I do not accept much of what James Hansen, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Kevin Trenberth, Richard Muller et al have claimed. And Al Gore is in a world of his own. Many scientists have produced equally valid counter arguments in peer reviewed papers that Global Warming... sorry, Climate Change... sorry, Climate Distruption..., sorry, threats to Sustainable development are not because of man. Science is the pursuit of fact not consensus or political arguments. But it seems that many of the "Warmists" have used bad practices in stating their claims. Why shouldn't Michael Mann reveal his data that "proves" man is at fault. Many trillions of dollars could be spent because of what he claims. Why does he not "prove it" by publishing the raw data? Why does Trenberth still look for the "missing heat" wihch must be in the oceans because his models say so. Richard Muller, was never a skeptic and therefore has never converted to the Warming side. He accepted Steve McIntyres analysis of Michael Manns flawed paper to produce the Hockey Stick thet won Al Gore and Rajendra Pauchari the Nobel Prize. They should give it back to be honest. So Muller just knew he had lost and accepted that. That aside. We should still take more care of our envrionment as redroad says but we should do it so it doesn't line the pockets of fakers in the list above.
"Peer reviews" have been discredited for a while now... It does not mean a darn thing, if a paper has been "peer reviewed" or not! This is not an argument to prove anything at all, one way or another... EDIT: Some examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
I pointed to this article once before because I felt it aptly describes the current standoff and begins a dialogue to get at mutual recognition of some of the problems we face with regards to this topic. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...orld-the-american-public-and-climate-science/
Counter global warming with... Pollution Using computer simulations of an old idea shows that pollution may be able to … by Matt Ford Could pollution be the solution to global warming? In the August issue of Climatic Change Dr. Paul Crutzen resurrected this bold proposal: create a global haze by ejecting thousands and thousands of tons of sulphuric material (SO2) into the stratosphere to produce a shaded earth that would counter the effects of global warming. If anyone else said this, they would not have gotten the idea published in a reputable journal, but Dr. Crutzen is a Nobel laureate, having earned the Nobel prize in chemistry in 1995 for helping to work out the chemistry of ozone destruction in the upper atmosphere. This idea is not new, and has been floating around climatology circles for years where it is known as an example of geoengineering (sci-fi fans, think terraforming). This idea of geoengineering was first put forth by a Soviet climatologist, Mikhail Budyko, who suggested that small reflective particles in the atmosphere could reflect enough of the sun's energy to cool the earth and negate global warming. Nature lent credence to this radical idea through two events, the 1982 eruption of the volcano El Chichón and the more recent eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991. The eruption of Pinatubo left large quantities of water droplets containing sulfuric acid, each of which reflected some of the sun's energy away from the earth—enough in fact to cool the earth at a rate of about 0.5 oC/yr for almost two years after the eruption. If a human-made "volcano" could reproduce this event, it could counteract the global warming we are currently experiencing. However, this would be a huge engineering undertaking—Pinatubo's eruption released 10 million tons of sulfur into the atmosphere! More importantly, no one knows what effect this would really have. Reported in last week's edition of Science was a collection of preliminary climate modeling simulations that attempt to quantify the effect of a man-made "volcanic" eruption. A series of simulations where sequential "eruptions" were carried out every year, every other year, and every four years were carried out. The Pinatubo eruption-associated forcing parameter that was derived from actual data and used in the simulations had a peak annual mean value of -2.97 W/m2. The simulations were done using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse gas-Induced Climate Change (MAGICC), which is an upwelling-diffusion energy balance model. The parameters were chosen such that a 3 oC rise in equilibrium temperature would occur for a doubling of the CO2 concentration. It was found that the bi-annual case would be capable of offsetting the anthropogenic change predicted to occur over the next century and hold global warming at bay indefinitely. It was also predicted that the climate would return to "normal" within tens of years after the "eruptions" are stopped. While this shows the promise this idea may hold, it doesn't solve the underlying issues. This is similar to dieting and trying to lose weight, meaning if you do not change the underlying eating patterns that caused you to gain weight in the first place you will never be able to keep it off. Many climate researchers are worried because this idea is merely a band-aid as it can solve the problem in the short term, but does not solve the underlying causes of anthropogenic climate change. Another worry is that if this would be carried out and falter for some reason, the Earth could see decades or centuries of warming within the span of just a few years. The study in Science makes note of this as well, that geoengineering alone cannot be used to solve the current problems facing our world. The study also compares the effect of various policies that have been discussed by various international bodies to see the possible effect they might have on the Earth's climate. The article makes note early on that mitigation of fossil fuel consumption and current CO2 levels is needed, but this method of geoengineering could be used to buy us a little more time to find a better way to change our behavior and potentially develop more—and more importantly cheaper—alternative and renewable fuel sources. SOURCE Interesting solution
[h=1]Hundreds of thousands of acres in West still burning as wildfires rage[/h]http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/19/us/western-wildfires/index.html
this argument has been propounded wrt x-rays -- that the radiation that humans receive from natural sources are many times that of a medical x-ray and therefore medical x-rays are not dangerous. I don't remember the details of the refutation but it's something like this: while the argument is correct, it is spurious because the medical x-ray is of a different type than that received from natural sources.
If you go to any spot of soil on the earth and dig one foot down by one square mile you will get one ton of uranium. I think that is what you're talking about. Also there was a big uproar recently about the granite counter tops in use letting off radiation. The bottom line is that it's not concentrated. If you're making an analogy as to the concentration of pollution then the volcano would be greater. I'm also not sure what forest fires, as posted by redroad, have to do with global warming. Wildfires are a natural process and rejuvenate the forest in the long run. Seems these days everything gets the global warming tagged on it.
No one seems to have addressed the fact that greenhouse effect has been proven to be false as per the woods experiment and repeated by Prof Nasif Nahle - page 12 of this thread has the links. AGW or CAGW only works on the premise of the greenhouse effect! No greenhouse effect No AGW just climate change!! which of course is natural a useful thread for those who wish to discuss the mistake in the physics curriculum ie the lack of the greenhouse effect! http://www.facebook.com/groups/446446425385858/
Oh, don't tell us: he is presuming nothing - pure Godly insight, without any possibilities of questioning his assumptions and results... Which no longer is science, dontchaknow...
Here we go again, looking at things in isolation. If there's a high pressure system over somewhere then next to it is a low pressure system. If it's hot somewhere, it's colder somewhere else otherwise it's hot everywhere. You can cherry pick findings like this until the cows detsroy the planet through farting too much. Yes, it's hot in some places this year, some places were colder but it's not news so we don't hear about it. I wish people would look at ALL THE FACTS and decide for themselves. Otherwise what will kill mankind will not be Global Warming but indifference and apathy to the extent of not being capable of finding out THE TRUTH and believing headlines all the time. Gimme this, find that for me, I read it's because.... The INFORMATION is out there. search and make your own minds up for gods sake. Get off your backsides and find instead of asking.
sure bobsheep, at times i think you`re the only sane person in this whole thread.. the only one who is able to reconcile conflicting opinions.. but excuse me, there is no truth about global warming, imho.. the scientists vote with their feet for where the money is.. and that leaves dilletantes like me out in the [ receeding?] cold.. i personally do not believe in this global warming hype. i think it is the height of arrogance that mankind thinks it can change the climate, we are just passengers on this old planet, as i said before.. but then i am no scientist.. which is why i remain, respectfully yours, on my backside..
The whole AGW argument hinges on the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and this has been disproven! twice, repeated and debunkers like Pratt debunked for their subterfuge! The corruption within the industry that promotes AGW is continually whitewashed and continually ignored by the warmists supporters. climategate is a point in case as is climategate II As far as I can tell the funding for warmist research in the USA alone (approximate amounts circa 2008) was $40 - 50 billion but for so called dissenting scientific research was less than $20 million. I see no reason for that to have changed and if anything it would have become even more disproportionate yet I still read dissenting scientists are funded by big oil. Ironically big oil have substantially funded greenpeace, friends of the earth, WWF & many more - WWF was also funded to the tune of billions of pounds to promote CAGW By the EU! Im certainly not interested in entering into argument over AGW and Why it has been invented - ive done far too much of that already elsewhere. If anyone is in any doubt what AGW is about look no further than "UN Agenda 21" - also Known as "Sustainable Development" AGW is the FULCRUM that is influencing global policy change! - Not for the better. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3bH3_-dQVs Christopher Mockton http://www.cfact.tv/ - information here about RIO +20 the videos are quite revealing! www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/ this is an informative website which outlines what is going on in the US. http://www.newswithviews.com/Veon/joan19.htm http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Opinion/086970-2011-04-01-agenda-21-in-one-easy-lesson.htm - self explanatory http://www.amerikanexpose.com/agenda21/index3.html i hope its not too much for anyone to take on board! - its certainly no joke! and I apologise if I have repeated anyone's links wrt this subject. regards to all
Sorry fella's been busy.. I see not much has changed here on this thread .. @R29k my post @ post #221 where pollution was a possible solution to buy some time with global warming.. I was simply pointing out that the snoke from the wild fires would certainly pollute.. I guess I should have been a little more explicit .. As far as what it has to do with global warming you can make up your own mind on that.. I'm certain of that ..
Natural cycle. It was a planet of a tropical paradise during the cretaceous period, and there were no humans, SUV's, power plants, etc. Yet the planet warmed up? Why? Because of the Sun. Humans have no more cause on the earth warming up then one single man does lighting a lighter in a closed off room in an air conditioned house. Humans will not affect the planet earth at all.
100 Million Could Die Due To Climate Change By 2030 sky on Sep 26, 2012 at 12:15 pm 100 million people could die as a result of climate change by 2030, a new report from DARA, a nonprofit institute based in Spain, concludes. Climate change already contributes to “400,000 deaths on average each year,” mainly due to “hunger and communicable diseases that affect above all children in developing countries,” while “an estimated 4.5 million deaths each year [are] linked to air pollution, hazardous occupations and cancer.” See http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/09/26/913421/100-million-could-die-from-climate-change-by-2030/ Also http://daraint.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CVM2-Low.pdf
What can I say? A report which has on page 1, a Skull and a $ Sign just has to full of the truth and be 100% objective. I remember when science was just "science" and required nothing more than the facts. Look like those times are long gone.