My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Mercedes Benzene]

Sheesh. It's a little tense in here.
Care for a little *on topic* humor to lighten things up?


Complements of I Can Has Cheez Burger.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Gentlemen-

This is a 20 minute video from 2007 that nicely encapsulates the opposing view. This video is not proprietary.


Discovery Institute

In this discussion it is nice to avoid references to the "consensus" of scientists. Nothing in science is decided by consensus. Science is not a democracy.

Most folks see this sort of presentation and proceed to attempt to discredit the source or the sponsor (as has been done in previous posts). I think this forum deserves to focus on the underlying science, not the perceived biases of the contributors.

I found the video interesting. I am no fan of AGW/CO2.

My quarrel with the presentation is no sources were given. I have read control studies of oranges and wheat (and other food products), which seems to match the growth rates presented, however I as a viewer was under the impression these increases are being seen in generic mom and pop operations scattered across the usa. Drop a ruler into any field and presto, we document increased growth. The studies I read regarding that kind of outstanding growth rates were tented/greenhouse/controlled environments.

This is also true of the temperatures. No sources given.

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Does anyone agree with the notion that man-made or not, that the data shows a trend that represents a threat to national security?

No

Originally Posted by Buffy

Do you think Wall Street or Florida or Houston are worth saving?

hmmm... After the financial mess created ? I dont think we should warn them of any impending natural disaster and hope they are waiting for a taxi when the 6 story tall wave rolls in.

As far as the other spots listed, I would encourage the MN Nat Guard to be posted at the borders and check IDs and not let anyone from texas or florida across the border. But I have wanted to do this since 1982 and not because of climate change.

Originally Posted by Buffy

A few bazillions of geo-engineering are worth a googol-zillion of transplanting the populace to say...Oregon?

Oregon.. hmm. I have no problem with everyone from texas and/or florida being transplanted to oregon. But we should take out all the mountain passes so they cant sneak out again.

[Flying Binghi]

LOL, Mercedes Benzene thats not one of the bears green peace left behind eh

Heres a few more shots of the bear chase - apparently he was a wildlife photographer

YouTube - Polar Bear Attack!

note the camera and tripod.

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by Essay

I see I'm just echoing Michaleangelica's post, but....


Engineerdude,

With not enough time, I can only ask that you consider that there is some mechanism by which CO2 affects the balance of heat escaping from our atmosphere into space. You clearly misunderstand the actual mechanism, so without going into all the details, I'd ask that you defer to people who have studied and experimented with this mechanism for many lifetimes worth of work. But....

I sure agree with you that there are many immediate, tangible problems which need attention. It is fortuitous that the solution to many of those problems also involves limiting CO2 levels.

The three items you mention (...we destroy coral, pollute rivers, erode topsoil...) are "solved" if we reduce CO2 levels: ...to halt acidifying the oceans; and use the sequestered carbon, instead of petrofertilizers, to fertilize our crops--thus avoiding the runoff, helping the rivers--and simultaneously building up topsoil, ala Terra Preta. This is all achieved thru a carbon mitigation strategy that incorporates biochar into more organic agricultural policies and procedures.

Regardless of how CO2 affects the climate, could we agree that a program of biosequestration would help the reefs, rivers and topsoils (& possibly help restore harvests in the anoxic coastal dead-zones; reduce our dependence on oil; contribute to a healthier diet and population; focus education more on health and production-- instead of entertainment and consumption; and provide new jobs, careers, and technologies-- helping the economy)?

Sorry to get rhetorical with that last parenthetical excursive, but....

Rather than spend billions to solve each of these problems individually, maybe we should focus on one, relatively cheap, synergistic strategy as a solution.

~ SA

I actually very much understand the mechanism which the AGW people say exists. I have done extensive reading of everything I could find, and as far as I know I have reviewed and I fully comprehend what the AGW scientists have put forth.

Just because I understand the process put forth does not mean that I say it is logical or correct. By my judgment it is neither.

Want proof? The IPCC created sophisticated computer models based on their climate theories. They used these models to project out how changes in our atmosphere will affect global temperatures. Their projections had a max and min range, with uncertainty increasing over time, but basically they showed that if CO2 kept increasing things were going to get a whole lot warmer.

Real world climate has in no way done what the IPCC claimed they would do since they first published their projections in 2001. World temperatures have not in fact increased at all despite a substantial increase in CO2 levels. Our current planetary temperature is so far below even the lowest IPCC projection that clearly something in their science or methodology is clearly screwed up.

Did they mess up programming their model? Or is the science incorrect that their model was based on? I think both, but you decide for yourself.

Here's a link to an article with all kinds of charts and data concerning this, and verifying what I have stated above:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008...ecent-warming/

[Flying Binghi]

Interesting this -

Changes in the earths reflectance over the past two decades

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sdo/meeting...3_06_Palle.pdf

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Want proof? The IPCC created sophisticated computer models based on their climate theories.

Incorrect. First of all, the IPCC is a UN entity comprised of scientists from around the world. The mission of the IPCC is to accumulate and evaluate climate data from scientists globally. There is much debate within the IPCC as to what should make it to the reports. I'm continually perplexed that climate skeptics do not latch on to the internal debates of the IPCC.

Secondly, climate models are built using real world data. It is not as if the scientists came up with a theory and built the model upon the theory. Rather, the computer sims model different scenarios based upon the data that is inputed. The computer models are a way to test varying theories, not to confirm them.

They used these models to project out how changes in our atmosphere will affect global temperatures. Their projections had a max and min range, with uncertainty increasing over time, but basically they showed that if CO2 kept increasing things were going to get a whole lot warmer.

Correct.

Real world climate has in no way done what the IPCC claimed they would do since they first published their projections in 2001. World temperatures have not in fact increased at all despite a substantial increase in CO2 levels.

Global temp *has* increased!

Our current planetary temperature is so far below even the lowest IPCC projection that clearly something in their science or methodology is clearly screwed up.

What exactly is screwed up then? If you have the vigor to refute the data, then please have the vigor to point out what exactly is wrong with the data.

[Flying Binghi]

Meanwhile, back in 1922 -

Washington Post article:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.


The article being backed up by this research - http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/gr...eretal2006.pdf

The charts on page 10 give the quik snap shot veiw. I dont know if there are any urban heat island or geothermal effects to the temp records.

Looks to me that sudden ups and downs are the norm for climate (and weather)

[Flying Binghi]

freeztar, i'm surprised you hav'nt referenced your graphs/charts

There is much debate within the IPCC as to what should make it to the reports. I'm continually perplexed that climate skeptics do not latch on to the internal debates of the IPCC

Oh, but they have - one reason for the calls for a proper AUDIT of all IPCC sources rather then the mates doing the so-called peer reviews.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

freeztar, i'm surprised you hav'nt referenced your graphs/charts

I'm always happy to disclose my sources (btw, a right-click and properties will show the originating website URL)
It's a NASA link that can be found here:
Global Warming : Feature Articles

Oh, but they have - one reason for the calls for a proper AUDIT of all IPCC sources rather then the mates doing the so-called peer reviews.

I'd be elated to discuss these issues, in another thread (and assuming that the discussion remains scientific).