|
Hide the decline part 1/3
|
Hide the Decline 2/3
|
Hide the decline 3/3
Read the whole thing here:
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens - and Russians admit they DID send them | Mail Online Of course it's just a bunch of stolen emails. Not at all relevant really. The science is sound. WW |
Perspective
|
Green is the new Red.
|
I believe global warming is an issue, but I have not been convinced that it is as large of an issue as some believe. I am not one of those who think Florida will flood in 20 years, but I do believe that if we continue to live the way we do, our environment will be affected.
With that said, I am not trying to diminish the importance of these emails, but when people say “follow the money” to prove global warming is a hoax, remember it works both ways. Lots of science is dependent on grants, but I don’t see too many multi millionaire or billionaire scientists (Al Gore does not count, he is not a scientist, and he was filthy rich before this debate). I do however see many rich politicians, lobbyists, and business owners whose fortunes may not rise as much if global warming is proved. So there is some evidence indicating global warming is real, there is some evidence suggesting it isn’t; now we know that some data is missing or has been misrepresented, and money is a factor on both sides of this. Instead of trying to solve a scientific debate on an unscientific pilot forum, let’s all agree that we need to get the facts straight and get some important questions answered regardless of politics, money, or egos. |
More Perspective
The watermelons like to scare everyone with images of drowning polar bears and an ice free arctic.
Watch this video of satellite photos of the arctic ice cover from the last thirty years. The blue spot in the middle is the polar area where there's no satellite coverage. YouTube - Arctic Sea Ice timelapse from 1978 to 2009 WW |
Originally Posted by Kasserine06
(Post 727301)
I believe global warming is an issue, but I have not been convinced that it is as large of an issue as some believe. I am not one of those who think Florida will flood in 20 years, but I do believe that if we continue to live the way we do, our environment will be affected.
With that said, I am not trying to diminish the importance of these emails, but when people say “follow the money” to prove global warming is a hoax, remember it works both ways. Lots of science is dependent on grants, but I don’t see too many multi millionaire or billionaire scientists (Al Gore does not count, he is not a scientist, and he was filthy rich before this debate). I do however see many rich politicians, lobbyists, and business owners whose fortunes may not rise as much if global warming is proved. So there is some evidence indicating global warming is real, there is some evidence suggesting it isn’t; now we know that some data is missing or has been misrepresented, and money is a factor on both sides of this. Instead of trying to solve a scientific debate on an unscientific pilot forum, let’s all agree that we need to get the facts straight and get some important questions answered regardless of politics, money, or egos. I wont reply in regaurds to those who will see an increase in money if global warming is disproven, because more than likely...there are. But, and thats a bit but... Those who are trying to prove it and those on the side of it being true stand to gain money from every part of life... Movies, Books, Magazines, Industry, Grants, Political power, and the list goes on and on... The raw data that Winged Wheeler posted is great, It shows just how wrong all these people who say the earths temperature is rising is. Im not trying to swey your mind, but your comparision was close to dead on...This is not a scientific debate...Its a political one, and the sooner people see that the sooner they will figure out this is all a hoax. |
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
(Post 727491)
The watermelons like to scare everyone...
What your cartoon doesn't show very well is the loss of 278,000 square miles of ice since 1979 (roughly the size of Texas). Also, it doesn't show the ice sheet over the arctic getting thinner. The arctic has been referred to as the canary in the mindshaft, in part because it represents one of the dozens of feedback systems that act like a self sustaining engine to exacerbate the problem ie the ice sheet reflects the sun's rays back out into space - as ice is melted in the summer months, it exposes sea water that absorbs the heat to melt adjacent ice, exposing more ocean that is warmed and thereby melting more ice, etcetera. The world's oceans are a natural carbon sink. Due to the increase of carbon in the atmosphere that is being absorbed, the ocean's pH are decreasing becoming more acidic. Acidic enough, in fact, to start dissolving coral and shellfish shells. Suffice it to say, the planet will no longer be able to support the current number of human beings when the oceans start dying. There's a difference between climate and weather. The Flat-earthers tend to get wrapped around the axle about local weather and miss the big picture: "It snowed in Houston this year so global warming must be a hoax." I'm starting to think the denial is a defense mechanism to suppress panic. |
Originally Posted by N2264J
(Post 728211)
What your cartoon doesn't show very well is the loss of 278,000 square miles
of ice since 1979 (roughly the size of Texas). Also, it doesn't show the ice sheet over the arctic getting thinner. The arctic has been referred to as the canary in the mindshaft, in part because it represents one of the dozens of feedback systems that act like a self sustaining engine to exacerbate the problem ie the ice sheet reflects the sun's rays back out into space - as ice is melted in the summer months, it exposes sea water that absorbs the heat to melt adjacent ice, exposing more ocean that is warmed and thereby melting more ice, etcetera. The world's oceans are a natural carbon sink. Due to the increase of carbon in the atmosphere that is being absorbed, the ocean's pH are decreasing becoming more acidic. Acidic enough, in fact, to start dissolving coral and shellfish shells. Suffice it to say, the planet will no longer be able to support the current number of human beings when the oceans start dying. There's a difference between climate and weather. The Flat-earthers tend to get wrapped around the axle about local weather and miss the big picture: "It snowed in Houston this year so global warming must be a hoax." I'm starting to think the denial is a defense mechanism to suppress panic. Take a look at this: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/...Ice_Extent.png The maximum extent of the sea ice varies each year, but it is fair to say that it is at least 13 million square km. The summertime minimum sea ice varies as well, but one can say that the min is not more than 7 million square km. Texas is just under 700,000 square kilometers--that means that an area equal to at least 10 Texases melts every year. An area equal to 10 Texases also refreezes every year. I am guessing (since you provide no references)that the Texas size lost ice to which you referred is from the 2007 minimum. Predictions of an "ice free arctic" are simple extrapolations based on the 2007 trend--these extrapolations are neutered by the higher 2008, and the much higher 2009 minima. The warming feedback from reduced albedo is a well-known phenomenon but, if it was as simple as you say there would be runaway warming every spring. If it was as well understood as you imply, somebody would have predicted the ice recovery the last two summers. I am unaware of such a prediction. Although you don't say it explicitly, I get the impression that your view of the arctic sea ice as a vast area that is permanently and unbrokenly frozen. The area described by the graphs in this post, and in the cartoon you liked is the area where there is more than 15% sea ice coverage. It is not one big piece of ice that has been there since the last ice age. It is an area of sea ice coverage, the majority of which melts every summer and refreezes in the winter months. It was a cold summer in the northern hemisphere and it will be a cold winter. The arctic sea ice extent at its minimum in 2010 will be higher again than in 2009. Call me out next Sept if I am wrong. WW |
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
(Post 729039)
I am guessing (since you provide no references)that
the Texas size lost ice to which you referred is from the 2007 minimum. Since 1979, an area of the arctic roughly the size of Texas, is no longer freezing over. Not only that, but the ice sheet keeps getting thinner. Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis http://www.nasa.gov/mov/391782main_sea_ice_concept.mov |
Originally Posted by HoursHore
(Post 727287)
Green is the new Red.
Let me get this straight , we put such regulations on industry in this country that they moved to where there are non existent regulations per se ? And then people wonder why wages are stagnant and jobs are service oriented . Talk about selling ones own country down the river for dollars .:mad: Ally |
Correct
Originally Posted by HoursHore
(Post 727287)
Green is the new Red.
WW |
Originally Posted by N2264J
(Post 729966)
Why would you guess when you can just read what I wrote?
Since 1979, an area of the arctic roughly the size of Texas, is no longer freezing over. Not only that, but the ice sheet keeps getting thinner. Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis http://www.nasa.gov/mov/391782main_sea_ice_concept.mov Having said that, I'll editorialize thus: The released "Climategate" data showed, to me, a commitment to getting desired results above all else. This led to cherry picking data, manipulation of models, editorial bullying, alarmist media releases, and selective funding of research. I probably would neither have noticed nor cared if it were not for the alliance of politics and the media with this corrupted science. In my eyes, the goals they had would have been too economically destructive to live with. Copenhagen was a belly flop--it failed to establish binding economic restrictions on emissions, failed to enact any other regulation, and any tax scheme. Domestically, cap and trade has zero chance of coming out of the senate this session. The EPA's endangerment regulations will spend the rest of this administration's term in court. In other words, the big global warming power grab is finished. They were stopped short of the goal. Believe what you want about the ice cap, tropical storms, global temperatures, etc. I will do the same. WW |
Originally Posted by Winged Wheeler
(Post 730251)
...the big global warming power grab is finished.
with eyes in his head! Everyone knows the Earth is the center of the universe because that's where man is. Apparently, Copernicus and Galileo were leftist political hack elites who worshiped Satan. “Climategate” | FactCheck.org |
Originally Posted by N2264J
(Post 730276)
Well, of course the sun revolves around the Earth. It's obvious to anyone
with eyes in his head! Everyone knows the Earth is the center of the universe because that's where man is. Apparently, Copernicus and Galileo were leftist political hack elites who worshiped Satan. “Climategate” | FactCheck.org |
Originally Posted by N2264J
(Post 730276)
Well, of course the sun revolves around the Earth. It's obvious to anyone
with eyes in his head! Everyone knows the Earth is the center of the universe because that's where man is. Apparently, Copernicus and Galileo were leftist political hack elites who worshiped Satan. “Climategate” | FactCheck.org I might have put this up here before, but it's worth a repeat. I believe that the temperature on Earth is determined mostly by the sun--that is a heliocentric take on things. Climate alarmists believe that human "pollution" determines the temperature--that is an anthropocentric view of things. So I always laugh when an anthropocentric warmist accuses me of ascribing to a pre-Copernican cosmology. You can have the last word but it doesn't matter any more. The tide is now going out on climate alarmism. I'll post the sea ice extent when it hits the annual minimum next Sept and I'll bet you a carbon credit that next year's min is more than this year's min. Cheers. WW |
Originally Posted by blastoff
(Post 730326)
Typical of Climate change supporters to brush off criticism as the act of Flat-Earthers and right wing extremists. The funny thing is that sort of attack is the hallmark of left-wing extremists. It seems our higher learning institutions are failing in teaching the art of debate, and the recognition of bias.
It is no more likely that Florida will flood in 20 years than it is that many scientists have been tricking the entire world to accomplish the largest transfer in wealth in human history. All we know is that some data indicates the earth is warming, some indicates that it is not, and these particular scientists cooked their data. In find it hard to believe that we are not affecting our environment, but to what extent, it is unknown. I have not seen enough evidence to make me jump over to one side or the other of this debate. Can we just agree that it is too early to decide? |
Originally Posted by Kasserine06
(Post 730369)
I am not defending the post you are referring to, but in all fairness, extremists on both sides resort to name calling.
Which is why I'm keyed into Winged Wheeler's main point about Alarmism. There is much to discuss, but one side wants to end debate and act (sign treaties, intentionally cripple industries, slow the development of the Third World) because its "The End of the World." Judicious minds say "Not so fast." |
23 inches of snow in Philadelphia this week. The second highest snowfall total ... ever.
|
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 730657)
23 inches of snow in Philadelphia this week. The second highest snowfall total ... ever.
|
Originally Posted by Kasserine06
(Post 730741)
It is comments like this that add nothing of value to the debate and just add to the confusion. This debate will not be solved by looking at what the weather is doing right now. The trends can only be seen after years of data. If we try to see the trend by what is happening this year or last year, we will have no way of telling if we are looking at an outlier or not. Also, global warming does not mean that it gets warmer everywhere. The major weather models cannot agree how the planet will be affected if the average temperature rises, but most seem to indicate that we will see more extremes in weather. So if your comment was an attempt to disprove global warming, it can just as easily be used to prove global warming.
You nor I have no idea what "most" climatologists believe or think. Those scientists forecasted lots of really nasty hurricanes and we haven't had one. Additionally, there's been no credible link to global warming and hurricanes. The facts are, for the past 9 years, there has been real and measurable cooling data for the earth. Additionally, you are probably to young to remember when Al Gore, yes, Mr. Global Warming himself, was actually warning us of the coming ICE AGES. By the way, the midwest is getting another blizzard, and it's only December. |
Originally Posted by N2264J
(Post 728211)
What your cartoon doesn't show very well is the loss of 278,000 square miles
of ice since 1979 (roughly the size of Texas). Also, it doesn't show the ice sheet over the arctic getting thinner. The arctic has been referred to as the canary in the mindshaft, in part because it represents one of the dozens of feedback systems that act like a self sustaining engine to exacerbate the problem ie the ice sheet reflects the sun's rays back out into space - as ice is melted in the summer months, it exposes sea water that absorbs the heat to melt adjacent ice, exposing more ocean that is warmed and thereby melting more ice, etcetera. The world's oceans are a natural carbon sink. Due to the increase of carbon in the atmosphere that is being absorbed, the ocean's pH are decreasing becoming more acidic. Acidic enough, in fact, to start dissolving coral and shellfish shells. Suffice it to say, the planet will no longer be able to support the current number of human beings when the oceans start dying. There's a difference between climate and weather. The Flat-earthers tend to get wrapped around the axle about local weather and miss the big picture: "It snowed in Houston this year so global warming must be a hoax." I'm starting to think the denial is a defense mechanism to suppress panic. Does this mean that Santa Claus will have to move ?:D Fred |
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 732133)
Kasserine06 ...
You nor I have no idea what "most" climatologists believe or think. Those scientists forecasted lots of really nasty hurricanes and we haven't had one. Additionally, there's been no credible link to global warming and hurricanes. The facts are, for the past 9 years, there has been real and measurable cooling data for the earth. Additionally, you are probably to young to remember when Al Gore, yes, Mr. Global Warming himself, was actually warning us of the coming ICE AGES. By the way, the midwest is getting another blizzard, and it's only December. So there is a blizzard in the Midwest, up in northern Maine, it was 53 degrees when last year it was only 26 degrees. There are two weather events that lead to two different conclusions on global warming. Also, no one can agree on what weather patterns will do when the average temperature rises, so maybe another blizzard in the Midwest is a result of global warming. For me, that is the biggest argument against global warming because if scientists are going to claim that the climate is going to change drastically, they should know what that change will be. And also, Al Gore is not a scientists, so who cares what he says or thinks. He is just a supporter of global warming who has enough money and fame to get media attention. Al Gore is responsible for spreading the fear of global warming that has created uneducated activists, I will give you that, but attacking Al Gore won’t solve this debate anymore than attacking Glenn Beck or any other conservative who thinks global warming is fake. |
Originally Posted by Slice
(Post 726546)
...and China's full of crap, I see it everytime I fly there.
The debate overseas is: "what can we do to best mitigate global climate destabilization" while the manufactured debate in our soon-to-be backwater country is: "does global warming even exist?" _______________________ Who’s Sleeping Now? THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN published: January 9, 2010 Hong Kong C. H. Tung, the first Chinese-appointed chief executive of Hong Kong after the handover in 1997, offered me a three-sentence summary the other day of China’s modern economic history: “China was asleep during the Industrial Revolution. She was just waking during the Information Technology Revolution. She intends to participate fully in the Green Revolution.” I’ll say. Being in China right now I am more convinced than ever that when historians look back at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, they will say that the most important thing to happen was not the Great Recession, but China’s Green Leap Forward. The Beijing leadership clearly understands that the E.T. — Energy Technology — revolution is both a necessity and an opportunity, and they do not intend to miss it. We, by contrast, intend to fix Afghanistan. Have a nice day. O.K., that was a cheap shot. But here’s one that isn’t: Andy Grove, co-founder of Intel, liked to say that companies come to “strategic inflection points,” where the fundamentals of a business change and they either make the hard decision to invest in a down cycle and take a more promising trajectory or do nothing and wither. The same is true for countries. The U.S. is at just such a strategic inflection point. We are either going to put in place a price on carbon and the right regulatory incentives to ensure that America is China’s main competitor/partner in the E.T. revolution, or we are going to gradually cede this industry to Beijing and the good jobs and energy security that would go with it. Is President Obama going to finish health care and then put aside the pending energy legislation — and carbon pricing — that Congress has already passed in order to get through the midterms without Republicans screaming “new taxes?” Or is he going to seize this moment before the midterms — possibly his last window to put together a majority in the Senate, including some Republicans, for a price on carbon — and put in place a real U.S. engine for clean energy innovation and energy security? I’ve been stunned to learn about the sheer volume of wind, solar, mass transit, nuclear and more efficient coal-burning projects that have sprouted in China in just the last year. Here’s e-mail from Bill Gross, who runs eSolar, a promising California solar-thermal start-up: On Saturday, in Beijing, said Gross, he announced “the biggest solar-thermal deal ever. It’s a 2 gigawatt, $5 billion deal to build plants in China using our California-based technology. China is being even more aggressive than the U.S. We applied for a [U.S. Department of Energy] loan for a 92 megawatt project in New Mexico, and in less time than it took them to do stage 1 of the application review, China signs, approves, and is ready to begin construction this year on a 20 times bigger project!” Yes, climate change is a concern for Beijing, but more immediately China’s leaders know that their country is in the midst of the biggest migration of people from the countryside to urban centers in the history of mankind. This is creating a surge in energy demand, which China is determined to meet with cleaner, homegrown sources so that its future economy will be less vulnerable to supply shocks and so it doesn’t pollute itself to death. In the last year alone, so many new solar panel makers emerged in China that the price of solar power has fallen from roughly 59 cents a kilowatt hour to 16 cents, according to The Times’s bureau chief here, Keith Bradsher. Meanwhile, China last week tested the fastest bullet train in the world — 217 miles per hour — from Wuhan to Guangzhou. As Bradsher noted, China “has nearly finished the construction of a high-speed rail route from Beijing to Shanghai at a cost of $23.5 billion. Trains will cover the 700-mile route in just five hours, compared with 12 hours today. By comparison, Amtrak trains require at least 18 hours to travel a similar distance from New York to Chicago.” China is also engaged in the world’s most rapid expansion of nuclear power. It is expected to build some 50 new nuclear reactors by 2020; the rest of the world combined might build 15. “By the end of this decade, China will be dominating global production of the whole range of power equipment,” said Andrew Brandler, the C.E.O. of the CLP Group, Hong Kong’s largest power utility. In the process, China is going to make clean power technologies cheaper for itself and everyone else. But even Chinese experts will tell you that it will all happen faster and more effectively if China and America work together — with the U.S. specializing in energy research and innovation, at which China is still weak, as well as in venture investing and servicing of new clean technologies, and with China specializing in mass production. This is a strategic inflection point. It is clear that if we, America, care about our energy security, economic strength and environmental quality we need to put in place a long-term carbon price that stimulates and rewards clean power innovation. We can’t afford to be asleep with an invigorated China wide awake. Op-Ed Columnist - Who’s Sleeping Now? - NYTimes.com |
Originally Posted by N2264J
(Post 741456)
We're about to get sacked again - just like Detroit in the 70s when they were building big gas guzzling cars and the industry's conventional wisdom was "little foreign cars are inferior and Americans won't buy them."
The debate overseas is: "what can we do to best mitigate global climate destabilization" while the manufactured debate in our soon-to-be backwater country is: "does global warming even exist?" _______________________ Who’s Sleeping Now? THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN published: January 9, 2010 Hong Kong C. H. Tung, the first Chinese-appointed chief executive of Hong Kong after the handover in 1997, offered me a three-sentence summary the other day of China’s modern economic history: “China was asleep during the Industrial Revolution. She was just waking during the Information Technology Revolution. She intends to participate fully in the Green Revolution.” I’ll say. Being in China right now I am more convinced than ever that when historians look back at the end of the first decade of the 21st century, they will say that the most important thing to happen was not the Great Recession, but China’s Green Leap Forward. The Beijing leadership clearly understands that the E.T. — Energy Technology — revolution is both a necessity and an opportunity, and they do not intend to miss it. We, by contrast, intend to fix Afghanistan. Have a nice day. O.K., that was a cheap shot. But here’s one that isn’t: Andy Grove, co-founder of Intel, liked to say that companies come to “strategic inflection points,” where the fundamentals of a business change and they either make the hard decision to invest in a down cycle and take a more promising trajectory or do nothing and wither. The same is true for countries. The U.S. is at just such a strategic inflection point. We are either going to put in place a price on carbon and the right regulatory incentives to ensure that America is China’s main competitor/partner in the E.T. revolution, or we are going to gradually cede this industry to Beijing and the good jobs and energy security that would go with it. Is President Obama going to finish health care and then put aside the pending energy legislation — and carbon pricing — that Congress has already passed in order to get through the midterms without Republicans screaming “new taxes?” Or is he going to seize this moment before the midterms — possibly his last window to put together a majority in the Senate, including some Republicans, for a price on carbon — and put in place a real U.S. engine for clean energy innovation and energy security? I’ve been stunned to learn about the sheer volume of wind, solar, mass transit, nuclear and more efficient coal-burning projects that have sprouted in China in just the last year. Here’s e-mail from Bill Gross, who runs eSolar, a promising California solar-thermal start-up: On Saturday, in Beijing, said Gross, he announced “the biggest solar-thermal deal ever. It’s a 2 gigawatt, $5 billion deal to build plants in China using our California-based technology. China is being even more aggressive than the U.S. We applied for a [U.S. Department of Energy] loan for a 92 megawatt project in New Mexico, and in less time than it took them to do stage 1 of the application review, China signs, approves, and is ready to begin construction this year on a 20 times bigger project!” Yes, climate change is a concern for Beijing, but more immediately China’s leaders know that their country is in the midst of the biggest migration of people from the countryside to urban centers in the history of mankind. This is creating a surge in energy demand, which China is determined to meet with cleaner, homegrown sources so that its future economy will be less vulnerable to supply shocks and so it doesn’t pollute itself to death. In the last year alone, so many new solar panel makers emerged in China that the price of solar power has fallen from roughly 59 cents a kilowatt hour to 16 cents, according to The Times’s bureau chief here, Keith Bradsher. Meanwhile, China last week tested the fastest bullet train in the world — 217 miles per hour — from Wuhan to Guangzhou. As Bradsher noted, China “has nearly finished the construction of a high-speed rail route from Beijing to Shanghai at a cost of $23.5 billion. Trains will cover the 700-mile route in just five hours, compared with 12 hours today. By comparison, Amtrak trains require at least 18 hours to travel a similar distance from New York to Chicago.” China is also engaged in the world’s most rapid expansion of nuclear power. It is expected to build some 50 new nuclear reactors by 2020; the rest of the world combined might build 15. “By the end of this decade, China will be dominating global production of the whole range of power equipment,” said Andrew Brandler, the C.E.O. of the CLP Group, Hong Kong’s largest power utility. In the process, China is going to make clean power technologies cheaper for itself and everyone else. But even Chinese experts will tell you that it will all happen faster and more effectively if China and America work together — with the U.S. specializing in energy research and innovation, at which China is still weak, as well as in venture investing and servicing of new clean technologies, and with China specializing in mass production. This is a strategic inflection point. It is clear that if we, America, care about our energy security, economic strength and environmental quality we need to put in place a long-term carbon price that stimulates and rewards clean power innovation. We can’t afford to be asleep with an invigorated China wide awake. Op-Ed Columnist - Who’s Sleeping Now? - NYTimes.com WW |
Originally Posted by Kasserine06
(Post 733115)
I never did say what most scientists believe, and I actually would like more scientists to look for and report evidence that counters global warming. What I don’t like is when people try to prove their point by stating today’s weather. The only thing it does is oversimplify a complex process causing uninformed readers to quickly jump to one side of the debate before they know any relevant facts. Stating the today’s weather is just as annoying as saying the ice caps are smaller this year than last.
So there is a blizzard in the Midwest, up in northern Maine, it was 53 degrees when last year it was only 26 degrees. There are two weather events that lead to two different conclusions on global warming. Also, no one can agree on what weather patterns will do when the average temperature rises, so maybe another blizzard in the Midwest is a result of global warming. For me, that is the biggest argument against global warming because if scientists are going to claim that the climate is going to change drastically, they should know what that change will be. And also, Al Gore is not a scientists, so who cares what he says or thinks. He is just a supporter of global warming who has enough money and fame to get media attention. Al Gore is responsible for spreading the fear of global warming that has created uneducated activists, I will give you that, but attacking Al Gore won’t solve this debate anymore than attacking Glenn Beck or any other conservative who thinks global warming is fake. I was having a little fun with the current cold snap we've been in for the past couple of years. The reality is, many scientists have been very vocal against Global Warming. You just haven't been paying attention. 15,000 Scientists Urge Congress to Reject Global Warming Treaty - by Environment & Climate News staff - Environment & Climate News Even the author of the IPCC is now contradicting himself. FOXNews.com - 30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says |
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 743840)
Even the author of the IPCC is now contradicting himself.
FOXNews.com - 30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says ______________________________________ Global Cooling? Tell It to the Jellyfish Saturday 16 January 2010 by: Michael Winship, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed There are certain newspaper headlines that catch your eye and stop you in your tracks. Like the New York Post's famous "Headless Body in Topless Bar." Or such tabloid greats as "Evil Cows Ate My Garden," "Double Decker Bus Found on Moon," and my personal favorite, "Proof of Reincarnation: Baby Born with Wooden Leg." Along similar lines, I was startled this week when London's Daily Mail published an article headlined, "Could we be in for 30 years of global COOLING?" Triggered by the unusual cold and snow in the United Kingdom over the last few weeks, the article began, "Britain's big freeze is the start of a worldwide trend towards colder weather that seriously challenges global warming theories, eminent scientists claimed yesterday." The story went on to reference various researchers and their institutions, including the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder, which reported, according to the Mail, that, "The warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases." This was followed by an article on the Fox News Web site with the headline, "30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says." There are only two small problems, as was pointed out by Steve Benen on Washington Monthly magazine's "Political Animal" blog: "First, the National Snow and Ice Data Center said no such thing. The director of the NSIDC said, 'This is completely false. NSIDC has never made such a statement and we were never contacted by anyone from the Daily Mail.'" (Subsequently, both Fox and the Mail removed the reference to the NSIDC in their articles.) Second, as proof of global cooling, both stories cited research conducted by Mojib Latif, a prominent climate modeler with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Latif's response to their reporting? "I don't know what to do," he said. "They just make these things up." Latif's work on climatology is complex and often difficult to understand, which is why the Fox and Daily Mail reporters may have his story mixed up -- it wouldn't be the first time journalists have been confused by his findings. But as cogently interpreted by the physicist and climate expert Dr. Joseph Romm of the liberal Center for American Progress, "Latif has NOT predicted a cooling trend -- or a 'decades-long deep freeze' -- but rather a short-time span where human-caused warming might be partly offset by ocean cycles, staying at current record levels, but then followed by 'accelerated' warming where you catch up to the long-term human-caused trend. He does NOT forecast 2 or 3 decades of cooling." In fact, as Latif told the British newspaper the Guardian, "I believe in manmade global warming... There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases." And if you don't believe him, ask the jellyfish. Jellyfish don't lie. Well, sometimes they lie -- deceased and desiccated along the beach, which from strolling along various Eastern Seaboard shores is about the extent of my knowledge of them. That, and that Ogden Nash couplet, the one that goes, "Who wants my jellyfish? I am not sellyfish!" But according to the Associated Press, the jellyfish population is rising. The news service reports, "Scientists believe climate change -- the warming of oceans -- has allowed some of the almost 2,000 jellyfish species to expand their ranges, appear earlier in the year and increase overall numbers, much as warming has helped ticks, bark beetles and other pests to spread to new latitudes." This has led to all manner of consequences, some you would expect, others not. A 2008 National Science Foundation study found populations growing along the East Coast -- in the Chesapeake Bay area, people are stung about half a million times a year. In the Middle East and Africa, swarms have jammed hydroelectric and desalination plants, forcing them to shut down. In Japan, the fishing industry is losing up to $332 million a year because jellyfish swarms fill the nets, crowding out mackerel, sea bass and other fish. The AP reports that in October, off the eastern coast of Japan, "Jelly-filled nets capsized a 10-ton trawler as its crew tried to pull them up. The three fishermen were rescued." I know this all sounds like something out of a Godzilla movie, but it's serious stuff. And speaking of jellyfish, here's a headline you may not see anytime soon: "Senate Passes Sweeping Climate Bill." Although in a January 14 speech to the Energy Finance Forum, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "Taking on the clean-energy challenge... may be the most important policy we will ever pass. And we cannot afford to wait any longer to act," the cap-and-trade climate bill that narrowly passed the House of Representatives back in June malingers in the purgatory of the Senate. And next week, Senator Reid will allow a vote on an amendment to the legislation lifting the Federal debt ceiling. Proposed by Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, it would block the enforcement funding of the Environmental Protection Agency, giving free rein to the coal industry and other big polluters to ignore the Clean Air Act. The activist group Credo Action, part of the company Working Assets, warns, "You would think this would be easy to stop, but the vote is predicted to be close with many Democrats considering voting for the bill... The coal industry has been working furiously to close deals with senators across the political spectrum, including those who say they want to protect the environment." Jellyfish. |
N2264J:
Latif was not misquoted. Apparently the Daily Mail and Fox News reported that the NSIDC said, "The warming of the Earth since 1900 is due to natural oceanic cycles, and not man-made greenhouse gases." Ok, fine. The NSIDC was misquoted but the others who said what they said were not. There have been other articles dating back to the same week of the UN's World Climate Conference in September, which quoted Latif as saying that the earth *may* be enterring a decade or two of cooling, before starting another warming trend. The Fox News article reported the same thing which was the basis of their article. I'm surprised they are just now reporting on it especially since Latif said these things back in September! Lastly, I really do not trust articles where a reporter quotes someone quoting someone else ... reference the paragraphs with Steven Benen and Dr. Joseph Romm. Why not just quote the source itself? Very shady. If Latif and the NSIDC said it, then quote it as such! Seriously, I have a Kentuckian edumacation and the grammar slight-of-hand in that article is very suspicious. But don't trust me, ask the jellyfish. :rolleyes: |
Good thing we have all those scientists at the IPCC doing hard science.
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online |
A little more inconvienent truth
UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters - Times Online
The science is settled. |
Climategate heating up once again ...
Do these people ever tell the truth? But the science is settled right? Riooght. :rolleyes:
FOXNews.com - Climate Researchers Manipulated and Hid Data |
I'm one of those that firmly believe that our planet is just simply going through a cycle. I know that the pollution that the human race is creating isn't good for the planet, but I believe that the amount of CO2 that we produce isn't really causing global warming.
If we look up the percentage of gases that make up our atmosphere, CO2 is known as a trace gas; less then 1% by volume of the Earth's atmosphere. Actually, CO2 only accounts for roughly .038%, thirty eight hundredths of a percent. Considering the low amount of time that humans have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere compared to the timeline of our planet is pretty insignificant. The temperature of our planet also varies greatly on our sun. During the past couple of years, scientists have noticed that the CO2 ice caps on Mars have been declining during the past couple of years. This could lead one to a good assumption that the heat output of our sun is slightly changing. It could also be contributed to a slight change in the planet's orbit or tilt in relation to the sun, which affects the amount of solar radiation that is used to heat the planet. |
Originally Posted by undflyboy06
(Post 756670)
I'm one of those that firmly believe that our planet is just simply going through a cycle. I know that the pollution that the human race is creating isn't good for the planet, but I believe that the amount of CO2 that we produce isn't really causing global warming.
If we look up the percentage of gases that make up our atmosphere, CO2 is known as a trace gas; less then 1% by volume of the Earth's atmosphere. Actually, CO2 only accounts for roughly .038%, thirty eight hundredths of a percent. Considering the low amount of time that humans have been putting CO2 into the atmosphere compared to the timeline of our planet is pretty insignificant.. Although CO2 is only a trace element, in chemistry, many times small changes lead to large results. Some closed system studies show that minuscule changes in CO2 produce very large changes in temperature. The problem comes when the experiments are scaled up to represent realistic atmospheric conditions. Some say it is because CO2 has little affect on temperature, and some say they have not been able to model the atmosphere accurately and therefore the affect CO2 has is still unknown. The point is, there is a lot of conflicting evidence and there really isn’t enough evidence to jump to one side of the debate and claim it is right. The worst thing to do now is to make drastic changes such as putting barriers in our economy so that we switch over to carbon neutral energy and we shouldn’t act like humans have no impact on the environment and follow China in coal plant construction. So let’s keep looking for more studies and reports. |
Originally Posted by Kasserine06
(Post 756746)
I used to believe global warming was a serious problem, but over time, I became more skeptical mainly because of conflicting atmospheric models. The science isn’t settled and it will take some time for the scientific community to gain the public’s trust back. That does not mean that I now believe global warming is a massive conspiracy evil scientists are promoting so they can get more grant money. Conspiracy theories and accusations without evidence will only muddy the water even more as well basing conclusions on what you feel/believe is really happening. Climatology is a complex science that we really haven’t mastered.
Although CO2 is only a trace element, in chemistry, many times small changes lead to large results. Some closed system studies show that minuscule changes in CO2 produce very large changes in temperature. The problem comes when the experiments are scaled up to represent realistic atmospheric conditions. Some say it is because CO2 has little affect on temperature, and some say they have not been able to model the atmosphere accurately and therefore the affect CO2 has is still unknown. The point is, there is a lot of conflicting evidence and there really isn’t enough evidence to jump to one side of the debate and claim it is right. The worst thing to do now is to make drastic changes such as putting barriers in our economy so that we switch over to carbon neutral energy and we shouldn’t act like humans have no impact on the environment and follow China in coal plant construction. So let’s keep looking for more studies and reports. It has nothing to do with the study of CO2 and differenting weather models. There are ocean fossils in the dryest and highest lands on earth. And there are plant fossils under the ice in greenland. Geology proves that the earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is now. All of this happened well before developed humanity. |
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 756812)
Kass:
It has nothing to do with the study of CO2 and differenting weather models. There are ocean fossils in the dryest and highest lands on earth. And there are plant fossils under the ice in greenland. Geology proves that the earth has been much warmer and much cooler than it is now. All of this happened well before developed humanity. We don’t know what the long term trends in temperature will be and we don’t know what causes these temperature changes. Just because this has happened in the past, before humanity, doesn’t make me content. I don’t care if it is part of nature, if the temperature is going to change enough to affect our civilization, I want to know. |
The earth is doing what the earth has been doing for 4.5 BILLION years. To think that we can model or predict the future based on 100 years of data points, which equates to roughly 0.000002% of life of earth, is ludicrous.
If the earth warms or cools, there's not a damn thing we can do about it. |
Caution: Student drivers
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
(Post 757492)
If the earth warms or cools, there's not a damn thing we can do about it.
For all we know, AGW may delay the onset of another ice age, which would otherwise be approaching. :eek: I do think we should conserve energy and reduce pollution, but for other reasons (health, economics, and aesthetics). |
Originally Posted by tomgoodman
(Post 757712)
Even if we could make significant inputs, it might result in the climatic equivalent of a P.I.O., aggravating the next natural change.
For all we know, AGW may delay the onset of another ice age, which would otherwise be approaching. :eek: I do think we should conserve energy and reduce pollution, but for other reasons (health, economics, and aesthetics). |
What's the alternative?
Originally Posted by FDXLAG
(Post 757779)
I am for any and all types of energy I am just against government picking the winners and losers.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:31 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands