thank goodness

[jk the sooner fan]

that global warming has finally kicked in this summer

a late hurricane season is now underway.....perhaps we'll get enough of them to keep up with all the predictions we were warned about

and damn, how bout that triple digit heat......woot!

[KABOOKIE]

Don't look now Mr. Gore......


Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder

Agency roasted after Toronto blogger spots `hot years' data fumble

Aug 14, 2007 04:30 AM
DANIEL DALE
STAFF REPORTER

In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.
After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.
Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.
More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.
NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."
But the revisions have been seized on by conservative Americans, including firebrand radio host Rush Limbaugh, as evidence that climate change science is unsound.
Said Limbaugh last Thursday: "What do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA ... is in the scientific community with false data."
However Stephen McIntyre, who set off the uproar, described his finding as a "a micro-change. But it was kind of fun."
A former mining executive who runs the blog ClimateAudit.org, McIntyre, 59, earned attention in 2003 when he put out data challenging the so-called "hockey stick" graph depicting a spike in global temperatures.
This time, he sifted NASA's use of temperature anomalies, which measure how much warmer or colder a place is at a given time compared with its 30-year average.
Puzzled by a bizarre "jump" in the U.S. anomalies from 1999 to 2000, McIntyre discovered the data after 1999 wasn't being fractionally adjusted to allow for the times of day that readings were taken or the locations of the monitoring stations.
McIntyre emailed his finding to NASA's Goddard Institute, triggering the data review.
"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces."

[jk the sooner fan]

wait, so the evidence we've been told all along is "clear and proven" now is flawed?

hmmmm..

interesting article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/newsweeks_global_warming_crusa.html)

[OUDoc]

I think it's clear that there may or may not be increases or decreases in global temperatures that may or may not be induced by man.

[mdklatt]

wait, so the evidence we've been told all along is "clear and proven" now is flawed?


Somebody should tell all that Arctic ice to quit melting now that we know global warming is a hoax.

[jk the sooner fan]

like a moth to a flame

my work is done here

[KABOOKIE]

Somebody should tell all that Arctic ice to quit melting now that we know global warming is a hoax.

I think somebody thinks they can tell it to stop. Stupid humans.

[mdklatt]

I think somebody thinks they can tell it to stop. Stupid humans.

Yeah, how could we possibly think we could mitigate warming when we're the ones causing it in the first place? That's just crazy talk.

[KABOOKIE]

Yeah, how could we possibly think we could mitigate warming when we're the ones causing it in the first place? That's just crazy talk.


My bad. I forgot about the consensus on man-made warming.

[Widescreen]

Yep. Case closed. The argument is over. Thank you Al Gore! I wish I could revote in the 2000 election. Because I'd vote for..... Well, I'd probably vote for Bush again, but in any case, Thank you Al Gore!

[King Crimson]

jk is right in more ways than he knows about moths. i'd say the so-called non-moths outnumber the so-called moths.

[KABOOKIE]

Whatever will we do?


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293258,00.html


A Washington, D.C., resident recently came across a 1922 article that revealed early signs of climate change.

John Lockwood found a 1922 article in The Washington Post when he was conducting research at the Library of Congress. The article's headline read: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt," according to a report in the Washington Times.

The article reports "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

Click here to read the Washington Times story.

Lockwood said he's discovered other articles from the 1920s and 1930s on the same subject.

"I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all," Lockwood said.

[StoopTroup]

Tonight I might pour a nice scotch over an iceberg.

[OUDoc]

Tonight I might pour a nice scotch over an iceberg.
Why don't you club a baby seal while you're at it? ;)

[Ardmore_Sooner]

http://momentoffame.com/photopost/data/535/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg

[Widescreen]

http://momentoffame.com/photopost/data/535/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg
That's not a baby seal.

[Harry Beanbag]

My bad. I forgot about the consensus on man-made warming.


Speaking of the mighty consensus, here's another interesting read. I'm sure it will be ridiculed and labeled as bull**** here shortly, but nonetheless...

http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf

[jk the sooner fan]

Speaking of the mighty consensus, here's another interesting read. I'm sure it will be ridiculed and labeled as bull**** here shortly, but nonetheless...

http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf

conform you non-believer!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mdklatt]

Speaking of the mighty consensus, here's another interesting read. I'm sure it will be ridiculed and labeled as bull**** here shortly, but nonetheless...

http://downloads.heartland.org/20861.pdf

Why would a PR publication of something called the "Heartland Institute", which was founded as a shill for the tobacco industry (http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute), be labeled as bull****? I mean just because it includes zero references for its many assertions and nothing more than a vague description of the survey sample doesn't mean we shouldn't take it at face value. After all, it's on the innerwebs.

[jk the sooner fan]

so lets see, only those with anything to say thats remotely "anti global warming" has an agenda

got it

[KABOOKIE]

Must. Not. Give. In. :mad: They’ll tear us apart if we waiver from the consensus. :D

[mdklatt]

A serious question for the skeptics: Why do you give more credibility to the same small group of "experts" who keep rehashing arguments that have been repeatedly rebutted (http://www.realclimate.org) (to no response) while ignoring the work of thousands of researchers in biology and earth science fields who are working on completely independent research and yet keep reaching the same conclusion?

[mdklatt]

so lets see, only those with anything to say thats remotely "anti global warming" has an agenda


What's the "agenda" of climatologists?

[mdklatt]

Must. Not. Give. In. :mad: They’ll tear us apart if we waiver from the consensus. :D

What, no defense of the fine work of the Heartland Institute?

[1stTimeCaller]

A serious question for the skeptics: Why do you give more credibility to the same small group of "experts" who keep rehashing arguments that have been repeatedly rebutted (http://www.realclimate.org) (to no response) while ignoring the work of thousands of researchers in biology and earth science fields who are working on completely independent research and yet keep reaching the same conclusion?
are these the same scientists that told us of out impending doom in the 70s with global cooling?

[mdklatt]

are these the same scientists that told us of out impending doom in the 70s with global cooling?

No. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94)

And there actually was a cooling trend in the middle of the last century, probably due to large amounts of aerosol pollution. Note that it's a common flat-earther tactic to assert that scientists were wrong in the past so why should we believe them now while at the same time pointing out that cooling trend (that scientists were wrong about?) as "proof" that global warming isn't happening. The anti-GW side isn't just a failure of fact in many cases, it's also a failure of logic. They can't keep their story straight.

[jk the sooner fan]

when its boring here on the oval, nothing beats watching mdklatt get all worked up over global warming

[mdklatt]

when its boring here on the oval, nothing beats watching mdklatt get all worked up over global warming

i.e., I don't have anything useful to say so I'm just going to say stuff like this when challenged.

To borrow one of your favorite words: Typical.

[jk the sooner fan]

i.e., I don't have anything useful to say so I'm just going to say stuff like this when challenged.

To borrow one of your favorite words: Typical.

dude, i could care less

i started the thread to push your buttons

[mdklatt]

dude, i could care less

i started the thread to push your buttons

IOW, you're just being a ******?

[JohnnyMack]

Mother Nature > Stupid Humans

[mdklatt]

Mother Nature > Stupid Humans

What does that even mean?

[JohnnyMack]

It means that planet earth has its own cycle. Has for millions of years. I think it's comical that humans are so conceited that they think they have any significant impact on what is something that is so much larger (both in size and time) than they are. Like an fly ****ing an elephant and asking, "does it hurt?"

[jk the sooner fan]

IOW, you're just being a ******?

its boring around here, the minions need to be entertained

one mans ****** is another mans entertainer

[mdklatt]

It means that planet earth has its own cycle. Has for millions of years.

Ah, "natural causes". That's not really an answer, though. What exactly is the natural cause that's causing the earth to warm right now?



I think it's comical that humans are so conceited that they think they have any significant impact on what is something that is so much larger (both in size and time) than they are.

I guess Al Gore made up the ozone hole, too.

[JohnnyMack]

Ah, "natural causes". That's not really an answer, though. What exactly is the natural cause that's causing the earth to warm right now?


I tend to lean towards the "it's a phase" argument. One that the earth naturally cycles through. Do you ever watch the the show "The Universe" on the history channel? Anyways last week I saw the one about Neptune and they were showing how the "great dark spot" on Neptune has disappeared. They couldn't explain why it persisted for so long and then simply vanished. The argument was that it simply played itself out and that it could reform in some fashion later in time. Basically the argument is that atmospheres on planets change and while I know that we haven't done planet earth any favors, I certainly don't think we're causing its imminent doom.


I guess Al Gore made up the ozone hole, too.

Do you think this is the first and only time the ozone layer has developed a hole? I don't know the answer to that and neither do you (unless you have a flux capacitor and a Delorean). But I'd be lay my money on the "it's probably happened before" side.

[KABOOKIE]

What exactly is the natural cause that's causing the earth to warm right now?

Mmmm. Maybe it's warming right now because scientist are looking at biased data? It was hot in the 30's too.

[mdklatt]

I tend to lean towards the "it's a phase" argument. One that the earth naturally cycles through.

Again, that's not an answer. What is the physical cause of the warming? Has the earth's albedo changed? Are we closer to the sun? Is solar output increasing?



But I'd be lay my money on the "it's probably happened before" side.


Wow. I suppose the last hole was from all the CFCs dinosaurs were producing back in the day.

[Newbomb Turk]

its boring around here, the minions need to be entertained

this is rather entertaining. :O

[mdklatt]

Mmmm. Maybe it's warming right now because scientist are looking at biased data?

Does biased data cause poleward species migration, coral bleaching, and loss of glacial mass? And what is the nature of this bias?

[KABOOKIE]

Wow. I suppose the last hole was from all the CFCs dinosaurs were producing back in the day.

Well those scaly fanged tooth bastards caused temperatures to rise too. Or maybe it was volcanic activity. Ah hell.

[mdklatt]

this is rather entertaining. :O

:les: DON'T ENCOURAGE HIM!

[KABOOKIE]

Does biased data cause poleward species migration, coral bleaching, and loss of glacial mass? And what is the nature of this bias?

No, natural warming cycles do. Ice melted in the 30's too. There just wasn't 300,000 geeks taking data every square inch and shoving the BS down our throats.

[JohnnyMack]

Again, that's not an answer. What is the physical cause of the warming? Has the earth's albedo changed? Are we closer to the sun? Is solar output increasing?

Go get in your telephone booth with Bill & Ted, go back 3.1 million years ago and let me know if there were any periods in which the earth warmed.

Wait. Didn't we have an ice age or two or ten? Didn't most of that ice melt? How did that happen if the earth didn't WARM UP FROM TIME TO TIME?!?!?!?!?!?

[1stTimeCaller]

so you're saying that we need to be using more old school aerosol cans to make GW go away?

I'm simple so work with me here.

"there actually was a cooling trend in the middle of the last century, probably due to large amounts of aerosol pollution."

we go to another type of aerosol, the earth gets warmer. It only took 20 years for this change to happen.

If we go back to old school aerosol cans we can reverse global warming and cool this mother down again, like we did last time.

Right?

[JohnnyMack]

so you're saying that we need to be using more old school aerosol cans to make GW go away?

I'm simple so work with me here.

"there actually was a cooling trend in the middle of the last century, probably due to large amounts of aerosol pollution."

we go to another type of aerosol, the earth gets warmer. It only took 20 years for this change to happen.

If we go back to old school aerosol cans we can reverse global warming and cool this mother down again, like we did last time.

Right?

I can't hear you. I spraying Aqua-Net on my do to help out with Global Cooling.

[mdklatt]

so you're saying that we need to be using more old school aerosol cans to make GW go away?



Wrong kind of aerosol. I was talking about particulate pollution, e.g. soot. What a fantastic opportunity for the coal industry! They can market coal as an alternative to foreign oil and a solution to global warming.

[mdklatt]

Wait. Didn't we have an ice age or two or ten? Didn't most of that ice melt? How did that happen if the earth didn't WARM UP FROM TIME TO TIME?!?!?!?!?!?

Nobody ever said that there aren't natural causes for climate changes. Which of those natural causes are taking place right now? Surely you must have some idea, since you're certain that CO2 has nothing to do with it.

People die from natural causes all the time. Does that mean murder is a myth, too?

[1stTimeCaller]

so the answers was 'yes'.

I guess I can be published in those fancy journals as the person that solved global warming.

I'd like to thank my baby's momma klatt's sister and the fine folks at SF.com that made this possible.

;)

[JohnnyMack]

Nobody ever said that there aren't natural causes for climate changes. Which of those natural causes are taking place right now? Surely you must have some idea, since you're certain that CO2 has nothing to do with it.

People die from natural causes all the time. Does that mean murder is a myth, too?

I don't know. Which of the natural causes caused the ice age to cool down right then?

[KABOOKIE]

People die from natural causes all the time. Does that mean murder is a myth, too?

Nope. The BS analogy of today is that everyone is dying because of murder.

[jk the sooner fan]

Nope. The BS analogy of today is that everyone is dying because of murder.

Barack Hussein Obama didnt directly use the word murder

[KABOOKIE]

Barack Hussein Obama didnt directly use the word murder

Killing/Murder. Whatever.

I thought he changed his named to Barack Clinton-Kennedy Obama?

[OUinFLA]

Wow. I suppose the last hole was from all the CFCs dinosaurs were producing back in the day.

I read where some scientiists are claiming that cow belches and gas passing are a major contributing factor.............
Imagine how much gas a brontosaurus passed? Especially if they were grazing in the cabbage patch for a few hundred thousand years.
Im surprised we had an ozone layer at all back then.

[mdklatt]

I read where some scientiists are claiming that cow belches and gas passing are a major contributing factor.............


In ozone depletion? I think you're talking about methane as a greenhouse gas.

[King Crimson]

Killing/Murder. Whatever.

I thought he changed his named to Barack Clinton-Kennedy Marx-Lenin-Stalin-Hitler-Bin Laden Obama?

FTFY.

[mdklatt]

I don't know. Which of the natural causes caused the ice age to cool down right then?

Primarily changes in the amount and distribution of insolation (look up Milankovitch cycles).

[OUinFLA]

In ozone depletion? I think you're talking about methane as a greenhouse gas.

I appreciate your help in determining what I am thinking. Im usually quite confused. Plus, I was only trying to help make this thread more "entertaining".

Ok, since it's now methane gas, isn't it a good deal that man wasn't around smoking, lighting fires, causing sparks................ imagine what an explosion would have ocured with all that methane gas floating around.

I'd say it would be kinda like the equivalent to 12 drunk college boys stuck in a non-working elevator about an hour after pigging out at Taco Bell.

It sure musta stunk back then.

[JohnnyMack]

I read where some scientiists are claiming that cow belches and gas passing are a major contributing factor.............
Imagine how much gas a brontosaurus passed? Especially if they were grazing in the cabbage patch for a few hundred thousand years.
Im surprised we had an ozone layer at all back then.

Didn't you and olevet used to hunt those things?

<runs away>

[JohnnyMack]

Primarily changes in the amount and distribution of insolation (look up Milankovitch cycles).

So the converse of that couldn't be happening right now? I don't know. I'm axeing you.

[Fugue]

Primarily changes in the amount and distribution of insolation (look up Malkovich cycles).

What could he possibly know about the weather? :rolleyes:

http://www.movieactors.com/freezeframes510/killingfields3.jpeg

[mdklatt]

So the converse of that couldn't be happening right now?

It could be, but it isn't. Don't you think somebody might have looked into that already? Or do you think climatologists are all incompetent? That's the unstated assumption underlying the "natural causes" argument, that climatologists are all a bunch of idiots who have forgotten the basic principles of climatology.

Wait a minute...we forgot all about the sun! We better redo our calculations!

[KABOOKIE]

Wait a minute...we forgot all about the sun! We better redo our calculations!

They did forget a few things. And that's why NASA had to redo the calculations.

[mdklatt]

They did forget a few things. And that's why NASA had to redo the calculations.

The changes due to the corrected data were not statistically significant, and only applied to the US. The global trend did not change at all with the new data. And surface temperature data is not the only evidence of global warming. Are data errors causing ice to melt? Why do you think the US, Russia, and Canada are so interested in territorial rights in the Arctic Ocean all of a sudden? Francis Drake could have found his northwest passage if he'd waited a few centuries.

[KABOOKIE]

It's melted before. It's melted this century. Hold your panties it'll freeze soon enough.

[mdklatt]

It's melted before. It's melted this century.

What's causing it to melt right now?

[KABOOKIE]

What's causing it to melt right now?


The same thing that caused it to melt before.

[mdklatt]

The same thing that caused it to melt before.

1) That didn't answer my question.

2) How can you know that?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

My thing is that pumping large amounts of pollution has to have some effect on "our" lives. However, Mother Earth is one hateful bitch. To think we can hurt her more than she can hurt us is asinine at best. The fact of the matter is that we do need to cut down on pollution mostly because it will improve the quality of our lives specifically in large cities. Now do I think we should put our industries behind the proverbial 8 ball when China has shown that they have no intention of slowing down their pollution. We need to continue to be productive in industry while also setting a world example by taking small steps to reduce our emissions. We need to do it so that our children don't have to wear masks or special clothes not because those polar ice caps are suddenly going to go all Day After Tomorrow on us.

[1stTimeCaller]

Why do you think the US, Russia, and Canada are so interested in territorial rights in the Arctic Ocean all of a sudden?

mineral rights.

YWIA

[mdklatt]

mineral rights.

YWIA

Why hasn't this been an issue before?

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Because last time there was significant amount of polar melting was what 1932?

Seems like a reasonable answer to me

[OUinFLA]

Why hasn't this been an issue before?


there used to be too much ice in the way

[KABOOKIE]

Why hasn't this been an issue before?

1) there's more geeks up there right now than there ever has been in the history of geeks.

2) they actually found stuff worth a ****.

[mdklatt]

Can all the skeptics in this thread get their story straight for me?

Is it "there's no proof of global warming because all the data is flawed" or "there is global warming but it has nothing to do with putting more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere"?

TIA.

[OUinFLA]

yes



I think

or....
you can tell me what I think, again. :D

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I think the actual argument is "does man cause wide scale global warming?" or "Does man cause wide scale global cooling?" There is plenty of statistical evidence to support that the earth has heated and cooled on its own without any known human cause...

[Ardmore_Sooner]

The changes due to the corrected data were not statistically significant, and only applied to the US.

So the US isn't part of the world? Mathematically, this statement makes no sense.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

One of the more entertaining "global warming" threads I've read on the SO.

SUMMARY: Walk, don't drive, don't sh*t, don't smoke, don't exhale too much(no more than you simply have to) Just BACK OFF, and just DON'T! DO vote Democrat, and turn it over to the govt. They'll provide...not so fast, my Greenhouse gassed friend!

[mdklatt]

There is plenty of statistical evidence to support that the earth has heated and cooled on its own without any known human cause...

1) Nobody disputes that.

2) How does that rule out human causes? You realize that the same effect can have more than one cause, right?

3) Why do you assume that those natural causes haven't already been investigated and ruled out?

All these "natural causes" arguments have been hashed out for the last twenty years by climatologists. They didn't just throw a dart that landed on "CO2".

[mdklatt]

So the US isn't part of the world? Mathematically, this statement makes no sense.

It doesn't make sense that changing a handful of years worth of data covering 2% of the earth by a few hundreths of a degree doesn't have a significant effect on more than 100 years of global data?

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I could care less how it changes the climate, I'm just saying how something like this can only apply to the US and not the whole world.

[mdklatt]

I could care less how it changes the climate, I'm just saying how something like this can only apply to the US and not the whole world.

Something like what? :confused:

[1stTimeCaller]

to answer the mineral rights becoming an issue now is that in the 90s when oil was $20/bbl and gas was $2/mcf it wasn't economical to drill for hard to reach hydrocarbons.

The prices of oil and gas now make it economical to drill for these hard to get hydrocarbons.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

How changes in data could ONLY apply to the US.

[KABOOKIE]

How changes in data could ONLY apply to the US.

Ding!

[mdklatt]

How changes in data could ONLY apply to the US.

Because it's US data....

[GrapevineSooner]

But our pollution somehow affects the rest of the world.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Ok, so the planet earth doesn't include that data?

[KABOOKIE]

Because it's US data....

And the data from Lestoho is spot-on!

[mdklatt]

But our pollution somehow affects the rest of the world.

Are you reading the same thread?

[mdklatt]

And the data from Lestoho is spot-on!


Which one is it: Arctic ice is melting but that's okay because Arctic ice melted in the 30s OR Arctic ice is not melting because global warming is an artifact of faulty data. In your expert opinion.

[GrapevineSooner]

Yes, I'm reading the same thread.

Just trying to figure out your logic.

Lookit, I think Gandalf was right a page ago that it behooves us to limit pollution. It's a proven fact that dirty air and respiratory ailments like asthma are not a good combination.

It's not a 100% indisputable fact that pollution, and not a natural Earth cycle, is to blame for temperatures rising.

[mdklatt]

Ok, so the planet earth doesn't include that data?

WHAT IN THE HOLY ****ING HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?


Find the average of 1000 numbers of the same order of magnitude. Change one of those numbers by 0.5% and recalculate the average. Did it change?

[Ardmore_Sooner]

In your expert opinion.

You wonder why noone listens to you and all the other pricks that feed people this garbage.

[mdklatt]

You wonder why noone listens to you and all the other pricks that feed people this garbage.

I figure since you guys know more about climate change than a bunch of climatologists you should be able to back it up with something other than handwaving.

[mdklatt]

It's not a 100% indisputable fact that pollution, and not a natural Earth cycle, is to blame for temperatures rising.

Which natural earth cycle is responsible, then? Something is causing global warming--or do you dispute that?

[Ardmore_Sooner]

WHAT IN THE HOLY ****ING HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?


Find the average of 1000 numbers of similar the same order of magnitude. Change one of those numbers by 0.5% and recalculate the average. Did it change?

Of course it would change. I'm not saying that it would change by an amount that would matter. I'm just saying that data that ONLY applies to the US that will not affect the entire world is stupid, even if it changes very little. You stick to being the pompous, "global warming is melting the entire planet" wacko ok? We don't expect you to say anything logical at all.

[Ardmore_Sooner]

I figure since you guys know more about climate change than a bunch of climatologists you should be able to back it up with something other than handwaving.

I could care less about what any climatologist has to say. Nothing is going to change because of it, EVER. You know it, I know it, EVERYONE knows it.

[mdklatt]

I'm not saying that it would change by an amount that would matter.

That's what I said. Kabookie said they recently corrected some US surface temperature data (I assume that's what he's referring to). I said the correction didn't effect the global temperature trend.

[mdklatt]

Nothing is going to change because of it, EVER. You know it, I know it, EVERYONE knows it.

You're saying the climate won't change, or nothing will ever happen politically?

[Fugue]

Of course it would change. I'm not saying that it would change by an amount that would matter. I'm just saying that data that ONLY applies to the US that will not affect the entire world is stupid, even if it changes very little. You stick to being the pompous, "global warming is melting the entire planet" wacko ok? We don't expect you to say anything logical at all.


easy

mdklatt is a good dude.

just passionate about teh weather. :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You wonder why noone listens to you and all the other pricks that feed people this garbage.Just what the he*l do you think you're doing, calling mini-algore a prick?

[Ardmore_Sooner]

You're saying the climate won't change, or nothing will ever happen politically?

Politically

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Is China ever going to change their policies...ummm probably not, if you can get them "legitimately" on board...I could see some policy change then..

[Ardmore_Sooner]

easy

mdklatt is a good dude.

just passionate about teh weather. :D

Yeah, I got worked up... My bad.:D

[mdklatt]

Just what the he*l do you think you're doing, calling mini-algore a prick?

Thanks for point that out. I think I'm gonna get Ardmore_Sooner banned now. :twinkies:

[mdklatt]

Politically

I don't disagree there. I have never touched the political side of this issue. First of all because I don't really care; I should be long gone before the global warming **** really hits the fan. But for me, the political arguments (that this crap invariably turns into) have nothing to do with the science.

[JohnnyMack]

I figure since you guys know more about climate change than a bunch of climatologists you should be able to back it up with something other than handwaving.

Climatoligists are like any other sensationalist, the more sensational it is the more attention they draw to their cause, the more likely they are to have money invested (via grants and other funding) to allow them to have a job. It's kinda like the watching the weather on TV. If Gary England wasn't trying to scare the hell out of you and told you it was gonna be 85, sunny with a chance of a thunderstorm in the afternoon you'd shrug your shoulders and go on with your life. If he tells you that you're likely to die when a F19 twister turns your house into sawdust you'll probably stop what you're doing and take notice.

Is the earth warming? Yes. Are humans causing it? I don't know. No one does for certain. But those who argue that we are get to keep their jobs. If they said there was no link between humans and global warming they'd have to go look for a new line of work. So excuse me if I take what they say with a grain of salt.

All that being said I think that we as humans have done a poor job of not leaving a footprint behind on this earth. We've left a big nasty one on it in fact. One that we should work at cleaning up and preventing from getting worse.

[mdklatt]

Climatoligists are like any other sensationalist, the more sensational it is the more attention they draw to their cause, the more likely they are to have money invested (via grants and other funding) to allow them to have a job. ...
If they said there was no link between humans and global warming they'd have to go look for a new line of work.


This is like 110% wrong.

[KABOOKIE]

This is like 110% wrong.


110%? Ooooh sensationalism.

[mdklatt]

110%? Ooooh sensationalism.

I guess you got me there.

[JohnnyMack]

This is like 110% wrong.

I would take upwards of 90% wrong, but no more.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I find it like in Hitchhiker's guide to the Galaxy when all of the Psychologist were attempting to prevent the Ultimate question of the Universe because it would effect their way to make a living. If global warming wasn't an issue, no one would be reading their ****. If the global was constant, that would be rather boring...not that global warming is interesting

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Thanks for point that out. I think I'm gonna get Ardmore_Sooner banned now. :twinkies:

Please don't scare me that way. It's either banning or global warming, you gotta stick to one. :D

[mdklatt]

I would take upwards of 90% wrong, but no more.

Climate change is a serious issue regardless of the cause. Even if there was nothing we could do to stop it, we'd still need to know what the impacts would be. Furthermore, you don't get funded for doing "global warming research" because global warming is just a conclusion. Your research might be applicable to climate change, but the government doesn't buy results. (Although I'm more and more skeptical of the Bush administration....) I get funded for rainfall data. Those data certainly can be used to do climate research, but they're used for lots of other stuff as well. The same goes for the people at NCDC who spend all day reconstructing temperature data, or people who study ocean dynamics. Evidence of global warming is just a result of their research, not the entire point of the research. Climate modelers might get a good chunk of change to figure out what the impacts of global warming will be, but they could easily be modeling something else if there was no such thing as global warming.

[mdklatt]

I If global warming wasn't an issue, no one would be reading their ****.

As far as climatologists are concerned, global warming isn't an issue anymore. Asked and answered. The impacts are still uncertain, but the existence of anthropogenic climate change is not.

It's the anti-GW crowd who profits by continuing to manufacture a debate. They sell books, they go on TV, they get paid by fossil fuel industry associations.

[JohnnyMack]

Climate change is a serious issue regardless of the cause. Even if there was nothing we could do to stop it, we'd still need to know what the impacts would be. Furthermore, you don't get funded for doing "global warming research" because global warming is just a conclusion. Your research might be applicable to climate change, but the government doesn't buy results. (Although I'm more and more skeptical of the Bush administration....) I get funded for rainfall data. Those data certainly can be used to do climate research, but they're used for lots of other stuff as well. The same goes for the people at NCDC who spend all day reconstructing temperature data, or people who study ocean dynamics. Evidence of global warming is just a result of their research, not the entire point of the research. Climate modelers might get a good chunk of change to figure out what the impacts of global warming will be, but they could easily be modeling something else if there was no such thing as global warming.

See? I was much closer than you gave me credit for. :texan:

[jeremy885]

easy

mdklatt is a good dude.

just passionate about teh weather. :D

And illegal aliens. Can someone pull a link that shows that illegal immigration causes global warming? ;)

[Harry Beanbag]

It's not a 100% indisputable fact that pollution, and not a natural Earth cycle, is to blame for temperatures rising.


Yes it is. Are you reading the same thread? :texan:

[OUinFLA]

I figure since you guys know more about climate change than a bunch of climatologists you should be able to back it up with something other than handwaving.


Im rather good at handwaving.
Which is why I'm so popular at football games.

[Harry Beanbag]

I'd rather be a handwaver than a handwringer.

[OUinFLA]

or a climatologist?

[Harry Beanbag]

or a climatologist?


Is there a difference? ;)

[Mongo]

to answer the mineral rights becoming an issue now is that in the 90s when oil was $20/bbl and gas was $2/mcf it wasn't economical to drill for hard to reach hydrocarbons.

The prices of oil and gas now make it economical to drill for these hard to get hydrocarbons.


you sound like a gay when you say hydrocarbons. it's oil and gas:texan:

[Harry Beanbag]

you sound like a gay when you say hydrocarbons. it's oil and gas:texan:


He's just putting it into climatologist terms.:texan:

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Or as most people call it "Gayenese"

[Harry Beanbag]

You guys can chew on these for awhile. I'm sure they're unsubstantiated, agenda-driven, nonsensical rubbish, but here they are...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html


I've stated before but it bears repeating, I don't claim to know all the answers, I just think that nobody else does either. Kind of along the same lines as what Johnny Mack stated earlier, after 30 or so years of serious study on the subject of a 5 billion year old planet, it seems pretty presumptious and arrogant for scientists to state unequivocally that humans are the sole reason for increased global temperatures. Working to decrease emissions is of course the prudent thing to do, just stop the freaking out about Earth exploding because we're bad scare tactics.

[Mixer!]

Did somebody here say "handwaving"? ;)

http://photos.ku.edu/%7Eurphotos/previews/100868preview.jpg

[mdklatt]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html



"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," Willson said.

I'm not sure what he means by significant. More likely he means it in the statistical sense than the magnitude. I pulled the abstract for the GRL article, and it doesn't say anything about climate change implications. I imagine he either volunteered or was prodded to say something about the climate change aspect of his work in order to "sex up" the interview.


That does not mean industrial pollution has not been a significant factor, Willson cautioned.

Hmm...I guess this guy has read the IPCC report.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/global_warming_and_solar_radia_1.html

I just quickly skimmed this because all it seems to be saying is that the earth has natural climate cycles. Duh, not exactly a revelation. This is only relevant if you think that natural and man-made causes are mutually exclusive.




I've stated before but it bears repeating, I don't claim to know all the answers, I just think that nobody else does either. Kind of along the same lines as what Johnny Mack stated earlier, after 30 or so years of serious study on the subject of a 5 billion year old planet, it seems pretty presumptious and arrogant for scientists to state unequivocally that humans are the sole reason for increased global temperatures.


But it's not arrogant or presumptuous of you to dismiss the work of scientists in a field you know nothing about? 30 years? Where'd you come up with that? Meteorology as a separate discipline has been around since the late 19th century. The physics it's based on have been around a lot longer than that. Arrhenius (http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Arrhenius_pdf) realized that CO2 was a greenhouse gas back in 1896, and in 1908 published a prediction on anthropogenic global warming due to CO2. His estimate of the temperature change you'd get with a doubling of CO2 wasn't too far from the modern estimate.

Seriously, what's the deal? Do you equate all of meteorology and climatology with TV weathermen? Or is it just easier to be skeptical about climatology because it's telling you something you don't want to hear?




just stop the freaking out about Earth exploding because we're bad scare tactics.

Which climatologists are doing this? James Hansen can be a little strident, but he's been trying to get people to finally pay attention to the problem for 20 years.

[mdklatt]

The consensus here seems to be, "I have no idea what's cause global warming, I just know it's not man-made CO2." Is that a fair assessment?

If so, how is CO2 not a factor? That is, which of these statements is false:

1) There is an atmospheric greenhouse effect.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3) Burning fossil fuels produce CO2.
4) Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been increasing.
5) The added CO2 can be traced to fossil fuels using isotopic analysis.

[1stTimeCaller]

I think mdklatt's just making **** up now.

[jk the sooner fan]

i think he wants badly to make us all educated

[1stTimeCaller]

The consensus here seems to be, "I have no idea what's cause global warming, I just know it's not man-made CO2." Is that a fair assessment?

No, it isn't a fair assesment.

We, the general public that are not experts in climatology, are tired of hearing these bold predictions. 20 years ago the earth was going to freeze. Now we're going to burn up.

Which is it?

If coal burning pollution was causing global cooling as you said earlier why can't we let them pollute for a few years every other decade to keep the earth at a moderate temperature? Is the pollution from these plants worse than out agriculture centers becoming deserts? I'm asking an honest question.

[JohnnyMack]

The consensus here seems to be, "I have no idea what's cause global warming, I just know it's not man-made CO2."

I think the earth is going through a period of warming.

I think the earth had gone through many periods of both warming and cooling in its 5 BILLION years or so of existence.

I have not seen enough evidence to know for sure whether or not the actions of human beings are causing this period of warming.

I think human beings should do a better job than they are of taking care of this planet (not leaving such a big messy footprint).

[mdklatt]

No, it isn't a fair assesment.

We, the general public that are not experts in climatology, are tired of hearing these bold predictions. 20 years ago the earth was going to freeze.



No. Did you read the link I gave you?




If coal burning pollution was causing global cooling as you said earlier why can't we let them pollute for a few years every other decade to keep the earth at a moderate temperature? Is the pollution from these plants worse than out agriculture centers becoming deserts?

That's not a climatology question.

But why can't we have clean air and lower CO2 levels? What do you people have against more fuel efficient cars, lower electric bills, and a reduced military presence in the Middle East?

[mdklatt]

I have not seen enough evidence to know for sure whether or not the actions of human beings are causing this period of warming.



What standard of proof are you looking for?