Reply With Quote
what about him
?
If you look at it that way, then no. But some people are out there that think it is our duty to respect life and the world around us to preserve it for future generations.
what about him
?
he's basically saying if we dont worry about it now, then there will be no circus charlie twelve
he shouldnt have to live in bubbles and tunnels and sleep during the day because 800000 people a day wanted to get yukons and tahoes and dismiss global warming as liberal propaganda
Nothing you and I ever said on this page was ever remotely partisan until you just said that.
Heres some advice
When reading about global warming, try reading an actual published paper from scientific literature. Now I just have to wait until you insist all scientific literature is partisan and political as well
or try googling without using the words words "W" "conservative" "liberal" "limbaugh" and you just may get something non-partisan
I dunno nuttin 'bout dem buks, ya'no?
""
exactly. Alright I'm out. Be back tommorow to see how others have misconstrued, misunderstood, misinterpreted, muddled everything I said.
it is not you or I or mookie or spurswoman or boutons who are ing up, it's things that have been going on before your dads dads dad was a fetus. and it will continue to go..... You think I dont give a ??? I have no say in the matter. It's the people who have the power and the money to not give a about what they are doing or possibly not doing to the environment.
Sure it's a problem.. But we have to stop pointing fingers...
These couple of liberal weathermen.. you don't think they have the tahoe and throwing cig butts out the window? .. .Doctors make the worst patients..
I dunno nuttin 'bout dem buks, ya'no?
"
I dont look for openings, but jeeze, when did anything I mention for the last 2 pages have anything to do with politics?
you mean 13? i assure you, the charlie line is in no immediate danger
i'd expect that from you mook
but for you to agree? I thought this arguement was steering clear of politics and partisanship?
goddam thispego
lets meet in person
and fight!!!!!!!!!!
i'll puncture your soft spot i swear to god
if i didnt know you i would think thispego was like the biggest chode of all time
you make marcus bryant look like mr dio
i put the
besides, in mookie terms, he was pretty much right on
roflyou make marcus bryant look like mr dio
Actually, since this thread was started I've looked more and more of this stuff up, articles mostly....not because I don't believe text books can't be useful, but you can take 2 different text books written by 2 different scientists with similar educational backgrounds about the exact same topic and have completely different slants to them. I prefer debates (not NBADan kind of debates, btw, but people who actually appear to be knowledgable) ... I find them a lot more informational and extremely more entertaining...and I don't feel like there's going to be a test afterwards (haha). And yes, in my search I've run across my fair share of political crap in that regard....it seems to be unavoidable these days.
yeah.... righti put the
besides, in mookie terms, he was pretty much right on
btw, what class are you taking that got you so passionate over the subject?
Thats cool. Just read more articles by academics over politicians if you want facts. They don't publish by scientists who voice opinions and bias, at least not in a respected journal.
??? I've always believed in global warming. The insanely hot end of September made me really passionate over it, even though it's kind of silly to use it as evidence. I'm taking a Conservation Bio class, but we haven't even got to global warming and stuff yet.btw, what class are you taking that got you so passionate over the subject?
Yeah, I'd rather not read do ents with an agenda that are made by panels who are willing to change information and leave false information within reports to push their agendas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan22.html
Here's his full letter
From CatoDear colleagues,
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author — Dr. Kevin Trenberth — to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and other media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have the potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings thatthis will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadershipsaid that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual, even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author. I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity at this time. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights," as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC and has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation — though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements — would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
Sincerely,
Chris Landsea
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3449
But what really irked the Bush administration was Watson's behavior in Shanghai on Jan. 20, 2001. There the IPCC adopted its latest compendium on climate change. Watson approved the insertion of a new "storyline" (that's what the IPCC now calls its future projections) that predicted an absurd warming of 11°F for this century. Those of us in the scientific community who had reviewed the do ent never saw this outlandish projection because it was inserted after our peer review. John Christy, a scientist from the University of Alabama who developed the satellite temperature history (which shows very little warming), told a subsequent global warming hearing chaired by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), "this is one forecast that isn't going to happen".
It's worth noting that the U.N. made 244 other temperature forecasts, all of them cooler than 11°F. But Watson pointed to the hottest one, telling the press that it "adds impetus for governments to find ways to live up to their commitments [under the Kyoto Protocol] to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases." Then in a remarkable insult to the American people, Watson said, "A country like China has done more, in my opinion, than a country like the United States to move forward in economic development while remaining environmentally sensitive." This is nonsense. Shortly thereafter, the U.S. Embassy in China reported that emissions had dropped "little, if at all," which should have been obvious to Watson, who could see the opaque air of Shanghai.
Don't you love it when science is hijacked in the name of political agendas?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2789
The IPCC claims to have carefully corrected the temperature records for the well-known problem of local ("urban," as opposed to global) warming. But this has always troubled serious scientists, because the way the U.N. checks for artificial warming makes it virtually impossible to detect in recent decades -- the same period in which our cities have undergone the greatest growth and sprawl.
The surface temperature record shows a warming rate of about 0.17 degrees Celsius (0.31 degrees Fahrenheit) per decade since 1979. However, there are two other records -- one from satellites, the other from weather balloons -- that tell a different story. Neither annual satellite nor balloon trends differ significantly from zero since the satellite record started in 1979. These records reflect temperatures in what is called the lower atmosphere, or roughly between 5,000 and 30,000 feet.
Four years ago, a distinguished panel of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concluded there is a real disparity between the reported surface warming and the temperature trends measured in the atmosphere above. Since then, many investigators have tried to explain the cause of the disparity while others have denied its existence.
So, which record is right, the U.N. surface record showing the larger warming or the other two? There's another record, from 7 feet above the ground, derived from balloon data recently been released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In two research papers in the July 9 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, two of us (Mr. Douglass and Mr. Singer) compared it for correspondence with the surface record and the lower atmosphere histories. The odd-record-out turns out to be the U.N.'s hot-surface history.
This is a double kill, both on the U.N.'s temperature records and its vaunted climate models. That's because the models generally predict an increased warming rate with height (outside of local polar regions). Neither the satellite nor the balloon records can find it. When this was noted in the first satellite paper published in 1990, some scientists objected that the record, which began in 1979, was too short. Now we have a quarter-century of concurrent balloon and satellite data, both screaming that the U.N.'s climate models have failed, as well as indicating its surface record is simply too hot.
Check out this scorecard of the IPCC and its predictions of what was going to happen.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Travis provided me with this link a while back:
http://www.globalwarming.org/
We had a thread going where we discussed this very issue, and that came up.
Ok, reality check here.
First, Academics can and are politicians. Secondly, you yourself are using information from a political group: The UN's IPCC!
Okay, clarity check. If you read the remaining 2 articles I gave you reference information for, from peer reviewed journals, theres no way theres any political or bias in them. When I made that comment you quoted, I was referring to articles in journals by scientists or team of scientists, not comittee stuff.
The IPCC was a bad example. At least one person posting in this thread is willing to admit a mistake.
Did you find the other two sources? You asked for solid scientific data, and that was it. Post a reply on those when you're done reading them. You have a tendency to focus on one thing wrong/questionable that I say, then ignore everything else.
Last edited by Cant_Be_Faded; 09-28-2005 at 10:42 PM.
I'll read the other 2 examples, but I think someone is one a bit of an ego trip.
CBF, you're not introducing me into the world of climate change and you're not the first person to admit you're wrong either.
my ego is completely in check, thank you very much
Well people admitting mistakes are few and far between around here, so I like to point out when I do that.I'll read the other 2 examples, but I think someone is one a bit of an ego trip.
CBF, you're not introducing me into the world of climate change and you're not the first person to admit you're wrong either.
I know I'm ont introducing you to the world of climate change, which is why I cant understand you think humans are having no impact.
Well, perhaps due to studies such as these:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...under-the-sun/These three papers argue that the amount of incoming solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth has increased dramatically in the last two decades. While the values vary from paper to paper, in toto the new studies suggest that the increase in solar radiation absorbed at the earth’s surface had almost 10 times as much warming power during that time as the concurrent increases in carbon dioxide, the main global warming gas. Therefore, the warming observed over the past 20 years must have little to do with changes in greenhouse gases.
Now, the blog this is located in casts doubt on these studies, but that leads to doubt around both scenarios (greenhouse domintated global warming and solar based global warming).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...1/ixworld.html
By Robert Matthews
(Filed: 01/05/2005)
Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.
A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.
Radcliffe on Sour power station with Dr Benny Peiser (inset). He disagrees with the pro-global warming lineA separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.
The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.
The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.
However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised su ions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 do ents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.
Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".
Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.
Also, many of the studies out there are started with an agenda to prove a corolation between the increase in tempature to increase in CO2. This describes that
The authors' interpretation of their model is indeed a possible one, but there are others as well. First of all, the model has been repeatedly "tuned" with various forcings in an attempt to explain the global temperature record of the last century. There is nothing inherently wrong with this strategy, but it must be kept in mind that how we think the climate system works is guided by the historical temperature record, and what we think has influenced it. Since we really don't understand how natural climate fluctuations (except for volcanic eruptions) influence that record, we are restricted to what we do understand: mankind's production of greenhouse gases and aerosol pollutants. The real climate signal we are interested in, a gradual warming from increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, is dominated by a single mode -- an upward trend. We also know that carbon dioxide concentrations have similarly increased. Does this prove cause and effect? The assumption has been that there have been no significant natural long-term independent changes in clouds, water vapor, precipitation efficiency, deep ocean heat storage, or a variety of other known (or unknown?) processes that could affect global temperatures in a similar manner.
For instance, what if recent warming of the oceans is more due to a slight decrease in low clouds than to increased trapping of infrared radiation by greenhouse gases? Or what if a temporary change in the rate of heat exchange with the deep ocean has caused the recent warming of the upper layers of the ocean? There are surely other possibilities as well.
In summary, the recent study by Hansen et al. indeed presents one possible interpretation of the available evidence, but it is a very human-centric one that assumes that natural decadal- to century-scale climate fluctuations are not to blame for at least some part of what has been recently observed. Or, using the "smoking gun" metaphor, it isn't yet clear whether mankind is the perpetrator, Mother Nature is an accomplice, or vice versa.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/050305C.html
CBF,
Scan over this page. Some people think the sun might be able to contribute more to global warming than humans.
http://globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=900
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions