|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
The Arctic sea ice has hit its lowest extent ever recorded, according to the US-based National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency, and Norwegian, Danish and other government monitoring organisations. With possibly two weeks' further melt likely before the ice reaches its minimum extent and starts to refreeze ahead of the winter, satellites showed it had shrunk to 4.1m sq km (1.6m sq miles) on Sunday. The previous record of 4.3m sq km was set in 2007. The Guardian reported earlier this month that such a record low was likely to be hit imminently. NSIDC scientist Walt Meier said: "This is an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing." "The previous record, set in 2007, occurred because of near perfect summer weather for melting ice. Apart from one big storm in early August, weather patterns this year were unremarkable. The ice is so thin and weak now, it doesn't matter how the winds blow," said the NSIDC director, Mark Serreze. The record is widely seen by scientists at the NSIDC and elsewhere as a strong signal of long-term climate warming. "The Arctic used to be dominated by multiyear ice, or ice that stayed around for several years," Meier said. "Now it's becoming more of a seasonal ice cover and large areas are now prone to melting out in summer," said Serreze. "These figures are not the result of some freak of nature but the effects of man-made global warming caused by our reliance on dirty fossil fuels," said John Sauven, the Greenpeace UK director. "These preliminary figures provide irrefutable evidence that greenhouse gas emissions leading to global warming are damaging one of the planet's critical environments, one that helps maintain the stability of the global climate for every citizen of the world," said Sauven. Arctic sea ice follows an annual cycle of melting through the warm summer months and refreezing in the winter. It has shown a dramatic overall decline over the past 30 years. "Record-breaking ice minimums are becoming the new normal," says Clive Tesar of WWF's global Arctic programme. "We're breaking records on a regular basis as the sea ice continues its decline." According to many scientists, the sea ice plays a critical role in regulating climate, acting as a giant mirror that reflects much of the sun's energy, helping to cool the Earth. The formation of the sea ice produces dense saltwater, which sinks, helping drive the deep ocean currents. Without the ice, many scientists fear this balance could be upset, potentially causing major climatic changes.   link
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Just wanted to add this little article before those who don't understand global warming claim that it is not due to human activity. Ice cores show that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have remained between 180 and 300 parts per million for the past half-a-million years. In recent centuries, however, CO2 levels have risen sharply, to at least 380 ppm (see Greenhouse gases hit new high) So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks". The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise. Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more. Ocean sinks Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year. About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14. Volcanic misunderstanding Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere. Finally, claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust (see Wipeout). But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes (see also Did the North Atlantic's 'birth' warm the world?). Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document). While volcanic emissions are negligible in the short term, over tens of millions of years they do release massive quantities of CO2. But they are balanced by the loss of carbon in ocean sediments subducted under continents through tectonic plate movements. Ultimately, this carbon will be returned to the atmosphere by volcanoes. link
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
Quote:
Just wanted to add this little article before those who don't understand global warming claim that it is not due to human activity.
That is funny stuff there...I mean crazy funny. 
"...those who don't understand global warming..."
That ish brings tears of laughter to my eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Funny, I pegged you as one of the people in need of a refresher.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
Quote:
Just wanted to add this little article before those who don't understand global warming claim that it is not due to human activity.
That is funny stuff there...I mean crazy funny.
"...those who don't understand global warming..."
That ish brings tears of laughter to my eyes.
Yes. Understand. Not believe. Believe suggests it's debatable. It is not. It is as close to as
universally accepted within the scientific community as any major theory of the last few hundred years. Are you aware of the study performed by Richard Muller, BEST’s Founder and Scientific Director, which was funded by the financiers of the Tea Party movement which sought to disprove global warming? Guess what their results were? Global warming exists and is caused almost entirely by man.
WASHINGTON – The verdict is in: Global warming is occurring and emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity are the main cause.
This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley, MacArthur Fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Never mind that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago. The difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.
In an opinion piece in Saturday’s New York Times titled “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic,” Muller writes: “Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”
The Berkeley project’s research has shown, Muller says, “that the average temperature of the Earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”
He calls his stance now “a total turnaround.”
[Updated, 4:17 p.m., July 29: Tonya Mullins, a spokeswoman for the Koch Foundation, said the support her foundation provided, along with others, had no bearing on the results of the research. "Our grants are designed to promote independent research; as such, recipients hold full control over their findings," Mullins said in an email. "In this support, we strive to benefit society by promoting discovery and informing public policy."]
Some leading climate scientists welcomed Muller’s comments, proof, they argued, that the science is so strong that even those inclined to reject it cannot once they examine it carefully. Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, said that Muller’s conversion might help shape the thinking of the “reasonable middle” of the population “who are genuinely confused and have been honestly taken in” by attacks on climate science.
On his Facebook page, Mann wrote: “There is a certain ironic satisfaction in seeing a study funded by the Koch Brothers – the greatest funders of climate change denial and disinformation on the planet – demonstrate what scientists have known with some degree of confidence for nearly two decades: that the globe is indeed warming, and that this warming can only be explained by human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. I applaud Muller and his colleagues for acting as any good scientists would, following where their analyses led them, without regard for the possible political repercussions.”
Muller’s conclusions, however, failed to sway the most ardent climate contrarians, like Marc Morano, a former top producer for Rush Limbaugh and communications director for the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee who now runs the website climatedepot.com. “Muller will be remembered as a befuddled professor who has yet to figure out how to separate climate science from his media antics. His latest claims provide no new insight into the climate science debate,” Morano said in an email.
Muller’s New York Times commentary follows research he did last year that confirmed the work of scientists who found the Earth’s temperature was rising. In the past, Muller had criticized which global temperatures were used in such research, contending that some monitoring stations provided inaccurate data. Now, Berkeley’s research has weighed in on the causes of the temperature rise, testing arguments climate contrarians have used.
“What has caused the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees?” Muller writes. “We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.”
Muller asserted that his findings were ‘stronger’ than those of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental panel. Yet, neither Berkeley’s research from last year or the new findings on causality have been published in peer-reviewed journals, which has raised criticism and concerns among climatologists and contrarians alike.
Benjamin D. Santer, a climate researcher at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a lead author of the 1995 U.N. climate report, said he welcomed the involvement of another research group into “detection and attribution” of climate change and its causes. But he also said he found it troubling that Muller claimed such definitive results without his work undergoing peer-review.
“If you go into the public arena and claim to have generated evidence that is stronger than the IPCC, where is the detailed, scientific evidence? Has he used fundamental new data sets?” Santer said. “Publish the science and report on it after it’s done.”
He added: “I think you can do great harm to the broader debate. Imagine this scenario: that he makes these great claims and the papers aren't published? This (op-ed) is in the spirit of publicity, not the spirit of science.”
Elizabeth Muller, co-founder and executive director of the Berkeley project and Richard Muller’s daughter, said the papers had been peer-reviewed, but not yet published. But because of the long lead-up to publication, the Berkeley team decided to place its papers online, in part to solicit comment from other scientists. She said all the papers, including the latest, would be on the BerkeleyEarth.org website by Sunday evening.
“I believe the findings in our papers are too important to wait for the year or longer that it could take to complete the journal review process,” Elizabeth Muller wrote in an email. “We believe in traditional peer review; we welcome feedback [from] the public and any scientists who are interested in taking the time to make thoughtful comments. Our papers have received scrutiny by dozens of top scientists, not just the two or three that typically are called upon by journalists.”
web page
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Let me ask you something .......
Where does this study take into account the worldwide drought brought on largely by the current, heavy solar storms. Does that impact sea levels, and ice levels?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
It doesn't matter what you post, he still won't believe. He'll use motivated reasoning to shield his psyche from the brunt of logic. My guess is he pulls out that, "it's a conspiracy perpetrated by the academic elite to garner more funds for their research." The Muller situation only reinforces that claim, he's turned shill in order to keep his research funds flowing. 
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,758 |
The Arctic was also hit with a Summer Cyclonic Storm that might have allowed it to reach the lowest extent ever. web page Quote:
Arctic sea ice extent during the first two weeks of August continued to track below 2007 record low daily ice extents. As of August 13, ice extent was already among the four lowest summer minimum extents in the satellite record, with about five weeks still remaining in the melt season. Sea ice extent dropped rapidly between August 4 and August 8. While this drop coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean, it is unclear if the storm prompted the rapid ice loss. Overall, weather patterns in the Arctic Ocean through the summer of 2012 have been a mixed bag, with no consistent pattern.
Overview of conditions
Arctic sea ice extent on August 13 was 5.09 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). This is 2.69 million square kilometers (1.04 million square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent for the date, and is 483,000 square kilometers (186,000 square miles) below the previous record low for the date, which occurred in 2007. ( Note: The sea ice extent originally published on August 14, 2012 was the actual one-day value for August 13. We normally report the five-day trailing mean, so to be consistent we have updated the post with these numbers instead of the one-day value. See the Sea Ice Index Documentation for more information about the five-day trailing mean.) Low extent for the Arctic as a whole is driven by extensive open water on the Atlantic side of the Arctic, the Beaufort Sea, and—due to rapid ice loss over the past two weeks—the East Siberian Sea. Ice is near its normal (1979 to 2000) extent only off the northeastern Greenland coast. Ice near the coast in eastern Siberia continues to block sections of the Northern Sea Route. The western entrance to the Northwest Passage via McClure Strait remains blocked.
Conditions in context
The average pace of ice loss since late June has been rapid at just over 100,000 square kilometers (38,000 square miles) per day. However, this pace nearly doubled for a few days in early August during a major Arctic cyclonic storm, discussed below. Unlike the summer of 2007 when a persistent pattern of high pressure was present over the central Arctic Ocean and a pattern of low pressure was over the northern Eurasian coast, the summer of 2012 has been characterized by variable conditions. Air tempertures at the 925 hPa level (about 3000 feet above the ocean surface) of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius (1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981 to 2012 average have been the rule from central Greenland, northern Canada, and Alaska northward into the central Arctic Ocean. Cooler than average conditions (1 to 2 degrees Celsius or 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) were observed in a small region of eastern Siberia extending into the East Siberian Sea, helping explain the persistence of low concentration ice in this region through early August.
The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012
A low pressure system entered the Arctic Ocean from the eastern Siberian coast on August 4 and then strengthened rapidly over the central Arctic Ocean. On August 6 the central pressure of the cyclone reached 964 hPa, an extremely low value for this region. It persisted over the central Arctic Ocean over the next several days, and slowly dissipated. The storm initially brought warm and very windy conditions to the Chukchi and East Siberian seas (August 5), but low temperatures prevailed later.
Low pressure systems over the Arctic Ocean tend to cause the ice to diverge or spread out and cover a larger area. These storms often bring cool conditions and even snowfall. In contrast, high pressure systems over the Arctic cause the sea ice to converge. Summers dominated by low pressure systems over the central Arctic Ocean tend to end up with greater ice extent than summers dominated by high pressure systems.
However, the effects of an individual strong storm, like that observed in early August, can be complex. While much of the region influenced by the August cyclone experienced a sudden drop in temperature, areas influenced by winds from the south experienced a rise in temperature. Coincident with the storm, a large area of low concentration ice in the East Siberian Sea (concentrations typically below 50%) rapidly melted out. On three consecutive days (August 7, 8, and 9), sea ice extent dropped by nearly 200,000 square kilometers (77,220 square miles). This could be due to mechanical break up of the ice and increased melting by strong winds and wave action during the storm. However, it may be simply a coincidence of timing, given that the low concentration ice in the region was already poised to rapidly melt out.
It might be more complex than you think.
Last edited by ~TuX~; 09/01/12 04:55 AM.
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](http://i.imgur.com/FUKyw.png) "Don't be burdened by regrets or make your failures an obsession or become embittered or possessed by ruined hopes"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Be it something we caused, or something caused by forces of nature, to be honest, I don't really care. I am not saying that to be flippant. I am just of the opinion the planet is over populated and until we manage to bring the population down by a several billions of people, the world is going to change. We are already past the point we can't adequately feed the people on the planet. web page Above is a population clock.....refresh that sucker every minute or so
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
I absolutely agree.
Its not just feeding the population. If you look at a great percentage of global problems, they can be traced in some way to just too many people, and not enough resources to meet demand.
Humans basically have no predators. Yeah, I know a shark or a lion gets ahold of a person once in awhile, but no significant numbers. We have either eliminated our predators, or protected ourselves to a point of them not being able to get to us.
If you look at a deer herd that lives in a area with no hunting. The herd gets bigger and bigger, until the area they live in can't support them anymore. The nature kicks in with its own population control to thin the herd. Starvation,and disease. Hmmm HIV,Cancer, Diabetes. Mother nature is thinning the herd.
If the ice caps are melting for long term, it could cause less land to live on and support the people on it, and cause more disease and famine. The Earth will survive, and man will adapt and survive, but their may be a lot of casualties in the mean time.
King
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,801
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,801 |
Unlike many on this board I do believe that global warming is a true threat.
I guess I just don't undertand the point of it all at this juncture? At one point I believed we should make businesses accountable by setting strict air quality guidelines and forcing auto makers into making cars with much stricter emission standards.
Not anymore. We are but a speck on the map when it comes to major manufacturing on our planet now. We can not police the world in regards to these things. Now if you can get China, India, the Soviet block and the major manufacturers across the globe to go along with these things, then you may have something. But history dictates that immediate greed and power wins out over the better good of mankind.
To suggest we put a stranglehold on our nations businesses as nothing more than some symbolic jesture at this time I feel is quite unrealistic. I'm not suggesting that you're saying that, but it would have no real bearing on the situation.
Point being, until such time as you can get a global plan in place, this country can do little if anything to stop it. And crippling our economy even further knowing that no real change will take place is not a way to move forward on this issue.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822 |
Quote:
the worldwide drought brought on largely by the current, heavy solar storms.
Say what?
...solar storms caused the drought, you say?... 
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
It was still on track to be one of lowest coverages in recorded history. You can't paint the low arctic coverage as the result of a freak tropical storm that ended up in the arctic. The storm was just an extra kick in the pants, true, but it's still part of an overall trend that is declining almost yearly. This is also on top of July being the warmest month on record.
I'd be interested to know when all of these events stop becoming coincidental, and start become symptoms of the problem.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,822 |
Quote:
Be it something we caused, or something caused by forces of nature, to be honest, I don't really care.
I am not saying that to be flippant. I am just of the opinion the planet is over populated and until we manage to bring the population down by a several billions of people, the world is going to change.
Overpopulation you say...that is why the polar ice cap is melting?...or is that the reason for the drought in the USA?
...or overpopulation might be a separate issue. 
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Let me ask you something .......
Where does this study take into account the worldwide drought brought on largely by the current, heavy solar storms. Does that impact sea levels, and ice levels?
How'd I miss this last night? I need a link for this please. The solar maximum right now is a complete letdown as far as astronomers are concerned. I'd love to see the data that shows someone attributes the massive droughts in the US, while still allowing for the massive amounts of rain in other parts of the world.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
Quote:
Be it something we caused, or something caused by forces of nature, to be honest, I don't really care.
I am not saying that to be flippant. I am just of the opinion the planet is over populated and until we manage to bring the population down by a several billions of people, the world is going to change.
Overpopulation you say...that is why the polar ice cap is melting?...or is that the reason for the drought in the USA?
...or overpopulation might be a separate issue.
As usual, it goes right over your head.
It's not my problem you don't comprehend what people are saying.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
That link you provide keeps getting kicked out by my Kaspersky....a "groovygreen" is a malicious site, is trying to download something.
My anti-virus sends me an alert every time I link to this thread.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
The sun has experienced increased activity and increased temperatures in this solar storm season. (which hit, what ... every 12-13 years?) Are you saying that this has no impact on the earth, its temperature, or the weather on the planet, especially on the hemisphere closest to the sun?
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
Let me ask you something .......
Where does this study take into account the worldwide drought brought on largely by the current, heavy solar storms. Does that impact sea levels, and ice levels?
This study came out before this year's drought. However,
Quote:
he relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States, Canada and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare it can't be anything but man-made global warming, according to a new statistical analysis from a top American scientist.
The research by a man often called the "godfather of global warming" says that, from the 1950s through the 1980s, the likelihood of such sweltering temperatures occurring was rarer than 1 in 300. Now, the odds are closer to 1 in 10, according to the study by James Hansen. The NASA scientist says that statistically, what's happening is not random or normal, but pure and simple climate change.
James E. Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says global warming is no longer 'some scientific theory.' (Mary Altaffer/Associated Press)
"This is not some scientific theory," Hansen told The Associated Press in an interview. "We are now experiencing scientific fact."
Hansen is a scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia University. He is also a strident activist who has called for government action to curb greenhouse gases for years. While his study was published online Saturday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, it is unlikely to sway opinion among the remaining climate change skeptics.
Several climate scientists are praising his new work.
In a blunt departure from most climate research, Hansen's study — based on statistics, not the more typical climate modelling — blames three heat waves purely on global warming:
The 2011 drought that devastated Texas and Oklahoma.
The 2010 heat waves in Russia and the Middle East, which led to thousands of deaths.
The 2003 European heat wave blamed for tens of thousands of deaths, especially among the elderly in France.
The analysis was written before the current drought and record-breaking temperatures that have seared much of the United States and Central Canada this year. But Hansen believes this is simply another prime example of global warming at its worst.
Simple mathematics
The new research makes the case for the severity of global warming in a different way than most scientific studies and uses simple mathematics instead of relying on complex climate models or an understanding of atmospheric physics. It also doesn't bother with the usual caveats about individual weather events having numerous causes.
The increase in the chance of extreme heat, drought and heavy downpours in certain regions is so huge that scientists should stop hemming and hawing, Hansen said. "This is happening often enough, over a big enough area, that people can see it happening," he said.
previous1 of 8expandnext
The American Midwest is suffering through its worst drought in decades this summer, threatening the country's corn and livestock production. Many ears of corn in Wichita, Kan., have been killed by blazing sun and temperatures routinely topping 35 C. (Mike Hutmacher/Wichita Eagle/AP)
Scientists have generally responded that it's impossible to say whether single events are caused by global warming, because of the influence of natural weather variability. However, that position has been shifting in recent months, as other studies have concluded climate change is happening right before our eyes.
Hansen hopes his new study will shift people's thinking about climate change and goad governments into action. He wrote an op-ed piece that appeared online Friday in the Washington Post.
"There is still time to act and avoid a worsening climate, but we are wasting precious time," he wrote.
The science in Hansen's study is excellent "and reframes the question," said Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria in British Columbia who was a member of the Nobel Prize-winning international panel of climate scientists that issued a series of reports on global warming.
"Rather than say, 'Is this because of climate change?' That's the wrong question. What you can say is, 'How likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming?' It's so extraordinarily unlikely that it has to be due to global warming," Weaver said.
For years scientists have run complex computer models using combinations of various factors to see how likely a weather event would happen without global warming and with it. About 25 different aspects of climate change have been formally attributed to man-made greenhouse gases in dozens of formal studies. But these are generally broad and non-specific, such as more heat waves in some regions and heavy rainfall in others.
Another upcoming study by Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the U.S. National Centre for Atmospheric Research, links the 2010 Russian heat wave to global warming by looking at the underlying weather that caused the heat wave. He called Hansen's paper an important one that helps communicate the problem.
Disagreement likely
But there is bound to be continued disagreement. Previous studies had been unable to link the two, and one by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that the Russian drought, which also led to devastating wildfires, was not related to global warming.
White House science adviser John Holdren praised the paper's findings in a statement. But he also said it is true that scientists can't blame single events on global warming: "This work, which finds that extremely hot summers are over 10 times more common than they used to be, reinforces many other lines of evidence showing that climate change is occurring and that it is harmful."
Skeptical scientist John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville said Hansen shouldn't have compared recent years to the 1950s-1980s time period because he said that was a quiet time for extremes. But Derek Arndt, director of climate monitoring for the U.S. government's National Climatic Data Center, said that range is a fair one and often used because it is the "golden era" for good statistics.
Granger Morgan, head of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Penn., called Hansen's study "an important next step in what I expect will be a growing set of statistically based arguments."
In a landmark 1988 study, Hansen predicted that if greenhouse gas emissions continue, which they have, Washington, D.C., would have about nine days each year of 35 C or warmer in the decade of the 2010s. So far this year, with about four more weeks of summer, the city has had 23 days with the temperature reaching at least 35 C.
link
Now, I'm not a big fan of the way the above article is written because it doesn't really explain what Dr. Hansen and NASA did to achieve their result. I would reccomend checking out the Google Scholar page and reading some of the most recent published articles as well as his major ones (you can sort by most cited or the year of the article) to get an impression of the science and methodology used.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
That link you provide keeps getting kicked out by my Kaspersky....a "groovygreen" is a malicious site, is trying to download something.
My anti-virus sends me an alert every time I link to this thread.
Hmm, I don't know why, I've never had an issue with that sit. That's the site I used for the second picture in my original post. It won't let me edit my post so if a Ref could just go ahead and remove the last link in my original post (just in case) that'd be great.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,801
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,801 |
Just a question here...... What is it exactly that you suggest we do to change this situation? Do you really believe that one nation alone can change this? China is the #1 using coal nation in the world. With their electric grid growing by leaps and bounds. 3rd is India. Once again a nation on the rise in the need for easily sustainable power. Russia is 5th. South Africa is 7th. Japan is 6th So how do you propose that we change all of that? ---------------------------------------------------------- AP IMPACT: CO2 emissions in US drop to 20-year low http://washingtonexaminer.com/ap-impact-co2-emissions-in-us-drop-to-20-year-low/article/feed/2024996--------------------------------------------------- It appears we are getting better but the globe is getting worse in using coal, emissions and a lack of any real regulations. I'm curious to see how you propose this situation will actually change.....
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
That's my whole issue with everything ... I don't mind reducing emissions, as MMGW or not, less emmissions is a better thing. The only problem is that every "treaty" that comes out regarding less emmissions is a kick in the nuts to the US, while everyone else pretty much gets away with the status quo. I'm actually HOPING we can set up some world wide emissions standards ... just so long as it applies fairly to everyone. No "exemptions" for developing nations or other such garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,801
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 74,801 |
If not, we lose both ways. It either has to be an equal playing field on a global scale or we are simply hurting ourselves in an act of futility.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301 |
Pit - That is what most have believed for sometime. Whether true or not, the man made global warming issue has been used by other countries to try to downgrade the American economy, while exempting themselves. They have also used as a way to exact a global plan to redistribute wealth from richer nations like the United States, all in the name of global fairness. If we are all on the same playing field, no exclusions allowed, I may change my stance on the issue. But until that time, I choose not to weaken the United States and hurt our workforce further than it already has been.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
The sun has experienced increased activity and increased temperatures in this solar storm season. (which hit, what ... every 12-13 years?) Are you saying that this has no impact on the earth, its temperature, or the weather on the planet, especially on the hemisphere closest to the sun?
Not at all. There are two reasons the Earth is able to sustain life as we know it, the sun and the atmosphere. Without those two things working together our planet begins to look a lot like Mars. I'm saying that what you said before is wrong. Solar astronomers will tell you that this solar maximum is shaping up to be a dud; the past few have been much bigger. What have we seen when we compare solar minimums/maximums to the overall global temperature? That there's no correlation. Temperatures continue to climb while solar irradience remains within normal standards. ie The global temperature doesn't flux when the Sun goes through its cycle. Now, there are some hypotheses about solar radiation seeding cloud formation, but that's something that needs more data for confirmation/dismissal. Either way, it doesn't really help the argument that because we're approaching solar max, the Sun is the reason behind the massive drought the US is experiencing as well as the massive rainfall elsewhere in the world. Don't get me wrong, it seems plausible, however the data just isn't there to support it.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,960 |
It will take just one more generation for big oil to lose it's brainwashing grip on Americans.
Very similar to big tobacco.
President - Fort Collins Browns Backers
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
My problems with the whole global warming thing are these ..... in part.
We build stuff. We lay asphalt. Asphalt absorbs heat, and makes cities warmer overall. We run air conditioners, and these discharge heat into the outside air, while cooling the inside. Is this a net zero sum? I don't know.
We have more human beings alive today than ever before. That's a lot of exhalations. We also heat a lot more homes than ever before. We heat more buildings. All of these things are bound to have an impact inside cities.
We have such crappy data on temperatures ...... that it's amazing. We have these estimates of temperature change that are roughly 1/3 of the margin of error. How many stations do we have to record temperature worldwide? How many do we have under our control? How many are actually located in a "neutral" area that would allow for factors like direct sunlight to be factored out?
Where are the temperature recording equipments located? Are there factors which would artificially influence the recorded temperatures? We put a ton of trust into these temperature readings. Have the sites that are used worldwide all been checked for the best accuracy possible?
We blame CO2 ...... but is that really the cause of any supposed warming?
The temperatures and climates just within the limited window of human history have changed dramatically. The Middle East went from a lush basin to a desert. England went from an area capable of incredible grape growing and wine making, to its current climate.
In the past 10,000 years we know of 2 massive climate changes, the Ice Age and the end of that phase, and then the Little Ice Age that came at the end of the Medieval warm period. Climates changed dramatically, and man wasn't contributing much beyond breathing and a few fires to keep warm to "global climate change".
We know so little about how climate and the weather actually works. We pretend to know all about global climate change, yet we cannot even predict the weather a week ahead, let alone years, or decades ahead. We can generally predict massive storm cells and such, but not where they will hit ..... what degree of severity they will have .... and so on. We can't predict the weather, but we can say, with absolute certainty, using largely very limited data, that global climate change is a certainty, and that man is the undisputed cause.
Sorry, I don't agree. The data is so limited, and so many "studies" are "conclusion driven". There are scientists on each side of the debate. There are massive political factors involved in this issue. Way too many for me to say that we should change our way of life completely as a result.
I do believe that we should constantly look for cleaner energies. I think that we should constantly look for cleaner manufacturing processes. I think that we should constantly look for ways to help keep the air, and water, and land cleaner. I believe that we should look for cleaner ways of producing energy .... but all methods have drawbacks. Windmills kill birds. Water driven generation causes changes to the natural flow of waters, and is limited to suitable sources of water strong enough to turn turbines. Solar is very limited geographically. Each has its positives and negatives. Each has limitations. We should do all we can to try and generate as much power as we can in the cleanest methods possible.
However, I do not believe in crippling industries because of questionable research. I do not believe in doing a treaty beatdown on the US, forcing us to pay billions and billions and billions of dollars to clean up other country's ..... even if they are an enemy to us. Who knows where that money actually goes .. especially with the UN in control? I am sad to say that I believe that many of the global climate change advocates have a political agenda as opposed to an environmental one. Just this past March, 50 or so former NASA scientists wrote a letter of protest over NASA's global warming claims.
There are so many scientists who dispute the global climate change agenda, often to their own professional detriment, and so much sketchy research that I am not even close to saying "Yes, I believe in global climate change, and I believe that it is man made." I don't.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
Quote:
It will take just one more generation for big oil to lose it's brainwashing grip on Americans.
who do you think owns most of the "green" companies?
"big oil" is really "big energy" and they stand to profit no matter which way things end up.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
Quote:
Quote:
It will take just one more generation for big oil to lose it's brainwashing grip on Americans.
who do you think owns most of the "green" companies?
"big oil" is really "big energy" and they stand to profit no matter which way things end up.
Indeed. Plus....maybe oil is the best and cheapest way to meet our energy demands.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,280 |
Well...clearly you do not understand and have not done the research necessary to make a conclusion. I know this because you said the following: Quote:
However, I do not believe in crippling industries because of questionable research.
See...you think the research is questionable. Therefore, the rest of your well-thoughtout comments and presentation are null and void.
You simply don't get it.
/sarcasm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
As I already pointed out earlier in this thread, Richard Muller, a literal genius and global warming skeptic did a study with the purpose of looking into those problems and various factors to see if questionable research was indeed the culprit. People use anectodal evidence and then dismiss actual science because they are more interested in confirming their beliefs instead of following where the science takes them. I really recommend you check out his research because it pretty much point-by-point dismisses the arguments you use for why global warming may not be real. The problem with this whole debate is normal people pose questions/concerns and scientists go out and research it, find it to be wrong, and people still repeat it like it their opinion is still valid even when it has been proven demonstrably false. Quote:
There are so many scientists who dispute the global climate change agenda
This is an oft-repeated but wrong statement. 98% believe that man-made global warming is occuring link link
To put that in perspective, 97% of scientists believe in evolution. So within the scientific community, global warming is more widely accepted than evolution. To say that "so many scientists" dismiss global warming is just patently false.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
I seem to recall hearing something recently about 50 or so retired NASA scientists complaining in a letter how NASA had been compromised by espousing this global warming theory for political reasons, rather than based on pure scientific evidence.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
Also ..... what caused the end of the Ice Age (which brought about the beginnings of what we today call human civilization) and then brought on the mini ice age ......then the end of that mini ice age? It certainly wasn't human activity at that point.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,572 |
In the broad sense, I agree with you. However, I am sure we do impact things.
But as I said earlier, I don't care. I am not going to sort my trash. I am going to drive a big car. I am going to set my AC at 71.
If other people want to have 5 trash bins, drive around in a moped of a vehicle, and sit around a hot or cold house in the wrong season, go for it.
Make a SERIOUS effort to reduce human population over the next 75 years, and these problems go away.
This is just a thought I have had from time to time. If we took half of the Grand Canyon and made it a national land fill, I wonder how long it would take to fill it up?
It's not like we would be filling the whole thing up. As long as you still left 150 miles of it, does it really matter if you didn't have the other 150 miles? At maybe 10-15 miles wide and a mile or so deep, it would take a lot of fill.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,093 |
How could the global population be reduced?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
My problems with the whole global warming thing are these ..... in part.
I'm going to answer every single point in this.
Quote:
We build stuff. We lay asphalt. Asphalt absorbs heat, and makes cities warmer overall. We run air conditioners, and these discharge heat into the outside air, while cooling the inside. Is this a net zero sum? I don't know.
We do. We know that areas with large amounts of concrete and asphalt are much warmer than the surrounding areas. This is could be a confounding factor if it wasn't taken into account when these temperatures are compiled. Also, satellite data doesn't match up.
That actually includes all of the data points since 1885 to 2006. As you can see, most of the warming is in the higher and lower latitudes, not around large metropolitan areas.
Quote:
We have more human beings alive today than ever before. That's a lot of exhalations. We also heat a lot more homes than ever before. We heat more buildings. All of these things are bound to have an impact inside cities.
It doesn't matter how many humans we have today, because the amount of animals total (of which we are included) is roughly the same. Not to mention, we account for so little of the amount of animals on the planet. Our mass, the total amount of human biomass on the planet is roughly 335 megatons. Ants account for somewhere between 900 to 9000 megatons alone. They out-respire us immensely. In addition, the CO2 we respire comes from essentially "burning" food. In order to satisfy the appetites of everyone on the globe, we need to have more plants essentially. Plants to eat ourselves, and plants to feed animals that we then eat. The CO2 of an expanded human race is easily countered by the other half of the Carbon cycle, plants and other food crops, every year.
Not only that, we know that the CO2 in the air isn't from normal respiration. We know that it's from burning fossil fuels. Here's the actual paper itself if you'd like to read it. Basically, we get more of one type of Carbon in the carbon dioxide when we burn fossil fuels, than in carbon from respiration. We have more of the fossil fuel carbon in the air than in the past.
Quote:
We have such crappy data on temperatures ...... that it's amazing. We have these estimates of temperature change that are roughly 1/3 of the margin of error. How many stations do we have to record temperature worldwide? How many do we have under our control? How many are actually located in a "neutral" area that would allow for factors like direct sunlight to be factored out?
This is why Richard Muller did his BEST study. I'll quote him from his team's website: " Existing data used to show global warming have met with much criticism. The Berkeley Earth project attempts to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses by making available an open record to enable rapid response to further criticism and suggestions. Our results include our best estimate for the global temperature change and our estimates of the uncertainties in the record. " There are ways to account for error statistically. His team has gone through, with the attempt to prove the very argument you're using right now, and applied even more rigorous statistics to each of the sites. And his answers came out the same.
As for the "1/3 margin of error" thing, I'd need a citation. I'd hazard a guess and say that you, or someone else, is reading something wrong.
Quote:
Where are the temperature recording equipments located? Are there factors which would artificially influence the recorded temperatures? We put a ton of trust into these temperature readings. Have the sites that are used worldwide all been checked for the best accuracy possible?
Again, I'll let Richard Muller say it: The Urban Heat Island effect is real. Berkeley’s analysis focused on the question of whether this effect biases the global land average. The results indicate that the urban heat island effect on our global estimate of land temperatures is indistinguishable from zero.
These units are checked, regularly. One's that may not be in a great place are either not taken into consideration or are normalized using equations.
Quote:
We blame CO2 ...... but is that really the cause of any supposed warming?
Out of all the possible factors that could be causing the warming that we're seeing, this one fits the best. That includes the sun, cloud cover, breathing, volcanos, etc.
Quote:
The temperatures and climates just within the limited window of human history have changed dramatically. The Middle East went from a lush basin to a desert. England went from an area capable of incredible grape growing and wine making, to its current climate.
In the past 10,000 years we know of 2 massive climate changes, the Ice Age and the end of that phase, and then the Little Ice Age that came at the end of the Medieval warm period. Climates changed dramatically, and man wasn't contributing much beyond breathing and a few fires to keep warm to "global climate change".
And the reason for these changes in the past? The atmosphere changed, or the continents drifted. This is nothing new. The climate has changed before, no one is denying that. That being said the climate has never changed like this before, never this fast. And thats the problem. How will local environments cope with the sudden (read 100 years or so) shift in rain, temp, soil composition, etc.
Quote:
We know so little about how climate and the weather actually works. We pretend to know all about global climate change, yet we cannot even predict the weather a week ahead, let alone years, or decades ahead. We can generally predict massive storm cells and such, but not where they will hit ..... what degree of severity they will have .... and so on. We can't predict the weather, but we can say, with absolute certainty, using largely very limited data, that global climate change is a certainty, and that man is the undisputed cause.
You're confusing the two. Weather does not equal climate. Climate is the study of averages in the weather, and the averages are changing. Here's a nice little graphic:
Quote:
Sorry, I don't agree. The data is so limited, and so many "studies" are "conclusion driven". There are scientists on each side of the debate. There are massive political factors involved in this issue. Way too many for me to say that we should change our way of life completely as a result.
However, I do not believe in crippling industries because of questionable research. I do not believe in doing a treaty beatdown on the US, forcing us to pay billions and billions and billions of dollars to clean up other country's ..... even if they are an enemy to us. Who knows where that money actually goes .. especially with the UN in control? I am sad to say that I believe that many of the global climate change advocates have a political agenda as opposed to an environmental one.
No one is talking about crippling our economy to combat this; the effects are not that bad yet. That being said, we shouldn't wait until it is so bad the midwest turns into a desert.
As for the idea that this is a conclusion driven theory, I think you don't understand how science works. Once you build up a foundation of well-verified data, going against that data is being intellectually dishonest. You can't just make up your own facts and expect other researchers to take it at face value. In science, you build off previous information that has been generated. Bad data gets disproven, good data gets passed on. The initial data set that we base this anthropogenic global warming theory on wasn't conclusion driven. And that data has been verified and re-checked over and over in the past 50 years. The basis is sound, so every publication of every experiment has been continually checked and rechecked during this period. The bad data is gone, the good data is still around. So what remains is the scientific theory that explains global warming.
Quote:
Just this past March, 50 or so former NASA scientists wrote a letter of protest over NASA's global warming claims.
That's great. How many are climate scientists? As far as i remember, most were engineers? Ah, here it is: 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians. Sorry, those people don't have the qualifications to make that statement and for it to mean anything.
Quote:
There are so many scientists who dispute the global climate change agenda, often to their own professional detriment, and so much sketchy research that I am not even close to saying "Yes, I believe in global climate change, and I believe that it is man made." I don't.
Not to their detriment. Infact, people like Muller got tons of money from people like the Koch brothers to perform their research. And no one was ever been fired from an academic job for voicing a counter argument that's well founded. These people still have jobs. As for the sketchy science, See above. Bad science gets thrown out, good science stays and gets built on.
So, please feel free to respond to the points I haven't explained well, I'll write more. Also, you seem to believe that global warming is occuring, but that climate change won't occur. Is this right?
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Also ..... what caused the end of the Ice Age (which brought about the beginnings of what we today call human civilization) and then brought on the mini ice age ......then the end of that mini ice age? It certainly wasn't human activity at that point.
Answered in my post below, but here it is.
It wasn't humans, and no one is saying was. This is an important scientific question that we don't have the answer to, but, it could be changes in the atmosphere, solar output, sea currents even. Just because the climate changed in the past, doesn't mean it isn't our fault now. Our climate has many variables that when changed, alter our the outcome. Cause and effect, right? When you change those variables, the climate changes. We have been able to measure all of these variables for quite some time now, and the one that's changing the most is CO2. The changes to the climate that we are seeing match up with how CO2 affects the temperature.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
I seem to recall hearing something recently about 50 or so retired NASA scientists complaining in a letter how NASA had been compromised by espousing this global warming theory for political reasons, rather than based on pure scientific evidence.
Also answered in my post above. 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians
Those aren't people that are experts in determining whether or not NASA has lost it's marbles on climate change.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,428 |
4 of the biggest climactic changes in recorded history, and we have no clue what caused any of them ....... the end of the Ice Age ........ then the European Warm Period ...... then the Little Ice Age .... then the end of that and the beginning of modern climates .... and yet scientists are certain that man made CO2 is the cause of global warming ...... which very well may be merely the continuation of a general warming trend since the end of the Ice Age.
I have said that I believe that we should constantly look into cleaner energy production, however we should not cripple our nation by over-regulating ourselves into poverty.
I look at temperatures from the end of the Ice Age to today, and yes .... we are much, much warmer than then. However, we have no idea what caused that, and no one can be certain that man made CO2, or any of the other things that have been attributed to man made global cooling ... or warming ...... has much effect, or if it is part of the natural temperature cycle of the planet.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 989 |
Do u believe in creationism too? Or just disregard any fact that isn't sourced from fox news?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Arctic sea ice shrinks to lowest
extent ever recorded
|
|
