DescentBB

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:48 pm**

Well, considering this is begining the 2nd week in March, I am curious where all the global warming is taking place. Snow is still on the ground here in southern Michigan and the temp has been down in the single digits at night. NOAA says this is the 6th coldest Feb. on record. So I am wondering how many of you believe the agenda driven lefts assertions, as exemplified by Algores award

winning docufiction, that the world is rapidly approaching a Venus like condition?

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:27 pm**

i have seen the last winter (speak: from november to march) maybe 15 years ago. now it's just an occasional white cover for maybe 2 weeks or less. on the other hand, some regions are getting colder than they used to be.
to me it seems the climate is becoming more extreme. in which direction it tends can be seen on statistics.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 4:29 pm**

I think there is a lot of hype in the Al Gore camp but one big fallacy in the conservative knee-jerk camp argument has been \"Wow, look at all this cold weather! where's the global warming?!?\"
I find that just as disingenuous as the convenient lies from the left.
the truth is that warming changes travel patterns of ocean currents and the currents shape our weather so if it is colder somewhere it could be because the warming caused a shift in the ocean currents....

I do think we are seeing some of the scientific community making strides in removing themselves from the political agenda that drives the debate. That's a good sign anyway.

Just once though I'd love to hear a global warming disciple include the heat from the sun in his calculations...they don't seem to mention the variations in thermal output of what is the largest, most powerful heat source affecting the planet when they talk about changes and cause and effect! Bad scientist! No pocket protector for you!

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:22 pm**

Global warming looks and feels pretty real in this area of Wisconsin. 20 years ago it was not uncommon for the winter snowfall to reach 20 feet or more, in the last 4-5 years, we have been lucky to get 20 inches.

The trend in global warming doesn't really mean warmer weather for everyone, it means different weather. It is not the global average of one or two degrees warmer here most of the time, it is more like 10-15 degrees (F) warmer half the time. Up till a few years ago, we had no need for air conditioners, there were at most three or four days in the peak of summer where the temperature reached 85-90 degrees F. Now it can push to 80-90F for several weeks solid, and occasionally dabbles in the 100+ range. And just as snowfall is abysmally low so is rainfall, I'd say this drought has been getting gradually worse for the whole past decade.

I don't really care what nonsense the politicians are babbling about, or the latest blurb on the news. But ask anyone who has lived here for 20-30 years and they will tell you the weather has changed a LOT.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:30 pm**

No snow this winter here.

AFAIK one of the largest threats is the Gulf Stream disappearing because of the polar caps melting. The released sweet water would prevent the salt water of the Gulf Stream (which is heavier) from rising and reaching shallower depths, cutting off Europe and northeastern North America from one of its main sources of warmth.

Will Robinson wrote:Just once though I'd love to hear a global warming disciple include the heat from the sun in his calculations...they don't seem to mention the variations in thermal output of what is the largest, most powerful heat source affecting the planet when they talk about changes and cause and effect! Bad scientist! No pocket protector for you!

There are variations? I thought the sun's output was stable.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:43 pm**

For some reason Florida, the sunny state, is starting to see less and less sun... just dreariness.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:53 pm**

woodchip wrote:Well, considering this is begining the 2nd week in March, I am curious where all the global warming is taking place. Snow is still on the ground here in southern Michigan and the temp has been down in the single digits at night. NOAA says this is the 6th coldest Feb. on record. So I am wondering how many of you believe the agenda driven lefts assertions, as exemplified by Algores award winning docufiction, that the world is rapidly approaching a Venus like condition?

I believe it 100% because I've read the articles and understand the data the scientists have presented and its nothing to take lightly. Its a very political thing too because the major abusers in the U.S.(the largest contributor to GW) have their hands in politics.

Bettina

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:57 pm**

heftig wrote:There are variations? I thought the sun's output was stable.

Maybe "variation" was a poor choice of wordage.
But if the sun's output has increased then that factor shouldn't be left out of the equation...or the discussion.
Read the article linked above, you will see the sun may be "stable" but it does fluctuate in the short term (decade long cycles) and in the long term (centuries) it is suspected to do the same...

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 5:58 pm**

Around Philadelphia, we would get 3-4 feet a year back in '88. We got 2 inches this year, if that. Plenty of rain... Last year it snowed once, 6 inches, lasted three days before it was all melted.

It's been high 50's up until January, where it slowly fell to the current cold snap, but it's going to hit the 50's this weekend.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:59 pm**

Winter here used to start in late November and continue till April. Now we get our first snowfall that stays either before or just after Xmas. Xmas past was the first Xmas I've had in 37 years that was green.

