And yet this same class of "academics" was adamantly telling us, just a few decades ago, that Global Cooling was a horrible disaster in progress...
Ah, my favourite form of argument has resurfaced!
1. Classify all your opponents into a single category
2. Consider it a weakness of their argument when popular opinion shifts
3. Conclude your opponents are wrong.
All of this reasoning disregards the scientific method, which by nature allows for debate and opinions to change based on a change in observational evience.
1. Classify all your opponents into a single category
2. Consider it a weakness of their argument when popular opinion shifts
3. Conclude your opponents are wrong.
All of this reasoning disregards the scientific method, which by nature allows for debate and opinions to change based on a change in observational evience.
When you're able to get the politics out of the science on this issue (see my post about the IPCC) we can talk about the scientific method.
Until then all we have agenda based fear mongering pretending to be science.
__________________
"The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights." --Thomas Jefferson
"Government is essentially the negation of liberty"- Ludwig Von Mises
In before Austrian(economics) Conspiracy Theories - gjohnson5
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act Disclaimer: This post is satire, all prior and future posts are also satire
so you're accusing them of cheating? i'd like to see you present evidence to support this claim.
LOL, there are countless examples. Google "Hansen hoax" just for some. You might also try reading the article that was posted by multiple people from a scientist who originally signed on to the IPCC before he realized it was a political and not scientific endeavor.
Quote:
The IPCC has resorted to using scenario-building in its policymakers' summary to paint a frightening picture not supported by the science, Lindzen charged. Ignoring the science allows the IPCC to build a scenario, for example, that assumes man will burn 300 years' worth of coal in 100 years. They plug that into the most sensitive climate model available and arrive at a truly frightening global warming scenario.
"People wouldn't normally take that very seriously," said Lindzen, "but I think the IPCC understands the media will report the top number. I don't think, any longer, that this is unintentional."
The IPCC also exploits what scientists do agree on to support its agenda, according to Lindzen. For example, Lindzen said, scientists can more-or-less live with the idea conveyed in the IPCC report that everything is connected to everything else, and everything is uncertain.
Lindzen himself doesn't think these ideas are particularly reasonable. But politicians and environmentalists take this minimal area of agreement, and then claim that anything can cause anything and we must act to stop it.
Scientists agree, for example, that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased over the last 100 years. They also generally agree the climate has warmed slightly. Uncertainties remain, however, regarding even those basic propositions. Contrary to the impression given by the IPCC, there is no widespread agreement on what these two "facts" mean for mankind. Yet they are deemed by the IPCC sufficient to justify precipitous action.
__________________
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."-Milton Friedman
If it sounds like Karl Marx, acts like Benito Mussolini, lies like Joe Isuzu, attracts followers eerily reminiscent of those that Jim Jones attracted and stumbles like Bozo the Clown, it's probably Barack Obama!!!!!
LOL, there are countless examples. Google "Hansen hoax" just for some. You might also try reading the article that was posted by multiple people from a scientist who originally signed on to the IPCC before he realized it was a political and not scientific endeavor.
So why is Lindzen the only person speaking out? Why isn't he publishing research instead of making claims to the popular media? Why is that one of the only people speaking out has received tens of thousands of dollars from various think tanks and corporations like Exxon Mobil? Lindzen does actually do some research; but many of his claims that he used in the 1990's, especially the ones about water vapor, have been abandoned even by him. Lindzen also claims there is no link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer. This probably comes from his association with the Heartland Institute, an organization originally set up by the tobacco companies to muddle the science on the dangers of smoking. Lindzen joins a long list of "skeptics" with the tobacco connection; along with Fred Singer, Stephen Milloy, Fred Seitz, and a few others.
So what makes Lindzen so special that puts him above the rest of the scientific community? It's like when creationists act like the one guy with a PhD who rejects evolution is more trustworthy than every biologist in the world.
__________________
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
... I'd feel like a caveman, if they existed ... and they didn't ...
- Ned Flanders
The source of the heat is from the sun. The heat supposedly gets trapped because of CO2. This is basic greenhouse effect.
However the sun emits more then just UV. It emits every wavelength imaginable. So the CO2 would inadvertently work the same on wavelengths coming into contact with the CO2 barrier that previous reflects heat back onto the Earth. So there is little to no net gain on heat, because they wash.
No, the Earth radiates back in the IR specturm, whereas the Sun's emmision spetrum peaks in the visible. CO2 on the other hand is almost completely clear to visible light, yet has several very strong absorption peaks in the IR. (See attached images.) Your post = completely and total physics fail. But thanks for demonstrating to all of us exactly how much you really know about the science on this subject.
Hmm, I don't see anything at all there about a 300 year long solar cycle, so your claim is a failure. However lets actually look at the graphs you did post. From trough to trough is 1,400 years, not 300. Additionaly you have no evidence at all of a cyclical pattern there as there are only two minimums. A pattern can not be drawn from a single waveform, especially if it is one with and extremely low conformation fit. Oh, and you might want a bit more accurate graph for the last 2,000 years. (See attached image. I'm not sure yet how to embed them.) Please note that the black line is the world wide ground average temperature from instrumentation, whereas the other ones are estimates from various different collection methods. Note that while the other ones show a very wide range of differences between them, that the black one, which incidently is the only one know for certain to be absolutely correct, shows an extremely clear pattern.
Also I'm not sure what your point is suppose to be with the last graph as its only the temperature of Greenland which is considered extremely inaccurate for measuring global temperature because of the effects of the Gulf Stream Current.
No, the Earth radiates back in the IR specturm, whereas the Sun's emmision spetrum peaks in the visible. CO2 on the other hand is almost completely clear to visible light, yet has several very strong absorption peaks in the IR. (See attached images.) Your post = completely and total physics fail. But thanks for demonstrating to all of us exactly how much you really know about the science on this subject.
Your graphs also show that water vapor, which has a much bigger impact on the greenhouse effect, also reflects back infrared. Why aren't you running around screaming at people to stop evaporating water?
Not only that, had you happen to read the first graph you posted and compared with the actual wave spectrum, the sun emits far more infrared then any other type of wave. This is in exact accordance to what I have been saying. So that nice CO2 "shell" we got going around the Earth would be reflecting more infrared back into space under the same mechanism how CO2 traps infrared that isn't reflected.
It's okay dude, no need to throw out insults.
__________________
PM me if I forget to rep you, I am mighty forgetful.
So why is Lindzen the only person speaking out? Why isn't he publishing research instead of making claims to the popular media? Why is that one of the only people speaking out has received tens of thousands of dollars from various think tanks and corporations like Exxon Mobil? Lindzen does actually do some research; but many of his claims that he used in the 1990's, especially the ones about water vapor, have been abandoned even by him. Lindzen also claims there is no link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer. This probably comes from his association with the Heartland Institute, an organization originally set up by the tobacco companies to muddle the science on the dangers of smoking. Lindzen joins a long list of "skeptics" with the tobacco connection; along with Fred Singer, Stephen Milloy, Fred Seitz, and a few others.
So what makes Lindzen so special that puts him above the rest of the scientific community? It's like when creationists act like the one guy with a PhD who rejects evolution is more trustworthy than every biologist in the world.
How about if we disregard everyone associated with both the big oil and tobacco lobby as well as everyone influenced by the U.N.'s political agenda and we'll go back to 20 years ago when people were willing to admit no one knows anything about how climate and the weather on our own planet really works?
__________________
"The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights." --Thomas Jefferson
"Government is essentially the negation of liberty"- Ludwig Von Mises
In before Austrian(economics) Conspiracy Theories - gjohnson5
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act Disclaimer: This post is satire, all prior and future posts are also satire
Your graphs also show that water vapor, which has a much bigger impact on the greenhouse effect, also reflects back infrared. Why aren't you running around screaming at people to stop evaporating water?
So when I point out that you are wrong, your response is instead to state that we should magic the oceans to stop evaporation? And yes, I'm fully aware that water is a strong green house gas; methane is too and oxygen and nitrogen are weak ones.
The gulf current can cause major changes in the temperature of Greenland, while barely effecting the rest of the world depending upon exactly what the change in it is. So its a major factor. Of course on the other hand, some changes in the gulf current can cause major world wide changes in average temperature. So either way Greenland is a pretty bad marker, Antartcica is by far prefered for several different reasons.
The gulf current can cause major changes in the temperature of Greenland, while barely effecting the rest of the world depending upon exactly what the change in it is. So its a major factor. Of course on the other hand, some changes in the gulf current can cause major world wide changes in average temperature. So either way Greenland is a pretty bad marker, Antartcica is by far prefered for several different reasons.
If Antarctica is going to be used as a marker, how is it explained that its polar ice cap was created some 50 million years ago which followed basically a huge warming period where CO2 levels were higher then today?
So essentially it was warm, the atmosphere was filled with higher concentrations of CO2 then seen today only to be followed by a great freezing period of the poles and continued temperature drops.
This seems like a very cyclical phenomena where it gets warm, CO2 goes up as a result of it getting warmer, and a natural cooling period occurs. So it inadvertently proves global warming and global cooling in one fell swoop. It is also by coincidence that this is when primates first started appearing, thus we know primates can survive such global conditions.
But do we really need people, especially politicians, running around like Chicken Littles yelling the sky is falling?
__________________
PM me if I forget to rep you, I am mighty forgetful.
I have no problem with the global warming denyers, as long as they're doing it with educated reasoning. Most people here don't do that.
/post
The warmest years in the last century were in the 1930s and 40s.
__________________
QUOTE=SDMuscleBuddy
Personally, like Rev. Wright, I don't think Jones is all that radical. They are certainly colorful in their speech, but that doesn't make them wrong. The Jones affair was more partisan hackery IMO.
the whole thing is very interesting, but particularly interesting is 17:45 to 24:35 as it offers an interesting perspective on how politics and social status interferes with science.
Antwan Lavoisier was proven wrong by Count Romford yet lavoisier's social status meant that his theory was still taught as fact almost 50 years after he had been proven completely wrong.
apparently Antwan Lavoisier was the Al Gore of his time.
__________________
New proposed rules from the U S Customs will broaden the definitions of illegal knives to include all Knife's that can be opened with one hand
which will in effect ban ALL pocket knives nationwide that can be opened with one hand
this goes before no elected officials, it is an edict from US customs
If Antarctica is going to be used as a marker, how is it explained that its polar ice cap was created some 50 million years ago which followed basically a huge warming period where CO2 levels were higher then today?
So essentially it was warm, the atmosphere was filled with higher concentrations of CO2 then seen today only to be followed by a great freezing period of the poles and continued temperature drops.
This seems like a very cyclical phenomena where it gets warm, CO2 goes up as a result of it getting warmer, and a natural cooling period occurs. So it inadvertently proves global warming and global cooling in one fell swoop. It is also by coincidence that this is when primates first started appearing, thus we know primates can survive such global conditions.
But do we really need people, especially politicians, running around like Chicken Littles yelling the sky is falling?
First off I absolutely agree about average people and especially politicians and the media run around with little information and alot of being scared and global warming is no exception. Water World won't happen or anything like that. However keep in mind that the media and politicians do not represent the scientific community on anything.
Antartica froze up around then because it was moving south, it use to be much farther north. I'm sure that if Australia moved to the south pole from where its at now it would freeze over too. And yes, there have been periods with much higher levels of green house gasses and much higher global temperatures, as well as much lower for both of them. Infact at two points the Earth was almost entirely frozen over. I'm not aware of any scientist who works in climate study that has ever said either of those weren't true, although there are alot of other people that have.
What is absolutely true is that for around the last 150 years the Earth's temperature has been going up on average. The concentration of green houses gasses has been going up too and a fair amount of this is from human activity although by far not all. So we definetly do have an affect on it. Now you could argue as to exactly how much of that effect we are responsible for, but we absolutely are responsible for atleast part of it.
And yes, primates did survive as well as many other groups. However you are talking about entire groups, some species did go extinct from those events. Humans would not go exticnt from global warming, not even close, but that doesn't mean it won't cause of problems. Most of the population lives in areas specifically because those areas are able to support a large population, most not all. As weather patterns change it could definetly cause farming problems in some areas, as well as issues with fishing and disease spread especialy ones spread by insects. Now of course there also some potential positives to the situation as well.
Anyways, to sum it all up, there is no doubt that global warming is happening and that humans are atleast in part responsible for it. There are both potential positives and negatives to this. I suppose the real question is exactly what these positives and negatives are, and how much of a problem they will produce.
How about if we disregard everyone associated with both the big oil and tobacco lobby as well as everyone influenced by the U.N.'s political agenda and we'll go back to 20 years ago when people were willing to admit no one knows anything about how climate and the weather on our own planet really works?
The people who study this do have a pretty good idea how the climate works. I doubt many scientists are part of a UN plot. It's just odd that most of the outspoken critics seem to be nonscientists, cranks, or people with questionable motives.
__________________
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
... I'd feel like a caveman, if they existed ... and they didn't ...
- Ned Flanders
The people who study this do have a pretty good idea how the climate works. I doubt many scientists are part of a UN plot. It's just odd that most of the outspoken critics seem to be nonscientists, cranks, or people with questionable motives.
So you believe that there are hardly any "real" scientists who don't agree with the false global warming scam?
And then in December we're possibly going to sign a climate treaty to pay some bogus climate debt to poorer nations? It's all a scam that's intended to be used for more taxes on us. And where will all the money really end up if this climate treaty actually happens?
__________________
QUOTE=SDMuscleBuddy
Personally, like Rev. Wright, I don't think Jones is all that radical. They are certainly colorful in their speech, but that doesn't make them wrong. The Jones affair was more partisan hackery IMO.
Last edited by powerman2000; 10-20-2009 at 11:27 AM.
Every day I see Drudge with headlines about global warming being a farce because some American city is reporting record lows or earlier snow than ever, etc.
Perhaps it's Mr. Drudge's lack of a college education that is responsible for his views but global warming refers to climate change. Climate by definition is long-term weather patterns. A record low or early snow in one small corner of the world means absolutely nothing in terms of climate change.
I have no problem with the global warming denyers, as long as they're doing it with educated reasoning. Most people here don't do that.
/post
great post, reps on recharge
I'm glad to see more intelligent posters in the R/P now adays
The people who study this do have a pretty good idea how the climate works. I doubt many scientists are part of a UN plot. It's just odd that most of the outspoken critics seem to be nonscientists, cranks, or people with questionable motives.
If you're going to disregard the influence of politics out of hand then I don't see how you can expect people to take you seriously when you disregard scientists based on their affiliation with oil lobbies alone. There isn't anything these lobbies can offer that can make up for falling out of the good graces of the powers that be.
But that won't stop you from using that argument to dance around the points made and use character assassination.
__________________
"The idea is quite unfounded that on entering into society we give up any natural rights." --Thomas Jefferson
"Government is essentially the negation of liberty"- Ludwig Von Mises
In before Austrian(economics) Conspiracy Theories - gjohnson5
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act Disclaimer: This post is satire, all prior and future posts are also satire
Antartica froze up around then because it was moving south, it use to be much farther north. I'm sure that if Australia moved to the south pole from where its at now it would freeze over too. And yes, there have been periods with much higher levels of green house gasses and much higher global temperatures, as well as much lower for both of them. Infact at two points the Earth was almost entirely frozen over. I'm not aware of any scientist who works in climate study that has ever said either of those weren't true, although there are alot of other people that have.
That's false. Antarctica was in generally the same location years before it started to freeze over, as seen here:
Quote:
What is absolutely true is that for around the last 150 years the Earth's temperature has been going up on average. The concentration of green houses gasses has been going up too and a fair amount of this is from human activity although by far not all. So we definetly do have an affect on it. Now you could argue as to exactly how much of that effect we are responsible for, but we absolutely are responsible for atleast part of it.
The 1800s was a cold century and is used as the bench mark for comparing temperatures currently, which should be even to the most analytical person seen wrongfully contextualized. So when you say temperatures were increasing over the past 150 years, you are saying they increased in contrast to the temperatures seen in the 1800s, not over the grand time frame.
__________________
PM me if I forget to rep you, I am mighty forgetful.
I'm glad to see more intelligent posters in the R/P now adays
Don't you dummies know that Matt Drudge doesn't write any columns on his website?
He's just posting article links.
LMAO at the OP for attacking Matt
__________________
QUOTE=SDMuscleBuddy
Personally, like Rev. Wright, I don't think Jones is all that radical. They are certainly colorful in their speech, but that doesn't make them wrong. The Jones affair was more partisan hackery IMO.
Lets be realistic - polluting our planet is obviously a bad idea and it needs to stop. With that said, global warming isn't being caused by pollution alone. There have been many changes and temperature increases in almost all of the planets in our solar system.
human pollution isnt so bad, where are the studies for this? I have a scientist here that says pollution really isnt harmful, lets keep polluting!!
"There is a lot of money to be made in this, 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
That's false. Antarctica was in generally the same location years before it started to freeze over, as seen here:
The 1800s was a cold century and is used as the bench mark for comparing temperatures currently, which should be even to the most analytical person seen wrongfully contextualized. So when you say temperatures were increasing over the past 150 years, you are saying they increased in contrast to the temperatures seen in the 1800s, not over the grand time frame.
I have no idea where you got the idea that Antartica isn't moving from, but it is. Currently its moving at about 1cm per year towards the Atlantic Plate. That motion alone puts it at 500km further north than it is now towards the direction of Austrailia when it started to freeze. To put that in perspective that puts much of it as far north as parts of Argentina which is not frozen over. Furthermore this is rather slow motion for a plate and its believed (although not know for cetain as far as I'm aware) that the motion of the plate was previously faster than it is now, so it was probably more than 500km further north. Keep in mind though I'm not a geologist.
I do know that when Austraila split off from Antartica it allowed for the circum-polar ocean current that's around it today which allowed the temperature to drop considerably. Thus Antarctica froze. Again though, we are talking about global temperature and not just that of one area. If we were only talking about one area then I could claim that the spread of the Sahara is due to the changing climate and is absolute proof of global warming. Regional changes simply don't reflect that of the entire Earth. Antarctica is simply a good area to measure changes in global temperature since the circum-polar current was established because it protects it from reagional fluctuations.
I'm also very well aware that we are only talking about ground based measurements with instrumentation over the last 150 years. However if you would take a look at the graph I put up showing the temperature estimates over the last 2,000 years you should notice something. While there is a fairly large difference in temperature estimates depending upon the method being used, the temperature now is never-the-less still .2 degrees higher than the peak of any of the estimates over that entire time span. So the current global average is undoubtably higher now than it has been over that time span which does include the Midieval Warm Period. There really is no question that the average global temperature has been going up since modern industry started.
__________________
Bodybuilder, n. A weight lifter too weak to be a powerlifter.
Powerlifter, n. A weight lifter too fat to be a bodybuilder.
HIT Jedi, n. The fitness equivalent to Al Qaeda, except
rather than fly planes into buildings, devotees fly
steaming piles of dogmatic horse**** into your ears
and down your throat.
Every thing works..........for about 6 weeks.
Hard gainer = under eater
_____________________________________________
Linear Mode
