Global Warming ?

[zimmy]

I have included an excerpt below from a survey of scientists on global warming. 2 points I would like to highlight: 1. 97% of climatologists believe global warming is occurring and humans play a role. 2. The majority of scientists who dispute it are in the petroleum industry or meteorologists.

82% of all scientists questioned believe not only in global warming, but that humans are contributing to it.

Looking at the wealth of data, how could I as an informed person so adamantly disagree with the 97% of climate experts? There is no logic to it, unless I have political reasons to oppose it.

The constant use of weather as an example that global warming isn't occurring are completely in-valid. The noreaster is especially strange since more frequent, stronger storms is something that is indicated by global warming.

Think what you want, but please don't make it as if your side of the argument has the data on its' side unless you want to show all of the data.

****The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I have included an excerpt below from a survey of scientists on global warming. 2 points I would like to highlight: 1. 97% of climatologists believe global warming is occurring and humans play a role. 2. The majority of scientists who dispute it are in the petroleum industry or meteorologists.

82% of all scientists questioned believe not only in global warming, but that humans are contributing to it.

Looking at the wealth of data, how could I as an informed person so adamantly disagree with the 97% of climate experts? There is no logic to it, unless I have political reasons to oppose it.

The constant use of weather as an example that global warming isn't occurring are completely in-valid. The noreaster is especially strange since more frequent, stronger storms is something that is indicated by global warming.

Think what you want, but please don't make it as if your side of the argument has the data on its' side unless you want to show all of the data.

****The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Those scientists were obviously idiots and not utilizing the in-depth scientific research and methods that the climatologists who participate in this forum use.

Their method? Looking out the window.

It's like the nitwits who catch a lot of fish one day and then say, "see, I caught as many fish as I wanted to. That proves we have an abundance of fish around."

[PaulS]

Isn't the weather outside my window considered the climate?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I have included an excerpt below from a survey of scientists on global warming. 2 points I would like to highlight: 1. 97% of climatologists believe global warming is occurring and humans play a role. 2. The majority of scientists who dispute it are in the petroleum industry or meteorologists.

82% of all scientists questioned believe not only in global warming, but that humans are contributing to it.

Looking at the wealth of data, how could I as an informed person so adamantly disagree with the 97% of climate experts? There is no logic to it, unless I have political reasons to oppose it.

The constant use of weather as an example that global warming isn't occurring are completely in-valid. The noreaster is especially strange since more frequent, stronger storms is something that is indicated by global warming.

Think what you want, but please don't make it as if your side of the argument has the data on its' side unless you want to show all of the data.

****The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Answer to number 1...Your talking over 200 years. The climate changes..No?

Answer to number 2... Brilliant. The number of humans has gone up. Um...could be a factor.

Do you think the the earth might have warmed a fraction without humans?Pretty sure it has in the past.


Edit: Sorry Scott, Didn't read your post until after. Guess a couple window watchers like ourselfs think alike.

[FishermanTim]

I wonder what Oog and Grog thought of the Ice Age?
I bet they blamed it on all the methane gas the dinosaurs created after eating all the vegitation.

Now we study cow burps....where does it all end?????

[zimmy]

International consensus falls along the same lines. It is a very small percent of scientists who study climate who are doubters. There are many anti-environmental movement, anti-government, pro-oil people who disagree.

The arguments that I just read said, well yeah it increased since the 1800's because of the mini ice age, well yeah there are more people now sow the temp probably increased. The next posts will be it hasn't increased and if it did it isn't because of people, it's sun spots. So what is it? Ask the real experts, they say the climate is changing, the records show it is changing, ice cores show it is changing, we burn tons of fossil fuels as of the last 200 years. Where is the consensus from real climate scientists that it isn't happening? You can't find one, so I should just take what Glen Beck or Hannity says to be the truth as the truth. Faggettit... I'll go with the science on this one.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

International consensus falls along the same lines. It is a very small percent of scientists who study climate who are doubters. There are many anti-environmental movement, anti-government, pro-oil people who disagree.

I'll go with the science on this one.

you forgot LAWYERS...they are on board too ...probably like 97% of them

Trial lawyers and their academic abettors are salivating over the potential lfor "hundreds of billions of dollars" in legal claims for compensatory losses due to climate change -- according to a report by Richard Inham of the AFP.

'"There's a large number of entrepreneurial lawyers and NGOs who are hunting around for a way to gain leverage on the climate problem," said David Victor, director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California at San Diego.'

Thus as the industial world struggles to recover from the worst recession in generations, private enterprise will have to fend off thousands of spurious claims lodged by activist liberal lawyers in frivilous lawsuits over droughts, floods, and other weather-events normally classified legally as "Acts of God".

"In this area, the floodgates have opened," said Michael Gerrard, director of the recently-opened Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School in New York... .

"There are billions of potential plaintiffs and millions of potential defendants," said Gerrard. "The biggest problem, though, is causation."

huh....that's and interesting thing to say when the science is settled...

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The arguments that I just read said, well yeah it increased since the 1800's because of the mini ice age, well yeah there are more people now sow the temp probably increased. The next posts will be it hasn't increased and if it did it isn't because of people, it's sun spots. So what is it? Ask the real experts, they say the climate is (always)changing, the records show it is (always)changing, ice cores show it is (always)changing, we burn tons of fossil fuels as of the last 200 years. Where is the consensus from real climate scientists that it isn't happening(changing?)? You can't find one, so I should just take what Glen Beck or Hannity says to be the truth as the truth. Faggettit... I'll go with the science on this one.

Let’s see just how the magnitude and rates of change of modern global warming/cooling compare to warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. We can compare the warming and cooling in the past century to approximate 100 year periods in the past 25,000 years. The scale of the curve doesn’t allow enough accuracy to pick out exactly 100 year episodes directly from the curve, but that can be done from the annual dust layers in ice core data. Thus, not all of the periods noted here are exactly 100 years. Some are slightly more, some are slightly less, but they are close enough to allow comparison of magnitude and rates with the past century.

Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet (Figure 1) (Cuffy and Clow, 1997) show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years. In addition, small temperature changes of up to a degree or so, similar to those observed in the 20th century record, occur persistently throughout the ancient climate record.

Figure 1. Greenland temperatures over the past 25,000 years recorded in the GISP 2 ice core. Strong, abrupt warming is shown by nearly vertical rise of temperatures, strong cooling by nearly vertical drop of temperatures (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997).

Figure 2 shows comparisons of the largest magnitudes of warming/cooling events per century over the past 25,000 years. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming.

Figure 2. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Each column represents the rise or fall of temperature shown on Figure 1. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. The sudden warming about 15,000 years ago caused massive melting of these ice sheets at an unprecedented rate. The abrupt cooling that occurred from 12,700 to 11,500 years ago is known as the Younger Dryas cold period, which was responsible for readvance of the ice sheets and alpine glaciers. The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9°F ( 5°C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14°F (8°C) over 40 years.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by scottw

Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet (Figure 1) (Cuffy and Clow, 1997) show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years. In addition, small temperature changes of up to a degree or so, similar to those observed in the 20th century record, occur persistently throughout the ancient climate record.

Figure 1. Greenland temperatures over the past 25,000 years recorded in the GISP 2 ice core. Strong, abrupt warming is shown by nearly vertical rise of temperatures, strong cooling by nearly vertical drop of temperatures (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997).

Figure 2 shows comparisons of the largest magnitudes of warming/cooling events per century over the past 25,000 years. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming.


Figure 2. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Each column represents the rise or fall of temperature shown on Figure 1. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. The sudden warming about 15,000 years ago caused massive melting of these ice sheets at an unprecedented rate. The abrupt cooling that occurred from 12,700 to 11,500 years ago is known as the Younger Dryas cold period, which was responsible for readvance of the ice sheets and alpine glaciers. The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9°F ( 5°C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14°F (8°C) over 40 years.

Where is this cut and pasted from? Easterbrook's guest editorial on the Free Republic?

Let me make a comparision here. I can go find a PhD geologist (Say Dr. Marcus Ross, Liberty University) who is a fervent believer in young earth creationism. Doesn't refute evolution.

Same thing here, you find Easterbrook, with a LONG record of being a skeptic (and contributor to Glenn Beck' Show), with, in this case 15 year old data.

I was at his infamous presentation at the 2006 GSA Meeting. There is a good reason the stuff he posts in the Free Republic is not peer reviewed; it would not stand. The events he has mentioned have distinct causes independent of atmosphereic CO2. Things that, if they occured today would have the same result (Like large, sudden releases of freshwater to the ocean after draining a huge glacial lake).

but then again it's snowing in January. No climate change here

[scottw]

[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;830852:

Where is this cut and pasted from? Free Republic?

Glenn Beck' Show.

Free Republic

:[/QUOTE]

not familiar with free republic....so this apparently is how the global warming/climate change/climate disruption/climate challenges "scientists" and their lackey's attack anyone that disagrees with their perpetually changing and historically inaccurate dogma

you should have thrown in a couple Limbaughs...a FOXNEWS...maybe a Cheney Haliburton and a Big OIL or two

[scottw]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

where does it all end?????

2012

[scottw]

http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
In our survey,
the most specialized and knowledgeable
respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science
as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of
their recent peer-reviewed
papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals
in total).

The 97% "Consensus" is only 79 Self-Selected Climatologists

While 97% of "climate scientists think that global warming is 'significantly' due to human activity," a shocking 72% of news coverage does not reflect this "consensus" and similarly 74% of the public are not convinced.

Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming.

Let's not lose sight of what the Doran poll asked:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Of course, the answer to #1 is "risen", if you consider "pre-1800" to be around 1800 or a couple of hundred years of so before, because we were in the little age age, and there's little doubt we have warmed form that time.

The answer to number #2 depends largely on the definition of significant, but I'd guess that even Richard Lindzen would consider the co2 contribution significant, based on his forcing calculation.

And of course, warmers seem to treat a risen/yes reply to this poll as affirmation of catastrophic AGW projections, which may not be intended.[/QUOTE]

you'd think it would be much easier to convince everyone of something that is so obvious...and settled ...it appears that the biggest climate challenge for the climate changers is defending the settled science of global warming...maybe we need another movie