Global Warming

[mcdude]

This Citizen's Article attributes the lack of ice this winter to global warming. Sad to think of what implications this may have for the future.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by mcdude

This Citizen's Article attributes the lack of ice this winter to global warming. Sad to think of what implications this may have for the future.

Oh my, look at the upside, if this is true it will be a longer boating season.

[JK47]

Yet this week's temperatures are an average of 10 degrees lower than usual?

[jrc]

If it get real warm we'll be catching fish like this:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/sports...-bn20bass.html

[MAXUM]

Got to just love these "global warming" people...

So I guess the globe has not been warming at all since the last ice age? These thing occur naturally and if you look far enough back in history, IE millions of years ago, say around the time of the dinosaurs, the world was a very tropical place. So what was it back then we could blame global warming on, last I knew there was no such thing as an internal combustion motor. Darn tree huggers.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

Got to just love these "global warming" people...
So what was it back then we could blame global warming on, last I knew there was no such thing as an internal combustion motor. Darn tree huggers.

Hot air - they could not keep their mouths closed, then, either...

They should try selling Global Warming to the people in Grand Island, Nebraska with their 21" of new snow.

[Evenstar]

National Geographic.com has a short article called Arctic Ice Isn't Refreezing in the Winter, Satellites Show. "For the second year in a row a large amount of Arctic sea ice did not refreeze during the winter as it normally does, a team of scientists reports. This trend may indicate an overall shrinking of Arctic ice cover due to rapid global climate change."

I'll agee that global warming can also occur naturally - but this is believed to have only happened after things like massive volcanic eruptions, or getting hit with a very large meteor. Man has now "progressed" to the point where we can now create natural desasters on our own.

[Good N' You?]

I wonder what they were blaming the early ice out back in March 28th of 1921....."The sky is falling, The sky is falling"

[jrc]

Last winter, people were teasing a politician for having a speech on global warming in NYC when it was -9F. The warming people said don't confuse weather with climate. But when we get a freak hurricane season or a warm winter it's always caused by SUV's.

1) Is the planet warming? Maybe a little, based on 150 year old weather reports.

2) If yes, is humanity causing the warming? Not at all clear, but maybe a little.

3) If yes, can we do anything to stop it? No (everyone agrees)
Slow it? Maybe a little with massive reduction in quality of life or world population. Even Kyoto only promises the tiniest reduction in the upward temperature trend.

4) Is the cure worse than the disease? Most likely.

[Lakegeezer]

It is spring in New Hampshire. The ice is melting in the lake, but yet it is below freezing outside. How can this be? If you stand back and take the long term view, you realize that by July, a return to winter or even spring will be a silly question. The ice will be gone, and it will be hot.

The earth is has been experiencing a global spring since the glaciers left New England, and now the earth is approaching a global summer. The ice caps are melting, Greenland is calving into the sea, glaciers in many places are melting at increased rates, the permafrost in Alaska is melting, sea levels are rising, and so on. Even the ice caps on Mars are melting. That is the evidence. The potential causes are many, including man, sunspots, orbit within our galaxy, and other causes yet to be determined. Figuring out the cause is interesting, but it leads to the blame game, and no country (especially the USA) wants to be held responsible for picking up the tab. The costs of the impact of climate issues during the next several hundred years will be huge. The earth entered global spring before humans were a factor. Did the industrial age speed up the onset of global summer by 5 years? By 100 years? By 1000 years? Good question, but I doubt there is any stopping it now.

We experience the transition to spring and summer every year, so have a good idea what is coming next at the lake. Our theories about what will happen next in the transition to global summer is still a guess at best. Scientists believe that over time, the earth has been encased in ice more than it has been warm like it is now. There is also evidence that once global climate changes start, they move quickly from one stable state to another. The evidence suggests that we are in a "move quick" period. This is similar to what we will experience at the lake in a few weeks as the ice melts, or those 3 days in May when the leaves just POP out. There is no going back. We can only look forward into the next cycle - and that is going to mean some changes. The past few weeks of cold weather have delayed what we thought might be a record early ice-out - but it won't matter. Massive human energy put into delaying the global summer would likely do just the same - delay but not stop the global summer from coming.

If we are in a transition stage now - we will see extremes for the next decade or so, as new patterns will emerge. One short-term pattern that seems to be emerging is that the snowstorms are more frequently south of the lakes region, rather than from the lakes region north. Our winters are milder, our falls are later, our springs are earlier. That pattern could last the next 30 years, or it could change next year. We could zip through Global summer in a decade and enter a new ice age. The only thing that is certain is that the climage is changing and will continue to do so.

More energy should be put into understanding what is happening, what will happen, and how to deal with what is coming next. Assigning blame to humans, is like blaming your neighbor's bubbler for an early ice-out. It had impact, and it matters locally for a short period of time, but in the long run, it doesn't matter much.

[Frdxplorer]

Let me qualify this statment by saying that I do not consider myself to be a tree hugger as it would normally be defined. I drive an SUV that gets ashamedly bad mileage, especially when I have my roof rack on. I am also a registered, and in all but a few rare circumstances, a voting Republican. But I do consider myself a lover of nature and the natural beauty that NH is so lucky to have alot of. Many of you are correct that the world has experienced many changes in temperature trends. However, anyone with a basic education in geology and global climate change is aware that in following these trends, it is very important to look back over millions of years, not the difference between 1921 and 2006. The changes that have taken place in the last hundered or so years have been much much much more rapid than the changes that changed landscapes on the earth hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago. To outrightly dismiss global warming is, in my opinion, and that is all this is, a little irresponsible to future generations. Both for those interested in global warming, and those convinced that its not happening, I'd really suggest auditing a geology class that deals with global climate change at a local college. During my undergrad years, I found it pretty refreshing from political science, and as a current law school student, I would probably find just about anything refreshing from property and contracts.

[SIKSUKR]

I don't think there is much of an argument that we have global warming based on observations from the last 150 years.But therein lies the problem.Some would blame it on man and some would say it's nature.How you can say this is all man made with such a small sample when the earth has had freeze thaw cycles for eons is beyond me.I do think we have some impact but how can it really be measured?LG makes some good observations.Looks like another topic that will stir up the pot again!

[ITD]

Sorry, I'm not buying Global Warming, at least with the data and the crowd presented so far. There's an interesting web site and this is just two of many articles on the subject.

http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/EDW.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/1stMonth.htm

Bottom line is there is no simple answer. Yes this was a warmer winter (I think) but not the warmest. I read somewhere that this was like the 5th warmest winter on record with the warmest one around 1880. Anyway if you do fervently believe in Global Warming, I suggest you stop driving your car, disconnect from the grid and do not heat or cool your house (yes even burning wood is detrimental supposedly). Lead by example.

[dpg]

Don't lose any sleep over this issue. By the time it's tropical in New Hampshire (or even close) anyone reading this forum now will have been dead for about 500 years!!!

[SAMIAM]

If we stopped using every internal combustion engine in the world tomorrow....it would have no effect on global warming when compared to the carbon dioxide caused by rotting vegetation.
Now,I'm feeling guilty for warming up my truck on cold mornings

[John A. Birdsall]

[QUOTE=SAMIAM]If we stopped using every internal combustion engine in the world tomorrow....it would have no effect on global warming when compared to the carbon dioxide caused by rotting vegetation.
************************************************** ***
If this is the case then everybody should cease eating baked beans, especially those from Boston who are full of "hot" air!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jrc

"...1)Is the planet warming? Maybe a little, based on 150 year old weather reports.

2) If yes, is humanity causing the warming? Not at all clear, but maybe a little.

3) If yes, can we do anything to stop it? No (everyone agrees)
Slow it? Maybe a little with massive reduction in quality of life or world population. Even Kyoto only promises the tiniest reduction in the upward temperature trend.

4) Is the cure worse than the disease? Most likely..."

Is the planet warming?
Just one degree increase (Celsius °) has a huge effect! It's already being seen at Mount Kilimanjaro and Glacier National Park. Something like 90% of Earth's glaciers are retreating, and nobody denies that the oceans are rising.

Is Humanity causing it?
We've taken half of the sun's energy that's been stored under the Earth for a billion years and transformed it into heat in less than 200 years.

(Like peat and coal, oil is fossil plant life—forget the dinosaur part.)

Is there anything we can do to stop it?
Emphatically YES! Twenty years ago, when this issue was first envisioned, there were several cures suggested.

The most intriguing one involved placing a rotating reflectorized mylar spiderweb-like wheel into space between Earth and the Sun. The problem was that how—and when—do you remove it?

Should there be concern?

Depends:

1) Mother Earth is very resilient: One study indicated that Earth was once covered in ice—a snowball. In the Cosmos, that is a death sentence for a celestial body, as nearly all a sun's rays are reflected back into space.

2) There are indications that the rate is increasing; otherwise, we and Mother Nature can just "take the ride". Some inhabited island-countries in the Indian and Pacific Oceans may become uninhabitable in our lifetimes. OTOH, new islands are being created in our lifetimes.

3) In 1999, Popular Science magazine stated, "Global Warming is a fact": They're not a sky-is-falling publication.

First, we should acknowledge Global Warming as fact.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Is the planet warming?
Just one degree increase (Celsius °) has a huge effect! It's already being seen at Mount Kilimanjaro and Glacier National Park. Something like 90% of Earth's glaciers are retreating, and nobody denies that the oceans are rising.

Is Humanity causing it?
We've taken half of the sun's energy that's been stored under the Earth for a billion years and transformed it into heat in less than 200 years.

(Like peat and coal, oil is fossil plant life—forget the dinosaur part.)

Is there anything we can do to stop it?
Emphatically YES! Twenty years ago, when this issue was first envisioned, there were several cures suggested.

The most intriguing one involved placing a rotating reflectorized mylar spiderweb-like wheel into space between Earth and the Sun. The problem was that how—and when—do you remove it?

Should there be concern?

Depends:

1) Mother Earth is very resilient: One study indicated that Earth was once covered in ice—a snowball. In the Cosmos, that is a death sentence for a celestial body, as nearly all a sun's rays are reflected back into space.

2) There are indications that the rate is increasing; otherwise, we and Mother Nature can just "take the ride". Some inhabited island-countries in the Indian and Pacific Oceans may become uninhabitable in our lifetimes. OTOH, new islands are being created in our lifetimes.

3) In 1999, Popular Science magazine stated, "Global Warming is a fact": They're not a sky-is-falling publication.

First, we should acknowledge Global Warming as fact.

Sorry Aps,

Whenever anyone says words like "fact" to describe theories I begin to worry. "I remember" the experts used to talk about carbon dioxide emissions causing global COOLING and how we were going to cause the next ice age. I also remember predictions of the swine flu epidemic, and how we were going to run out of oil in twenty years (by mid 90's).

The Mann hockey stick data used to prove Global warming is seriously flawed.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/res...te.fall04.html

Once again, if you really believe in Global Warming, which many people do, then stop driving your car(s), in fact permanently disable them so no one else can drive them either and stop using any fossil or organic energy that produces "greenhouse gases". There are enough of you that if you all did this and you are correct, we should see the results in 20 or 30 years. In the mean time don't bankrupt the rest of us.

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by ITD

Once again, if you really believe in Global Warming, which many people do, then stop driving your car(s), in fact permanently disable them so no one else can drive them either and stop using any fossil or organic energy that produces "greenhouse gases". There are enough of you that if you all did this and you are correct, we should see the results in 20 or 30 years. In the mean time don't bankrupt the rest of us.

I subscribe in the theory that dramatic global change is underway - specifically, the theory of a continued warm up followed by a rapid cool down. However, I do not subscribe to the theory that ceasing the use of organic fuel would turn around the problem in 20 or 30 years - or ever. In my view, the tipping point has already been passed. To use an old expression, there is no sense in closing the barn door once the horse has run away. I encourage oil consumption, and hope that our civilization moves past the fossil age as quickly as possible, and on to what ever energy source is next.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I subscribe in the theory that dramatic global change is underway - specifically, the theory of a continued warm up followed by a rapid cool down. However, I do not subscribe to the theory that ceasing the use of organic fuel would turn around the problem in 20 or 30 years - or ever. In my view, the tipping point has already been passed. To use an old expression, there is no sense in closing the barn door once the horse has run away. I encourage oil consumption, and hope that our civilization moves past the fossil age as quickly as possible, and on to what ever energy source is next.

I guess I'm not convinced there is a problem at all. Weather patterns are cyclical and affected by things like El nino and La nina. This does not amount to climatic change. Glaciers have been receding for thousands of years. It's only very recently that we have had satellites to observe Arctic and Antarctic ice, no one knows if these remote bays freeze over every year. "Subscribe in the theory" is a good way to put it, leaves open the very real fact that it may be wrong.

[gtxrider]

Has anyone out there ever read or studied the Little Ice Age? In ran from 1300 to the the mid 1800's. It seems the world climate runs in cycles. Maybe if we wait long enough it will cycle back to another Little Ice Age but than again its been unseasonably cold here in New Jersey.

The sky is failing, we will all get the bird flu, New York City will be under water....don't worry be happy

[Airwaves]

Just FYI, on Wednesday's (3/22) NPR show "Fresh Air" there was a scientist who used to come down on the side of Global Warming is bunk, until he started to research it.

An interesting show for anyone who cares to listen, One of the more interesting points he made that surprised me, was that in the weeks following 9/11 when there was no air traffic over the U-S, the temperature in key cities actually dropped and it plays a role in Global Warming! Why?

I'm sure it's archived.

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Just FYI, on Wednesday's (3/22) NPR show "Fresh Air" there was a scientist who used to come down on the side of Global Warming is bunk, until he started to research it.
...
I'm sure it's archived.

Is Tim Flannery the scientist you heard? If so, here's a link to the online article, as well as an excerpt from his book.

'Weather Makers' Seek to End Climate Debate

Thanks for the info, Airwaves. I found the first chapter of his book very interesting.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

One of the more interesting points he made that surprised me, was that in the weeks following 9/11 when there was no air traffic over the U-S, the temperature in key cities actually dropped and it plays a role in Global Warming! Why?

I'm sure it's archived.

Give me a break.You really don't believe that statement do you?Think about what you are saying.Planes not flying in the US,which constitutes about 1% of the earth would make the temp rise during that week?How could you possibly take a measurement taken over ONE week and conclude that it must be the planes not flying that influenced it?Temps fluxuate all the time.If this guy was serious,I would avoid any of his research.

[Mashugana]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

{snip} One of the more interesting points he made that surprised me, was that in the weeks following 9/11 when there was no air traffic over the U-S, the temperature in key cities actually dropped and it plays a role in Global Warming! Why?

Thousands of jet aircraft engines on at any one time in the US translates to many thousands of hot air generators constantly pumping out hot air in and over our cities. Can all these heat pumps add to a slight increases in overall temperatures? It makes sense to me.

Volcanic ash could be a visual example of how the atmosphere can be influenced. The ash cloud does not dissipate quickly. It travels hundreds of miles as it slowly spreads out. Artificial heat from jet engines can work the same way.

Every high school grad knows that for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Picture all the mega-tons of force pushing against the earth to launch the space shuttles, rockets and to a lesser extent jet planes. They all generate thrust by pushing against the earth, what is the equal and opposite reaction? Very slight variations in the rotation and/or axises of the Earth. Since they are cumulative, add them up and you just might find that we are changing the way our planet rotates around itself and the sun. Result: Climate change and global warming.

Global warming is real. Buy your great great (x125) grandchildren ocean front property on an Arizona mountain top today.

[Taz]

To answer Maxum's question, global warming during prehistoric times was caused by dinosaurs expelling methane due to massive flatulence. I read once that cows give off enough methane to influence the green house effect.

[MJM]

Back in the late 40's, scientists were so concerned with the Earth's COOLING, that they were investigating possible ways to enhance melting of the polar ice caps (e.g. spread dark soot over the ice). And that was after scientists 80 years prior to that had been concerned about the Earth's WARMING....

It's all a cycle, perfectly natural, and of such massive proportions us little old humans have little or no impact on it.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by MJM

It's all a cycle, perfectly natural, and of such massive proportions us little old humans have little or no impact on it.

Still, global warming is fact.

In a warming cycle, there are 6 Billion of us setting forests on fire for agriculture, igniting underground coal deposits, burning grasslands, igniting oilfields, heating homes, illuminating the night skies, "flaring" gas, "over-transporting", and cutting forests to assist the progress of lightning-caused fires and the "usual" volcanoes. (Excepting nuclear power generation, all increase carbon dioxide levels, making a "heating loop" for Mother Earth).

Should we be in a cooling "cycle" instead, this may only be a 200-year "blip" of warming. A Winnipesaukee shed, built near me post-war, had 2x6s on 12-inch centers.

(For the snow load—who knew?)

Originally Posted by MJM

Back in the late 40's, scientists were so concerned with the Earth's COOLING, that they were investigating possible ways to enhance melting of the polar ice caps (e.g. spread dark soot over the ice). And that was after scientists 80 years prior to that had been concerned about the Earth's WARMING....

Satellites monitoring the oceans' heights and "computer-modeling" have changed they way we look at weather and climate.

Of course, government grants to universities keep things hopping, too!

[Airwaves]

APS wrote:
Don't you have that backwards?

The criss-crossing of commercial air traffic's wispy "contrails" reflect the sun's energy back into space, just as those "wispy" cirrus clouds do. When the contrails disappeared post-9/11, the Earth should have warmed up!

If I recall, and it's been a week now since I heard the piece, the earth's radiational heat is reflected off clouds, contrails, etc and bounces back toward the ground helping to keep us warm, especially at night.

It's most noticable during the winter, the temperatures are lower on clear nights than on cloudy tonights during similar weather systems because the earth's heat is lost on a clear night with nothing to reflect it back.

You're local TV weatherdude calls it "radiational cooling". I was surprised to hear that there is enough air traffic over the US that would have had a radiational cooling effect when it wasn't there suddenly.

The type of clouds that would prevent the sun's rays from reaching and warming the earth to begin with would be something you'd find after catastrophic volcanic eruption or in the extreme, a nuclear winter.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

If I recall, and it's been a week now since I heard the piece, the earth's radiational heat is reflected off clouds, contrails, etc and bounces back toward the ground helping to keep us warm, especially at night.

It's most noticable during the winter, the temperatures are lower on clear nights than on cloudy tonights during similar weather systems because the earth's heat is lost on a clear night with nothing to reflect it back.

You're local TV weatherdude calls it "radiational cooling". I was surprised to hear that there is enough air traffic over the US that would have had a radiational cooling effect when it wasn't there suddenly.

The type of clouds that would prevent the sun's rays from reaching and warming the earth to begin with would be something you'd find after catastrophic volcanic eruption or in the extreme, a nuclear winter.

First the article orignally mentioned by Airwaves only stated that increased differences between night and day temperatures were noted in the 3 days post 9/11. The author (David J. Travis, University of Wisconsin) made no conclusions as to whether the net effect was overall warming or cooling. Second the effect of contrails (and cloud cover) is to both reflect sunlight back into space (thus decreasing the Earth's temp) and to block IR from the ground and subsequently reradiate it back (thus increasing the Earth's temp). I've yet to see any definitive article stating which effect dominates; the numbers presented for both effects are within 1-2 % of each other. One report estimated that contrails would effect the Earth's temperature by 2050 but that made some ambitious assumptions concerning the growth of air traffic. http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl9919.html

The effects of clouds (rather than contrails) is hotly debated right now. I don't know of anyone who claims that existing models for clouds are accurate.

[ITD]

http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...603300345/1002

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

"...One of the more interesting points he made that surprised me, was that in the weeks following 9/11 when there was no air traffic over the U-S, the temperature in key cities actually dropped and it plays a role in Global Warming! Why? I'm sure it's archived..."

Don't you have that backwards?

The criss-crossing of commercial air traffic's wispy "contrails" reflect the sun's energy back into space, just as those "wispy" cirrus clouds do. When the contrails disappeared post-9/11, the Earth should have warmed up!

High-altitude air traffic could be "covering for" our Energy used on the ground (including nuclear energy and the burning of fossil fuels). I don't think anyone can deny burning fuels isn't "warming".

