Climate scientists feeling the heat

[KC2KFC]

Quote[/b] ]Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."...

Climate scientists feeling the heat (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html)

Discuss http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[n2ize]

This article isn't saying anything that is not already known. Reputable climate scientists have never said that Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming. Climatologists have said that warming temperatures COULD POSSIBLY cause more hurricanes in the future, but they never said that it was a certainty or that is is happening today. Same thing for last summer's heat wave. Climate scientists have clearly stated that localized or regional weather events neither prove nor disprove current climate theories. Global warming data is based on aggregate data, proxies representing temperature and conditions that reflect an aggregate of global conditions.

[al2i]

Thanks for the link OM. The warming cult has grown from a few rational voices to an emotional religious panic during the last 20 years or so. The United States specifically has very important and non-climate-related reasons to get off of the hydrocarbon teat, but the holy rollers really began pounding the iceless Armageddon pulpit during the hurricane season of summer before last.

The wails and lamentations of the more emotional followers make a mockery of science. Our national need to deliberately and rationally develop clean, non-hydrocarbon-based energy has been harmed as a result of all the fire and brimstone preaching about doomsday.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] ]"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

I often don't speak my mind at the office either. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

i saw this program where they say global warming is a cycle,it happened a long time ago

[KC2KFC]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 22 2007,09:09)]Quote[/b] ]"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

I often don't speak my mind at the office either. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
I would think the scientific community would welcome the skeptics and debate the data with them. It almost sounds like you're either with us or against us. Hmmmm does that sound familiar?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (KC2KFC @ Jan. 22 2007,09:45)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 22 2007,09:09)]Quote[/b] ]"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

I often don't speak my mind at the office either. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
I would think the scientific community would welcome the skeptics and debate the data with them. It almost sounds like you're either with us or against us. Hmmmm does that sound familiar?
Most climate scientists do welcome not skeptics, but open minded researchers. . However, thus far most skeptics have been shown to be shills for oil interests, and/or have presented junk science that falls apart under scrutiny. One example was the Baliunas-Soon study which was not reproducible when accurate temperature proxies were used. Similar studies have also fallen apart. This is not to say every challenge is junk science. But this far none have disproven greenhouse gas versus temp rise theories. Other skeptics have been shown to be completely political, lacking any scientific background. All of these latter shills and think tanks have been debunked.

[W2ILP]

I hope that you guys have all also read my posts in the thread about Hawkings and his belief in global warming, which has not come to any real scientific certainty...except for Hawkings panicking predictions, which sell his books to paranoids who in my opinion are no better than the ones who fear an attack by little green E.T.s from another galaxy. #In my opinion the "green house" effect is not much more probable that an attack by E.T. and less probable than having the Earth hit by a sizable meteor. # Please read my posts on the other thread...if you want my take on this matter. #I agree with the scientists who have written about this subject in the original link of this thread.
1) There is no proof that global warming trends will continue or become thermal runaway or melt the entire Earth's ice cap.
2) There is no proof that gas emissions of any kind can significantly cause a greenhouse effect which will be a cause for significant global warming.
3) There is no proof that eliminating the emission of any exhaust will significantly prevent or lessen any warming trend.

Observations of climate change do not and can not provide any answers as to why the climate is changing. #The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is also changing. #The changes are probably cyclic and of long periods, but they have not been tracked accurately for very long. #Any guess about why the Earth seems to be warming more now than in very recent times is hypothetical...IT IS ONLY A GUESS. #It is no reason to elect a politician or buy one noted scientist's opinionated book.

w2ilp (ignoring Loony Panics)

[kl7aj]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 22 2007,07:54)]Thanks for the link OM. #The warming cult has grown from a few rational voices to an emotional religious panic during the last 20 years or so. #The United States specifically has very important and non-climate-related reasons to get off of the hydrocarbon teat, but the holy rollers really began pounding the iceless Armageddon pulpit during the hurricane season of summer before last. #

The wails and lamentations of the more emotional followers make a mockery of science. #Our national need to deliberately and rationally develop clean, non-hydrocarbon-based energy has been harmed as a result of all the fire and brimstone preaching about doomsday.
Yeah, the global warming troglodites always beat their drums when it's 40 below up here. I always have a hard time taking them seriously.

[W2ILP]

I don't believe that the oil industry or any industry is responsible for looking at global warming skeptically. #Heck...You could more easily blame them for the Iraq invasion...and that is bad enough.

Carl Sagan was a humanist and thus he was against the first Gulf war. #He predicted that if the oil wells would be sabotaged there would be so much smoke that the entire Earth would be engulfed in what he called "Nuclear winter". #His predictions were humanistic but not scientific. #In short...He was wrong. #

I guess some people who should know better don't realize the relative size of the Earth's entire atmosphere, stratosphere and ionosphere and don't realize that even a nuclear war or a thousand burning oil rigs might not change all of the spheres that enclose the Earth and filter the Sun's rays and the Earth's reflection of same. # Believe w2ilp...Its just a drop in the bucket.

w2ilp (Ignorance Leads Politicians)...and the same ignorance...is expected to get voters thinking about irrelevant panics...Heck ...Isn't terrorism enough?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (KC2KFC @ Jan. 22 2007,03:25)]Quote[/b] ]Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."...

Climate scientists feeling the heat (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html)

Discuss #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
QUOTE:

"Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world."

What hogwash. #Excuse me, but aren't humans a natural part of the world? #And as I suspect we are, then the crap we put in the atmosphere is natural and a part of nature.

K2WH

[KC2KFC]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 22 2007,12:57)]I hope that you guys have all also read my posts in the thread about Hawkings and his belief in global warming, which has not come to any real scientific certainty...except for Hawkings panicking predictions, which sell his books to paranoids who in my opinion are no better than the ones who fear an attack by little green E.T.s from another galaxy. In my opinion the "green house" effect is not much more probable that an attack by E.T. and less probable than having the Earth hit by a sizable meteor. Please read my posts on the other thread...if you want my take on this matter. I agree with the scientists who have written about this subject in the original link of this thread.
1) There is no proof that global warming trends will continue or become thermal runaway or melt the entire Earth's ice cap.
2) There is no proof that gas emissions of any kind can significantly cause a greenhouse effect which will be a cause for significant global warming.
3) There is no proof that eliminating the emission of any exhaust will significantly prevent or lessen any warming trend.

Observations of climate change do not and can not provide any answers as to why the climate is changing. The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is also changing. The changes are probably cyclic and of long periods, but they have not been tracked accurately for very long. Any guess about why the Earth seems to be warming more now than in very recent times is hypothetical...IT IS ONLY A GUESS. It is no reason to elect a politician or buy one noted scientist's opinionated book.

w2ilp (ignoring Loony Panics)
This is one of those rare times where I agree 100% with Mr. ILP.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 22 2007,13:16)]Quote[/b] (KC2KFC @ Jan. 22 2007,03:25)]Quote[/b] ]Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."...

Climate scientists feeling the heat (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html)

Discuss http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
QUOTE:

"Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world."

What hogwash. Excuse me, but aren't humans a natural part of the world? And as I suspect we are, then the crap we put in the atmosphere is natural and a part of nature.

K2WH
Quote[/b] ]
What hogwash. Excuse me, but aren't humans a natural part of the world? And as I suspect we are, then the crap we put in the atmosphere is natural and a part of nature.


Uh excuse me ?? From where did you derive this piece of "wisdom" ?? There is no law of nature that says that mankind can drill, refine and burn tons upon tons of fossil fuel per year without detrimental effects to his own health, much less the environment. And to imagine that such a rule exists lies at the epitome of pure human arrogance. Being a home sapien doesn't mean you can dump tons upon tons of substances into the water, air, etc. without detrimental results and history has proven this true. Furthermore current global warming research clearly indicates that doing as we please may even be detrimental on a grand scale.

[w5klb]

I don't understand about all this &quot;concern&quot; for CO<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>2</span>. Really... anyone with an 8th grade education understands that humans and animals expell carbon dioxide. Plants use carbon dioxide and expell oxygen. It seems to me that the plants are lov'n every minuet of it and WE, including the animals, are repeaping the benefits by having MORE oxygen to breath.

The fear mongers like Al Gore and Heidi Cullen would like for the rest of us to kinda forget this very basic scientific fact.

These fear mongers remind of the story of &quot;Chicken Little&quot;.

If these fear mongers are so concerned about the amount of #carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, maybe the rest of us ought to ask them to hold their breath and count to a 1000... very slowly. They would be doing the rest of us a great service.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (KC2KFC @ Jan. 22 2007,08:45)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 22 2007,09:09)]Quote[/b] ]&quot;I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures,&quot; says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to &quot;dampen&quot; the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

I often don't speak my mind at the office either. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
I would think the scientific community would welcome the skeptics and debate the data with them. It almost sounds like you're either with us or against us. Hmmmm does that sound familiar?
The scientific community is made up of human beings and is exactly like any other community in its make up.

Unfortunately, and the community itself is in large part responsible, over the last thirty years, science &quot;spokesman&quot; have begun more readily cooperating with media and more easily allowing themselves to be exploited.

This is why familiarity with the peer reviewed literature is still the only way to accurately judge the state of research in a field.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 22 2007,13:10)]I don't believe that the oil industry or any industry is responsible for looking at global warming skeptically. Heck...You could more easily blame them for the Iraq invasion...and that is bad enough.

Carl Sagan was a humanist and thus he was against the first Gulf war. He predicted that if the oil wells would be sabotaged there would be so much smoke that the entire Earth would be engulfed in what he called &quot;Nuclear winter&quot;. His predictions were humanistic but not scientific. In short...He was wrong.

I guess some people who should know better don't realize the relative size of the Earth's entire atmosphere, stratosphere and ionosphere and don't realize that even a nuclear war or a thousand burning oil rigs might not change all of the spheres that enclose the Earth and filter the Sun's rays and the Earth's reflection of same. Believe w2ilp...Its just a drop in the bucket.

w2ilp (Ignorance Leads Politicians)...and the same ignorance...is expected to get voters thinking about irrelevant panics...Heck ...Isn't terrorism enough?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Quote[/b] ]
don't believe that the oil industry or any industry is responsible for looking at global warming skeptically. Heck...You could more easily blame them for the Iraq invasion...and that is bad enough.


I doubt that they are looking at it enthusiastically. Virtually every global warming study coming out of research funded by the oil industry has attempted to discredit the IPCC studies and the studies done and published in peer reviewed journals. And virtually every one has been either debunked, has produced non reproducible inconclusive results and, in several cases has wound up coinciding with IPCC research.

Quote[/b] ]
Carl Sagan was a humanist and thus he was against the first Gulf war. He predicted that if the oil wells would be sabotaged there would be so much smoke that the entire Earth would be engulfed in what he called &quot;Nuclear winter&quot;. His predictions were humanistic but not scientific. In short...He was wrong.


Neither Carl Sagan nor Stephen Hawkings represents the scientific community studying global warming. Lots of scientists have independently made outlandish or incorrect claims about things Prior to the Y2K fiasco during 1999-2000 I heard one particular PH.D physicist crying doom and gloom was going to befall us on New Years Eve. He was wrong. However most computer scientists, systems admins, and people in the know with regards to computer technology did not paint a doom and gloom picture at all. They said there may be some minor glitches but things should roll over smoothly. What do you know. The ones who were in the know were correct. Climatologists are supposed to be the ones who are &quot;in the know&quot; with respect to global warming data, climate modeling, and interpretations. Maybe they are correct. maybe, just maybe they do know what they are talking about.

Quote[/b] ]
I guess some people who should know better don't realize the relative size of the Earth's entire atmosphere, stratosphere and ionosphere and don't realize that even a nuclear war or a thousand burning oil rigs might not change all of the spheres that enclose the Earth and filter the Sun's rays and the Earth's reflection of same. Believe w2ilp...Its just a drop in the bucket.


I guess one can discredit work in any profession by saying that they don't realize the scope of what they are researching. But somehow I don't buy the logic. I think that those studying climate change have a pretty good handle on the size of the earths atmosphere and beyond and how is can, and as research shows in all probability IS, being affected. You don't have to change all those spheres surrounding this globe or even alter them that dramatically to make life extremely difficult (or maybe impossible) for the vast numbers of humans living on this planet. What seems like a &quot;drop in the bucket&quot; may very well be enough to cause major problems or even catastrophe.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Jan. 22 2007,12:48)]I don't understand about all this &quot;concern&quot; for CO<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>2</span>. Really... anyone with an 8th grade education understands that humans and animals expell carbon dioxide. Plants use carbon dioxide and expell oxygen. It seems to me that the plants are lov'n every minuet of it and WE, including the animals, are repeaping the benefits by having MORE oxygen to breath.

The fear mongers like Al Gore and Heidi Cullen would like for the rest of us to kinda forget this very basic scientific fact.

These fear mongers remind of the story of &quot;Chicken Little&quot;.

If these fear mongers are so concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, maybe the rest of us ought to ask them to hold their breath and count to a 1000... very slowly. They would be doing the rest of us a great service.
Aye, there's the rub. Even though it is probably beneficial from a total biomass point of view to get more carbon back into environmental circulation, there is nevertheless going to be adverse economic impacts to some human infrastructure if the sea level rises a few feet.

I was kind of glad to see the near doubling of atmospheric carbon with primeval sources just to dilute the radioactive carbon 14 from the 338 atmospheric nuclear tests that the USA conducted. We take that into our very DNA after all. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 22 2007,09:43)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 22 2007,13:16)]Quote[/b] (KC2KFC @ Jan. 22 2007,03:25)]Quote[/b] ]Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

&quot;Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster,&quot; says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected &quot;tension&quot; among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: &quot;I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history.&quot;

Vranes says, &quot;When I hear things like that, I go crazy.&quot;...

Climate scientists feeling the heat (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html)

Discuss #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
QUOTE:

&quot;Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.&quot;

What hogwash. #Excuse me, but aren't humans a natural part of the world? #And as I suspect we are, then the crap we put in the atmosphere is natural and a part of nature.

K2WH
Quote[/b] ]
What hogwash. #Excuse me, but aren't humans a natural part of the world? #And as I suspect we are, then the crap we put in the atmosphere is natural and a part of nature.


Uh excuse me ?? From where did you derive this piece of &quot;wisdom&quot; ?? There is no law of nature that says that mankind can drill, refine and burn tons upon tons of fossil fuel per year without detrimental effects to his own health, much less the environment. And to imagine that such a rule exists lies at the epitome of pure human arrogance. Being a home sapien doesn't mean you can dump tons upon tons of substances into the water, air, etc. without detrimental results and history has proven this true. #Furthermore current global warming research clearly indicates that doing as we please may even be detrimental on a grand scale.
You are right. There is no law that says we can. But, there is no law that says we CAN'T.

However, since that is a silly arguement, to whom are you addressing the dumping issue? The USA? Mexico? 3rd world countries?

Oh, I'm not a homo sapien. I'm an American.

K2WH

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 22 2007,11:57)]1) There is no proof that global warming trends will continue or become thermal runaway or melt the entire Earth's ice cap.

We don't really talk about 'proof' in science, only evidence. Nor has anyone ever claimed that global warming will result in 'thermal runaway.'

Icecap melt is a prediction based on a fairly reliable model. It's actually a good test of the various models and we should have usable results in 3-5 years. Catostrophic melt is unlikely but there's already been enough documented melt to cause significant problems in coastal areas of some countries.

Quote[/b] ]
2) There is no proof that gas emissions of any kind can significantly cause a greenhouse effect which will be a cause for significant global warming.


There is a chain of evidence, based on, among other things, the NASA research on the ozone hole and its relationship to CFCs, that pretty clearly shows the mechanism by which such a greenhouse effect could be caused.

Quote[/b] ]
3) There is no proof that eliminating the emission of any exhaust will significantly prevent or lessen any warming trend.


There is significant evidence from the CFC reduction that if human CO2 emissions are a cause, that reduction of those emissions will have a significant mitigating effect.

Quote[/b] ]
Observations of climate change do not and can not provide any answers as to why the climate is changing.

They can. There are many factors at work in climate change, and careful measurement of the variation in each can lead to establishing a relationship between each factor and the effect it has. This is merely a matter of (very complicated) physics.

Quote[/b] ]
Any guess about why the Earth seems to be warming more now than in very recent times is hypothetical...IT IS ONLY A GUESS.

Not all guesses are equally well informed.

But the interesting thing here is that the scientific way to test the guess is to reduce human CO2 emissions and see if warming is reduced correspondingly.

That would turn the guess into evidence and it's the only way to do so.

[K0RGR]

Dr. Vranes, the subject of the original post, has himself written many papers on global warming. It is apparent that he, too, would agree that climate change is underway. His beef is that there is disagreement among scientists about what the outcomes of this warming might be, and that is true. I think he underestimates the average American's ability to understand the uncertainty of predictions based on scientific observation. Indeed, many scientists believe that things could get far worse than we think. Many have been shocked at the unexpectedly rapid erosion of Artic and Antarctic ice fields, for example.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (w5klb @ Jan. 22 2007,13:48)]I don't understand about all this &quot;concern&quot; for CO<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>2</span>. Really... anyone with an 8th grade education understands that humans and animals expell carbon dioxide. Plants use carbon dioxide and expell oxygen. It seems to me that the plants are lov'n every minuet of it and WE, including the animals, are repeaping the benefits by having MORE oxygen to breath.

The fear mongers like Al Gore and Heidi Cullen would like for the rest of us to kinda forget this very basic scientific fact.

These fear mongers remind of the story of &quot;Chicken Little&quot;.

If these fear mongers are so concerned about the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, maybe the rest of us ought to ask them to hold their breath and count to a 1000... very slowly. They would be doing the rest of us a great service.
Quote[/b] ]
I don't understand about all this &quot;concern&quot; for CO<span style='font-size:9pt;line-height:100%'>2</span>. Really... anyone with an 8th grade education understands that humans and animals expell carbon dioxide. Plants use carbon dioxide and expell oxygen. It seems to me that the plants are lov'n every minuet of it and WE, including the animals, are repeaping the benefits by having MORE oxygen to breath.


Have you not read any of the scientific literature dealing with this subject ? The issue is not about the CO2-Oxygen cycle of plants and animals. The issue involves the buildup of heat trapping gases among which CO2 is a major participant. Forget about Al Gore and his sensationalist movies and Heidi from the WX channel. They are completely irrelevant. Go to the peer reveiwed journals and literature and you will understand why climate scientists have reached their current conclusions.

[N9XR]

Boiling Frog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog)

Frog legs anybody?

Quote[/b] ]The story is generally told in a figurative context, with the upshot being that people should make themselves aware of gradual change lest they suffer a catastrophic loss.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 22 2007,14:22)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 22 2007,09:43)]Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 22 2007,13:16)]Quote[/b] (KC2KFC @ Jan. 22 2007,03:25)]Quote[/b] ]Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

&quot;Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster,&quot; says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected &quot;tension&quot; among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: &quot;I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history.&quot;

Vranes says, &quot;When I hear things like that, I go crazy.&quot;...

Climate scientists feeling the heat (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html)

Discuss http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
QUOTE:

&quot;Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.&quot;

What hogwash. Excuse me, but aren't humans a natural part of the world? And as I suspect we are, then the crap we put in the atmosphere is natural and a part of nature.

K2WH
Quote[/b] ]
What hogwash. Excuse me, but aren't humans a natural part of the world? And as I suspect we are, then the crap we put in the atmosphere is natural and a part of nature.


Uh excuse me ?? From where did you derive this piece of &quot;wisdom&quot; ?? There is no law of nature that says that mankind can drill, refine and burn tons upon tons of fossil fuel per year without detrimental effects to his own health, much less the environment. And to imagine that such a rule exists lies at the epitome of pure human arrogance. Being a home sapien doesn't mean you can dump tons upon tons of substances into the water, air, etc. without detrimental results and history has proven this true. Furthermore current global warming research clearly indicates that doing as we please may even be detrimental on a grand scale.
You are right. There is no law that says we can. But, there is no law that says we CAN'T.

However, since that is a silly arguement, to whom are you addressing the dumping issue? The USA? Mexico? 3rd world countries?

Oh, I'm not a homo sapien. I'm an American.

K2WH
Quote[/b] ]
You are right. There is no law that says we can. But, there is no law that says we CAN'T.


There are laws and there is common sense. There is not law that says I can't ride my motorcycle at 110 mph into a brick wall but the consequences might not be too good. I cab replace the fuses in my fuse box with pennies but I may be sorry when the next overload or short happens. There is a point where common sense has to kick in.

Quote[/b] ]
However, since that is a silly arguement, to whom are you addressing the dumping issue? The USA? Mexico? 3rd world countries?


Well, if it affects the climate I guess it's a world issue. I am not as convinced as you might be that the scientific consensus on global warming is wrong. Taking steps to gradually reduce the amount of fossil fuels we burn over a given time might make good sense.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (K0RGR @ Jan. 22 2007,13:27)]I think he underestimates the average American's ability to understand the uncertainty of predictions based on scientific observation.
I wish I could be so optimistic.

I participate in threads about global warming in supposedly technical forums like QRZ and am amazed by how ignorant of the underlying science people are.

Independent of the global warming issue he has a valid concern about the growing cosy relationship between the peer reviewed journals and the popular press; and about the tendency for heads of organizations to oversimplify and turn into sound bites.

But that's for a different thread in a different topic.

[W2ILP]

ae6ip

If you fly into any major city when the Sun is setting , you will notice that the city is covered with clouds of dust and smoke. If you live in any large city and you don't keep dusting your furniture it will become covered with dust. If you clean the dust with a rag you will see that it is black in color and not unlike carbon. This is because most carbon compounds and other metal and mineral compounds (including lead) form dust particles that eventually settle at ground level and hardly ever get up to the stratosphere. Recent cases of people who worked at the site of the WTC suffered from dust and New York cab drivers, like my father, die young from breathing the city dust. Asbestos dust may be the most deadly but all dust can collect in our lungs.

I am not alone in feeling skeptical about claims of &quot;global warming&quot; from industrial and automotive exhausts. The fact is that present day cars are not any more responsible for pollution than cars of 20 years ago and there are actually not many more cars being registered today than there were 10 years ago in most areas, partly due to the present high cost of gas.

Global warming does not seem to be in sync with the presence of the most polluting exhausts. If you believe that Global Warming is a long term cumulative effect...then that may be a further reason to admit that there is no way to eliminate it in the future. But I do not believe that dust particles do not eventually form and settle on the ground. I have performed an experiment when I lived in The Bronx, NY many times. I put a finger in the dust and it came up carbon coated. I admit that I didn't try to collect any dust at high altitudes but it seemed that there couldn't be much up there because most of it had settled in The Bronx...at ground level! and not much was left that could reflect more radiant heat back to Earth than was being reflected to the Moon by Earthlight when the Earth was full of bright scientists and even if they were phased out!!

I don't understand the average American's ability to understand anything because I'm not an average American. I didn't vote for GWB once and I could never consider voting for GWB the second time he ran.

Average Americans, in my opinion, are good honest people... but they are gullible and not as skeptical as Skeptical Inquirers like myself tend to be. I don't have to believe that all scientists are omnipotent. Some are religious and believe in ghosts and are predisposed to expect that the world is coming to an end by Biblical prophesy. With this sort of presupposition &quot;global warming&quot; can be a subconscious desire to have the whole world punished for its sins. I have no such a desire, since I am an atheist and can consider opinions which arise from nonsense more objectively.

w2ilp (I Loathe Pollution)...but it isn't heart warming.

[W2ILP]

BTW I, w2ilp debated the fact that Y2K computer dating would not cause any significant problems for our ability to buy food, water or gas. I was surprised to find that a significant number of hams who were then posting on the old rec.radio.amateur.policy thread did not see the truth in my opinion ar that time.

Global Warming theories will be proven wrong in the future. I dunno how long it may take to prove them wrong. Perhaps w2ilp will not live long enough to see the absolute proof. BUT please... for those younguns here ...remimber what old w2ilp posted whether it was right or wrong.

Eventually polution may be greater but the Earth may get cooler. Eventually DX propagation conditions will improve and there will be peace in Iraq...but it will take time. Be patient! Remember that there are now expected to be blue birds over the white cliffs of Dover...Just wait and see!

w2ilp (I Like Patients)...even when the doctor is in we often must wait in the waiting room. You can't buy a cooler Earth now...even with a credit card. You have to wait for the peak to reverse and the cycle to progress with time. Be not discouraged... Al Gore and Steve Hawkings will have to wait as well as everyone else..

[ae4fa]

I'll start taking the 'greenhouse gas' folks seriously when they start taking the geologic evidence seriously, instead of focussing on a mere ~100 years of weather data.

[W5JO]

Man made global warming is the perfect argument. No matter what the weather does, the cause is global warming. Wish I had an argument like that to use at my bank.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 22 2007,20:36)]BTW I, w2ilp debated the fact that Y2K computer dating would not cause any significant problems for our ability to buy food, water or gas. I was surprised to find that a significant number of hams who were then posting on the old rec.radio.amateur.policy thread did not see the truth in my opinion ar that time.
My experience was similar, and I even had a brilliant but non-computer savvy friend who moved his family to Mexico for Y2K. I tried to argue with him but he was intractable. He even wrote a book: Y2K: The Millenium Bug (http://www.amazon.com/Y2K-Millennium-Bug-Don-Tiggre/dp/0738801186)

http://www.davemcgraw.com/Images/Y2Kdlt.jpg

[W2ILP]

I think that many people live, suffering for their own supposed guilt. These are the folks that buy stuff that they can barely afford and consequentially hate themselves for doing so...but they won't admit that to themseves. The biggist item that people buy is a house...which is necessary if you have a family, and most people must buy it with a mortgage. The next item that is very often bought at least partially with credit is an automobile. For many people the car is also a necessity...but some cars are often more than what would be needed for normal requirements. This includes SUVs and vans that are as big as busses and expensive sports cars, etc.

Now we have a few scientists who think that pollution from our cars is causing global warming. This phony concept fits right in with the folks who subconciously want to blame themselves for buying and owning and driving oversized or overpriced vehicles. It is an excuse for them to feel guilty...but not for the more obvious reasons...but for being responsible for global warming.

Folks... The buck doesn't stop with you. Maybe it should stop with the avid car salesmen who sold you your car. Fess up...feel guilty because you are a conspicuous consumer BUT NOT BECASUSE YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING.

w2ilp (I Loath Pedelphobia) Pedelphobia = Fear of driving. Don't be a pedelphobiac...The emissions you generate are not so hot.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W5JO @ Jan. 23 2007,06:06)]Man made global warming is the perfect argument. No matter what the weather does, the cause is global warming. Wish I had an argument like that to use at my bank.
No true at all. Name the scientist that claimed that local weather events are related to global warming ?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 23 2007,07:49)]I think that many people live, suffering for their own supposed guilt. These are the folks that buy stuff that they can barely afford and consequentially hate themselves for doing so...but they won't admit that to themseves. The biggist item that people buy is a house...which is necessary if you have a family, and most people must buy it with a mortgage. The next item that is very often bought at least partially with credit is an automobile. For many people the car is also a necessity...but some cars are often more than what would be needed for normal requirements. This includes SUVs and vans that are as big as busses and expensive sports cars, etc.

Now we have a few scientists who think that pollution from our cars is causing global warming. This phony concept fits right in with the folks who subconciously want to blame themselves for buying and owning and driving oversized or overpriced vehicles. It is an excuse for them to feel guilty...but not for the more obvious reasons...but for being responsible for global warming.

Folks... The buck doesn't stop with you. Maybe it should stop with the avid car salesmen who sold you your car. Fess up...feel guilty because you are a conspicuous consumer BUT NOT BECASUSE YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING.

w2ilp (I Loath Pedelphobia) Pedelphobia = Fear of driving. Don't be a pedelphobiac...The emissions you generate are not so hot.
Quote[/b] ]
Now we have a few scientists who think that pollution from our cars is causing global warming.


I think we have far more than a few scientists both independent and collectivly who have interpreted climactic data to imply that global warming is both real and anthropogenic.

Quote[/b] ]
This phony concept fits right in with the folks who subconciously want to blame themselves for buying and owning and driving oversized or overpriced vehicles. It is an excuse for them to feel guilty...but not for the more obvious reason


Why is it a phony concept ? Can you provide reasonable evidence to show that current climactic models and theories are wrong ?

[W2ILP]

Exhaust contains particles and gas. The warm or hot gas exhaust is lighter than air so it rises...but it soon cools and the weight of the particles decends as dust. Most of the dust and even the water vapour in exhaust does not rise into the stratosphere and it is a big stretch to believe that enough of it can reflect heat that is radiated from reflected sun energy back to the earth. Some of the water vapour forms rain clouds and comes back to Earth when it rains.

This is what the Greenhouse effect would require. It would require that man-made emissions cause such a significant difference that would prevent the Earth from reflecting light energy (from ultra violet to infra red) back into space. This would mean that an observer on the Moon would not see bright Earthshine anymore. If you want to believe that then you can believe that all the fish in the Pacific ocean will die if you pee into it.

w2ilp (Ignore Lousy Pollution)...Most of it gets grounded.

Everything that goes up must come down.
--Herodotus (c486-c.425 BC)--
I admit that that was generally true before the space age.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (K2WH @ Jan. 22 2007,21:22)]Oh, I'm not a homo sapien. I'm an American.
So what are you trying to imply about Americans? I betcha Osama and al-Sadr would nod in agreement.

So should I take that to mean you hate America?

[ke7imb]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 22 2007,04:57)]I hope that you guys have all also read my posts in the thread about Hawkings and his belief in global warming, which has not come to any real scientific certainty...except for Hawkings panicking predictions, which sell his books to paranoids who in my opinion are no better than the ones who fear an attack by little green E.T.s from another galaxy. #In my opinion the &quot;green house&quot; effect is not much more probable that an attack by E.T. and less probable than having the Earth hit by a sizable meteor. # Please read my posts on the other thread...if you want my take on this matter. #I agree with the scientists who have written about this subject in the original link of this thread.
1) There is no proof that global warming trends will continue or become thermal runaway or melt the entire Earth's ice cap.
2) There is no proof that gas emissions of any kind can significantly cause a greenhouse effect which will be a cause for significant global warming.
3) There is no proof that eliminating the emission of any exhaust will significantly prevent or lessen any warming trend.

