Even I have a good laugh now and then about man-made global warming, and I'm not even close to being a scientist.
Natural cycles comes to mind.
You are correct. And in the real world all of these processes, ranging from the circulation of the molten core of the earth; the associated shifts in the earth's magnetic polarity; to the movement of the plates on the planet's surface; the circulation of ocean currents; heat and mass transport in the atmosphere; to the carbon cycle that is the preoccupation of the Global Warming crowd - all interact in a highly non-linear way. Such complex dynamic systems are both difficult to predict and self-regulating. The relatively simple-minded linear extrapolations on which the warming theories are based do not even work reliably in the prediction of next week's weather, and there is even less reason to credit extrapolation over centuries.
There is the Law of Conservation of Energy. Where is the energy coming from?
"Conservation of energy" is not achievable by the human universe. It's based on supply and demand. It's more economics and politics more than man's concern about conservation.
Louise_R_Heller wrote:Sorry to say this Herr (Dr? Professor?? Professor Dr???) Hinteler but the dialogue with you brings to mind an Austrian joke:...
It was you, who started this 'dialogue'.
Gee, I've missed this discussion.
It's not very warm here this morning.
Neither here - but it seems to warm up slowly. :wink:
Morning, Walter...
are the Russians cutting off our gas supply, do you think?
McT, Not to worry. The latest news is that Russia has started the supply.
Thinking that we have coal with more energy than the gas we can get from Russia ...
I doubt that these troubles will go so far to start a new war.
But who knows? Wars about energy could become "à la mode".
No, McTag, to answer your question, I don't think so.
Dear Louise R. Heller- Your posts are most refreshing. I see that you do not agree with the specious evidence concerning "global warming" which I think you suggest is more strongly tied to political rather than scientific data.
Your comment concerning past eras in which the temperature of the earth's surface was higher than today is articulated in my first comment below. Indeed, the Vikings farmed Iceland and Greenland in what is called the "Medieval Warm Period" and, Louise R.Heller--they didn't even have as much as a steam engine/
The good professor, Walter Hinteler claims expertise in the scientific method. He may then wish to react to my seventh point below which indicates the INADEQUACY of even the best modern computer systems in doing justice to the tracking of the five million parameters over the surface of the earth. It is alleged by the National Academy of Sciences that this is what would be needed to arrive at a comprhensive understanding of the alleged "global warming">
SHALL WE RETURN TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD- NAMELY GLOBAL WARMING? It is not enough for people like Steve to say- You are wrong. They must show how the assertions below which contradict the "global warming thesis" are incorrect:
l. Surface temperatures on the earth have varied throughout the centuries. The Medieval Warm Period manifested warmer temperatures than today without the benefit of co2 produced by man.
2. The US Senate decisively voted against acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol in July 1997 with a DECISIVE vote of 95-0. One of the major sticking points was that the C02 emissions of China and India were not to be cut back because they were both classified as "developing countries
3. The National Academy of Sciences published its report in 2001 and found that a large portion of the research on "global warming" could only be classified as 'UNCERTAIN"
4. There was a strong surface warming between 1890 and 1940 followed by a pronounced cooling between 1940 and 1970( and warnings of a catasthropic ice age to come) then rising tempertures from 1970 to today.
Since CO2 emissions were insignificant in the early 20th century, it is a puzzle why substantial warming happened anyway. It could have been due to natural causes of Climate Change.
5. Recent warming trends have been measured only on the earth's surface. There are major uncertainties connected with those trends, one of which is the heat island effect. The important point is that satellite measurements do not show the warming trends.
6. The Academy pointed out a serious problem with the theories concerning global warming. They noted that "The nature and magnitude of hydrological feedbacks give rise to the LARGEST SOURCE OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY since all of the computer models assume that water vapor will amplify the small bit of warming expected from an increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the air. If that assumption is untrue and the theories of Richard Lindzen, perhaps the US's foremost professor of Meterology at MIT hold true, then the thoery of global warming falls apart.
Dr. Lindzen holds that clouds tend to reduce much of the warming expected fromCO2 since he states that cirrus clouds act as thermostats. Dr, Lindzen points out that both clouds and water vapor-EACH MORE IMPORTANT IN THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAN CO2 ARE SIMPLY NOT WELL ENOUGH UNDERSTOOD BY CLIMATOLOGISTS.
7. The National Academy of Sciences points out that without computer models there would be no evidence of global warming, no Kyoto. By simulating the climate on giant, ultra fast computers, scholars try to learn just how it will react to new stimulus--like a doubling of CO2. The NSA points out that AN IDEAL COMPUTER MODEL WOULD HAVE TO TRACK FIVE MILLION PARAMETERS OVER THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH AND THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE AND INCORPORATE ALL RELEVANT INTERACTIONS AMONG LAND, SEA, AIR, ICE AND VEGETATION.
The NAS concludes that "Climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in thier formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty in interpreting their answers that exhibit as much complexity as in nature"
8. Perhaps, more important, the NAS report highlights the difficulty in understanding NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE. If we can't understand those, then we can't understand the human effect. One of the MAJOR natural component in changing the climate is--the sun. New findings, based on satellite measurements,suggest that the heat emanating from the sun to the earth changes significantly on time scales of decades to centuries. NASA satellites have uncovered the fact that the sun's changing magnetism over the course of its sunspot cycle is accompanied by a change in total energy output. SINCE THE SUN IS AS MAGNETICALLY ACTIVE TODAY AS IT HAS BEEN IN 400 YEARS OF DIRECT TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS, IT MAY BE THAT THE SUN IS HEATING THE EARTH WITH LITTLE THAT MAN CAN DO ABOUT IT.
I await some brave soul who really wishes to discuss the main points concerning "global warming". I fear that most of those who say the sky is falling do not have the ability to respond.
Isn't the basis of this argument as follows:
1. It may be natural
2. It may be man-made
3. If it's man-made and we continue as we are, it's a big disaster in the making which is well-nigh irreversible
4. We should plan for a worst-case scenario, while hoping for something better?
Meanwhile, now, reports yesterday of serious drought and crop failure in Kenya and Uganda with mass starvation expected.
BTW I enjoyed Thomas' post by Matthew Parris, an interesting comparison of modern doom-mongers with the mediaeval sky-pilots. But our experience now of global warming is rather too real, I think.
It may be natural
It may be man-made
If its man-made and we continue as we are,it's a big disaster in the making which is well nigh irreversable.
McTag wrote the above.
I do not know what "it" is. Could McTag please define "it" and give evidence that "it" is occurring.
And if it is occurring, give evidence that it is a big disaster in the making.
And if it is a big disaster in the making, that it is well nigh irreversable.
For details, I respectfully suggest that McTag read my post containing eight points on the "alleged" global warming very carefully to assess their meaning.
Following from the thread title, by "it" I meant the phenomenon of Global Warming.
I'm not going to get too deeply into the "alleged" nature of the phenomenon, there are more expert folks contributing here.
As I understand things at the present, the consensus of scientific opinion on both sides of the Atlantic agrees the phenomenon is real. We seem to disagree only on whether anything can be done about it, and whether we should try.
Mortkat wrote:SHALL WE RETURN TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD- NAMELY GLOBAL WARMING? It is not enough for people like Steve to say- You are wrong. They must show how the assertions below which contradict the "global warming thesis" are incorrect:
l. Surface temperatures on the earth have varied throughout the centuries. The Medieval Warm Period manifested warmer temperatures than today without the benefit of co2 produced by man.
well golly gosh. That proves it then. Global warming is not linked to CO2 emissions. However could the world's climatologists have overlooked this vital point which Mortkat has thankfully brought to our attention?
2. The US Senate decisively voted against acceptance of the Kyoto Protocol in July 1997 with a DECISIVE vote of 95-0. One of the major sticking points was that the C02 emissions of China and India were not to be cut back because they were both classified as "developing countries
which proves nothing
3. The National Academy of Sciences published its report in 2001 and found that a large portion of the research on "global warming" could only be classified as 'UNCERTAIN"
which is out of date
4. There was a strong surface warming between 1890 and 1940 followed by a pronounced cooling between 1940 and 1970( and warnings of a catasthropic ice age to come) then rising tempertures from 1970 to today.
Since CO2 emissions were insignificant in the early 20th century, it is a puzzle why substantial warming happened anyway. It could have been due to natural causes of Climate Change.
strong surface warming? "substantial warming happened anyway." CO2 emissions were insignificant...says who?
5. Recent warming trends have been measured only on the earth's surface. There are major uncertainties connected with those trends, one of which is the heat island effect. The important point is that satellite measurements do not show the warming trends.
expand on this. It would help my understanding, and I suspect yours too.
6. The Academy pointed out a serious problem with the theories concerning global warming. They noted that "The nature and magnitude of hydrological feedbacks give rise to the LARGEST SOURCE OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY since all of the computer models assume that water vapor will amplify the small bit of warming expected from an increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the air. If that assumption is untrue and the theories of Richard Lindzen, perhaps the US's foremost professor of Meterology at MIT hold true, then the thoery of global warming falls apart.
Dr. Lindzen holds that clouds tend to reduce much of the warming expected fromCO2 since he states that cirrus clouds act as thermostats. Dr, Lindzen points out that both clouds and water vapor-EACH MORE IMPORTANT IN THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT THAN CO2 ARE SIMPLY NOT WELL ENOUGH UNDERSTOOD BY CLIMATOLOGISTS.
but it didn't stop them from reaching a conclusion. Was the whole excercise just to garner extra funding? I dont think so
7. The National Academy of Sciences points out that without computer models there would be no evidence of global warming, no Kyoto. By simulating the climate on giant, ultra fast computers, scholars try to learn just how it will react to new stimulus--like a doubling of CO2. The NSA points out that AN IDEAL COMPUTER MODEL WOULD HAVE TO TRACK FIVE MILLION PARAMETERS OVER THE SURFACE OF THE EARTH AND THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE AND INCORPORATE ALL RELEVANT INTERACTIONS AMONG LAND, SEA, AIR, ICE AND VEGETATION.
The NAS concludes that "Climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in thier formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty in interpreting their answers that exhibit as much complexity as in nature"
lots of things are imperfect. As we know more we get better at understanding or at least approaching the truth. Its called progress. Your whole point Mortkat is that Kyoto and science itself is perverted by political expediency. You are wrong.
8. Perhaps, more important, the NAS report highlights the difficulty in understanding NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE. If we can't understand those, then we can't understand the human effect. One of the MAJOR natural component in changing the climate is--the sun. New findings, based on satellite measurements,suggest that the heat emanating from the sun to the earth changes significantly on time scales of decades to centuries. NASA satellites have uncovered the fact that the sun's changing magnetism over the course of its sunspot cycle is accompanied by a change in total energy output. SINCE THE SUN IS AS MAGNETICALLY ACTIVE TODAY AS IT HAS BEEN IN 400 YEARS OF DIRECT TELESCOPE OBSERVATIONS, IT MAY BE THAT THE SUN IS HEATING THE EARTH WITH LITTLE THAT MAN CAN DO ABOUT IT.
oh yes the sun. Something else the climatologists forgot about. You know its amazing to me how reputable meteorologists climatologists, scientists and cosmologists could overlook the sun. Perhaps they were blinded by it, or even dazzled by political expediency and the tantalising glimpse of further research contracts
I await some brave soul who really wishes to discuss the main points concerning "global warming". I fear that most of those who say the sky is falling do not have the ability to respond.
I'm not particularly brave but wapping a dead cat holds no terrors for me.
Thank you, Steve, for at least trying valiantly to rebut my assertions.
Shall we begin?
First of all, the point concerning the Warming Period in the Medieval Ages in which the Vikings farmed Greenland is indeed critical since it shows that climate can indeed vary and did vary WITHOUT THE ADDITION OF HUMAN PRODUCTION OF CO2. If you doubt that the Warming Period did indeed occur, please give evidence. If not, it stands unrebutted.
Secondly, the Senate of the US voted 95-0 against accepting the Kyoto Treaty. It PROVES that the Senate, which I am sure is privy to more information about the allleged "global warming" than either of us are, would not ruin the US economy by signing on to a treaty which ALLEGED an unproven "global warming" alleged to have been caused by Co2 emissions alleged by computer simulations which were done mainly by European scientists which, of course, despite their alleged scientific mind set, had, understandably, political ends in mind. I am not sure that you are aware, Steve, that the Senators in 1997 were outraged that the economies of China and India would suffer no set backs due to the enormous costs of suppressing CO2 emissions since they were developing countries.
Thirdly, if the NAS report is out of date, Please provide another report of similar quality and scope.
Fourthly, says who?
quote:
"Much of the observed temperature rise of o.5Coccurred before 1940, whereas most of the additional carbon dioxide ( over 80%) entered the atmosphere after 1940. Increased greenhouse gases cannot explain a temperature rise that occurred before the major increases in these gases existed in the atmosphere, Furthermore, from 1940 to 1970,carbon dixoide built up rapidly in the atmosphere, and according to the computer projections of climate, the temperature of the earth should also have risen rapidly"
source- D. E. Parker et al. Interdecal changes of surface temperature since the late nineteeth century, Journal of Geophysical Research 99, 14373 ( 1994)
and J. Hansen and S. Lebedeff, Global trends of measured surface air temperature, Journal of Geophysical Research 92, 13345 ( 1987)
Fifth- Heat island effect.
Some sites show increases in temperature since big cities create a small additional amount of heat because of their size and activities.
Proof?
All measurements taken from records of The United States Historical Climatology Network( USHCN)
New York, New York
Average Yearly Temp( F) in 1822- 51 degrees in 2000, 55 degrees in 2000.
Albany, New York 1822- 48.2degrees 2000- 47.9 degrees
Pasadena, California--1930- 62 degrees F. 2000-65 degrees F.
Death Valley, California-1930 76 degrees F. 2000- 76 degrees F.
There are many other measurements which show the presence of the heat island effect.
Sixth- No one, to the best of my knowledge, has rebutted Professor Lindzen's theory. Can you?
Seventh-I am sure that you are trying to be fanciful when you speak so disparagingly about the effect of the sun. If you can find any reputable research that shows that the sun, as studied by NASA and highly respected Astrophysicists may not have been responsible for some slight global warming, can you please provide it?
You may, of course, be able to find evidence that the sun is NOT as magnetically active today as it has been in the last 400 years of observation of the sun. If you have that, please provide.
Cheers-Steve!!!
Unlike you I claim no expertise in climatology. Nor indeed open heart surgery or many other specialisms. We have to rely on people who know more than we do, and if you are in an executive position make a decision accordingly. It also matters who you consult. The views of a private soldier on foreign policy might be interesting, but I suggest the chief of the generals staff carries more weight. David King is chief scientific advisor to the UK Government, and a member of Cabinet. He is not in the pocket of the meuseli crunching tree huggers. In case you missed this earlier on this thread, this is what he had to say writing in the Guardian on 16th Dec 2005
"Even a year ago climate change was still reported as a controversial issue. Was the world really warming? If so, was it just a natural change, or could it truly be attributed to human activities? There were just enough gaps in the scientific arguments to give climate sceptics room to manoeuvre. But since then every one of the sceptics' arguments has been shot down by new findings. The scientists who warned of impending climate change have been vindicated (though the consequences are likely to be so serious that I imagine all of them would rather have been proved wrong).
Ground-based temperatures have risen more than half a degree in the past 30 years, and 19 of the 20 hottest years in the past 150 have occurred since 1980.
The latest scientific data confirms what many of us have long suspected: climate change is already happening, and human emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, together with deforestation, are the culprit."
to george and the virgin louise heller
You two have both used the term "politically incorrect". I wonder if you might clarify the proper meaning and usages of the term?
It seems to involve (I'm surmising here, I need help from you two) speaking outside of some consensus or violating some arbitrary and perhaps unreflective code related to norms of speech. Am I close?
So, would it, for example, be an instance of the "politically incorrect" if someone were to stand up at a Republican convention in Houston and express the opinion that the greatly preponderant view among earth and climate scientist affirms human causation as a significant factor in global warming? Or if that person suggested that Jerry Falwell likes to take it up the ass? Would it be "politically incorrect" to suggest to a group of Pentagon officials that, as a matter of public relations prudence, they ought to ensure that all lightsticks allocated for use in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (and other such facilities) be painted brown so that the Iraqi taxi-driver's **** is less likely to show up in soldier photographs?
blatham wrote:to george and the virgin...
I've heard of George and the Dragon....
but then I suppose there's a first time for everything.
I hear there's fires in mid-USA due to unseasonal and unprecedented drought, and January temperatures of 28 deg C at Fort Worth, Texas.
And floods in California, hitherto almost unknown I believe.
Maybe something is wrong with the weather. Should we try to find out what it is?