Originally Posted by ITD

"...if you really believe in Global Warming...then stop driving your car...In the mean time don't bankrupt the rest of us...."

Among theories, I "believe" in both Global Warming and Darwin's Theory, even as quoted here. Really, though, they are both effectively Fact. On Darwin, ask your medical doctor: He will have taken a "Comparative Vertebrate Anatomy" course among his pre-Med required classes.

Aside from dramatic technological intervention (such as the previous gossamer-mylar-umbrella), there's nothing mankind can do to "un-bankrupt" your business, should you be dependant on gasoline and oil. (Abundant coal gives the U.S. much more time).

The latest, most well-thought-out, and most excellent, theory (The ApS Theory) is that we are, indeed, heading into a long-overdue Ice Age.

Civilization is only temporarily slowing "The Approaching Cold of Millennia" with relatively large amounts of heat and carbon dioxide, though sometimes—like burning fuel to make contrails—working at cross-purposes.

I'm putting this kind of money on it:

[VarneyPoint]

For all you non-believers, here is a summary from the most recent issue of Time Magazine...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html

I think it gives a fairly nice summary of what is going on. I encourage everyone to check it out.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

.... there's nothing mankind can do to "un-bankrupt" your business, should you be dependant on gasoline and oil. (Abundant coal gives the U.S. much more time).

But I wasn't talking about business, I was talking about us, we the citizens. The liberal braintrust and others always look to business to fund its social experiments, what they don't get is that business just passes these extra expenses onto their customer. Who is the customer? Why it is almost always you and I. If the business can't pass on these added expenses, then they go out of business.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

The latest, most well-thought-out, and most excellent, theory (The ApS Theory) is that we are, indeed, heading into a long-overdue Ice Age.

Civilization is only temporarily slowing "The Approaching Cold of Millennia" with relatively large amounts of heat and carbon dioxide, though sometimes—like burning fuel to make contrails—working at cross-purposes.

I'm putting this kind of money on it:

Your scientific prowness is exceeded only by your modesty.

[Weekend Pundit]

As much as many have come to believe that we are the main cause of global warming, many climatologists are looking at an age old cause - solar output. While mankind's activities are a contributing factor, the variations in solar output have a far greater impact on Earth's climate.

Just a reminder - Earth's icecaps have been melting for the past 6,000 years. It is not a recent event. The rate of melting hasn't been constant.

One article I ran across said that something like 36 cubic miles of ice melt in Antartica every year. At that rate it will all be gone in...let's see...about 194,000 years.

[mcdude]

Originally Posted by gtxrider

Has anyone out there ever read or studied the Little Ice Age? In ran from 1300 to the the mid 1800's. It seems the world climate runs in cycles. Maybe if we wait long enough it will cycle back to another Little Ice Age

Does this mean that we may not be able to use our super turbo-charged bed on skiis to defeat the Alton Bay Christian Conference Center in the infamous Bed Race in our life time???

McD

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Does this mean that we may not be able to use our super turbo-charged bed on skiis to defeat the Alton Bay Christian Conference Center in the infamous Bed Race in our life time???

McD

No, it just means we have to use an alternative fuel. People talk about hydrogen, perhaps we can use that Just don't ask where the H2 comes from Personally I think we should use Mexican food, beans and Magaritas, certainly been know to give me gas ...

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

No, it just means we have to use an alternative fuel. People talk about hydrogen, perhaps we can use that Just don't ask where the H2 comes from Personally I think we should use Mexican food, beans and Magaritas, certainly been know to give me gas ...

Too bad all the hot air generated during the HB162 debate (both sides now) couldn't have been harnessed, it would have powered New Hampshire for a year....

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Rose:
Is Tim Flannery the scientist you heard? If so, here's a link to the online article, as well as an excerpt from his book.

'Weather Makers' Seek to End Climate Debate

Yes, it was an interview with Tim Flannery!

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by ITD

Too bad all the hot air generated during the HB162 debate (both sides now) couldn't have been harnessed, it would have powered New Hampshire for a year....

Now thats funny...

Of course then we would be debating a where to put the wind farm to harness all the hot air! They would probably start with taking my house by eminent domain!


Woodsy

[cowislander]

It’s all a conspiracy by those limp wristed commies at Harvard. I for one have far more faith in the judgment of Exxon/Mobil lobbyists than the chief atmospheric scientist for NASA, and his ilk, who are pushing the commie conspiracy. We should ask the boys down in DC for another round of tax breaks for the poor folks driving Hummers and Suburbans!

[ITD]

Check out this article, bet we won't see this in the Boston Globe or NY Times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1017204.stm


And another one from a PHD, who "pretty much knows all there is to know in his field"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1023334.stm

[jrc]

This is from a bunch of Canadian scientists:

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."

The whole thing is here:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...e-4db87559d605

Guess I'll still need to winterize the boat next year.

[Lakegeezer]

Thanks, ITD and jrc, for your good examples of these important and opposing points of view. The article about Professor Bill Gray, from Colorado State University, is especially interesting. It describes how the famous hurricane predictor is passing the baton of his job to a new guy, so that he can spend more time studying global warming.

My gut still tells me that the earth has already passed a tipping point, and the climate will get warmer for the foreseeable future. Its good to read articles which present evidence that the melting we are seeing is a short term event. My real question isn’t “if the earth is warming”, but for how long? Will it be years, decades, centuries, or millenniums?

[Great Idea]

just keeps mounting..... this is one situation where it won't be pleasant to say "I told you so"...

John England, a geologist who was with the team that spotted the earlier grizzly.

"If we want evidence for climate change, we don't have to go to an isolated occurrence of a grizzly bear somewhere," said England, who holds a northern research chair on environmental change in the Arctic.

"The satellite imagery showing sea ice reduction over the last 30 years is proof positive of very dramatic changes in the northern hemisphere."

No one disputes that warming and cooling cycles are natural and have happend before.....
Its the SPEED at which the climate is changing that is at issue and supports with little doubt that CO2 generated by fossil fuels is the chief culprit. While changes happened in the past never has the change been so rapid. Ice cores and tree ring fossils demonstrate the past patterns over thousands of years regarding rates of warming and cooling and the evidence is undeniable.

[SIKSUKR]

How can one say"while change has happened in the past,never has the change happened so fast" and that means that fossil fuels are the culprit?We have had cataclismic events that wiped out the dinaseurs which are beleived to have been caused by a giant meteor colliding with earth.This event caused the earth to go into total darkness and kill almost all living things.How could this event not be much quicker than we are experiencing right now?It's these kind of conclusions that make me doubt some of theories that are presented.We simply have a much too small of a sample of climate varables to weigh to come to an absolute conclusion.

[Great Idea]

And how do you think they confirmed this event and the speed in which it impacted the environment? Sediment layers and tree ring fossils..... these events were measurable and could be tied to a cause. Other temperature changes were more gradual over a period of 100's of years.... we have exceeded this rate of "natural" temperature change and seen it occur in just 20-30 years. Why? Just as volcanoes or meterors did it quickly in the past we are accelarating the "natural" rate via CO2 and man made fossil fuel consumption.

[Cobalt 25]

SIKSUKR,

"...too small of a sample..."

Scientists for the past several years have been compiling vast amounts of incontrovertible evidence supporting the existance of global warming. Even President Bush, EVEN President Bush, has recently and quite reluctantly admitted to these conclusions.

We have no control over meteorites. We do have some control over what we emit into our atmosphere.

Now, if he would only realize how embarassing it is for our country to oppose the Kyoto Treaty...

Peter

[Winnigirl]

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

Now, if he would only realize how embarassing it is for our country to oppose the Kyoto Treaty...

Peter

Very true. However, I don't think Clinton is blameless in that either.

[ITD]

Please, all of you believers in Global Warming, give up your "greenhouse" gas producing activities immediately then. No electricity, no car, no heat. Put your money where your mouths are. Leave the rest of us alone. I still don't believe what's being promoted and it is being promoted.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

SIKSUKR,

"...too small of a sample..."

Scientists for the past several years have been compiling vast amounts of incontrovertible evidence supporting the existance of global warming. Even President Bush, EVEN President Bush, has recently and quite reluctantly admitted to these conclusions.

We have no control over meteorites. We do have some control over what we emit into our atmosphere.

Now, if he would only realize how embarassing it is for our country to oppose the Kyoto Treaty...

Peter

If you took the time to read my posts in this thread,you would see I never said there wasn't global warming.My argument is with whether this is mainly a natural occurance or man-made.Obviousy we don't have any control over meteorites.That was not my point.Great idea said"never has change been so rapid"I was only disputing that,ok?As far as the Kyoto treaty goes,we are right on the money for not signing on to a feel good piece of propaganda that will have little if any impact on what it was created for.Alright,I'm off the soapbox for now.

[skisox24]

Agree SIKSUKR! I also concur with those that argue that our lifetime experiences are too small a sample from which to draw material conclusions.

[Seaplane Pilot]

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

[jrc]

Obviously the sinister oil company people have infiltrated the Denver Post. I like the McCarthyism analogy:

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of an oil company. Do you know anyone who is a member of an oil company. Will you name names?"

"What about this Exxon credit card, aren't they giving you cash back on every purchase. How can we trust your research when you're taking cash from big oil?"

[Great Idea]

Keep citing "editorials" and "opinions" and us "liberals" (by the way many of us are VERY conservative politically) that are inciting "hysteria" will stick to evidence and science..... more bad news for the climate below. Whether the warming is natural or not if there is even a small chance we can slow it down by lowering CO2 emissions I say lets do it.... worst case we clean up the planet and create vast new industries that would employ more people and create new jobs. Go to link below...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13147504/

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Great Idea

Keep citing "editorials" and "opinions" and us "liberals" (by the way many of us are VERY conservative politically) that are inciting "hysteria" will stick to evidence and science..... more bad news for the climate below. Whether the warming is natural or not if there is even a small chance we can slow it down by lowering CO2 emissions I say lets do it.... worst case we clean up the planet and create vast new industries that would employ more people and create new jobs. Go to link below...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13147504/

Who'll pay for it Great Idea? If it ain't ecomonically viable it ain't gonna happen, unless my taxes pay for it, and I pay enough taxes.

BTW, that link was hardly scientific, looked a lot like editoral to me.

[Lakegeezer]

The climate changes are disrupting the normal flow of things, and businesses who depend on consistency are going to be in trouble. That means lower tax revenue for the state, and more pressure for higher business tax rates and maybe even broad base taxes on individuals. We all will pay for that.

The polar ice cap is melting and shrinking, and is possibly the cause of some weather pattern changes. Some parts of the northern hemisphere are warmer, some parts are colder. Here in NH, we seem to be getting warmer winters, longer growing seasons, and more frequent floods. Maybe warmer summers eventually, and that would help the summer economy - but that hasn't happened yet. It will take another decade to figure out if the pattern changes are a fluke or connected with the polar melt, but if the latter, then the winter economy in north country has to find something else to bring in the cash. Individually, you can't do much to change the climate. It is already past the tipping point, and it is unclear what would bring it back. However, you should consider weather variability in investments that you make. Note how the cost of ski area season passes are way down from what they used to be. The ski area industry is a whole lot different than it was 25 years ago when climate change in NH was first being noticed. Will it even exist 25 years from now?

A good site for arctic climate information from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks can be found at: http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/index.php The information there seems to be unbiased. They provide both sides of the story (that is, what could be both good and bad). The facts are, the polar ice is changing. The old thick-pack ice is gone - washed out to sea in the 90's - and most of the polar sea ice is now "first year" ice. Our climate is partially driven by an ice-cap that is smaller than it was 50 years ago, smaller by about the size of Alaska (more than two times the size of Texas). Without some summer cold snaps to allow old-ice to rebuild, the ice will keep shrinking and we will experience what ever climate changes come with that.

[Great Idea]

and face the bad news. Global Warming is actually occurring..... Time to get busy and demand our paid officials take action. We all need to do what we can to reduce green house gas emmissions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/

[Dave R]

Not that I disagree, but it would be nice to know where/how it was measured. For instance, how can they know what the temperature of Lincoln Nebraska was 400 years ago?

[Just Sold]

I agree.....Here is the USA Today report: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...-warming_x.htm

[LIforrelaxin]

I am all for helping the enviornment......but until until Politics stop getting in the way there isn't much headway to be made.....

[ossipeeboater]

this isn't the first time the earth has warmed up, not saying we shouldn't try to make common sense descisions to cut back emmissions on stuff but nothing will stop the natural warming and cooling actions.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

For instance, how can they know what the temperature of Lincoln Nebraska was 400 years ago?

Agreed, and what about a 1,000 years ago? I've read some theories from credible (IMO) sources that speculate this is a cyclical thing. So, maybe the cycle started earlier? Who knows.

[Airwaves]

I've tried to ignore these threads, but when I see posts comparing the conditions on earth several thousands years ago, or even 1-thousand, or 2-hundred years ago, to the conditions of today, I have to wonder what the folks suggesting that, this is the way things are, are thinking!

Let's start with the most recent comparison,

1806, 200 years ago. There were CO2 emissions from trees (Ronald Reagan's killer trees speech), there was smoke pollution from burning the trees. Cow and Horse manure fermenting...

0806, 1,000 years ago, Pretty much the same sources as in 1806.

0006, 2000 years ago, ditto

2006. We all contribute, do I really need to make a list?

The Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps are melting at a rate never scienticially documented prior to now.

There is much information available now documenting these changes.

It will take political leadership to change things, unfortunately that leadership is not happening from EITHER party, and never will! The folks on both sides of the political spectrum that are warning us are being called "disgruntled, quacks, etc"

Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!

A country, a world, that can't see 50 years into the future? That is what we have become!

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!

I won't live another 50 years, but my neices and nephews will. Your children will. What are we going to leave them?

One of the things that always amazed me, and I know I will be flamed for this, is the attitude in NH that everything is okay, "Live Free or Die".

That is a political statement, originating in the birth of our country. It does NOT mean "anything goes" especially regarding the quality of life of residents.

NH relies on a substantial tourism trade that focuses and promotes a prestine environment. How many times have folks on this board lamented the deterierating quality of the water of Lake Winnipesaukee? When I was a child growing up on the lake during the summer months, we use to lay a rubber pipe into the water. That pipe provided us with all of our unfiltered drinking water. I can tell you that I never NEVER suffered ill effects, not even diahrea!

It certainly would be in the best economic and environmental interest for the state to take a leadership role in preventing global warming and anything else that is a threat to the environment!

Just my humble opinion...flame away

Please forgive spelling errors

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

One of the things that always amazed me, and I know I will be flamed for this, is the attitude in NH that everything is okay, Live Free or Die.

Proper text for Live Free Or Die:

The motto was part of a volunteer toast which General Stark sent to his wartime comrades, in which he declined an invitation to head up a 32nd anniversary reunion of the 1777 Battle of Bennington in Vermont, because of poor health. The toast said in full: "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils." The following year, a similar invitation (also declined) said: "The toast, sir, which you sent us in 1809 will continue to vibrate with unceasing pleasure in our ears, "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils."

A little different in its original text than "everything is okay".

http://www.state.nh.us/nhinfo/emblem.html

http://www.seacoastsearch.com/nhlinks/people/johnstark/

[Lakegeezer]

Its obvious we are in a warming period, and one that could last for decades or longer. However, I haven't seen any study that shows what would happen if greenhouse gas levels were reduced, or how much reduction would be required to stop the climate change. Sun cycles and volcanos contribute too. If everyone started using solar, wind and nuclear power to charge electric cars and heat homes, would the climate stop warming? Would it even slow down? Is changing to cars that get 50 MPG enough? There are political reasons for getting away from oil, but the alternatives are not here yet, nor are the models that predict the climate results.

[Waterbaby]

with all of the talk about global warming, greenhouse effect,etc. going on...... seems to me it has to be every country (and their inhabitants) in the world working together to do something about it and the likelihood of that is slim to none, IMO....... and with that said, i hope this isn't just another "jump on the bandwagon" thing that our politicians have going, to appeal to the "treehuggers" or "green" people in this country. do i think there is global warming going on? yes. and i base this on my own experience - wednesday was an absolutely, totally, gorgeous day here. mid-70s, dry, breezy, bright blue sky with white puffy clouds. the kind of day that used to be the norm, 20-25 years ago and even 10-12 years ago. THAT is what made me start to thingk there is something to all of this talk about the above. what can we do about it? i don't know. i DO know, however, that i am doing what i can -- recycling, composting, getting paper instead of plastic at the grocery store, asking that my meats (even at the grocery store) be wrapped in butcher paper instead of the plastic trays and saran wrap..... i don't know what difference my little bit is going to make, be it in 5, 50, or 500 years, but i'm trying.

just my rant, sorry for the lack of punctuation and proper capitalization - for those who know me you know i don't usually do this but i had to get this out. off of my soapbox now.

[Airwaves]

The biggest point.....BIGGEST POINT... of my post is to say

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RELIES ON TOURISM. TOURISM IN NEW HAMPSHIRE RELIES ON ITS PRESTINE BEAUTY!

New Hampshire "Tree huggers" are bad because they protect the very economic engine that keeps New Hampshire viable!

The " Greens", Hell, they should be shot along side the tree huggers while chained to a Christmas Tree (largest tree left in NH without those annoying tree huggers and Greens.

Is this limited to the United States? Nope, Is the United States the country the world looks toward for leadership. Maybe, maybe not. The United States has not signed the Kyoto Treaty.

So, want to breath some clean air and swim in clean water? Why come to NH? As I have said, I used to be able to lay a rubber pipe 10 feet into the water and drink without any problem.

Anyone want to try that now?

Would elimination of reliance on fosil fuels change anything at this point? Maybe, maybe it's too late.

What are you going to tell your children and grandchildren that YOU did to change things?

[JPC]

I haven't seen anyone mention that the global warming issue was important enough to merit a news segment by Charlie Gibson. I don't understand the science that goes in determining temperature levels in past history. So, I'm not going to ask to see the detail reports/data that were used to come to the global warming conclusions. I trust that the scientists know what they are doing and that global warming warnings are not a scare tactics.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!

Perhaps, some day, the question will be, "Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that humans caused Global Warming?"

Some interesting reading:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinction.html

and also

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html

Note: Read "The common ground", Number 1, about global climatic change, just for giggles...

[jbess]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!

This pretty much sums up the problems of our Country today!

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by airwaves

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!

Originally Posted by jbess

This pretty much sums up the problems of our Country today!

Sound bites like this are part of the problem. There is plenty of mis-information around global warming. Now that it is becoming a political issue, the spin doctors are hard at work for political gain. The truth is no longer important.

I agree with the intent of jbess's post; voters are part of the problem today. The US got what it voted for and so can't complain. However, the sound bite implying that more people voted for american idol than the president is nothing but spin. There was clearly more votes, but not more people voting. The voting systems could not be more different. With american idol, people voted with telephone and text messaging. They were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted to, within 2 hours. Most fans vote at least several times, the crazies vote 100's of times. In the US system, most people (except those in Florida and Ohio) get to vote only once.

Much like the speed limit discussion, I fear that the spin doctors will use mis-information as a control tactic, yet focus on new rules that have no impact on the real issue.

[jbess]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

I agree with the intent of jbess's post; voters are part of the problem today. The US got what it voted for and so can't complain. However, the sound bite implying that more people voted for american idol than the president is nothing but spin. There was clearly more votes, but not more people voting. The voting systems could not be more different. With american idol, people voted with telephone and text messaging. They were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted to, within 2 hours. Most fans vote at least several times, the crazies vote 100's of times. In the US system, most people (except those in Florida and Ohio) get to vote only once.

Just to clearify, I am not of the party that believes the elections were stolen in 2000 and 2004. I was mearly agreeing to the fact that there is MUCH more interest in silly things like American Idol contests than things that really matter. I don't believe it is spin, but fact, that this country has taken a turn for the worst. Case in point, that the mere fact that there is legislation taking place for speed limits on the lake because of the lack of personal responsability is just more proof.

Joe

[Airwaves]

I'm interested in your credentials as a scientist. I have none but I tend to take any reports made by them with a grain of salt.

Okay, I guess they're all wrong and you're right cause you want global warming to be just one of those issues that will go away.

Now all those scientists can get on with the really important questions of the day....like "do you want fries with that"? and "Who is the next American Idol"?

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Okay, I guess they're all wrong and you're right cause you want global warming to be just one of those issues that will go away.

No, they're not all wrong. Many climate scientists disagree with them, some because the methodolgy used is sloppy or suspect, as are some of their motives.

Earlier you asked me if I was a scientist. No, I am not. I am an engineer with a Masters in Physics, one used to dealing with data, using it to design, build, test, and if need be, redesign, rebuild, and retest advanced electronic and optical instruments. I understand scientific method: observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena; formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation; use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations; performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. I use it, or a variation of it, when delving into new territory when developing new instruments using bleeding edge technologies or working with PhDs to advance our understanding of optical phenomena.


I understand the process of peer review, which means to have the theory one has put forward reviewed by one's peers, both those that agree and disagree with it. If it is reviewed only by those who agree with it, then the review is suspect. It may cause a self-perpetuating positive feedback loop, blocking out all opinions or data that disagree with the theorem, particularly those that show the theory to be flawed. It is this problem that I see with the many proponents of anthropogenic global climate change. It is the problem with the National Academy of Sciences, a body that is supposed to be apolitical and open minded. It hasn't been open minded since the 70's and is less so today. It has become far too political to be considered unbiased.


In my previous post I mentioned the Mann “hockey stick” graph, the one that shows a marked increase in global temperatures over the past 100 years or so. It was used by the NAS as one of the proofs that human-caused global warming was indeed happening. But that graph has been debunked as being based upon questionable data, has not undergone true peer review, and neither has the algorithm used to generate the graph. For background on the Mann graph, here is a paper that addresses the issues with the graph, the data that was used to generate the graph, and well established historical data that was ignored by Mann and his colleagues because it didn't fit in with the theory:


http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf



Other theories with a good deal of verifiable data that point to other causes of global climate change have been ignored out of hand. One such has been postulated by Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute. Svensmark theorizes that the sun's output is the major driver of climate change throughout history, barring such things as volcanic eruptions and extraterrestrial events (asteroid strikes). He backs it up using carbon dating techniques on layers of soils, peat, and other organic layers in clay and sedimentary rock to determine the solar output throughout the past millennia: http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html



Others have checked his data, including some of his skeptics, and so far no one has been able to prove his theory wrong. Yet others have gone beyond Svensmark's initial work and looked back a number of millennia and still his theory holds up.


The one thing I have learned over the years is that just because the media splashes theories of global warming across the pages/TV screens/computer displays doesn't mean they're valid. All theories should be taken with a large grain of salt until others have had a chance to dig deep and prove or disprove them. Anthropogenic global warming is one of those that should be looked at with skeptical eye. There are still too many unanswered questions, too many flawed computer models that are being used to extrapolate what Earth's climate will be like over the next 100 years. Basing environmental policies upon a problem that may not even exist is foolish at best and extremely dangerous at worst.

[Airwaves]

So now the results of the research into Global Warming, that MOST scientists agree with, is media driven!

As I said, let's just move on to the important issues of the day, American Idol, because if you and yours take the results of studies "with a grain of salt" and "scientists have an agenda" then there is absolutely nothing I am going to say to change your mind.

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

So now the results of the research into Global Warming, that MOST scientists agree with, is media driven!

As I said, let's just move on to the important issues of the day, American Idol, because if you and yours take the results of studies "with a grain of salt" and "scientists have an agenda" then there is absolutely nothing I am going to say to change your mind.

Believe it or not, many scientists do have an agenda. It's called "funding". If you think that it is merely altruism that drives scientists, then you are sadly mistaken. It is funding. Funding is what enables scientists to do their research. Altrusim does not. Global warming is the research subject du jour, garnering much of the interest and a lot of funding.

And most scientists do not agree with the results of the research, at least when it comes to anthropogenic global warming. Only the most vocal and politically correct scientists appear to agree. Most of those who disagree rarely get the media play, or are derided as crackpots, or seem to have their funding slashed.

Am I a cynic when it comes to this partcular subject? You betcha. I've seen too much of what I've described here in the halls of academia, government, and in the corporate world. I speak from experience, not ideology.

[Airwaves]

As I stated, I am not going to write anything that will change your mind, not with the attitude that you "take the research with a grain of salt" or, "Scientists have an agenda" (yep, funding is an issue but if the scientists are wrong, then their reputation and future funding sources instantly dry up, that's generally known as peer review). Or, my favorite, "Most scientists do not agree with the research". Those would be the " most scientists" who still believe smoking does not cause lung cancer? (now whose funding source is in question?)

It appears that you folks who believe everything is just fine, find a few scientists who disagree that the earth is subject to global warming and that that the majority of the global warming has occurred based on what "we" have done in the 20th century, so it must be so...

So scientific resarch isn't to be trusted, media reports on that scientific research isn't to be trusted, but God bless the politicians (scientists all!) who have kept us on the straight and narrow and away from Kyoto! (BTW, the US Govt is a major scientific funding source as well).

One day, your kids will thank you.

edit:
Don't know how to show you how I edited my post, Here are the edits
(that's generally known as peer review) and
"God bless the politicians (scientists all!)"

[Great Idea]

Weekend Pundit.... you reference McKitrick's articles as others supporting your opinion have on this post. You speak of FUNDING? Guess who has paid for all of his "research" and "articles"? The COAL and OIL industry. Internal documents and emails published from the oil/coal industry lobbyists admit to such studies and articles done to create "confusion" and doubt regarding the theories of global warming.

The hockey stick is very relavent data. In only several other periods over the last many thousands of years have steeper spikes been seen in increased temperature as we have seen in the last 140 years. (YES , these temperatures can be accurately measured scientifically via ice cores, tree rings and tree fossils as well as sediment layers) In either case it involved a CATASTROPHIC event. Volcanoes and meterors were the culprits. So why such a steep increase and dramatic change in such a SHORT amount of time? What is the catastrophic event this time? ( Yes 140 years is VERY short) CO2 and green house gases are clearly contributing to the dramactic changes we are all witnessing around us. The evidence that fossil fuels is contributing to this are overwhelming.

The final flaw and myth in your arguement is that scientists don't agree. Over 80 percent of the scientific community is in AGREEMENT regarding global warming and as to its root causes. Go to all the major research foundations and communities in the world and verify this for yourself. Only a few stand against the tide .... like McKitrick..... who along with most of his peers are paid lobbyists working for the fossil fuel industry. This isn't liberal noise.....

My final observation although not scientific should stir some consideration among skeptics....... just look around you! Do you really think all this drought then rain/flooding is normal?? 23 inches of rain since MAY1... we normally get 6 or 7. Just look at the flooding this spring, last fall as well as the hurricanes last season....... whats your gut tell you? Sure it happens once in a while but not every few months like it is now. My gut tells me that we need to start paying attention to what our earth/environment is trying to tell us...... something is "OFF" with our climate and we are contributing to it. AND we need to do EVERYTHING in our power to try and change it.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

For background on the Mann graph, here is a paper that addresses the issues with the graph, the data that was used to generate the graph, and well established historical data that was ignored by Mann and his colleagues because it didn't fit in with the theory

This is a very interesting read. There are two points that jump out; Mann's results do not seem to be reproducible and Mann seems to be unwilling to assist (even hindering) those trying to verify his work. Even without expertise in the subject matter these are significant reasons to question the conclusions that Mann draws as well as questioning his integrity.

In my opinion, much scientific work suffers from these types of problems. The only check on scientific work is that results are repeatable by other scientists, especially critics, and that rigorous review over time yields consistent results. This requires scientists to publish details of their research and support an open review process.

The current state of Global Warming theory is largely initial publication of observations and proposed explanations (theories) for those observations. They have not been replicated and reviewed. In fact, many articles that declare new observations often make comment about the fact that the current computer models can't explain the new data. That means that the existing models and the assumptions they were based on are WRONG. If we can't accurately predict climate behavior that is occurring right now, why would we think we have the slightest chance to predict climate changes 20 years or more from now?

If the "fix" for global warming was for everyone to chip in a few bucks and build a giant air conditioner for the planet I'd say, GREAT, let's do it. Even if they were wrong the cost is negligible and the impact controllable. However, the "fix" that is actually proposed would be severely crippling to our economy with a minimal impact on the problem. We simply do not have enough reliable information for a commitment of that scale.

[SIKSUKR]

[QUOTE=Airwaves]I've tried to ignore these threads, but when I see posts comparing the conditions on earth several thousands years ago, or even 1-thousand, or 2-hundred years ago, to the conditions of today, I have to wonder what the folks suggesting that, this is the way things are, are thinking!

Let's start with the most recent comparison,


Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!

This is a great argument.Let me see.At the same time people thought the earth was flat they burned witches at the stake.The Romans worshiped all of those Gods that ruled the world.Yup,kill all of those Christians cuz their evil.Give me a break.We have the right to use slaves to the death to build those pyramids.Yup,a solar eclipse meant the gods were mad and the world was about to end.Come on.There was a lot of backward thinking in centuries past.Dont try to justify your point by midevil thinking cuz it only sounds midevil.I think our thinking is a lot more advanced today than to say"but,people used to think the world was flat".

[Airwaves]

SIKSUKR wrote:

This is a great argument.Let me see.At the same time people thought the earth was flat they burned witches at the stake.The Romans worshiped all of those Gods that ruled the world.Yup,kill all of those Christians cuz their evil.Give me a break.We have the right to use slaves to the death to build those pyramids.Yup,a solar eclipse meant the gods were mad and the world was about to end.Come on.There was a lot of backward thinking in centuries past.Dont try to justify your point by midevil thinking cuz it only sounds midevil.I think our thinking is a lot more advanced today than to say"but,people used to think the world was flat".

Exactly! At one time all those things were blindly accepted. Today we know that they are blatantly wrong!

Page 4 of today's 6/23 Boston Herald coincidentally carries a story headlined
"Gosh, it hasn't been this hot in about uh, 2000 years"
It's an Associated Press report on a Congressional request of the National Academy of Sciences. It concluded "recent warmth is uprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia".

The article also shows new research linking global warming to the production of half the hurricane fuled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005.

They also studied evidence of the climate going back thousands of years and:

"The panel considered the evidence reliable enought to conclude there were sharp spikes in "greenhouse" gasses blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years".

Unfortunately I couldn't find a link to the article on line but since it is an Associated Press story I'm sure it will turn up in other papers that may have a link.

[Weekend Pundit]

I saw reports about the "warmest in 2000 years" claim. One of the TV reports showed the so-called hockey stick chart, showing greatly increased temperatures over the last 100 years or so. The only problem with that chart is that it is a fraud. It was never reviewed by the rest of the climatological community, the algoritm was never released or subjected to a Monte Carlo analysis, and the media and the It's-All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans Club seized upon it to 'prove' that human caused global climate change is fact.

It is not. It is still a theory with a lot of holes in it.

Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the solar output theory of climate change. There's a hell of a lot more evidence that the sun is the major driver of climate change and not homo sapiens.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit

I saw reports about the "warmest in 2000 years" claim. One of the TV reports showed the so-called hockey stick chart, showing greatly increased temperatures over the last 100 years or so. The only problem with that chart is that it is a fraud. It was never reviewed by the rest of the climatological community, the algoritm was never released or subjected to a Monte Carlo analysis, and the media and the It's-All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans Club seized upon it to 'prove' that human caused global climate change is fact.

It is not. It is still a theory with a lot of holes in it.

Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the solar output theory of climate change. There's a hell of a lot more evidence that the sun is the major driver of climate change and not homo sapiens.

Whoa WP,

Been there done that, don't know what your getting yourself into, but I am one of the few here that agrees with you.

[Airwaves]

Okay Weekend Pundit,

So, you are a scientist that has reseached this, perhaps you are a member of the National Academy of Sciences that made its report to Congress this week and you have an opposing point of view?

If you are a scientist then speak up and show us your credentials and show how the National Acacemy of Sciences is wrong.

If you are just another lamb being lead to slaughter, well... I guess you don't need to know what real scientists believe now do you? All you have to do is believe what the politiians tell you to believe.

Don't worry, after you're dead your kids will be left to sort things out.

After all, I quoted that bastion of liberalism, the Boston Herald!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Okay Weekend Pundit,

So, you are a scientist that has reseached this, perhaps you are a member of the National Academy of Sciences that made its report to Congress this week and you have an opposing point of view?

If you are a scientist then speak up and show us your credentials and show how the National Acacemy of Sciences is wrong.

If you are just another lamb being lead to slaughter, well... I guess you don't need to know what real scientists believe now do you? All you have to do is believe what the politiians tell you to believe.

Don't worry, after you're dead your kids will be left to sort things out.

After all, I quoted that bastion of liberalism, the Boston Herald!

I'm interested in your credentials as a scientist. I have none but I tend to take any reports made by them with a grain of salt. Often, scientists have a specific goal in mind when the research begins, and having such, clouds their judgement.

As an interesting parable, one could say that you have found a study that says exactly what you already believed and have used it as a confirmation that you were right all along. Why not start digging for papers that oppose your own views and really broaden your mind?

FWIW, I think global warming is probably happening but somehow I doubt a miniscule increase in carbon dioxide is gonna cause it. We are talking about a change from .002% to .0035% (worst case) CO2 in the atmosphere. It's such a tiny amount in the whole scheme of things.

What if this CO2 increase helped plants grow and decreased world hunger?