GW is a real threat and not doing anything about it will result in your future generations having to deal with it.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:31 pm**

You realize that a volcanic eruption will output more noxious gases than all of the noxious gases released by our automobiles in history combined?

I have no doubt that man is ruining the earth. And there definitely a hole in the ozone layer. But I don't think that GW is a real problem.

That doesn't mean we don't have to worry about emissions from our cars. Putting anything into the atmosphere that isn't safe for the environment is not a good thing.

I think its a big movement by government and scientists to try to gain more control and more money. People in general, and especially the government do not care about the environment unless their care is motivated by money. The world is corrupt and will do anything to satisfy its lust for power and money, even if it means that they must jump on the tree-hugger band wagon.

Case in point? Ethanol fuels produced by farming corn. They'd like you to think that its better for the environment but in reality the emissions are almost the same (no significant change or jaw-dropping savings), and the price? You guessed it, more expensive.

But talk is cheap as they say. Only real change will happen when people start really caring. If you think GW is such a threat, why aren't you walking more? bicycling more? where's your electric car? We don't do these things because we 1. don't care enough to change OUR lifestyle, we just choose to complain about others lifestyles or 2. other company's don't care enough to provide what we need (mass marketing for electric cars at affordable prices for all).

Just my opinion.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:33 pm**

Will Robinson wrote: Just once though I'd love to hear a global warming disciple include the heat from the sun in his calculations...they don't seem to mention the variations in thermal output of what is the largest, most powerful heat source affecting the planet when they talk about changes and cause and effect!

Where do you get this from, Will? Of course, the sun is factored in the models. The scientists that are not stupid. Its just that the variation in the sun is NOT strong enough to explain the recent warming. This graph shows the relative strenghts of the different 'forcings' on the climate. The influence of the sun is labelled 'solar irradiance'. Here is an explanation how the influence of the sun is factored out, if you are interested in the scientific basics.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:39 pm**

Also, graphs and charts are nice, but when the graph only spans our time period its hard to rule out that a current \"trend\" isn't actually a \"current\" trend at all, but really a repetitive cycle that happens to the earth over 100s, 1,000's if not millions of years.

Case in point? (again) Take a look at warming a cooling \"trends\" over the past 100s of years. The typical temperature of the earth goes up and down quite consistently.

If GW is a real threat, then we need to be sure that it is. To me, there isn't enough evidence; yet.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:43 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:But if the sun's output has increased then that factor shouldn't be left out of the equation...or the discussion. Read the article linked above, you will see the sun may be "stable" but it does fluctuate in the short term (decade long cycles) and in the long term (centuries) it is suspected to do the same...

Your link is very misleading. Look at the graph shown there. It stops around 1970, when anthrophogenic global warming was starting to have its most dramatic effect. If the graph would go on, it would show that the sun output has not changed much in these last 40 years, even though the temperature has changed a lot. This is why variations in the sun's output cannot explain the recent warming (see my last link above for reference).

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:11 pm**

woodchip wrote: I am curious where all the global warming is taking place.

Right here:

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:32 pm**

if you squint and look just right, you can see Al Gores face in the dots. ;P

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:51 pm**

Sniper wrote:Also, graphs and charts are nice, but when the graph only spans our time period its hard to rule out that a current "trend" isn't actually a "current" trend at all, but really a repetitive cycle that happens to the earth over 100s, 1,000's if not millions of years.

Case in point? (again) Take a look at warming a cooling "trends" over the past 100s of years. The typical temperature of the earth goes up and down quite consistently.

If GW is a real threat, then we need to be sure that it is. To me, there isn't enough evidence; yet.

That's very true. Unfortunately, by the time we have enough evidence, it may be too late... therefore there is wisdom in heeding the advice to change the way things are done... at the same time keep in mind that a number of years down the road we could be freezing our "rastifarian ninnies" off.

The environmentalists with all the scare tactics are also among the first to point out that studies have shown that the Earth has warmed up before (and cooled) and will probably do it again.

So... let's not lose our heads about it.

Posted: **Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:57 pm**

What is misleading about this:

\"In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

The Sun's increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. Willson is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.

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

In a NASA-funded study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters, Willson and his colleagues speculate on the possible history of the trend based on data collected in the pre-satellite era.

\"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more,\" Willson told SPACE.com today.

Significant component

Further satellite observations may eventually show the trend to be short-term. But if the change has indeed persisted at the present rate through the 20th Century, \"it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years,\" he said.

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

Scientists, industry leaders and environmentalists have argued for years whether humans have contributed to global warming, and to what extent. The average surface temperature around the globe has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1880. Some scientists say the increase could be part of natural climate cycles. Others argue that greenhouse gases produced by automobiles and industry are largely to blame.

Wilson said the Sun's possible influence has been largely ignored because it is so difficult to quantify over long periods.

Confounding efforts to determine the Sun's role is the fact that its energy output waxes and wanes every 11 years. This solar cycle, as it is called, reached maximum in the middle of 2000 and achieved a second peak in 2002. It is now ramping down toward a solar minimum that will arrive in about three years.\"

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:17 am**

Here's a good overview on solar radiation in respect to global warming.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:23 am**

You take all the carbon that has been locked beneath the earth's soil for millions of years. Carbon that took even more millions of years to deposit and then you release it all back into the atmosphere in 2 centuries and you don't think you are going to affect the way the earth's atmosphere acts?
Get real.
The pine forests of British Columbia's interior are dying by the millions of acres since the winters over the last few decades have been too mild to kill the Mountain Pine Beetle. In the Canadian Arctic the permafrost is melting and many villages are washing away. Permafrost was laid down in centuries and is being melted in decades.
Maybe when we have burned all the coal, oil and natrual gas in the world we will be back to the climate of the Carboniferous age. Hang on for a century and see.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:23 am**

Will Robinson wrote:What is misleading about this:

I pointed to the graph in your link, not the text. The graph makes it look as if temperature changes would always follow the solar cycle. However, if the last 40 years were included, you would have seen that this is not the case for the recent global warming. It happened even though there was NO concurrent increase in the output of the sun.

But, since you asked, here are a few things that are misleading in the text.

"Solar activity has apparently been going upward for a century or more," Willson told SPACE.com today.

Here it glosses over the fact that solar activity has been going up till 1960 or so, but not that it has more or less stopped since then. That would have been an important fact for readers to evaluate the theory that global warming was due to the sun.

But if the change has indeed persisted at the present rate through the 20th Century, "it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.

The wording "it would have provided..." makes it seem as if the sun's output was ignored in the calculations of the scientists and the IPCC, even though it is clearly factored in. You can see for yourself in the IPCC report for policymakers (.pdf).

Some scientists say the increase could be part of natural climate cycles. Others argue that greenhouse gases produced by automobiles and industry are largely to blame.

This is a fake opposition. Virtually all scientists agree that the current warming can only be explained if both natural cycles and man's changes are included in the models. See here:

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 7:25 am**

Pandora wrote:This is a fake opposition. Virtually all scientists agree that the current warming can only be explained if both natural cycles and man's changes are included in the models. See here:

You seem to be practicing that which you complain about. You say "virtually all" yet I have heard from plenty of real scientists who definitely do disagree....so you imply absolute and call it 'virtually all" yet it's obvious there is disagreement and debate....
And your graph does nothing to illustrate that "virtually all" scientists agree. Yet that is the context in which you present it!

Second, you said:

Here it glosses over the fact that solar activity has been going up till 1960 or so, but not that it has more or less stopped since then. That would have been an important fact for readers to evaluate the theory that global warming was due to the sun.

The article pretty clearly states that the short term doesn't show us conclusive proof. So the forty years you point at isn't the point at all. You are being misleading by making that accusation..or else you just didn't understand the point being raised.
It's the 100 years leading up to it that could have had actual impact! The short cycles wouldn't give us the long term effect, a longer cycle that had been increasing over a century would have! And if it is now, and for the last 40 years, waning, that doesn't mean the effects of the previous long term rise didn't contribute to the overall rise in temerature.

This is a theory that seems to be quite sound but hard to prove since we don't have the satellite data going back that far. There is other evidence to support the theory however and it is mentioned in the article...

They are basically saying that the sun does vary in output, it runs in cycles of decades but there is also some evidence that there are much bigger cycles at work and those hundred year long cycles are the ones that could have given us the one degree increase in temperature!

Pandora, I have no problem accepting that global warming is being fueled by human activity. I also didn't mean to imply that no scientists used the suns heat output in their modeling. That would be silly since the sun is really the one big heat source we have. I was trying to point out that the tactics used one the one side of the debate where they shout down all who disagree and make the kind of claims you just did by declaring all scientists..or "virtually all scientists" agree is just as manipulative and disingenuous as someone on the right saying "Look at all this cold weather we have! There is no global warming!"

When the U.N. removes the charts and graphs from it's report that used to show the longer trend of warming and cooling on earth because it showed warming before there was fossil fuel use on the planet it makes me suspect their honesty and motives. Combine that suspicion with the obvious intent of the Kyoto treaty that clearly exempted many of the biggest producers of pollution yet unrealistically punished the United States and it is crystal clear that the global effort to champion the global warming cause is being run by politics over science!

So forgive me if your heart is pure but you are making me suspect the foundation upon which your soapbox is standing.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:20 am**

Here's the problem I have. Approx. 12000 years ago the Earth was embraced in a ice age and mile high glaciers scoured the land. Then Global Warming happened and all the ice disappered. Funny thing though, man was not driving any SUV's around back then.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:34 am**

Ya know.. this would all be a WHOLE lot more believable if this was not being backed by a whole group with their own goofy agenda.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:37 am**

Do you understand the cycle that is involved there, Woodchip?

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:38 am**

Ford Prefect wrote:You take all the carbon that has been locked beneath the earth's soil for millions of years. Carbon that took even more millions of years to deposit and then you release it all back into the atmosphere in 2 centuries and you don't think you are going to affect the way the earth's atmosphere acts?
Get real.
The pine forests of British Columbia's interior are dying by the millions of acres since the winters over the last few decades have been too mild to kill the Mountain Pine Beetle. In the Canadian Arctic the permafrost is melting and many villages are washing away. Permafrost was laid down in centuries and is being melted in decades.
Maybe when we have burned all the coal, oil and natrual gas in the world we will be back to the climate of the Carboniferous age. Hang on for a century and see.

There isn't ANY of us saying we shouldn't do better, or that there is no need to get into alternative fuels, or reduce emissions, blah, blah... we all agree that as the inhabitants of this Earth, the polution of the people is getting bad and we need to clean it up... and it has effects on the environment.

What we're saying is that there is a lot of information (and tactics) that cannot be verified yet. Therefore, scare tactics that some use regarding Global Warming are simply that.... scare tactics.

People should be intelligent enough to work to do better about pollution... without the over blown theatrical scare tactics and mis-information (or un-verified information) often employed in those same scare tactics.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:54 am**

Here's a little perspective on the scientific community when they start to form a consensus.
From Time Magazine July 24 1974:

\"Another Ice Age?\"

\"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.\"

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 9:50 am**

Testiculese wrote:Do you understand the cycle that is involved there, Woodchip?

Yes and I don't think buying and selling carbon offsets is the cure. What I have not heard yet from the agenda driven climate doomsayers is how the wobble in the spin axis of earths rotation effects climate:

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnatu ... _tilt.html

So Testi, do you understand what is going on?

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:09 am**

Indeed I do, I was just wondering if you were up on geology. It's a vague topic for many.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:32 am**

Will Robinson wrote:You seem to be practicing that which you complain about. You say "virtually all" yet I have heard from plenty of real scientists who definitely do disagree....so you imply absolute and call it 'virtually all" yet it's obvious there is disagreement and debate....

If you want to accuse me of being misleading then back it up. I have brought references to all my points. So where is this scientific debate? Please name the climate scienists that challenge the assertion that the current changes are a combination of anthropogenic and natural causes. Please, with references to the scientific publications. Should be easy if there are "plenty".

Also the graph is totally adequate and not misleading. The IPCC-reports reflect the scientific consensus, they only put in the stuff about which there is no more any debate. It demonstrates how the models can predict current increases only when taking both natural and man-made factors into account. There are different graphs from different models, but they all show basically the same... So, again, if you can back up your claim that the graph is misleading, please go ahead, I'm curious.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:42 am**

Will Robinson wrote:Here's a little perspective on the scientific community when they start to form a consensus.
From Time Magazine July 24 1974:

"Another Ice Age?"

"As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

I find it ironic that you of all people blindly trust what the press is reporting. But I guess as long as it suits your view its fine. Check your facts: Contrary to what you imply, there was no scientific consensus about global cooling in the 80ies. The ice age scare was completely fabricated by the media. As far as I know, there was one single scientific paper that seriously considered the possibility of an ice age, but even that paper did not predict it in any strong sense. Newsweek that ran a similar story back then has recently more or less apologized for the false reporting.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:55 pm**

Pandora wrote:If you want to accuse me of being misleading then back it up. I have brought references to all my points. So where is this scientific debate? Please name the climate scientists that challenge the assertion that the current changes are a combination of anthropogenic and natural causes.

Well you have just ascribed to me an argument that I never made then ask me to back it up!
Nice one!

I never said there was debate as to whether or not humans contribute to the situation. I said the enviro side of the argument is disingenuous because they use tactics like removing data from previous reports that show the long term centuries old trend of warming. Familiar with the "hockey stick" chart? Where the data was purposely manipulated to extremely increase the charts upward swing so that it resembled a hockey stick ie; the sudden upturn wasn't there if they hadn't 'censored the data'

Another example is when the enviro's state that they need to "get rid of the medieval warming period"

"In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing."

When the so called scientific community tries to shout down anyone who raises a question and tries to vilify them and demand they lose their credentials I start to wonder why they need to censor the debate if their position is truly so sound they would welcome the opportunity to clarify the facts. But instead they try to squelch the dissent:

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns." - Dr. Heidi Cullen, Climate Expert

Please, with references to the scientific publications. Should be easy if there are "plenty".

Start with the article I linked. where do they go wrong in suggesting there are long term cycles that would give us the rise in temperature? I'm just guessing but the people who wrote that piece are scientists are they not? Therefore this whole discussion is about the disagreement those scientists have with the notion that the suns increased output isn't responsible, either en toto, or at least to a large degree for the warming trend! You glossed right over that point and instead tried to erect a straw man!

So, again, if you can back up your claim that the graph is misleading, please go ahead, I'm curious.

Again, I never said the graph is misleading. The data that it charts out could be totally true. I said the way you claim it proves there is no debate is misleading....

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:13 pm**

Pandora wrote:I find it ironic that you of all people blindly trust what the press is reporting.

Well since neither one of us are out there collecting and compiling this data first hand we both are just reading reports of the events.
In effect you are suggesting that I dismiss the reports that are contrary to your position but believe all the reports that you offer that support your position?
Will this work out to a situation where someone can claim that 'virtually all reports' agree with your position and then we will all be expected to just ignore any news to the contrary or be shouted down....

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:01 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:Well since neither one of us are out there collecting and compiling this data first hand we both are just reading reports of the events. In effect you are suggesting that I dismiss the reports that are contrary to your position but believe all the reports that you offer that support your position? Will this work out to a situation where someone can claim that 'virtually all reports' agree with your position and then we will all be expected to just ignore any news to the contrary or be shouted down....

Oh come on, Will, don't play stupid. You made an argument, so back it up. Show me the "consensus" among the scientists that predicted an ice age in the 80ies. It is possible: scientific articles are in the public domain, you can go and check them out. Here is a guy - a climate scientist - who did this already. But maybe you trust Wiki more.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:02 pm**

Trying to re-write history, Will?

Will Robinson wrote:Well you have just ascribed to me an argument that I never made then ask me to back it up! Nice one!

Funny. When I recall correctly i said "Virtually all scientists agree that the current warming can only be explained if both natural cycles and man's changes are included in the models." To which you responded:

You say "virtually all" yet I have heard from plenty of real scientists who definitely do disagree....so you imply absolute and call it 'virtually all" yet it's obvious there is disagreement and debate....

I asked you to back this up. So where are the scientists that deny that you have to rely on both man-made and natural causes to explain the current warming? Where is the debate?

In the same way you said further above; "Just once though I'd love to hear a global warming disciple include the heat from the sun in his calculations..." but, then, a few posts later, you said:

I also didn't mean to imply that no scientists used the suns heat output in their modeling.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:14 pm**

Will Robinson wrote:Start with the article I linked. where do they go wrong in suggesting there are long term cycles that would give us the rise in temperature? I'm just guessing but the people who wrote that piece are scientists are they not? Therefore this whole discussion is about the disagreement those scientists have with the notion that the suns increased output isn't responsible, either en toto, or at least to a large degree for the warming trend!

No, your piece you link to is not written by a scientist. And it does not appear in a peer reviewed journal. Furtermore, Wilson (the climate scientist who did they describe in the article) does not challenge the relationship between man-made causes and global warming. From his own university:

Solar radiation will not displace the dominant role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in global warming, but could be a significant contributing factor, according to the new report by Richard C. Willson, senior research scientist at Columbia's Center for Climate Systems Research, in the Sept. 26 issue of the magazine Science.

