Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 97 of 97
  1. #76
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    39,595
    Funny that you ducked answering my question about WHY you would only want to talk about the last 10 years.

    The answer to that question, were you to answer it honestly:

    "I only wanted to use the last 10 years' data, because that is the data that I think makes my case."

    It is patently intellectually dishonest to simply present data from an isolated ten year period when you are attempting to debunk a wider trend.

    Making a case is one thing, making it dishonestly, or illogically, is another.



    Someone goes into much more depth here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...warming-pause/

    Are you making a case, or are you deliberately trying to mislead?


    Wow, I can do this to. Why doesn't your graph go back further? Say, to 1940? Temperatures between 1940 and 1970 decreased, while CO2 increased.






    Cherry-picking. Just like the asshats at Truthout.org.

    "OMG, PEOPLE HEARD EXPLOSIONS. BOMBS MAKE EXPLOSIONS, IT MUST HAVE BEEN BOMBS!!!"

    "OMG, HERE IS DATA THAT SHOWS IT BEING COLDER THAN AVERAGE. SINCE IT WAS COLDER IN THIS TEN YEAR PERIOD, IT MUST DISPROVE GLOBAL WARMING."

    Are you this y in real life?

  2. #77
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    56,106
    That's clear as mud.


    How should someone look at the model output? I used my eyes.
    Well for starters you should ask yourself if any of the model simulations had any time periods of ten years with a negative increase in tempature?

  3. #78
    Frumious Bandersnatch RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    46,633
    At least I never compare RandomGuy to a 911 twoofer or a Holocaust denier. I understand why many people believe in catastrophic AGW. I used to be one of those people. This issue is not political to me at all. It's a simple matter of comparing what's has been predicted to what's been observed (measured).
    I beleive there is a distinct possbility that we could experience or are experiencing catastrophic AGW, as that is what a lot of research seems to suggest.

    The modus operendi of 9-11 truthers is to take things like the NIST report, scan through a 1000+ page do ent looking for ANY mistake or inconsistency and then completely ignore the bulk of the report, hyper-focus on that one seeming flaw and wave their hands at the rest of it as complete bunk.

    This is exactly what I see most deniers like Wild Cobra and yourself as doing.

    I remember getting into a snit fit with WC about an accounting treatment of the effects of pollution, and WC jumping up and down when a reporter in an article cited used a singular noun for a chemical compound as opposed to a plural, then waved the entire thrust of the article away as hogwash.

    The parallels to me between the rabid "denier" movement and the rabid "truth" movement are rather striking.

    Both eschew any pretense at actual science and actually presenting their ideas in a format where they could have logical, reasonable questions posed to them. Both make some noises at trying, but invariably put together shoddy, thinly veiled polemics, that only really fool people who lack the critical thinking skills to analyse what they are being told.

  4. #79
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    39,595
    Well for starters you should ask yourself if any of the model simulations had any time periods of ten years with a negative increase in tempature?
    Not that I'm aware of. Their models produce slightly different results on each run. They publish the average of 18 different simulations, from what I understand.

  5. #80
    Frumious Bandersnatch RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    46,633
    Wow, I can do this to. Why doesn't your graph go back further? Say, to 1940? Temperatures between 1940 and 1970 decreased, while CO2 increased.




    Are you this y in real life?



    The bottom line is: the observed warming over the last decade is 100% consistent with the expected anthropogenic warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade, superimposed with short-term natural variability. It is no different in this respect from the two decades before. And with an El Niño developing in the Pacific right now, we wouldn’t be surprised if more temperature records were to be broken over the coming year or so.
    Are you?

  6. #81
    Frumious Bandersnatch RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    46,633
    Both eschew any pretense at actual science and actually presenting their ideas in a format where they could have logical, reasonable questions posed to them. Both make some noises at trying, but invariably put together shoddy, thinly veiled polemics, that only really fool people who lack the critical thinking skills to analyse what they are being told.
    The standard answer when WC is asked why there are no real peer-reviewed papers on this echoes that of the truthers when asked the same question.

    "They" don't want you to know about it.

    Real scientists aren't scared of presenting real papers for others to critique. If the critique is shoddy, then that says more about the reviewers than the paper, and is obvious to anybody with enough education to understand what they are reading.

    WC, when asked about where the papers he loves to cite are "peer-reviewed" loves to cite a few sciency sounding articles published by people with obvious biases. It is a bit like having "scientific" papers on holocaust denial being published by "Aryan Whitehorse Publishing" and expecting a thorough vetting of ideas. Not quite the scientific rigor needed to convince me.

  7. #82
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    56,106
    Not that I'm aware of. Their models produce slightly different results on each run. They publish the average of 18 different simulations, from what I understand.
    They do Darrin. Almost 20% of all simulations show this type of short term variability as a negative - just the way its happend. Your assumptions that this wasn't predicted are false and your assumptions that models work on a right or wrong basis do not take into account how these simulations are run.

  8. #83
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    39,595
    They do Darrin. Almost 20% of all simulations show this type of short term variability as a negative - just the way its happend. Your assumptions that this wasn't predicted are false and your assumptions that models work on a right or wrong basis do not take into account how these simulations are run.

    link?


    I've stopped responding to RG. Looks like he's having a conversation with himself now. Creepy.

  9. #84
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    73,025
    He might as well be. You duck all his questions, D.

  10. #85
    Frumious Bandersnatch RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    46,633
    They do Darrin. Almost 20% of all simulations show this type of short term variability as a negative - just the way its happend. Your assumptions that this wasn't predicted are false and your assumptions that models work on a right or wrong basis do not take into account how these simulations are run.
    Simulations become useful for determining a range of possibilities and help to figure out how sensitive any particular model is to any one variable.

    No one can say with any real certainty what the temperature will be on any given day in a particular spot, just as no one can tell you with any given certainty what the global average temperature will be next year.

    What models can show and provide data for are probabilities, and ranges of outcomes.

    The good thing about climate models is that as we grow to understand data, and actually do real science aimed at increasing our understanding is that we get better and better models. This coupled with increases in computing power means that our ability to predict trends will get better over time.

    Deniers love to point to articles from the 70's when it was thought there was a definite cooling trend (look at Darrin's graph from a few posts ago) that was going to lead to a new ice age as proof that current thinking MUST be wrong.

    All it means is that we have been getting better data and better models. Just as the original thinking of atoms were distinctly "solar system"-like constructions with central nuclei and electrons in nice circular orbits was replaced by the much more messy balloon shaped electron fields of modern models.

  11. #86
    Frumious Bandersnatch RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    46,633
    Are you this y in real life?
    You are entirely correct. I was a bag in my reply. Guilty as charged.

    I let my irritation at the entire premise of this thread get to me, and I let that irritation make me a bit less respectful than I know I should be.

    I apologize for that.

    A better response would have been to simply make the point about how silly posts like the OP was by posting news articles about isolated heat waves to show how useless isolated events are when demonstrating multi-year trends on phenomena that have been going on for hundreds of years.

    Don't you think the premise of your OP was just a *little* flawed?

  12. #87
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    39,595
    He might as well be. You duck all his questions, D.

    Hard to have respect for this guy when he equates people skeptical of catastrophic AGW with 911 twooferism and Holocaust deniers.

    I guess RG thinks all the 30,000+ scientists that have signed this pe ion are a bunch of 911 twoofer wackos.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/

  13. #88
    Frumious Bandersnatch RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    46,633
    Hard to have respect for this guy when he equates people skeptical of catastrophic AGW with 911 twooferism and Holocaust deniers.

    I guess RG thinks all the 30,000+ scientists that have signed this pe ion are a bunch of 911 twoofer wackos.

    http://www.oism.org/pproject/
    Twoofers have a pe ion as well.

    I equate them quite easily as the same bad logic and bad science pervades both movements.

    Start with a conclusion, then ignore all the data that seems to contradict it.

    You post a graph showing cooling trends from 1940-1970, then I post a graph that shows that data in a larger context, and you ignore it.

    Just because you don't like the company you place yourself in through your own actions , doesn't mean you don't deserve the analogy.

    All three movements to me exhibit a kind of twisted lack of intellectual honesty that starts in places like this where someone doesn't have the intellectual honesty to admit the possibility of the other sides' position being right, especially in what should be a scientific debate.

  14. #89
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    73,025
    Don't you think the premise of your OP was just a *little* flawed?
    Darrin said as much. He does it to get your goat.

  15. #90
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Why would one want to restrict a look at how CO2 affects the climatw to just the last 10 years?
    Funny. Those of us who disagree woth you guys like to use convienet periods of time from a low to a high. When one of us do the same, you cry foul.
    Haven't we been buring coal/oil for longer than that?
    Yes, I think most sources agree than mankind has put well over 300 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere, almost entirely as CO2. It was calculated at about 285 gigatons until 2000, and estimated to be about 360 gigatons by the end of 2010.
    Seriously, Darrin, you start to sound like the 9-11 conspiracy theorists sometimes when you simply cherry-pick data that supports your pet theory, and ignore things that don't fit into that.
    Talk about Cherry picking.... Funny that is what made the Hockystick...
    Funny that you ducked answering my question about WHY you would only want to talk about the last 10 years.

    The answer to that question, were you to answer it honestly:

    "I only wanted to use the last 10 years' data, because that is the data that I think makes my case."

    Cherry-picking. Just like the asshats at Truthout.org.
    Why don't you tell the alarmists they are cherry picking? Hypocritical much?


    It is patently intellectually dishonest to simply present data from an isolated ten year period when you are attempting to debunk a wider trend.

    Making a case is one thing, making it dishonestly, or illogically, is another.

    [/QUOTE]
    I love how you guys like to start at 1980, after the warming trend starting in 1900 was stopped by the albedo of high pollution, and the warming caught up after the EPA had it's way.
    Someone goes into much more depth here:
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...warming-pause/

    Are you making a case, or are you deliberately trying to mislead?
    Have you asked RealClimate why they cherry pick their information?

    I recently found a site that has tons of information on the subject. When I went to look for a graph disputing your 25 year graph, I couldn't find it. When I do, I'll post it. This isn't it, but will suffice for now. It's on the page led Reclaiming Climate Science:



    Meanwhile, here's something from the Welcome page of Green World Trust:

    Climate Change - there are two very different views, stirring a lot of "hot air". One view (the "scientific consensus") says that global warming from our growing CO2 emissions will cause sea level rise and extreme weather patterns, droughts, hurricanes, and floods. Others (the "skeptics") say that CO2 always follows temperature changes, that the oceans and biosphere are the great regulators of CO2, that human CO2 emissions are tiny by comparison, are totally beneficial to, and absorbed by, plants, that the current fears arise through deliberate stirring-up of anxiety, and that the IPCC science is misreading the evidence of a few decades during which solar activity has been significantly high. Is the hot air real?
    The source their information, and I can in essence call them my pier review for everything I have been saying on the subject.

  16. #91
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    More scientific consensus:

    “When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.” - Dr. David Evans, consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

    “AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is a fiction and a very dangerous fiction.” - William Kininmonth, head of the Australian Bureau of Meteorology?s National Climate Centre (1986-1998), Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization’s Commission for Climatology (1982-1998).

    "There is] an atmosphere of intimidation if one expresses dissenting views or evidence. It is as if one is doing one’s colleagues a great disservice in dissenting and perhaps derailing the gravy train. The global warming monopoly is seriously bad for science” - David Packham, former CSIRO principle research scientist, senior research fellow in a climate group at Monash University, and an officer in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

    “It is my strong belief that CSIRO has passed its use-by date. The organisation that bears the name of CSIRO has very little in common with the organisation that I joined in 1971, one that produced so much of value for Australia during its first seven decades. As an example, consider the Garnaut Report [on global warming], possibly the longest economic suicide note in Australia’s history. It is based on the dire predictions of CSIRO’s modelling programs.” - Dr. Art Raiche, former CSIRO Chief Research Scientist.

    “I have yet to see credible proof of carbon dioxide driving climate change, yet alone man-made CO2 driving it. The atmospheric hot-spot is missing and the ice core data refute this. When will we collectively awake from this deceptive delusion. I contend that those professional scientists and advisors that are knowingly complicit in climate science fraud and all that is derived from it, will continue to be exposed by the science itself.” - Dr. Guy LeBlanc Smith, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist.

    “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

    “Many distinguished scientists refuse to participate in the IPCC process, and others have resigned from it, because in the end the advice that the panel provides to governments is political and not scientific.” - Dr. Bob Carter, Paleoclimate scientist, James Cook University and former chairman of the earth science panel of the Australian Research Council.

    “What terrifies me is the way the state governments in Australia with their emissions trading they are contemplating using the superannuation funds to invest in carbon trading - they’re going to lose their money!” - Emeritus Professor Lance Endersbee, former dean of engineering and pro-vice chancellor at Monash University.

    “All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” - Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Ins ute of Technology)

    “Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

    “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Ins ute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

    “The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

    “Whatever the weather, it's not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period.” Atmospheric scientist Dr. Art V. Douglas, former Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, and is the author of numerous papers for peer-reviewed publications.

    “But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all.” - Chemist Dr. Patrick Frank, who has authored more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.

    “The ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities.” - Award-Winning NASA Astronaut/Geologist and Moonwalker Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and for the U.S. Geological Survey.

    “Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’” - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.

    “Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

    I argue: (1) that global warming (climate change, climate chaos, etc.) will not become humankind’s greatest threat until the sun has its next hiccup in a billion years or more (in the very unlikely scenario that we are still around), (2) that global warming is presently nowhere near being the planet’s most deadly environmental scourge, and (3) that government action and political will cannot measurably or significantly ameliorate global climate in the present world. - Denis G Rancourt is a professor of physics and an environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa. His scientific research has been concentrated in the areas of spectroscopic and diffraction measurement methods, magnetism, reactive environmental nanoparticles, aquatic sediments and nutrients, and boreal forest lakes.

    Nobody can know if the recent halt to global warming is temporary, permanent or the start of a new warming or cooling phase. But it is certain that anybody who proclaims that “Global warming is accelerating” is a liar, a fool, or both. - Richard S. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.

    If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide. - Reid Bryson (deceased) founded what is now the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He completed a B.A. in geology and a Ph.D. in meteorology. He became the first chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University. He became the first director of the Ins ute for Environmental Studies in 1970. Bryson was made a Global Laureate by the United Nations Global Environment Program in 1990.

    The IPCC has become an inbred process. All the scientists I know are doing legitimate work and believe in what they are doing. ... Still, it's a narrow view. - Roger Pielke Sr. is currently a Senior Research Scientist in CIRES and a Senior Research Associate at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He is also an Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. Pielke has studied terrain-induced mesoscale systems, including the development of a three-dimensional mesoscale model of the sea breeze, for which he received the NOAA Distinguished Authorship Award for 1974. Dr. Pielke has worked for NOAA's Experimental Meteorology Lab and served as Colorado State Climatologist from 1999-2006.

    One of the problems is that people look at really hot weather—it started out in 1988 when the summer was really hot—and then use that as a springboard to talk about global warming. You can’t really judge climate by looking at two or three annual records one way or the other. Climate is not something that you can actually see out the window or you experience directly. It is something you experience over generations. - Dr. Christopher Essex is a full Professor in the Department of Applied Mathematics at the University of Western Ontario. He is the author of publications in academic journals such as the Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, Pure and Applied Geophysics, Geophysical and Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics, Nature, the Physical Review, Physica, The Journal of Physics, Proceedings of the Royal Society, and the Astrophysical Journal. He specializes in the underlying mathematics, physics and computation of complex dynamical processes such as climate. Dr. Essex was an NSERC visiting fellow at the Canadian Climate Centre and an Alexander von Humboldt Research Fellow in Germany. He is currently a visiting professor at the Niels Bohr Ins ute's Ørsted Laboratory in Denmark.

    Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside. - James Lovelock, originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity. [He appears to believe that there is manmade global warming, but that it is already too late to do anything to save ourselves. So we support this statement without buying into his beliefs - Ed].

    "[After the second world war] everybody said, we ought to invest in these people...out of that came a lot of scientists who were in it for the money, the power... those people don't always tell you the truth... there's nothing in their contract that makes it to their advantage always to tell you the truth... the people I'm talking about are, say, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change..." Kary Mullis, from Celebrating the Scientific Experiment. Sharing tales from the 17th century and from his own backyard-rocketry days, he celebrates the curiosity, inspiration and rigor of good science in all its forms. He won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry that jump-started the 1990s' biorevolution.

    “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

    Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

    “The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

    “So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

    “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pål Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

    “The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Ins ute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

    “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

    “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

    “After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

    “The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical do ents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

    “I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

    “Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

    “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

    “Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

    “The quan y of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.

    "The so-called scientific basis of the climate problem is within my professional competence as a meteorologist. It is my professional opinion that there is no evidence at all for catastrophic global warming. It is likely that global temperatures will rise a little, much as IPCC predicts, but there is a growing body of evidence that the errant behavior of the Sun may cause some cooling in the foreseeable future." - Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Ins ute, former Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University and internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes.

    Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. - Dr. Nir J. Shaviv is a Senior Lecturer at the Racah Ins ute of Physics of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. His research interests cover a wide range of topics in astrophysics, most are related to the application of fluid dynamics, radiation transfer or high energy physics to a wide range of objects.

    The global warming impacts are so tiny today that they can't be measured although they might be measured in 100 years. Compared to the natural swings of hurricane activity and compared to the huge population increase and infrastructure build-up along the coast, any global warming effects are likely to be so tiny that they're lost in the noise. - Christopher Landsea received a doctoral degree atmospheric science Colorado State University. Formerly a research meteorologist with Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, is now the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society.

    You really cannot say for certain what is causing current climate change, data are inconclusive. - Petr Chylek is a researcher for Space and Remote Sensing Sciences at Los Alamos National LaboratoryLos Alamos National Laboratory. Prior to becoming a government researcher in 2001, Chylek was Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science in the graduate program at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada where he continues as an Adjunct Professor. Chylek has published over 100 scientific papers in remote sensing, atmospheric radiation, climate change, cloud and aerosol physics, applied laser physics and ice core analysis. His work has been cited more than 3000 times. Chylek is best known for his work in remote sensing, water vapor, aerosols and their relation to climate change.


    If both water vapour and CO2 are an internal part of the system, and only the anthropogenic part of CO2 is considered external, the impact of the latter will be modified by water vapour. There is merit to the precautionary action of keeping the emissions as low as possible. In the end this approach [speculating we are headed for disaster] may be counterproductive. It is like the boy that cried wolf. If it happens too many times without proof, people will stop listening. I would rather have all the facts before rushing to any conclusions. - Dr. Jan Veizer is a “Distinguished University Professor” of Geology at the University of Ottawa (Emeritus since April 2004) where he held the NSERC/Noranda/CIAR Research Chair in Earth Systems. He recently retired also from the Chair of Sedimentary and Isotope Geology at Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany. He has drawn on the principles of geology, chemistry, physics, mathematics and biology to paint a picture of the Earth as a dynamic, “living” en y.

    Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life -- ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary. - Daniel Botkin: Marine Biologist and President of the Center for the Study of the Environment and Professor Emeritus in the department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology, University of California.

  17. #92
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Here is a must see, but it's 45 megabytes of Power Point:

    Global Warming Science and what we can do to prevent disaster, prepared by Alan Cheetham

    Heres more good information and is much easier for the rest of you to handle. From The Middlebury Community Network; Editorial: The Great Global Warming Hoax?:

    And about those "melting glaciers..."
    Strange how our research turned up a completely different story. We found 50 glaciers are advancing in New Zealand, others are growing in Alaska, Switzerland, the Himalayas, and even our old friend, Mt. St. Helens is sprouting a brand new crater glacier that is advancing at 3 feet per year.

    And down south last September, NASA satellites showed the Antarctic Ice Field to be the largest it has ever been in the 30 years it has been observed by satellite (based on an analysis of 347 million radar altimeter measurements made by the European Space Agency's ERS-1 and ERS-2 satellites).



    The terminus of Tsaa Glacier in Icy Bay in July 2005.
    Photo by Chris Larsen, Geophysical Ins ute, UAF (above)



    The terminus of Tsaa Glacier in June 2007 after a recent advance of the glacier. Note the position of the large waterfall. The glacier advanced about one-third of a mile sometime between August 2006 and June 2007.
    Photo by Chris Larsen, Geophysical Ins ute, UAF (above)

  18. #93
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Here are four images from that large Power Point file:

    Slide 121



    Slide 124



    Slide 125



    Slide 130


  19. #94
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Here's a great one:


  20. #95
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    69,179
    "(CNN)Greenland is experiencing its most significant melting event of the year as temperatures in the Arctic surge. The amount of ice that melted on Tuesday alone would be enough to cover the entire state of Florida in two inches of water...."

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/us/gr...nge/index.html

  21. #96
    Damns (Given): 0 Blake's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Post Count
    69,179
    "(CNN)Greenland is experiencing its most significant melting event of the year as temperatures in the Arctic surge. The amount of ice that melted on Tuesday alone would be enough to cover the entire state of Florida in two inches of water...."

    https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/29/us/gr...nge/index.html

  22. #97
    6X ST MVP Spurtacular's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    80,974

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •