NOAA: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years, reducing CO2 emissions won't help

[dalegg 143]

Bull,

Do you really feel competent and content with your understanding of climate science to openly refute the science with anecdotal story?

I recommend you start here:

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

There's plenty more here. Dare yourself to be informed.

Now, where did I say refute?

The "planet" survives or doesn't survive, no matter what man does. The real question is, "Will man survive?" The core of that debate is, "What is man's role in climate change?" Small? Large? There is a secondary debate, that is, "What can man do to secure his continueing survival?" The point of the article presented by the OP is, the problem is so big, nothing man does, or doesn't do can stop it.

What if I choose not to debate? Is not also an option as well?

--Bullwinkle

Unacceptable. Choose sides. If you aren't our friend you are our enemy!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bull,

Do you really feel competent and content with your understanding of climate science to openly refute the science with anecdotal story?

I recommend you start here:

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

There's plenty more here. Dare yourself to be informed.

Now, where did I say refute?

The "planet" survives or doesn't survive, no matter what man does. The real question is, "Will man survive?" The core of that debate is, "What is man's role in climate change?" Small? Large? There is a secondary debate, that is, "What can man do to secure his continueing survival?" The point of the article presented by the OP is, the problem is so big, nothing man does, or doesn't do can stop it.

What if I choose not to debate? Is not also an option as well?

--Bullwinkle

Read, man...get informed. You're an avid reader interested in knowledge so don't use ignorance as an excuse. At least be able answer the questions you've just proposed, by those whose training and expertise can give you.

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Here's a short documentary about global warming:

Thanks! I feel informed now!

--Bullwinkle

[Uncle Wally 2]

This is a freebie...

Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things, particularly changes in its orbit, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the energy emitted from the Sun. It is well known that the world has experienced warm or cold periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are good examples of global changes to the climate, and warm periods have seen grapes grown across much of Britain.

Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the Industrial Revolution (over the last 100 years), CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due because to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels.

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...ce/myths/3.html

Your graph looks very similar to the population growth graph. Simple solution- get rid of the people. This makes James Lovelock's statement that 9 billion isn't bettter than 1 billion look correct.

...and here's a graph that *PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT* that global warming is actually being caused by the decline in the number of pirates worldwide!

ARRRR!!!!:

[Ban Hammer 14,569]

...and here's a graph that *PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT* that global warming is actually being caused by the decline in the number of pirates worldwide!

ARRRR!!!!:

replace pirates with conservatives and you might be onto something

Edited January 28, 2009 by charles!

[dalegg 143]

This is a freebie...

Earth's climate is complex and influenced by many things, particularly changes in its orbit, volcanic eruptions, and changes in the energy emitted from the Sun. It is well known that the world has experienced warm or cold periods in the past without any interference from humans. The ice ages are good examples of global changes to the climate, and warm periods have seen grapes grown across much of Britain.

Over the several hundred thousand years covered by the ice core record, the temperature changes were primarily driven by changes in the Earth's orbit around the Sun. Over this period, changes in temperature did drive changes in carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the Industrial Revolution (over the last 100 years), CO2 concentrations have increased by 30% due because to human-induced emissions from fossil fuels.

The bottom line is that temperature and CO2 concentrations are linked. In recent ice ages, natural changes in the climate, such as those due to orbit changes, led to cooling of the climate system. This caused a fall in CO2 concentrations which weakened the greenhouse effect and amplified the cooling. Now the link between temperature and CO2 is working in the opposite direction. Human-induced increases in CO2 are driving the greenhouse effect and amplifying the recent warming.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pres...ce/myths/3.html

Your graph looks very similar to the population growth graph. Simple solution- get rid of the people. This makes James Lovelock's statement that 9 billion isn't bettter than 1 billion look correct.

...and here's a graph that *PROVES WITHOUT A DOUBT* that global warming is actually being caused by the decline in the number of pirates worldwide!

ARRRR!!!!:

That's true. Pirates only need wind for their sails. We're taking the green sailors out of the ocean and leaving in the high poluting tourists.

[Jasman0717 9]

Great, it's irreversible, nothing we can do. Can we move on now please?

Lets party like it was 1999

[Rocky_nBullwinkle 6]

Bull,

Do you really feel competent and content with your understanding of climate science to openly refute the science with anecdotal story?

I recommend you start here:

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed

There's plenty more here. Dare yourself to be informed.

Now, where did I say refute?

The "planet" survives or doesn't survive, no matter what man does. The real question is, "Will man survive?" The core of that debate is, "What is man's role in climate change?" Small? Large? There is a secondary debate, that is, "What can man do to secure his continueing survival?" The point of the article presented by the OP is, the problem is so big, nothing man does, or doesn't do can stop it.

What if I choose not to debate? Is not also an option as well?

--Bullwinkle

Read, man...get informed. You're an avid reader interested in knowledge so don't use ignorance as an excuse. At least be able answer the questions you've just proposed, by those whose training and expertise can give you.

I have read enough to know there is nobody discussing the issue that does not have an agenda, and frankly, most of the arguements on both sides are poorly founded. So, in order for me to come to an informed conclusion, I would have to study all that data, and do all the analyses myself, because I can. There is a good reason I never felt obligated to pursue the field I studied in college (Mathematics): It is tedious, and involved, and I would not feel comfortable coming to any conclusion without the rigor.

So, I have made a compromise. I will sit on the sidelines, let you all do battle, and when only one survivor is left, I will kick his/her behind for making so much frigging noise!

--Bullwinkle

[NickD 203]

According to NASA using satellite relatively new IR temperature measuring techniques, the temperature of the western portion of the Antarctic coast has risen from a frigid -80* C to a blistering hot -79* C over that last 60 years.

How do you interpret this? That the temperature will rise 1* C at a linear rate every 60 years? Or is this a normal increase followed by a decrease? Can science really foretell the future?

If a linear rate is assumed, in 4800 years the Antarctic western coast will begin to melt. But some will argue that this increase is caused by man and revamp the curve assuming the population will increase, how do they know this. What if some strange virus hits mankind and wipes out 80% of the population, or a severe ice age starts due to a meteor striking the earth or due to a major volcanic eruption? And you still cannot out rule the second coming of Christ.

Really the only honest answer is, that nobody knows. Henry Ford visualized a disaster with the filthy internal combustion engine over a hundred years ago, he and his friend, Thomas Edison devoted ten years and ten million dollars in an attempt to develop the electric car, but was a failure. They did develop a nickel iron battery the Germans grabbed unto quickly to develop U boats that gave them courage to start WW I, but not good enough for a personal vehicle.

We have been stuck with the IC engine, very inefficient for over a hundred years, and oil supplies are dwindling. Time for some new technology and some new thinking. For over 80 years, auto companies had us were they wanted us, consumer grade garbage that is not only inefficient, but had to be replaced every few years. EPA today is more interested in making vehicles easier to recycle than in energy conservation, there changes can be made.

For those that like to dwell into the future, have fun speculating, but that does not get the job at hand done.

[dalegg 143]

According to NASA using satellite relatively new IR temperature measuring techniques, the temperature of the western portion of the Antarctic coast has risen from a frigid -80* C to a blistering hot -79* C over that last 60 years.

How do you interpret this? That the temperature will rise 1* C at a linear rate every 60 years? Or is this a normal increase followed by a decrease? Can science really foretell the future?

If a linear rate is assumed, in 4800 years the Antarctic western coast will begin to melt. But some will argue that this increase is caused by man and revamp the curve assuming the population will increase, how do they know this. What if some strange virus hits mankind and wipes out 80% of the population, or a severe ice age starts due to a meteor striking the earth or due to a major volcanic eruption? And you still cannot out rule the second coming of Christ.

Really the only honest answer is, that nobody knows. Henry Ford visualized a disaster with the filthy internal combustion engine over a hundred years ago, he and his friend, Thomas Edison devoted ten years and ten million dollars in an attempt to develop the electric car, but was a failure. They did develop a nickel iron battery the Germans grabbed unto quickly to develop U boats that gave them courage to start WW I, but not good enough for a personal vehicle.

We have been stuck with the IC engine, very inefficient for over a hundred years, and oil supplies are dwindling. Time for some new technology and some new thinking. For over 80 years, auto companies had us were they wanted us, consumer grade garbage that is not only inefficient, but had to be replaced every few years. EPA today is more interested in making vehicles easier to recycle than in energy conservation, there changes can be made.

For those that like to dwell into the future, have fun speculating, but that does not get the job at hand done.

And don't forget 2012 is just around the corner!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I have read enough to know there is nobody discussing the issue that does not have an agenda, and frankly, most of the arguements on both sides are poorly founded. So, in order for me to come to an informed conclusion, I would have to study all that data, and do all the analyses myself, because I can. There is a good reason I never felt obligated to pursue the field I studied in college (Mathematics): It is tedious, and involved, and I would not feel comfortable coming to any conclusion without the rigor.

So, I have made a compromise. I will sit on the sidelines, let you all do battle, and when only one survivor is left, I will kick his/her behind for making so much frigging noise!

--Bullwinkle

Bull,

Here's the thing (set aside Global Waming for a moment) - in this world we have experts - people who spent their entire lives dedicated to a specific field, whether it's auto mechanic, a neurosurgeon, or biomedical engineer. They serve a great importance in society. If your auto mechanic tells you your timing belt is going to snap anytime, you listen to him. If you question his integrity, you take your car to another mechanic to get a second opinion, and you could go to 10 more mechanics just to be sure. So when literally hundreds of mechanics are giving you the same prognosis, it would seem logical to accept their conclusion. You see what I'm getting at? Forget about media reports about Climate Change - if you are interested in the science behind it, read the peer reviewed scientific journals. You don't have to take your engine apart to verify for yourself with your own eyes that those hundreds of mechanics were right. At some point, you and I, and the rest of the human population need to put our trust in the experts in this world - whatever the expertise is. That doesn't mean we shouldn't question...it just means we all need to apply a little common sense to accepting some things which are beyond our comprehension or knowledge.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Prominent Scientists Debunk Global Warming

By: Guest Authors

By: John Bender

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, which was held at the Marriott Marquise Hotel in New York City, concluded Tuesday. It got very little coverage in the dinosaur press, even though it was a gathering of some of the most prestigious and most learned experts on climatology from around the world.

The conference didn’t attract much attention from the dieing dinosaur media because it didn’t have any of the falderal that attracts the “journalists” and management of faltering old media. Plus, the scientists presented facts and scientific research that debunks the global warming hoax the dinosaur media helped create and is invested in perpetuating.

Rather than speeches and fear mongering propaganda films from a hack politician turned huckster, or outlandish suggestions from a geneticist turned broadcaster, the conference presented science from some of world’s leading climatologists and scientists in related fields, along with world renowned economists, and policy analysts.

Instead of David Suzuki, who isn’t a climatologist, he’s a geneticist turned broadcaster, and one of the leaders in spreading the global warming hoax, calling for jailing politicians who don’t participate in the hysteria or fall for the hoax, (Last month at a conference in Canada, Suzuki said: “What I would challenge you to do is to put a lot of effort into trying to see whether there’s a legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing is a criminal act.”), the conference heard from people like Patrick J. Michaels, PhD, Research Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, Robert Balling, PhD, Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University, James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, and Dr. Yuri Izrael, Science Advisor, President Vladimir Putin, Russia, to name just a few.

Instead of Al Gore, failed journalist turned political hack turned con-man, the conference featured such academic heavyweights as J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D., a professor at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, an expert on mathematical forecasting. Dr. Armstrong challenged the Gore to a $10,000.00 wager to see who could more accurately predict the Earth’s temperature over the next 10 years. Gore refused saying he was too busy.

But the biggest news coming out of the conference is the release of a report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”. This report is the most complete, up-to-date, authoritative summary of peer-reviewed critical positions with respect to “Anthropogenic Global Warming” issued to date, and debunks most of the junk science used to spread the global warming hoax.

This scholarly work comes with an introduction from Frederick Seitz, a physicist and past president of the National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University who passed away on Monday March 3. In the introduction Dr. Seitz stated; “we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of significant climate change from other than natural causes.”

“Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” should convince all but the most gullible alarmists the hysteria over global warming is not warranted by science. At the very least it exposes Al Gore’s outright lie that “the debate in the scientific community is over.”

However, the challenge will be to get wide circulation of this scientific report. The dinosaur media and charlatans like Al Gore have a vested interest in spreading misleading, fear-mongering, propaganda, and generating fear among gullible. They exploit that fear for personal gain. They don’t want the truth to get widespread circulation.

The good news is that as fewer people turn to the old dieing media outlets for their news, turning instead to the new media for news, the new media outlets are in a position to inform the public of the real science and the findings of the climate realists.

[luckytxn 2,265]

There are some real experts there. Found many more too by just doing a simple search on Google. It is a junk science to frighten people so our government can have reason to control us citizens even more. It is also a way to tax us here in the states and send our money overseas. One highly respected scientist was recounting one time how many were brought to the white house during the Clinton yaers and with Gore speaking telling them to get on board if any wanted any government funds ever again. Afterwards many scientists started coming out and spread the bad news around. Luckily there are many Scientists that don't get bullied.

Edited January 28, 2009 by luckytxn

[luckytxn 2,265]

A Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming Alarmism

Phil Valentine's Bullet Points

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930's the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920's until the 1960's they warned of global warming. From the 1950's until the 1970's they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate's fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.

The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth's climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.

What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today's temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.

Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970's, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.

A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." The letter also noted: "‘Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise."

In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than "science fiction."

"Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again." That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.

A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor "Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age." The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the "Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold." An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: "Ice Age Coming Here."

By the 1930's, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: "America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise" stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.

The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: "Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada." The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be "wiped out" and Switzerland would be "entirely obliterated."

A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed "the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade." The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, "mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence" would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that "A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable."

On February 19, 2006, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. "60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.

According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was "0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average."

In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun's output.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I got a chuckle at this site:

http://www.petitionproject.org/