Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456
Results 46 to 54 of 54

Thread: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

  1. #46

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    Got a source for that 97% you quote and what % of those are actually climatologists and what % HAVENT asked their names NOT to be used to promote jun science?
    Do you actually read the posts you reply too? I don't know why I ask, as you clearly don't. It is nice that you can poke holes in a survey that you know nothing about though. Geez, you sure are smart. Why study anything, we could just ask you, as you are already sure of the answer. You know how to reply to things that you don't even know what they are, and I'm the one who's ignorant? Pretty funny stuff. Its 97% of climatologists actively involved in research. If you'd bother reading my replies, you would have seen it. I guess that is too much to ask though. Rush already told you what to say, and your'e going to say it no matter what.

  2. #47

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Hey Rusty! Send OKC some of your global warming... we've just got 14" of snow dumped on OKC...thats 5" over the previous all time record. (Just another stat for your "scientists" to ignore!)

  3. #48

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Excuse me...If I havent been clear about my skepticism.. it is about ANTHROPOMORPHIC climate change.... allow me to do so now. And THAT is what the REAL argument is about now isnt it!

    NOW then... what % of that 97% believe that climate change is MAN MADE? Or what % believe the dire predictions of Algore etal?

  4. #49

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    Excuse me...If I havent been clear about my skepticism.. it is about ANTHROPOMORPHIC climate change.... allow me to do so now. And THAT is what the REAL argument is about now isnt it!

    NOW then... what % of that 97% believe that climate change is MAN MADE? Or what % believe the dire predictions of Algore etal?
    Are you still replying without reading the posts? Unreal. Its not like I posted 2000 words expecting you to study 20 graphs. I posted it, including the relevant quote, with a link in short, plain English. All you have to do is read before you respond. After all, you did respond to the post. Instead you just respond with more Rush Limbaugh. And its not that you haven't been clear about your statements, its that your logic is beyond faulty, you cherry pick data, quote a pill popping talking head, and refuse to read responses. And I'm ignorant. Riiight.

  5. #50

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by Tight-Waist View Post
    Hey Rusty! Send OKC some of your global warming... we've just got 14" of snow dumped on OKC...thats 5" over the previous all time record. (Just another stat for your "scientists" to ignore!)
    I am going to assume this is a joke. If it isn't than your understanding of the situation is less than zero. No wonder you listen to Rush Limbaugh for science news.

  6. #51

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    ?Consensus of Scientists,? Climatologists At Odds

    Throughout the past few years, Under Secretary of State Timothy Wirth has taken great pleasure in preaching to captive masses that ?the science is settled? on the global warming issue. This statement, uttered at carefully selected environmental hotbeds, has gotten his audience?s hearts bleeding and knees jerking.

    But the statement is a lie.

    The controversy has never crystallized more clearly than in a recent survey on global climate change conducted by the independent market research firm American Viewpoint.

    For the first time, a group consisting solely of climatologists had the chance to express their views on the global warming issue?an issue that deals almost completely with climatology. The results are enough to make any global warming apocalyst apoplectic.

    With 36 of 51 state climatologists participating, the survey is indeed significant. More than two-thirds of participants have been climatologists for more than 10 years; more than one-fourth, for more than 20 years. Most have doctorates. As for their political leanings, 17 percent identified themselves as liberal, 58 percent as moderate, and 20 percent as conservative.

    There were 40 questions in all. Here, we offer some highlights, along with our commentary.

    ?Do you agree or disagree with the following statement: ?The overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory but now a fact that global warming is for real. There is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate???

    This statement, a paraphrase of the infamous words from the 1995 United Nations report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), usually appears in print as something like, ?More than 2,500 scientists across the globe agree that human pollution is causing global warming,? or ?The consensus of scientists now agree that [blah blah blah].?

    But more than half?58 percent?of state climatologists surveyed disagreed. Some consensus! Perhaps if the IPCC had included the findings of more actual climatologists in their document, they would have developed a more scientifically unbiased, less politically motivated report. In fact, few state climatologists were invited to participate in the IPCC process.

    The next question relates to the matter of evidence of climate change:

    ?Do you think historical data indicates that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels??

    By a huge majority (61 percent), those surveyed say they see no evidence of global warming in the historical record. Only 20 percent answered yes. So if there is no evidence of human influence on global climate in the historical records, the evidence for all this hubbub must lie elsewhere.

    Which brings us to the climate models.

    ?On a scale of one to 10, with one being not at all accurate and 10 being extremely accurate, please tell me how accurate you believe computer modeling to be in terms of forecasting climatic conditions 50 to 100 years into the future.?

    As Figure 1 shows, climatologists have little faith in the veracity of current general circulation model (GCM) predictions. More than 80 percent of respondents gave the model forecasts scores in the bottom 50 percent. Eight out of 10 state climatologists! A group of scientists who actually monitor the real climate, using real data!

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ar...ature1_3_4.jpg


    Figure 1. How accurate do U.S. state climatologists believe computer modeling to be in terms of forecasting climatic conditions 50 to 100 years into the future?

    They know an unrealistic forecast or unlikely climate scenario when they see one. Unfortunately, such suppositions have long been hallmarks (and to some apocalysts, the primary selling points) of the GCMs.

    The responses to these two survey questions clarify the issue brilliantly: There are few who believe in the evidence for human-induced warming in the global record, and the GCM projections cannot be considered evidence since their forecasts are unrealistic.

    One of the Clinton Administration proposals on the table for Kyoto is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels or lower.

    ?Reducing anthropogenic or man-made carbon dioxide emissions among developed nations such as the United States to 1990 levels will prevent global temperatures from rising.?

    Agree or disagree? An overwhelming 86 percent of those surveyed disagree. So why is the administration considering crippling energy taxes to purportedly inhibit warming if the taxes will have little impact? Or is there really an ulterior motive that involves a fundamental restructuring of the American lifestyle?

    The satellite temperature record (which began in 1979) has been a thorn in the side of the global warming scaremongers because of a statistically significant downward trend.

    ?Satellite temperature readings are more accurate in measuring global temperatures than temperature readings taken from surface stations.?

    Half of climatologists surveyed agree with that statement.

    The 1997 spin control on global warming is that the weather has been getting more extreme and that this is evidence of global climate change.

    ?Have weather events in the past 25 years been more severe or frequent than other periods in your state?s history??

    A resounding 72 percent say no (Figure 2). Remember, these are the scientists charged with keeping track of their state?s weather history, and they find no evidence that the weather is any worse than usual. It?s time to put this notion linking global warming to extreme weather to rest.

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ar...s/feature2.jpg

    Figure 2. 72 percent of U.S. state climatologists find no evidence that their state?s weather has been more extreme in the past 25 years.

    Finally, let?s see how many votes our Vice President won with his recent photo-op in Montana.

    ?Vice President Al Gore recently visited Glacier National Park in Montana and stated that melting glaciers were evidence of global warming. Do you agree or disagree with this statement??

    More than half (55 percent) disagree; 37 percent agree. (Maybe that would be the point spread if the 2000 Presidential election were held today.)

    The importance of this survey cannot be overstated. One of the very few organizations (in the world) composed exclusively of practicing climatologists has spoken loud and clear about global climate change.

    Perhaps Under Secretary Wirth is right after all. There really is no debate?the global warming issue is completely overblown.

    Reference:

    American Viewpoint Inc., Survey of state and regional climatologists, September?October 1997. For more information on this survey, visit http://www.CSE.org on the Internet.

  7. #52

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    7 May 2007

    Father of Climatology Calls Manmade Global Warming Absurd
    Dave S.

    Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography and of Environmental Studies. Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research, The Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies (Founding Director), the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Many climatologists regard him as the father of climatology. Professor Bryson calls manmade global warming absurd.

    Excerpts from The Faithful Heretic

    Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology? now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences ?in the 1970s he became the first director of what now the UW Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. Hes a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor ?created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment. He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.

    “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, its absurd, Bryson continues. "Of course its going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because were coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because were putting more carbon dioxide into the air.

    Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. "What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?

    We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.

    “A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went he says. "There used to be less ice than now. Its just getting back to normal. ?

    Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?

    A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

    Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor

    A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

    PROF REID BRYSON, DEAN OF US CLIMATOLOGISTS, DISCOURSES ON GLOBAL WARMING

    2. Global Warming? by Reid A. Bryson Ph.D., D.Sc., D.Engr.1

    The Built-in Nonsense Detector:
    Hardly a day goes by without a news article in the paper containing a reference to someone’s opinion about “Global Warming”. A quick search of the Internet uncovers literally hundreds of items about “Global Warming”. Issues of atmospheric science journals will normally have at least one article on climatic change, usually meaning “Global Warming” or some aspect thereof. Whole generations of graduate students have been trained to believe that we know the main answers about climate change and only have to work out the details.
    Why then do I bother you by introducing this section with such a ludicrous title?
    I do it because, as one who has spent many decades studying the subject professionally, I find that there are enormous gaps in the understanding of those making the most strident claims about climatic change. In order to read the news rationally, the educated reader needs a few keys to quickly sort the patently absurd from the possibly correct. I propose to supply some of those keys to give the reader at least a rudimentary nonsense detector.

    Some Common Fallacies
    1. The atmospheric warming of the last century is unprecedented and unique. Wrong. There are literally thousands of papers in the scientific literature with data that shows that the climate has been changing one way or the other for at least a million years.
    2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.
    3. The most important gas with a “greenhouse” effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.
    4. One cannot argue with the computer models that predict the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide or other “greenhouse gasses”. Wrong. To show this we must show that the computer models can at least duplicate the present-day climate. This they cannot do with what could be called accuracy by any stretch of the imagination. There are studies that show that the average error in modeling present precipitation is on the order of 100%, and the error in modeling present temperature is about the same size as the predicted change due to a doubling of carbon dioxide. For many areas the precipitation error is 300-400 percent.
    5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.
    6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

    So What Can We Say about Global Warming?
    We can say that the Earth has most probably warmed in the past century. We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of “greenhouse gases” until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used.
    We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem. What a change from 1968 when I gave a paper at a national scientific meeting and was laughed at for suggesting that people could possibly change the climate!


    http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-t...arming-absurd/
    Last edited by Tight-Waist; 12-25-2009 at 12:16 AM.

  8. #53

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    Quote Originally Posted by rustyshackleford View Post
    I am going to assume this is a joke. If it isn't than your understanding of the situation is less than zero. No wonder you listen to Rush Limbaugh for science news.
    Yes it WAS meant in humor... but the fact that the climate has actually been cooling recently is not.

  9. #54

    Default Re: Global Warming ? Hmmmm, not so fast there

    No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds


    ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) ? Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

    However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

    Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

    To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

    In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

    Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

    Wolfgang Knorr
    Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ? 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL040613.shtml

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •