global warming...

At a reader's suggestion, this new forum is open to all kinds of chat, excluding obvious spam.

last sentence

Postby admin » Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:54 am

You were doing good until your last sentence. Absolute power? Who on earth has absolute power?

I'll check a few of your references and get back to you.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:24 pm

oops

Postby admin » Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:02 am

Your first reference was to an isolated event. Since global warming is a global phenominon, an isolated hot or cold spell has no effect, as you well know. And yet, you continue to offer weak evidence. I had hoped for better from you.

Your second assertion has no reference.

Which brings us to the UK met office report, published in Science, a reputable journal. And it says:

"Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 °C warmer than 2004. At least half of the years after 2009 are predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record"

Sounds like the exact opposite of what you assert. My guess is that your source of information cherry picked one isolated statistic from a mass of data, and ran with it. Again, bad science, bad reasoning. You should have checked the context.

I'll try one more.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:24 pm

Bob Carter

Postby admin » Tue Apr 29, 2008 7:47 am

Bob Carter is one of the leading scientists who deny global warming. His specialty is in marine geology -- he is not a climatologist -- but he is a serious scientist. He is also politically conservative, which raises once again the curious question of why this entirely scientific issue is split along political lines. To me, that question about human nature is more interesting than the question of global warming.

And yet -- and here we're getting into mathematics, which I actually know something about -- while Bob Carter warns people on his web site of the dangers of looking at individual data points and the importance of looking at averages, in his address to the US congress he talks about data points and ignores averages. Why is that?

But, as I said at the outset, I'm a mathematician, so I'm not qualified to render a judgment. Neither is anyone else who has not spent, at a minimum, many years doing research on the subject. Bob Carter is much more qualified in this subject than I am. But so are the hundreds of climatologists who investigate climate change and report that global warming is real.

Another interesting fact: the anti-global warming scientists, such as Bob Carter, become famous, and are invited to make television specials and to address congress. The thousands of scientists who actually investigate global warming are almost entirely faceless. In America, we would rather listen to politicians and movie stars than to real scientists.

But here's the important point. You and I are not qualified to evaluate the data on global warming -- we're at the mercy of the scientists. And we both know that scientists can be found on any side of any question. The Flat Earth Society is still active! I choose to go along with the vast majority of scientists, though it would be nice if they were wrong. You choose to go along with the small minority of scientists.

Can you tell us why?
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:24 pm

Postby Jim66 » Thu May 01, 2008 2:26 pm

Wow! Three postings to my one. I'm impressed. I quote facts, you still tend to be emotional and panic struck.

On the other hand - (what does NASA know)

NASA Says Climate Shifting to Cooler Temperatures
Thursday, May 1, 2008 10:33 AM
By: Phil Brennan

The allegedly warming earth is in for about 30 years of cooling according to NASA, one of the leading global warming theory advocates.

NASA has confirmed that a developing natural climate pattern will likely result in much colder temperatures, according to Marc Shepherd, writing in the April 30 American Thinker. He adds that NASA was also quick to point out that such natural phenomena should not confuse the issue of manmade greenhouse gas induced global warming which apparently will be going on behind the scenes while our teeth are chattering from a decade and a half long cold spell.

"A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific decadal Oscillation – a larger-scale, Slower-cycling ocean pattern – had shifted to its cool phase."

Notes Shepherd "This shift in the PDO, which could last for 20 or 30 years, can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems and global land temperature patterns."

And the greatest impact here in the states, he adds, will likely be on west Coast residents, particularly growers.

Warns meteorologist Anthony Watts: "Look out California agriculture. The wine industry, fruits and nut growers will be hit with a shorter growing season and more threats of frost, among other things."

Watts cites two recent reports of frost-induced crop devastation – an apple orchard in Paradise and wine grapes in Nevada County. He also offers a brief history of last century's PDO phase shifts, and warns that California's agriculture, which experienced "unprecedented growth" during the past warm phase, may now be in serious trouble as things cool down:

In 1905, PDO switched to a warm phase, in 1946, PDO switched to a cool phase, and in 1977, PDO switched to a warm phase again.

Notes Shepherd "Recently lower global temps, likely caused by the late start of Solar Cycle 24, already have some greenhouse gassers nervous - particularly amid speculation of a possible impending 'little ice age.'

"But surely," he says, "a 30 year protracted naturally-explainable cooling period concurrent with rising atmospheric CO2 levels would forever cool the public's receptiveness to global warming alarmism. No problem – our ever panicking friends at NASA have that angle covered, too."

Says NASA: "Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, ‘These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.'"

In other words, CO2 is secretly warming the planet. Or not.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

You can't have it both ways.
Jim66
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: California

emotional

Postby admin » Fri May 02, 2008 8:28 am

I'll leave it for others to decide which of us is reacting emotionally, which logically.

You, or rather your source, picks out the parts of the NASA story he likes, and ignores the parts he doesn't like. You quote:

"No problem – our ever panicking friends at NASA have that angle covered, too."

I understand you worked for NASA. Does "ever panicking" correctly describe the emotional state of the NASA scientists you knew?

Then you say:

"In other words, CO2 is secretly warming the planet. Or not."

Secretly!

One more time, and then I'll give it a rest. Weather patterns are complex. Only experts can see the big picture. The quotes you have offered have all looked at isolated instances and generalized them unrealistically. I'll go with the majority scientific opinion. Sometimes the scientists are wrong. But, the scientists are more likely to be correct than the bloggers, some of whose logical errors I have pointed out. I am particularly impressed by the serious tone of the scientific papers as contrasted with the sarcastic name-calling of the global warming doubters. "Ever panicking!"

Of the many major scientific organizations who have issued statements on the subject, I'll pick just one. Notice the difference in the tone of voice between this source and your sources.

http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1664
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:24 pm

Postby slaven41 » Mon May 05, 2008 10:38 pm

As far as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation goes, the key here is that it's an just what it says. An oscillation. In other words, its effect goes one way for awhile, then the other. This doesn't mean that global warming is going away. It's perfectly possible to have a long term overall warming trend due to greenhouse gas emission, while having other weather fluctuations going on. In other words, the fact that the PDO is about to swing cool for the next 20 years, give or take, is not a rebuttal of a long-term warming trend.

Here's Scientific American's take on the story:

German researchers using computer simulations of ocean temperatures are predicting that the global warming trend will pause over the next decade as changes in ocean currents prompt cooler weather. This does not mean that the overall warming trend will stop, simply that the natural variations in ocean conditions can still cool the atmosphere enough to slow the trend—at least for a little while. "Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year," climatologist Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., told the New York Times. "It does not happen that way." Good to know.
User avatar
slaven41
 
Posts: 342
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 5:52 pm
Location: Iowa, Earth

Previous

Return to Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

cron