72
   

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

 
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sun 23 May, 2010 09:13 pm
I am not sure if climategate needs a fraud investigation or a freud investigation...these people really need the planet to be falling apart due to other people.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 11:35 am
BUY THE WORLD UMBRELLAS FOR THE NEXT TIME SOLAR IRRADIATION INCREASES THE AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE!

http://biocab.org/Correlation_Amplitude_SI-dT.jpg
http://biocab.org/Correlation_Amplitude_SI-dT.jpg
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 11:48 am
THE AVERAGE AND MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F) IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.

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
384
Aeronautical engineer Roy Clark made a presentation at an American Chemical Society meeting in Redlands, California, rejecting man-made global warming fears. "Changes since the 1950s of surface temperatures of the Earth have nothing to do with CO2," Clark said according to a November 16, 2007 article. "It comes from ocean current circulation," which shifts about every 10 years, Clark added. Clark attributed sun spot activity to warming and other natural factors. "Most global warming models require assumptions," he explained. "We assume global warming is real, so we build it into our models so we can calculate CO2 concentration. It's all a big joke." He concluded, "Water vapor and clouds drive climate temperature." (LINK)

Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 24 May, 2010 05:40 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
"Water vapor and clouds drive climate temperature."
Of course they do..the whole green house effect is water. When you walk into a greenhouse do you collpase because of all the carbon dioxide or do you notice how humid it is ? It probably has lower concentrations of CO2 than outside.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 May, 2010 04:15 pm
@Ionus,
This makes me wonder, how come greenhouses are legal? After all, think of the proliferation of water vapor! And the rainforests, how come the treehuggers love those, after all water vapor is dangerous in terms of causing global warming?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 03:26 pm
To reduce the CO2 they emit, humans must cut down sports activiies. During sports activities humans emit far more CO2 than when they are asleep.

Hay yeah! Humans should exercise less and sleep more!
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 05:18 pm
Nature good, man bad. If these clowns get any more simplistic, elevators will frighten the hell out of them. I wonder how long it will take before they abandon green house gases and find some other guilt trip for people ?
spendius
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 05:30 pm
@Ionus,
The ultimate guilt trip was introduced to the world by an Australian lady with lanky loins. Ms Germaine Greer to be precise. "All men are rapists" she declared.

I have never stepped into an elevator with a lady since I first heard it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 7 Jun, 2010 06:01 pm
THE AVERAGE AND MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F) IN THE LAST 100 YEARS.

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
385
Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, declared the case for man-made climate fears is weakening. "The case for anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) is getting weaker and weaker, not ‘stronger and stronger and stronger' as many have claimed," Courtney wrote on November 27, 2007. "To date, no convincing evidence for AGW has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions. Mean global temperature has not again reached the high it did in 1998 (an El Niño year) and it has been stable for the last 6 years despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of by 4% since 1998," Courtney explained. "Global temperature has not increased since 1998 because, while the northern hemisphere has warmed, the southern hemisphere has cooled. Global warming was supposed to actually be global, not hemispheric," he added. "Scares of hypothetical ‘tipping points,' run-away sea level rise, massively increased storms, floods, pestilence and drought are simply that, unjustified and unjustifiable scares," he concluded. (LINK)

0 Replies
 
morell
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 01:18 am
@Ionus,
Certainly--and the highly regarded climatologist from MIT- Dr. Lindzen-explains it well-

*******************



It is still of interest to ask what we would expect a doubling of carbon dioxide to do. A large number of calculations show that if this is all that happened, we might expect a warming of from .5 to 1.2 degrees centigrade. The general consensus is that such warming would present few, if any, problems. But even that prediction is subject to some uncertainty because of the complicated way the greenhouse effect operates. More important, the climate is a complex system where it is impossible for all other internal factors to remain constant. In present models those other factors amplify the effects of increasing carbon dioxide and lead to predictions of warming in the neighborhood of four to five degrees centigrade. Internal processes within the climate system that change in response to warming in such a manner as to amplify the response are known as positive feedbacks. Internal processes that diminish the response are known as negative feedbacks. The most important positive feedback in current models is due to water vapor. In all current models upper tropospheric (five to twelve kilometers) water vapor--the major greenhouse gas--increases as surface temperatures increase. Without that feedback, no current model would predict warming in excess of 1.7 degrees centigrade--regardless of any other factors. Unfortunately, the way current models handle factors such as clouds and water vapor is disturbingly arbitrary. In many instances the underlying physics is simply not known. In other instances there are identifiable errors. Even computational errors play a major role. Indeed, there is compelling evidence for all the known feedback factors to actually be negative. In that case, we would expect the warming response to carbon dioxide doubling alone to be diminished
*******************************************
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 05:41 am
@morell,
Quote:
In present models those other factors amplify the effects of increasing carbon dioxide and lead to predictions of warming in the neighborhood of four to five degrees centigrade.
Modeling is where you tell the computer the result and get it to do all the hard calculations to achieve that result. Modeling is guessing what the observation might be.
Quote:
water vapor--the major greenhouse gas
Why then are people applauding cars that release water vapour and not CO2 ? It is because our dependancy on oil is the real problem driving the hysteria, not global warming.
Quote:
Unfortunately, the way current models handle factors such as clouds and water vapor is disturbingly arbitrary. In many instances the underlying physics is simply not known. In other instances there are identifiable errors. Even computational errors play a major role. Indeed, there is compelling evidence for all the known feedback factors to actually be negative.
Agreed.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 03:26 pm
Quote:
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.

The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.


http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/
0 Replies
 
morell
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 03:58 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus-- A great point--You wrote:

Modeling is where you tell the computer the result and get it to do all the hard calculations to achieve that result. Modeling is guessing what the observation might be.

************************************************

Anyone who actually reads the 2007 report by the IPCC, will note that the IPCC's scientists did exactly what you noted, Ionus. They fed the computer data which allowed them to construct several scenarios. Some of these scenarios show large changes in Co2 by 2090. Others show minimal changes.
The IPCC's own "guessing" gives a result which indicates that there will be little or no significant sea level rise by 2090.


All of this furor caused by a group of scientists, who gave us "guesses" which, according to latest evidence, may well be irremediably tainted by intentional obfuscations and truth twistings by the East Anglia headquarters.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 04:37 pm
@morell,
Quote:
Anyone who actually reads the 2007 report by the IPCC, will note that the IPCC's scientists did exactly what you noted, Ionus.

Anyone that makes that statement obviously hasn't read the report.

Maybe you should read it sometime morell instead of pretending you have while making statements that clearly show you have done no such thing.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 04:49 pm
@morell,
OMG..

You are quoting Lindzen from 1992? Even Lindzen admits much of what he said back then was incorrect based on the almost 20 years of observations since then.

Quote:
Indeed, there is compelling evidence for all the known feedback factors to actually be negative.
This little gem is very false and Lindzen would in no way accept it today based on his own research.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 04:57 pm
@parados,
Do you mean comparing unscientific observations with modern data to find funding ? I mean Global Warming ? All based on an increase of the 5% of carbon that is man made without any referral to the planet being a self correcting system in which we do not know where we are in relation to Ice Ages ?
morell
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 05:40 pm
@parados,
Really? Then quote Lindzen's dismissal of his theory. If you can't, put a cork in it!
0 Replies
 
morell
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 05:45 pm
@Ionus,
Ionus--I like your posts but I must inform you that Paradox is the last word on Global Warming. He knows everything necessary to know about the subject, will not entertain any ideas you put forth and, when pressed, I think he thinks he is some kind of statistician, he will put down some incomprehensible blather.

When the Obama Administration is reduced in November 2010, "cap and trade" will go down the tube. That is why Paradox is so desperate to make any kind of a statement, repeat any type of lie or exaggeration.

He will not, of course, agree with you that the IPCC has made "guesses". Guesses which are now even more questionable because of the East Anglia scandal.

Cap and Trade is dead. Paradox will never accept that but I will gladly post the evidence to come.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 07:14 pm
@morell,
morell wrote:

Ionus--I like your posts but I must inform you that Paradox is the last word on Global Warming.

"Paradox?" Was that a Freudian slip, morell, in reference to the otherwise known poster "parados?" I actually think Paradox would be the more accurate name.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2010 07:20 pm
@morell,
Yes, Parody and I are well acquainted. He refuses to see any side but his own. I am prepared to say, as I have done in the past many times, Global Warming might well be correct but it is very unscientific to say it is proven. It is a guess, and like most guesses it could turn out to be correct....I just dont want to bet trillions of dollars on it.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 02/08/2025 at 10:16:22