So much for global warming...
 

Looks like there might need to be a "re-evaluation" of the popular beliefs on global warming:

BBC Link

That seems to be the problem with all these experts. 5 years from now everyone will have changed their mind.

Take for example Dr. Spock.

Benjamin McLane Spock (May 2, 1903 – March 15, 1998) was an American pediatrician whose book Baby and Child Care, published in 1946, is one of the biggest best-sellers of all time. Its revolutionary message to mothers was that "you know more than you think you do." Spock was the first pediatrician to study psychoanalysis to try to understand children's needs and family dynamics. His ideas about childcare influenced several generations of parents to be more flexible and affectionate with their children, and to treat them as individuals, whereas the previous conventional wisdom had been that child rearing should focus on building discipline, and that, e.g., babies should not be "spoiled" by picking them up when they cried.

Years later though many expounded claims that Dr. Spock advocated permissiveness.

Some have seen Spock as the leader in the move toward more permissive parenting in general, and have blamed him for what they saw as the negative results. Norman Vincent Peale claimed in the late 1960's that "the U.S. was paying the price of two generations that followed the Dr. Spock baby plan of instant gratification of needs."[1] Vice President Spiro Agnew denounced him as the "father of permissiveness," claiming that Dr. Spock's child rearing principles encouraged lawlessness among young people in the 1960s. Spock's supporters believed that these criticisms betrayed an ignorance of what Spock had actually written, and/or a political bias against Spock's left-wing political activities. Spock himself, in his autobiography, pointed out that he had never advocated permissiveness; also, that the attacks and claims that he had ruined American youth only arose after his public opposition to the Vietnam war. He regarded these claims as ad hominem attacks, whose political motivation and nature was clear.

A rethink of the impact of global warming, or a rethink on whether there is global warming? The article doesn't appear to be challenging current thinking on global warming. Rather, it talks about the issues of local variability as the climate changes.

Global warming is a natural event which would happen with or without human beings (just takes less time if humans crud up the atmosphere). The planet is a living thing and it has been going through these changes and cycles for millions of trips around the sun. Since humans love scare tactics reports about the climate falling apart are all you see, yet you will rarely hear the scientific reports that the change in ozone and temperature is natural. How exactly do these people think Ice Ages occur? People aren't worried about the Earth, there worried about being able to live on the Earth. :)

George Carlin said it best "the planet isn't in trouble, humans are. Earth could shake the human population off like a bad case of fleas".

I love that line "the planet isn't in trouble, humans are. Earth could shake the human population off like a bad case of fleas." How true.

I noticed on my natural gas bill that July 2006 was, on average, 73 degrees F while it was 76 degrees F last year. Take it FWIW, but I found it interesting.

You really need to watch Al Gore's movie to understand "Global Warming". I put it in quotes because perhaps "global warming" should be called "global climate change".

What is explained in the movie is that basically "global warming" does not mean it gets warmer worldwide. It means there will be drastic changes in the earth's climate patterns. "Patterns" is the key word.

One example that is explained is the "prevailing winds". These wind patterns cause warm air from the equator in the Atlantic Ocean to move weather systems northeast up towards Europe. As a result, much of Europe actually experiences much warmer weather than the what would be normal for a location at that latitude. For example, Madrid is the same distance north of the equator as New York City. But we all know New York has much colder weather than Madrid. London is much further north of the Equator than any place in the United States. But as well all know, there are plenty of places in the Northern United States that are much colder than London.

Back to what I was saying, one of the climate changes that will occur with "Global Warming" is that these prevailing winds in the Atlantic will change. As a result, weather in Europe is more likely to get much much colder and much of Europe will fall into an ice age.

What will cause all this is not "global warming", but a sharp increase in CO2 levels that is occuring worldwide:

http://www.planetforlife.com/images/co2history.gif

http://www.planetforlife.com/images/monthlyCO2.jpg


The example of Europe is not the only one. Basically, climate as we know it on earth will drastically change. Places that are colder could get much warmer, places that are wet could become dry, places that are dry could become flooded, etc.

One change they expect is that Greenland will become significantly warmer causing all the glaciers in Greenland to melt. This alone will cause water levels worldwide to rise 20 feet. So many areas that are at sea level will be under water.

The scarey thing about this is that such changes will not happen gradually over a long period of time as has happened in the past with climate change. Many of the experts are predicting such drastic change over the next 30-50 years.

Yay, more reason to rebuild those levees in NO!! :doh:

One example of such drastic changes is "Lake Chad". If you are not from Africa, it's possible that you have never heard of Lake Chad. It is (was) a large lake on the border of the countries of Chad, Niger, and Nigeria.

To give you an idea of the size of lake chad, think of Lake Erie or Lake Ontario -- anyone from the Northeast or Eastern Canada should be able to have an idea of the size I am talking about. Well, that was the size of Lake Chad about 30 years ago.

What about today? Gone. I mean completely gone. Lake Chad is completely dried up.

http://maps.grida.no/library/files/w..._lake_chad.jpg

The last frame there is 2001, and today even that small section that was still there 5 years ago is now gone.

Why? The climate in this area of Africa has drastically changed over the last 30 years. Temperatures have risen dramatically and the amount of rainfall has dropped.

The disappearance of this lake and the big drought that has gone along with it is the main reason for the starvation problems the people in Niger and Nigeria are experiencing today. Most of the farmable land in these countries has become desert in less than 50 years.

:iagree: :rofl:

Yes indeed. Man is so powerful, he can change an entire planet. BTW - love the CO2 graph. So who was taking samples in AD 1000?

The idea that we can understand climate change is ridiculous. How can we be so arrogant to think we know what's normal and what's not on a global scale over several millenia?

Really? What about this:

So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

There's so much more debunking "Global climate change" and the way you (and Al Gore) are attempting to scare everyone at the below site (among others):
Junk Science

Or this one:
Cooler Heads

Here's a good one. Remember Michael Crichton?
State of Fear

To say (or even imply) that there is universal agreement on global climate change among scientists is a complete lie. There are more politics to it than there is in the Iraq war, or the Israel/Lebanon conflict. Thanks for your input, but there's just as much "agreement" that you're wrong.

Exactly. It's like humans trying to understand human behaviour. The Dr. Spock error revisited. :rofl: We think we know whats happening but that's the problem. "WE THINK" :confused: :rolleyes:

They can tell CO2 levels by studying the glaciers. When ice is formed, it traps CO2 particles in the same percentage as was in the air at the time the ice was formed. When those same samples are taken to a lab and melted, the CO2 is then released and can be measured. They can count years on the glaciers as ice is formed every winter, and then some melts the following summer. You can see the "stripes" for the various years with the naked eye, and thus you can count back and take samples from various time periods. This is a exact science and has been used for decades.

From 1993 to 2003, there were 928 papers published in scientific journals on the subject of "global climate change". Not a single one was in disagreement.

However, if you look at articles that appear in newspapers, then they are about 50/50 on their opinion of what is causing climate change.

This is what is giving people the opinion that their is not a consensus on the subject. There indeed is. The media is publishing propoganda as they usually do. The only disagreement among scientists is how much of an effect man is having, and how quickly the changes will occur in the future. As you can see from the maps above I posted of Lake Chad, they can happen rather quickly.

Al Gore explains everythis you just quoted in his movie. Like I said, watch the movie. I'll do my best to give a brief summary of why the above is true and yet CO2 is still the main reason for global warming. See if you can follow me.....


Water does indeed account for most of the greenhouse effect. That is because most of the world's surface is water. Water absorbs most of the heat from the sun's rays, so most of the "warming" (or heat) of the earth is from this heat absorbtion. On the other hand, ice reflects 90% of the sun's rays back into space, which is why there is very little absorbtion at the North and South polls, and this contributes to even lower temperatures there.

CO2 is a very small percentage of the greenhouse effect. That very small percentage is gradually causing a very very small change in temperature. This very very small change in temperature is happening mostly at the polls, and not so much at the equator. Here is why:

Remember that 90% of the sun's rays are reflected from the icy surface at the polls back into space. Well, not all of that 90% actually makes it back into space. CO2 particles in the atmostphere absorb the heat from some of that sun light. As the levels of CO2 in the atmostphere increase, more of that light is absorbed, thus increasing temperatures at the polls.

Every year at the polls, more ice forms on the glaciers in the winter, and some of that ice melts in the summer. The resulting very very small increase in temperature is causing more ice to melt in the summer, and less ice to form in the winter. The net effect is that the glaciers are gradually starting to melt. This on its own is not enough to cause any huge changes, at least not very quickly.

However, remember that "water" is responsible for most of the greenhouse effect. And as these glaciers melt, what does the ice become? Water. So now we have an increase in water at the polls.

So in areas where a glacier has gotten smaller, instead of 90% of the sun's light being reflected back up into space, in certain areas 90% of that light is now being absorbed, thus causing temperatures in these areas to increase.......and the cycle repeats itself...

As more and more of the glaciers melt, there is more water at the polls, and less ice, so the rate of absorbtion of the sun's rays greatly increases, and so the rate of change continues to increase until there are no more glaciers.

At that point in time, there will have been drastic changes in the earth's climate patterns. Many scientists think this all could happen within the next 30-50 years, and many think if the current trend continues (i.e. we do not change our living habbits fast), we will reach a point of no return sometime within the next 10-15 years.

Ok it's time for a real down to earth solution to this problem: If there wasn't so much farting goin on earthwide the problem would be solved. http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm :rofl:

Damn cows and their methane!

Words, clicks, beeps...

Sorry, you lost me when you tried to use Al Gore as a reputable source...
:nanana:

Again, I can refute every one of your claims, using the other 50% of scientists - the ones that don't agree with your 50%. You can claim all the articles you want. Doesn't mean that there's no reputable scientists that don't agree.

This is one of those arguments that no one will "win." That is, unless you live for more than 1,000 years, and can see all the changes for yourself. Even then, how do you know what's normal on a grand scale, and what's not?

:slap:

Leave my cows alone!! :rofl:

My sister's a vet - does that help?

No, but this does:

:rofl:

I does what's I can!

I'm not talking about no cows.

Your "50%" are not scientists and have never published any research papers in any scientific journals. They are typically employees of PR firms and their "research" is funded by the oil industry.

One example of this sort of propoganda is this website:

http://globalwarming.org/

From its name, you would think this is a good source for information on global warming. Then look here:

http://www.globalwarming.org/store.htm

Of course they sell a bunch of propoganda books with titles like "Global Warming and Other Eco-Mythss", "The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World" , "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media", etc.

Who runs this website? A group called the Cooler Heads Coalition. The chairman of this group is a guy named Myron Ebell. Mr. Ebell is also the Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And who are they? They claim to be a non-profit consumer group. But their 2 largest donors, by far, are Exxon/Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute.

So that is who is paying for your "science".

If you like that sort of "science", perhaps you should have the American Dairy Association and the American Meat Institute do research for you on how to lower your cholesterol. :rofl:

Time to tear your propoganda sources apart.

1. Junkscience.com

The website Junkscience.com is run by Steven Milloy who is "a paid advocate for Phillip Morris and ExxonMobil"

He is also the author of a book called "Silencing Science"

2. Cooler Heads

The chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition is Myron Ebell, who is also the Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Their 2 largest donors, by far, are Exxon/Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute.

3. State of Fear

This book is a fiction. Using this as your source is like using George Orwell's "1984" to argue against the Patriot Act.

The web page you linked does a fine job of explaining how his book mixed manipulated data and fiction together to make inaccurate assumptions. Good job! :thumbup:

And remember Rebound, Al Gore invented the internet so any sources on it are his too :)

Shhh...he's watching me right now!

The irony is killing me.

You have apparently missed the larger point, but then that's normal for you. Here - I'll cut to the chase.

<Ahem> Eric, you win.

There, do you feel better now?

And what is the "larger point"?

Do you not see a problem with citing studies that are paid for by the oil industry as your "science" on the subject of global warming?

Were you one of those people who back in the 1960s believed the cigarette smoking studies paid for by the tabacco companies?

Or did you believed the studies on vitamins in the 1980s paid for by the drug companies? You know, the ones that said there are no health benefits from vitamins.

Ever head the term "conflict of interest". There are more examples of this:

Ex-board members of the major drug companies serving in top positions in the FDA. Ex-board members of major media companies serving in top positions at the FCC. Current board members of the military hardware manufacturers serving on the Defense Policy Board. -- all these are not "hypothetical" examples but are reality in our current government.

But somehow, you do not see anything wrong with this, and you think that the scientists are the ones with an "agenda". Yes indeed, the scientists are all involved in a grand conspiracy to take down the big oil industry, just like they did the tabacco industry 30 years ago. And how do these scientists benefit from this? Who knows! :rofl:

I believe "global warming" or "global climate change" or whatever you want to call it is real.

However, I have the following questions:

1. How much of this change is "naturally occuring" rather than man-made?

2. Of the portion that is "man-made", what are the weightings of the various causes? Burning fossil fuels? Deforestation of the rain forests? Dramatic population growth? Urbanization?

I suspect part, but not necessarily all, of the problem is due to man-made activities. However, I don't think there is a scientific consensus yet on WHICH activities are having the greatest impact.

For example, average temperature in cities has materially risen over the last century, but not so in rural areas. Perhaps this is due to the urban island heat effect (which is the result of tearing down millions of acres of trees to build houses, shopping malls, roads and other elements of urban sprawl). If that is the case, perhaps we would be better off focusing on zoning issues and/or limiting population growth than obsessing over fossil fuels.

Or perhaps it is mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels. In which case, we ought to increase taxes on petroleum products and use that revenue to lower other forms of taxes in a revenue-neutral manner. The price-elasticity of demand for gasoline, in the short run, is pretty low because there aren't any readily available substitutes. But over a 5-10 year period, I think we would see substitutes develop if gas were taxed more heavily.

Or perhaps the bulk of the problem is related to the destruction of the rainforests. Worldwide, the rainforests are being torn down at an alarming rate. The rainforests "breathe in" carbon dioxide and "breathe out" oxygen. Perhaps the industrialized nations of the world should collectively "pay" developing nations such as Indonesia and Brazil if they will agree not to cut down any more of the rainforest.

I suspect we are going to see the right and left come together on this issue of "oil addiction". Liberals have been all over it for a while, but conservatives are about to join the movement due to national security concerns. We are now dangerously dependent on unstable, anti-US regimes for much of our imported oil. Therefore, I think the problem will be addressed in a bipartisan fashion, but not until after the 2008 elections.

You bring up good points. The problem is the sharp increase in CO2 levels in our atmostphere. Obviously burning of fossil fuels is one thing that contributes, but also the chopping down of forests and trees contributes as well.

One thing that Gore brings up in his movie is that many people believe there is a problem, but also believe there is nothing we can do to fix it. He cites the Ozone layer as an example. I remember back in the late 1980s the Ozone thing became a big deal. I remember the government passed various laws putting limits on certain substances that were known to cause problems with the Ozone. What I did not know is that these laws worked. Apparently within 10 years, the big hole that was in the Ozone closed up almost entirely. So we can indeed make a difference if there are laws passed and there is some coordination. But just telling people to save energy and plant a tree is not enough. You need the various governments of the world to coordinate this change.

Yup. More "scientists" saying the scare should end...

"Scientist" link

Did we just read the same article? All of the following is from your link.

Earlier studies forecast a temperature change of between 1.4 C and 5.8 C. The average of that is 3.6 C - my calculation, assuming a normal distribution.

New, more accurate modelling has narrowed that down to a range of 2 C to 4.5 C. The average of that is 3.25 C. Same qualifier as above.

So, with much improved modelling, and much narrower error bands, there is an increased chance that we have a better estimate, one that continues to show a significant global temperature rise. While the alarmist predictions from the upper end of the old studies (which were news media reports, not science reports, for the most part) should be tempered, saying the scare should end doesn't do justice to the report you yourself quote. Yes, the sensationalist reporting should end. No, we should not ignore global climate change. And yes, I do know that we don't know how much of it is natural and how much is man-made. I don't think that we cause it all. I am pretty sure, though, that ignoring the man-made portion will make it worse. Just my $0.02.

Gore never ONCE stated that he had invented the internet. (Though attributed to him, he never said that. It's one of those myths that has grown to a point that everyone believes it to be true.) What he did say was that he was a member of the congressional committee that approved the research and funding of a network of computers that eventually became the internet -- and that is indeed true and accurate.

Juan

You know...any political inclinations aside...I have long suspected this was an urban legend of sorts. It's good to know the corect provenance of this.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

Claim: Vice-President Al Gore claimed that he "invented" the Internet.

Status: False.

I still believe the cause of global warming is the hot funky air emanating from the orifices of lying politicians. I can't believe that year after year decade after decade people keep puttin their faith in those who foul the air with the stench of their hopeless leadership. What a flim flam it is and how blind so many have become. The cows http://earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm pale in comparison to the crap spewed from the mouths of these idiots.

All true, but that doesn't make the jokes about him "inventing" it any less funny!

I'm with my Elder...

I can't recall a politician, in my lifetime, that I'd hire
to wash one of my scoots.

Edit...I take that back. Harry S. Truman would be allowed
near one of my sleds.

You want to talk about leaving swirl marks...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

When my wife was a teenager, her nephew asked if he could brush the snow off her car for her. Naturally she said yes. A few minutes later she walked out to get in her car and found him using a snow shovel to clean it off... :rofl:

New Climate Change 'Time Bomb' Detected
Melting Permafrost Frees More Gases That Trap Heat

WASHINGTON (Sept. 7) - Global warming gases trapped in the soil are bubbling out of the thawing permafrost in amounts far higher than previously thought and may trigger what researchers warn is a climate time bomb.

Methane - a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide - is being released from the permafrost at a rate five times faster than thought, according to a study being published Thursday in the journal Nature. The findings are based on new, more accurate measuring techniques.

"The effects can be huge," said lead author Katey Walter of the University of Alaska at Fairbanks said. "It's coming out a lot and there's a lot more to come out."

Scientists worry about a global warming vicious cycle that was not part of their already gloomy climate forecast: Warming already under way thaws permafrost, soil that has been continuously frozen for thousands of years. Thawed permafrost releases methane and carbon dioxide. Those gases reach the atmosphere and help trap heat on Earth in the greenhouse effect. The trapped heat thaws more permafrost and so on.

"The higher the temperature gets, the more permafrost we melt, the more tendency it is to become a more vicious cycle," said Chris Field, director of global ecology at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, who was not part of the study. "That's the thing that is scary about this whole thing. There are lots of mechanisms that tend to be self-perpetuating and relatively few that tend to shut it off."