Greenhouse warming, in which gases created by human activity trap more solar heat in the atmosphere, is expected to increase temperatures on Earth by about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 50 to 100 years. By contrast, according to Willson, solar forcing—the sun's effect on long-term climate—might account for between 0.7 and 1.4 degrees of warming over the next 100 years, if sustained at the pace his observations suggest. The globe has already warmed by about one degree since 1880, scientists say.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:23 pm**

I've already linked you to two different pieces that take issue with your position.
I'm assuming they are really scientists.
If you agree that they are scientists then please look at their argument and tell me why I shouldn't listen to them. specifically the long term trend issue and the ancillary issue of deletion of data from the arguments. Censorship. Either of those points are worthy of discussion to me. Semantics are not.

If instead you want to argue semantics over how I used the English language then leave me out, it's just dodging the discussion. I already said I didn't mean to imply that there are no scientists using the suns output in their modeling. I chose my words poorly in that sentence. However you know damn well what my intention was don't you? I meant the way they refuse to discuss the sun being a factor that could explain the over all trend is shouted down instead of debated! The way they have gone so far as to delete data from their own studies has given me reason to doubt them! I made that pretty damn clear and yet now you want to argue about my grammatical faux pas...

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:46 pm**

Testiculese wrote:Indeed I do, I was just wondering if you were up on geology. It's a vague topic for many.

BS in zoology and a minor in geology.

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 3:49 pm**

Pandora wrote:So where is this scientific debate? Please name the climate scienists that challenge the assertion that the current changes are a combination of anthropogenic and natural causes. Please, with references to the scientific publications. Should be easy if there are "plenty".

Try reading some of these:

it is essentially impossible to determine how much of the 20th century's global warming is natural and how much might be due to various anthropogenic influences.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sc ... N10/C1.jsp

Has the earth warmed by a frightening amount? Absolutely not. The increase in temperature over the last century or more is only on the order of 1°C. Has it taken us to an unusual level of warmth? Absolutely not, as evidenced by the fact that the baseline from which modern warming commenced was the uncharacteristic cold of the Little Ice Age, which is judged to have been the coldest interval of the current interglacial,

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sc ... 0/EDIT.jsp

As the scientists have reported in the renowned scientific journal, Physical Review Letters, since 1940 the mean sunspot number is higher than it has ever been in the last thousand years and two and a half times higher than the long term average.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 093903.htm

Posted: **Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:09 pm**

Here, I didn't think I could find it but I did. The following article is where I started getting the idea that the so called \"consensus of virtually all scientists\" might be a lot more political-speak than an actual polling of the scientific community on the issue of human cause and effect of global warming.

And again, I have always said we should seek cleaner fuel, alternative fuel...for many reasons the ecology not the only one.
And we should reduce our pollution output but the Kyoto treaty was a disaster and the current global warming argument is demagogued by politically motivated factions at the expense of the reputation of all scientists who speak out on either side. The simple fact that the debate has been reduced to a two-sided argument is proof that the science in this debate has been run over and dragged to death by politics!
Since when has anything as vast, complex and dynamic as our planets climate with it's millions of years of timeline been so easily and quickly defined in scientific terms as either of the two political factions would have us believe?!

Here (and yes Pandora this adds some more scientists to the list you asked for):

Al Gore, Global warming, Inconvenient Truth
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
\"The Inconvenient Truth\" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

By Tom Harris

Monday, June 12, 2006

\"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it,\" Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film \"An Inconvenient Truth\", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: \"Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.\"
See also:
The Gods must be laughing
A sample of experts’ comments about the science of “An Inconvenient Truth”:

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of \"climate change skeptics\" who disagree with the \"vast majority of scientists\" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. \"Climate experts\" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's \"majority of scientists\" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. \"While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,\" explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. \"They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.\"

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. \"These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,\" asserts Ball. \"Since modelers concede computer outputs are not \"predictions\" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.\"

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, \"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.\" Patterson asked the committee, \"On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?\"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and \"hundreds of other studies\" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. \"The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,\" says Winterhalter. \"In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.\"

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, \"Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.\"

But Karlen clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, \"their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect,\" KarlÈn concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, \"Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap.\" This is misleading, according to Ball: \"The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology.\"

Karlen explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. \"For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years,\" says KarlÈn

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, \"There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001.\"

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, \"Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance.\"

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. \"It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,\" he says. \"The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.\"

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, \"The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.\"

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based mechanical engineer and Executive Director of Natural Resources Stewardship Project. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

from here

DescentBB

A convenient lie

A convenient lie

Re:

Re: A convenient lie

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: A convenient lie

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: