Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Well if the guys on Inhofe's list are not scientists speaking from a scientific point of view, please define for us what would qualify as science in your eyes.

Having reading comprehension problems today Fox?

Read what I said. Now read what you said. See the difference?

1 Reply

@parados,

Parados,

Yes, SCIENCE IS BASED ON FACTS AND LOGIC. SCIENCE IS NOT BASED ON POLLING RESULTS.

The more than 400 scientists I have been quoting gave their facts and logic for thinking it unlikely that greenhouse gas emissions caused global warming. How about the alleged more than 1700 scientists you have been quoting? What are their reasons for thinking it likely that greenhouse gas emissions caused global warming?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
297
Microbiologist Gary Novak publishes a website detailing his skepticism of man-made global warming. "Arctic ice is melting faster than expected, because oceans are heating more than the atmosphere. No atmospheric temperature increase has been found in eight years. Alarmists are not promoting science; they are promoting propaganda justified through a black-box analysis which generates contrived numbers. Science requires evidence and logic," Novak, who holds a masters degree in microbiology, wrote on his website in 2007. "There is no mechanism for carbon dioxide creating global warming. ‘Greenhouse gases' absorb all radiation available to them in a few meters. More of the gas cannot absorb more radiation. A thick sheet of plastic does nothing more than a thin sheet. Doubling the CO2 would only shorten the distance for absorption of radiation from 10 meters to 5 meters, which is not an increase in temperature," Novak explained. "The real cause of global warming could be an increase in solar energy, as critics generally claim; but there is evidence that it is due to variations in heat from the earth's core. Ice ages are caused by oceans heating, which appears to result from increased heat from inside the earth. The primary evidence is the exact cycling of ice ages. Environmental factors would not be so precise. Also, the oceans heating more than the atmosphere points to the heat coming from inside the earth. Atmospheric changes can result from variations in solar activity, but they are superficial compared to heat from the earth's core which drives ice age cycles," he concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

3 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Well if the guys on Inhofe's list are not scientists speaking from a scientific point of view, please define for us what would qualify as science in your eyes.

Having reading comprehension problems today Fox?

Read what I said. Now read what you said. See the difference?

Yes, but what you said made no sense. What I answered does make sense. I responded giving you the benefit of the doubt that you intended to make sense and would surely have rewritten what you said if you had thought about it a little bit.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

Yes, but what you said made no sense. What I answered does make sense. I responded giving you the benefit of the doubt that you intended to make sense and would surely have rewritten what you said if you had thought about it a little bit.

Now that is funny Foxfyre. Was that your intent?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Gosh.. You DROPPED the 'not a minority' ican.

You can learn things after all it seems.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Atmospheric changes can result from variations in solar activity, but they are superficial compared to heat from the earth's core which drives ice age cycles," he concluded.

I have to admit, I got a good laugh out of the quote from this guy ican...

Do you really think we should take him seriously when it comes to the causes of the earth's temperature when he claims it is heat from the earth's core that causes ice age cycles?

I guess if I put a bucket of water in my driveway, it heats from the earth and not the sun? That's funny to even think that let alone claim it as a scientific fact.

1 Reply

@parados,

In your opinion, what does cause the ice age cycles?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

This one is provocative because it adds one more piece that may or may not fit into a large puzzle. I have read and read and read and find no scientific consensus re what triggers ice ages, but it would be logical to think that the reverse of whatever triggers an ice age would factor into a warm period on Planet Earth.

We have talked about the tilt of the Earth, reverse of magnetic fields, solar output, rotation etc. etc. etc. as all being factors in climate. But the guy cited here sent me to see what I could find re the Earth's core as a factor in climate change. What I have found so far is that it isn't so much heat from the Earth's core but the shifts in the Earth's core affecting the tilt of the Earth that may be a driving factor in large scale climate shift.

At least that is the way I think it is theorized.

For instance here:

Quote:

The similar temporal behaviour of climate parameters and the Earth's rotation leads to the assumption that there exists a relation between both phenomena. As is well known, the relationship between atmospheric dynamics and the Earth's rotation is proved to vary seasonally. In the area of decade fluctuations, which are more related to climate change, the 11- and 22-years periods could be proved to be generated by atmospheric dynamics. Longer periods are caused by core-mantle coupling torques which are possibly related to climate change via geomagnetic field variations.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V9X-3WBY0B8-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2a7872502ade977a5335991f717989fc

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

In my opinion and the science seems to support -
Ice ages are caused by a decrease in the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface. That can be caused by a number of things, a decrease in solar output, an increase in atmospheric particles, and possibly by an increase in the earth's magnetic field.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

The only thing on this topic I'm confident about is that the density of CO2 in the atmosphere has little if any effect on the Annual Average Global Temperature.

Here again is why I'm confident about that:

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific 11 year period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of these facts, SI increases
and decreases are likely to be the major causes of
AAGT increases and decreases,
and CAD increases are likely to be minor, if not
negligible, causes of increases of AAGT.

AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE in °K
SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2
CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Gary Novak seems to be a little out there in his theories.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/gnovak.htm

His theory on ice ages is right after his piece on "intelligent design of the earth." It's interesting reading. I am curious why he thinks tectonic plates were substantially thinner when Pangea existed and then got thicker after it broke up.

0 Replies

@parados,

I assume you do not think an increase in CO2 molecules in the atmosphere constitutes an increase in atmospheric particles. That is, I assume you do not think atmospheric molecules are atmospheric particles .

If you were to confirm my assumption correct, then my opinion would agree with your opinion: "Ice ages are caused by a decrease in the amount of solar energy reaching the earth's surface. That can be caused by a number of things, a decrease in solar output, an increase in atmospheric particles, and possibly by an increase in the earth's magnetic field."

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Let me clarify "particles" in my statement means particulates or aerosols that act to reflect solar radiation.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The only thing on this topic I'm confident about is that the density of CO2 in the atmosphere has little if any effect on the Annual Average Global Temperature.

I'm not even confident of that Ican though I think a hell of an argument has been made for that point of view. And I'll leave the technical scientific stuff to you more techie types as when you start posting CAD, SI, AAGT etc. numbers, it is incomprehensible to me and my eyes glaze over. (I would like to think this is due more to insufficient interest to make an effort to understand it than inability to understand it. Smile

)

I remain of the camp that doesn't know why the earth warms or cools on a global scale for sure, and appreciate brilliant scientists who boost my ego when they too admit that they don't know for sure what triggers major climate shifts.

And at this time, I remain of the opinion that the skeptics have made a more convincing case for natural climate change than the AGW religionists have made a case for AGW. Part of this is that the skeptics seem to be using more believable science. And part of this is colored by my distrust of governments that want more power over the people and the motives of those who need AGW to sustain their grants or professional standing.

I think it is really hard to continue to accuse the oil companies as the driving force behind the skeptics too. They already profit enormously from petroleum products with no end of demand in sight, they are spared the expense of R & D and exploration and drilling for more oil, and they are profiting hugely from development of bio fuels and other alternate fuels even as they know these do not measure up to their 'green' billing, almost all are far more expensive than traditional petroleum products, and some are causing more problems than they are solving.

So the bottom line for me continues to be an interest in the broader subject, and a strong conviction that I do not want to give up freedom, opportunity, choices, or options based on what is likely to be flawed or bogus science pushed on the world by opportunistic governments and others who stand to profit.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I'm not even confident of that Ican though I think a hell of an argument has been made for that point of view. And I'll leave the technical scientific stuff to you more techie types as when you start posted CAD, SI, AAGT etc. numbers, it is incomprehensible to me and my eyes glaze over. (I would like to think this is due more to insufficient interest to make an effort to understand it than inability to understand it. )

You aren't the only one who's eyes glaze over when ican posts those numbers Fox. He misuses them by cherry picking and making conclusions that aren't supported by the data as a whole. How anyone can do so consistently and not correct their mistakes for months is beyond me.

For instance - ican was told over a year ago that inhofe's list is not a majority of those that have published their opinions on global warming. Yet he persisted in posting the same foolish statement over and over until finally he dropped the obvious falsehood after every post of his was followed with a source that clearly disputed his silly statement. He seems to hope people will forget how stupid his comment is if no one has disputed it for a day or two.

1 Reply

@parados,

Maybe he misstates them. Maybe not. You certainly have not provided any credible verifiable rebuttal to them that I have seen.

And you continue to ignore requests for postings of opinions re global warming that would rebut the skeptics' opinions. So I don't think you have supported your statement about his list either.

And you haven't yet explained how the people Ican has been quoting are not scientists or how their comments are not scientific. I believe your specific statement was that Inhofe's list was not science which was so......um what's the word I need here.....incongruous?......and so far out in left field that it triggered the tag line you are now sporting.

I would find this thread much more useful and much more interesting if there were fewer members trying to embarrass or one-up or discredit other members and more attention was paid to actually discussing the various components within the debate. But that's just me.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Since you don't understand it when he misuses the stats, you think you would understand if I used them correctly? Thanks for thinking I am better at communicating than ican.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

So the bottom line for me continues to be an interest in the broader subject, and a strong conviction that I do not want to give up freedom, opportunity, choices, or options based on what is likely to be flawed or bogus science pushed on the world by opportunistic governments and others who stand to profit.

This is also my "bottom line."

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Since you don't understand it when he misuses the stats, you think you would understand if I used them correctly? Thanks for thinking I am better at communicating than ican.

For the record, I do NOT think you are better at communicating than Ican. He at least does not routinely misrepresent or rewrite what was said or add adjectives or unstated thoughts or motives when he comments. And that is why I tend to believe he is likely to be more honest in his presentation than some others even if I don't fully understand what he is saying.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Since you don't seem to understand it Fox. Let me explain.

If 100 scientists get in a boat does that make the passenger list science?
There are still 100 scientists, but their names on a list don't equal the work they do.

If I pull 100 quotes out of Shakespeare does that make my quotes a 3 act play?
That doesn't mean Shakespeare wasn't a playwright. It only means the quotes don't equal his work.

Inhofe's list isn't science because it is nothing more than a list of scientists with quotes pulled out of context. The list isn't science. The use of quotes from them isn't science. That doesn't mean the people on that list don't do science. It only means what it says. Inhofe's list isn't science. Ican said something to the effect that science is what should be presented. I pointed out the thing he posts the most about is not science and no thinking person would mistake it for science.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know