. DOH!
I'm sure this has been discussed but, Al Gore movie is very informative and I don't think the data can be ignored. I'm sure it's bias and not accurate based on the many factors affecting data collection. Basic example: Methods of gathering data are completely different than those used 50-100 years ago, human error, sophistication of techniques and infrastucture found at various study sites. However even though an extremely relavant influence exists from natural phenomenons and cycles going back way before any time we can measure, millions of years, I still believe we are definitely influencing the rate and form of the changes. Someone has to be around when the major changes occur and maybe now it's us. You should read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond who analyzes past occurence of population, societal and environmental collapse. These civilizations are able to be studied because they were isolated and clear causes can be identified. Eg. Easter Islanders affected and misused their resources to such an extent that they could not sustain themselves, terrible times occured to the point that only a very few survived and their lifestyle had changed completely. We're in a truly globab world and are an isolated area, earth, just like Easter Island was. 5 factors apply, look them up in the book. Al Gore is sending a positive and true message (however misused the data is) We have to be affecting the 'natural' process dramatically. But then again maybe this is the cycle that exists as it did in the past. Humans will survive but the who will be a relative few and their lifestyle and total existance will not be recognizable to us. Maybe it'll be better. Hope I get to see but I would guess not....
Erin:
Mr. Gore's film is a piece of fiction and an abuse of science. The fact that the mass of water locked in the polar icecaps would cause a major problem if it all melted does not mean that it will. The moon is in the gravitational field of the earth. It could come crashing down on us. The scientific question is what mechanisms would lead to such catastrophe and how likely are they to occur. Mr. Gore is trafficking on the fears of the weak minded and ignorant.
Mr. Gore's film is a piece of fiction and an abuse of science. The fact that the mass of water locked in the polar icecaps would cause a major problem if it all melted does not mean that it will. The moon is in the gravitational field of the earth. It could come crashing down on us. The scientific question is what mechanisms would lead to such catastrophe and how likely are they to occur. Mr. Gore is trafficking on the fears of the weak minded and ignorant.
QUOTE (bjc+Feb 28 2007, 12:45 PM)
Erin:
Mr. Gore's film is a piece of fiction and an abuse of science. The fact that the mass of water locked in the polar icecaps would cause a major problem if it all melted does not mean that it will. The moon is in the gravitational field of the earth. It could come crashing down on us. The scientific question is what mechanisms would lead to such catastrophe and how likely are they to occur. Mr. Gore is trafficking on the fears of the weak minded and ignorant.
FICTION?? So it's made up? I think Mr Gore covered a bit more than just the polar ice caps. Even if you disagree with his 'theory' on that topic, you still can't ignore all of the FACTS he puts on the table. If at this point you still don't beleive this is an issue then i would have to say that you are in fact the ignorant one. Try opening your eyes to the FACTS. They are out there and not hard to find.
Mr. Gore's film is a piece of fiction and an abuse of science. The fact that the mass of water locked in the polar icecaps would cause a major problem if it all melted does not mean that it will. The moon is in the gravitational field of the earth. It could come crashing down on us. The scientific question is what mechanisms would lead to such catastrophe and how likely are they to occur. Mr. Gore is trafficking on the fears of the weak minded and ignorant.
FICTION?? So it's made up? I think Mr Gore covered a bit more than just the polar ice caps. Even if you disagree with his 'theory' on that topic, you still can't ignore all of the FACTS he puts on the table. If at this point you still don't beleive this is an issue then i would have to say that you are in fact the ignorant one. Try opening your eyes to the FACTS. They are out there and not hard to find.
QUOTE (bjc+Feb 28 2007, 08:45 AM)
Mr. Gore is trafficking on the fears of the weak minded and ignorant.
Thinkbig!,
I think you missed this part of the post. Gore is and has been for years a politician and as such has a well established record of using half-truths or partial information that supports his positions.
Take into consideration some of the new spin. Look at how “global warming” has been replaced with the laughable “climate change”. This is akin to the change of swamps and jungles to wetlands and rain forests.
The fact is that according to established understanding of our planet’s history of environmental changes, the Earth is not in any kind of danger from a temperature increase as the supporters of global warming claim. We have yet to reach the level that existed prior to the onset of the “little ice age” period.
And as Arthur has pointed out, pollution is overlooked or the effect of pollution is lumped in as an effect of global warming.
Water World was pathetic sci-fi and Chicken Little is for children. If you must resort to fear in order to motivate rather than reason or if you must label anyone who questions your claims as the equivalent of being a holocaust denier (like at least one scientists who is a supporter of global warming does) then you are not involved in anything that can be called the support of science, the pursuit of science or seeking to “protect” the environment. Just take a look at the emotional and reactionary posts here alone. It appears that anything can be a persons faith or religion these days.
Thinkbig!,
I think you missed this part of the post. Gore is and has been for years a politician and as such has a well established record of using half-truths or partial information that supports his positions.
Take into consideration some of the new spin. Look at how “global warming” has been replaced with the laughable “climate change”. This is akin to the change of swamps and jungles to wetlands and rain forests.
The fact is that according to established understanding of our planet’s history of environmental changes, the Earth is not in any kind of danger from a temperature increase as the supporters of global warming claim. We have yet to reach the level that existed prior to the onset of the “little ice age” period.
And as Arthur has pointed out, pollution is overlooked or the effect of pollution is lumped in as an effect of global warming.
Water World was pathetic sci-fi and Chicken Little is for children. If you must resort to fear in order to motivate rather than reason or if you must label anyone who questions your claims as the equivalent of being a holocaust denier (like at least one scientists who is a supporter of global warming does) then you are not involved in anything that can be called the support of science, the pursuit of science or seeking to “protect” the environment. Just take a look at the emotional and reactionary posts here alone. It appears that anything can be a persons faith or religion these days.
QUOTE (thinkbig!+Feb 28 2007, 09:05 AM)
FICTION?? So it's made up? I think Mr Gore covered a bit more than just the polar ice caps. Even if you disagree with his 'theory' on that topic, you still can't ignore all of the FACTS he puts on the table. If at this point you still don't beleive this is an issue then i would have to say that you are in fact the ignorant one. Try opening your eyes to the FACTS. They are out there and not hard to find.
I think you will find some of us don't get our SCIENCE at the Movie Theater over popcorn.
Is AIT PEER REVIEWED?
How can one CHALLENGE any of it, when one hasn't seen it?
How can one even DISCUSS it?
Its NOT the way SCIENCE is done.
Gore is now in the ENTERTAINMENT business and, by the way, getting quite rich from it.
Arthur
I think you will find some of us don't get our SCIENCE at the Movie Theater over popcorn.
Is AIT PEER REVIEWED?
How can one CHALLENGE any of it, when one hasn't seen it?
How can one even DISCUSS it?
Its NOT the way SCIENCE is done.
Gore is now in the ENTERTAINMENT business and, by the way, getting quite rich from it.
Arthur
QUOTE (thinkbig!+Feb 28 2007, 02:05 PM)
FICTION?? So it's made up? I think Mr Gore covered a bit more than just the polar ice caps. Even if you disagree with his 'theory' on that topic, you still can't ignore all of the FACTS he puts on the table. If at this point you still don't beleive this is an issue then i would have to say that you are in fact the ignorant one. Try opening your eyes to the FACTS. They are out there and not hard to find.
What "FACTS" are you talking about? What issue do you think I do not believe is an issue? I already agreed that IF the polar icecaps melt we are in a heap of trouble, as we would be if the Moon began an orbital decay. Are you saying that Mr. Gore's movie and/or book contains facts and arguments sufficient to support the assertions that global warming is (a) anthropogenic in nature and (B) if (a), is reversible?
Me, you are right I must be ignorant since I am still trying to figure out how they use tree rings from a thousand years ago to estimate temperature levels down to the first decimal place. Perhaps you know and can enlighten me as to how this is done or how any such precise temperature estimates are made before the widespread introduction of reliable thermometers in 1800. While you are at it, I assume you have answer as to why the Sun is not the primary source of Global Warming as the application of Occam's razor would suggest - entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem?
What "FACTS" are you talking about? What issue do you think I do not believe is an issue? I already agreed that IF the polar icecaps melt we are in a heap of trouble, as we would be if the Moon began an orbital decay. Are you saying that Mr. Gore's movie and/or book contains facts and arguments sufficient to support the assertions that global warming is (a) anthropogenic in nature and (B) if (a), is reversible?
Me, you are right I must be ignorant since I am still trying to figure out how they use tree rings from a thousand years ago to estimate temperature levels down to the first decimal place. Perhaps you know and can enlighten me as to how this is done or how any such precise temperature estimates are made before the widespread introduction of reliable thermometers in 1800. While you are at it, I assume you have answer as to why the Sun is not the primary source of Global Warming as the application of Occam's razor would suggest - entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem?
Let me simplify. Al gores movie brought many facts as to what is causing and what will happen WHEN golabal warming becomes real enough for people like you to stop doubting. Tree rings?? The moon?? I don't remember mentioning either of those. I beleive it is fair to say that my post could be summed up by saying global warming is real, your ignorant if you dont beleive it, and there are facts to support it. Get it!
Get it!
Ok....lets forget the debate over global warming for a moment.
Al Gore's movie was HORRIBLE.....
Polar Bears dying because they dont have ice? No they arent
If you go to his website...it gets weirder....
Eat less meat...cause apparently meat causes global warming
Buy organic food...because organic foods produce more oxygen than their counterparts?!?!
I am sure much better critiques exist....but here is the point....
Al Gore is a pandering politician. If you want proof of this...just look at his wife...
He helped his wife to run one of the most public displays of "First Amendment" violations in American history?
Was it for public safety?
National Security?
No....they didnt like bad words in music....so with her husband's help....she attempted to get government censorship.
Yeah...great guy....
There is a debate about global warming(I think it is real and caused by humans), but Al Gore could care less. He made one of the most self-extolling documentaries in history. "An Inconvenient Truth" is not a documentary on global warming, but rather a documentary on Al Gore's fight against global warming.
I cannot have respect for the selfish nature of that film or Al Gore.
Unless someone can explain to me how a lost election has ANYTHING to do with global warming.
Richard Dawkins does documentaries on Evolution and tries to drive home that total lack of a realistic debate. I have never seen Richard Dawkins complaining about an unrelated topic during his documentaries. I have never seen him break from his Evolution or Atheism conversation to complain about a lack of funding from his university for a research project he proposed.
Al Gore's movie was HORRIBLE.....
Polar Bears dying because they dont have ice? No they arent
If you go to his website...it gets weirder....
Eat less meat...cause apparently meat causes global warming
Buy organic food...because organic foods produce more oxygen than their counterparts?!?!
I am sure much better critiques exist....but here is the point....
Al Gore is a pandering politician. If you want proof of this...just look at his wife...
He helped his wife to run one of the most public displays of "First Amendment" violations in American history?
Was it for public safety?
National Security?
No....they didnt like bad words in music....so with her husband's help....she attempted to get government censorship.
Yeah...great guy....
There is a debate about global warming(I think it is real and caused by humans), but Al Gore could care less. He made one of the most self-extolling documentaries in history. "An Inconvenient Truth" is not a documentary on global warming, but rather a documentary on Al Gore's fight against global warming.
I cannot have respect for the selfish nature of that film or Al Gore.
Unless someone can explain to me how a lost election has ANYTHING to do with global warming.
Richard Dawkins does documentaries on Evolution and tries to drive home that total lack of a realistic debate. I have never seen Richard Dawkins complaining about an unrelated topic during his documentaries. I have never seen him break from his Evolution or Atheism conversation to complain about a lack of funding from his university for a research project he proposed.
QUOTE (thinkbig!+Feb 28 2007, 10:30 PM)
Let me simplify. Al gores movie brought many facts as to what is causing and what will happen WHEN golabal warming becomes real enough for people like you to stop doubting. Tree rings?? The moon?? I don't remember mentioning either of those. I beleive it is fair to say that my post could be summed up by saying global warming is real, your ignorant if you dont beleive it, and there are facts to support it. Get it!
I am not sure I understand why you are on this site? Again, what arguments did Al Gore make in his book that indicated that the Sun was not the primary cause of global warming? Once the Sun has been dealt with, we can move on to other possible causes, including anthropogenic sources of CO2. But first you have to rule out the obvious explanations.
Get it! I am not sure I understand why you are on this site? Again, what arguments did Al Gore make in his book that indicated that the Sun was not the primary cause of global warming? Once the Sun has been dealt with, we can move on to other possible causes, including anthropogenic sources of CO2. But first you have to rule out the obvious explanations.
QUOTE
Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.
Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.
But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes.
Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.
But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...ore-green_x.htm
For JUST his Tenn House Gore's average monthly electric bill is $1,359 and his annual electricity usage is a WHOPPIN 221,000 kilowatt-hours.
But Al has a heated pool and uses Gas lights for "ambiance" and so his annual natural gas usage is $1,080 for a yearly total of $12,960.
So, before we get to his cars and frequent private jet travel, Gore is already spending ~ $30,000 per year on Gas and Electricity.
For this house alone Al uses ~ TWENTY times the Natl Average.
Talk about inconvenient truths.
Arthur
QUOTE (bjc+Feb 28 2007, 10:56 PM)
I am not sure I understand why you are on this site? Again, what arguments did Al Gore make in his book that indicated that the Sun was not the primary cause of global warming? Once the Sun has been dealt with, we can move on to other possible causes, including anthropogenic sources of CO2. But first you have to rule out the obvious explanations.
Well *** man the sun will always hit us with light and heat. We trap the suns heat by letting out a crap load of greenhouse gasses that build up. Our ozone is not so high above earth as everyone thinks. It is comparable to polyurethane on a table top. Thats how close it is. We are arrogant to think we can't effect that. So the sun isn't to blame for this. It's us trapping the suns heat by thickening our ozone with greenhouse gasses. Thats one point that was made. Then co2 being off the chart. Puddles forming on glaciers all over the world. These puddles trap heat and melt more ice. Rivers run along the ice and down huge holes in the arctive ice sheets. That warmer water then goes all the way to the bottom of the ice and warms under as well as on top of the ice. Huge chunks of ice are breaking everywhere. Polar bears are dying due to lack of ice and we continue our trend of polluting without conciounse. Thats humans for you. Too selfish to give up or precious 'necesseties' for the sake of a planet. Not just any planet. BUT THE ONE WE LIVE ON!!! These are just some of the things touched on in the movie. But whats the points, your tunnel vision will never allow you to accept this. Durr........ i don't feel any warmer right now. Must be bs.
Well *** man the sun will always hit us with light and heat. We trap the suns heat by letting out a crap load of greenhouse gasses that build up. Our ozone is not so high above earth as everyone thinks. It is comparable to polyurethane on a table top. Thats how close it is. We are arrogant to think we can't effect that. So the sun isn't to blame for this. It's us trapping the suns heat by thickening our ozone with greenhouse gasses. Thats one point that was made. Then co2 being off the chart. Puddles forming on glaciers all over the world. These puddles trap heat and melt more ice. Rivers run along the ice and down huge holes in the arctive ice sheets. That warmer water then goes all the way to the bottom of the ice and warms under as well as on top of the ice. Huge chunks of ice are breaking everywhere. Polar bears are dying due to lack of ice and we continue our trend of polluting without conciounse. Thats humans for you. Too selfish to give up or precious 'necesseties' for the sake of a planet. Not just any planet. BUT THE ONE WE LIVE ON!!! These are just some of the things touched on in the movie. But whats the points, your tunnel vision will never allow you to accept this.
Durr........ i don't feel any warmer right now. Must be bs.
QUOTE (thinkbig!+Mar 3 2007, 04:48 PM)
Well *** man the sun will always hit us with light and heat. We trap the suns heat by letting out a crap load of greenhouse gasses that build up. Our ozone is not so high above earth as everyone thinks. It is comparable to polyurethane on a table top. Thats how close it is. We are arrogant to think we can't effect that. So the sun isn't to blame for this. It's us trapping the suns heat by thickening our ozone with greenhouse gasses. Thats one point that was made. Then co2 being off the chart. Puddles forming on glaciers all over the world. These puddles trap heat and melt more ice. Rivers run along the ice and down huge holes in the arctive ice sheets. That warmer water then goes all the way to the bottom of the ice and warms under as well as on top of the ice. Huge chunks of ice are breaking everywhere. Polar bears are dying due to lack of ice and we continue our trend of polluting without conciounse. Thats humans for you. Too selfish to give up or precious 'necesseties' for the sake of a planet. Not just any planet. BUT THE ONE WE LIVE ON!!! These are just some of the things touched on in the movie. But whats the points, your tunnel vision will never allow you to accept this. :blink: Durr........ i don't feel any warmer right now. Must be bs.
But for 11 of 13 Polar Bear colonies monitored by the Canadians, the population is expanding. Net, net there is no obvious negative impact on these creatures. Moreover, as I understand it, a thickening of the atmosphere should lead to an increase in the upper atmosphere temperatures which is strangely not happening. Seems like you need to rely on something other than Al Gore's movie for your facts.
But for 11 of 13 Polar Bear colonies monitored by the Canadians, the population is expanding. Net, net there is no obvious negative impact on these creatures. Moreover, as I understand it, a thickening of the atmosphere should lead to an increase in the upper atmosphere temperatures which is strangely not happening. Seems like you need to rely on something other than Al Gore's movie for your facts.
QUOTE
Our ozone is not so high above earth as everyone thinks. It is comparable to polyurethane on a table top. Thats how close it is.
8 miles up is 3 miles higher than the top of Mt Everest.
I'd say that's pretty high.
Not sure your point though?
We have the Montreal Protocol that is supposed to deal with Ozone depleting chemicals. The Kyoto Protocol does not extend these restrictions.
By the way, if you captured ALL the Ozone in the atmosphere, at SL it would be a layer about ~ 3mm thick.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Our ozone is not so high above earth as everyone thinks. It is comparable to polyurethane on a table top. Thats how close it is. |
8 miles up is 3 miles higher than the top of Mt Everest.
I'd say that's pretty high.
Not sure your point though?
We have the Montreal Protocol that is supposed to deal with Ozone depleting chemicals. The Kyoto Protocol does not extend these restrictions.
By the way, if you captured ALL the Ozone in the atmosphere, at SL it would be a layer about ~ 3mm thick.
It's us trapping the suns heat by thickening our ozone with greenhouse gasses. Thats one point that was made.
Do you know ANYTHING of the SCIENCE behind what you are posting about?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 3 2007, 07:30 PM)
QUOTE (Thinkbig!+)
It's us trapping the suns heat by thickening our ozone with greenhouse gasses. Thats one point that was made.
Arthur
You can all argue the evidence all you want. You can pick at gore on a personal level and you can say what you want about me. But gore is correct. You can manipulate what i say and what he says but the bottom line is that as smart as you want to be and as many books as you have memorized, doesn't change that your wrong. haha. Must piss you off to want me to admit wrong and see that'll never happen. "Look at him" "How dare he beleive the facts" haha.
hahaha
That's the problem with INCOMPETENT people.
Their INCOMPETENCE prevents them from realizing they are, in fact, wrong.
Arthur
Aww, now thats not nice. Why don't you pull that beaker out yer ars and open your eyes. I'm right. PROVE ME WRONG. really, do it. Make a claim, thats undeniably true and prove me and mr gore, (who i'm sure must be incompetent too) WRONG. Because, my nerdy little labcoats, until you do that you can only argue with me. And trust, that is a losing battle.
Arthur
You can all argue the evidence all you want. You can pick at gore on a personal level and you can say what you want about me. But gore is correct. You can manipulate what i say and what he says but the bottom line is that as smart as you want to be and as many books as you have memorized, doesn't change that your wrong. haha. Must piss you off to want me to admit wrong and see that'll never happen.
"Look at him" "How dare he beleive the facts" haha.
QUOTE (thinkbig!+Mar 3 2007, 02:42 PM)
Must piss you off to want me to admit wrong and see that'll never happen.
That's the problem with INCOMPETENT people.
Their INCOMPETENCE prevents them from realizing they are, in fact, wrong.
Arthur
That's the problem with INCOMPETENT people.
Their INCOMPETENCE prevents them from realizing they are, in fact, wrong.
Arthur
hahaha
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 3 2007, 07:46 PM)
That's the problem with INCOMPETENT people.
Their INCOMPETENCE prevents them from realizing they are, in fact, wrong.
Arthur
Aww, now thats not nice. Why don't you pull that beaker out yer ars and open your eyes. I'm right. PROVE ME WRONG. really, do it. Make a claim, thats undeniably true and prove me and mr gore, (who i'm sure must be incompetent too) WRONG. Because, my nerdy little labcoats, until you do that you can only argue with me. And trust, that is a losing battle.
QUOTE (thinkbig!+Mar 3 2007, 07:58 PM)
Aww, now thats not nice. Why don't you pull that beaker out yer ars and open your eyes. I'm right. PROVE ME WRONG. really, do it. Make a claim, thats undeniably true and prove me and mr gore, (who i'm sure must be incompetent too) WRONG. Because, my nerdy little labcoats, until you do that you can only argue with me. And trust, that is a losing battle. <_<
If you were to make a definitive statement about something that is testable, I would be delighted to accept the challenge. However, I doubt very much that you can come up with a testable proposition.
So let's try the converse. I will make a testable assertion and you disprove it. Temperatures in Siberia are among the primary indicators of Global Warming. Reviews of weather station data from these locations indicate that the observed trend is largely a statistical artifact due to the selection of the starting point for the time series data. Extending this time series data to earlier systematically recorded years as captured in GHCD/GISS temperature data series indicates that UHI effects explain most if not all of the upward trend. Without this data much of Al Gore's arguments fall of his own weight.
OK, so all you have to do to disprove this assertion is to find some temperature data from let's say 50 rural Siberian weather stations and for all available years between 1918 and 2006. Then simply show that this data has an upward trend of lets say 1 sd from the average. Should be pretty simple. Just use the references in Al Gore's book, go to the web-sites, extract the data, put it into Excel, plot on an Excel chart and pop in a trend line. Should be no problem at all. You should be able to post the results here.
If you were to make a definitive statement about something that is testable, I would be delighted to accept the challenge. However, I doubt very much that you can come up with a testable proposition.
So let's try the converse. I will make a testable assertion and you disprove it. Temperatures in Siberia are among the primary indicators of Global Warming. Reviews of weather station data from these locations indicate that the observed trend is largely a statistical artifact due to the selection of the starting point for the time series data. Extending this time series data to earlier systematically recorded years as captured in GHCD/GISS temperature data series indicates that UHI effects explain most if not all of the upward trend. Without this data much of Al Gore's arguments fall of his own weight.
OK, so all you have to do to disprove this assertion is to find some temperature data from let's say 50 rural Siberian weather stations and for all available years between 1918 and 2006. Then simply show that this data has an upward trend of lets say 1 sd from the average. Should be pretty simple. Just use the references in Al Gore's book, go to the web-sites, extract the data, put it into Excel, plot on an Excel chart and pop in a trend line. Should be no problem at all. You should be able to post the results here.
I'll make it easy for you:
Here's some of the station data you'll need:
http://meteo.ru/english/data_temperat_precipitation/
Arthur
Here's some of the station data you'll need:
http://meteo.ru/english/data_temperat_precipitation/
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Mar 3 2007, 09:23 PM)
I'll make it easy for you:
Here's some of the station data you'll need:
http://meteo.ru/english/data_temperat_precipitation/
Arthur
Arthur:
What will you bet that all this generates are insults and gibberish from thinkbig! ?
Thanks for the reference site.
You are undoubtedly already aware of this but I found this summary very interesting: http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/ussr1.htm sourced on the Steve McIntyre's site.
Here's some of the station data you'll need:
http://meteo.ru/english/data_temperat_precipitation/
Arthur
Arthur:
What will you bet that all this generates are insults and gibberish from thinkbig! ?
Thanks for the reference site.
You are undoubtedly already aware of this but I found this summary very interesting: http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/ussr1.htm sourced on the Steve McIntyre's site.
I've tried to explain in other threads that what is pushed as "Global Warming", when looked at in more detail is really Arctic Warming and that the most of the Arctic warming that has been reported is supposedly in the Winter and most of that warming is in the Night hours.
Thus the term "GLOBAL" is a bit of an overstatement for what is observed.
Which is why the NEW TERM that is being bandied about is just "CLIMATE CHANGE".
What most GW supporters don't seem to realize is the rather SPARSE evidence from a very small number of researchers that underpins the entire issue, as to the actual AMOUNT of warming that is going on.
As the article points out:
In recent years it has become apparent that a sizeable share of century-long "global warming" was in the region of the former USSR. This paper examines at the level of individual weather station records the evidence for the claim in Karl 1998 of circa 2 degrees warming during 1901-1996 in nine grid boxes in Siberia and eastern Kazahkstan. Figure 1 shows the warming over this period from the updated Jones 1994 global dataset as used by Karl 1998 in his contribution to the IPCC publication "The Regional Impacts of Climate Change".
Arthur
Thus the term "GLOBAL" is a bit of an overstatement for what is observed.
Which is why the NEW TERM that is being bandied about is just "CLIMATE CHANGE".
What most GW supporters don't seem to realize is the rather SPARSE evidence from a very small number of researchers that underpins the entire issue, as to the actual AMOUNT of warming that is going on.
As the article points out:
In recent years it has become apparent that a sizeable share of century-long "global warming" was in the region of the former USSR. This paper examines at the level of individual weather station records the evidence for the claim in Karl 1998 of circa 2 degrees warming during 1901-1996 in nine grid boxes in Siberia and eastern Kazahkstan. Figure 1 shows the warming over this period from the updated Jones 1994 global dataset as used by Karl 1998 in his contribution to the IPCC publication "The Regional Impacts of Climate Change".
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.