Observations of climate change do not and can not provide any answers as to why the climate is changing. #The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is also changing. #The changes are probably cyclic and of long periods, but they have not been tracked accurately for very long. #Any guess about why the Earth seems to be warming more now than in very recent times is hypothetical...IT IS ONLY A GUESS. #It is no reason to elect a politician or buy one noted scientist's opinionated book.

w2ilp (ignoring Loony Panics)
thank you thank you, you have the voice of reason.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 23 2007,09:37)]Exhaust contains particles and gas. The warm or hot gas exhaust is lighter than air so it rises...but it soon cools and the weight of the particles decends as dust. Most of the dust and even the water vapour in exhaust does not rise into the stratosphere and it is a big stretch to believe that enough of it can reflect heat that is radiated from reflected sun energy back to the earth. Some of the water vapour forms rain clouds and comes back to Earth when it rains.

This is what the Greenhouse effect would require. It would require that man-made emissions cause such a significant difference that would prevent the Earth from reflecting light energy (from ultra violet to infra red) back into space. This would mean that an observer on the Moon would not see bright Earthshine anymore. If you want to believe that then you can believe that all the fish in the Pacific ocean will die if you pee into it.

w2ilp (Ignore Lousy Pollution)...Most of it gets grounded.

Everything that goes up must come down.
--Herodotus (c486-c.425 BC)--
I admit that that was generally true before the space age.
Actually that is not what it means at all. And there is good evidence to suggest that heat trapping gasses are contributing to warming. Furthermore the theory can be tested by reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale and continuing to take measurements.

[ke7imb]

See here is the real truth the global warming scientist are not useing real scientific means they have formed a concenses of what they believe to be fact. And that is not true science,
Some exsamples of this are
1 were is the hypothis of this and has it been tested? no it has not.
2. the theroy of this is only maybe 20 years old has it be tested and proved to be fact no it has not and can not be 20 years of theroy vs 200 billion years of planet exsistance is not alot of data to go by.
3. we have had on this planet 3 ice ages the last one melted away in recored time from what? Cave men driving suv's don't think so man can not has not nor ever will beable to make any climatic changes that Al gore has talked about.
and please remember the number 1 cause for global warming sits in the center of the solar system it called the sun. the second biggest cause it water vapor from the oceans and lakes.
Global warming is a political junk scinence that is now a cult religion.
I propse that the likes of N2IZE give up their cars not use any electricity that they can not make on thier own, that means you make your own copper wire and your own solar celles and your own batteries and not use anything that has been touched by oil. exsample of this any thing that used oil to get to your home or has products that used oil to be manufctured. and when you do this then then will I listen to your pycho bable.

[ke7imb]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 23 2007,00:42)]Quote[/b] (W5JO @ Jan. 23 2007,06:06)]Man made global warming is the perfect argument. #No matter what the weather does, the cause is global warming. #Wish I had an argument like that to use at my bank.
No true at all. #Name the scientist that claimed that local weather events are related to global warming ?
name one scientist here you go &quot;Dr. Heidi Cullen&quot;

[ke7imb]

Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 23 2007,02:09)]Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 23 2007,09:37)]Exhaust contains particles and gas. #The warm or hot gas exhaust is lighter than air so it rises...but it soon cools and the weight of the particles decends as dust. #Most of the dust and even the water vapour in exhaust does not rise into the stratosphere and it is a big stretch to believe that enough of it can reflect heat that is radiated from reflected sun energy back to the earth. #Some of the water vapour forms rain clouds and comes back to Earth when it rains.

This is what the Greenhouse effect would require. #It would require that man-made emissions cause such a significant difference that would prevent the Earth from reflecting light energy (from ultra violet to infra red) back into space. #This would mean that an observer on the Moon would not see bright Earthshine anymore. #If you want to believe that then you can believe that all the fish in the Pacific ocean will die if you pee into it.

w2ilp (Ignore Lousy Pollution)...Most of it gets grounded.

Everything that goes up must come down.
--Herodotus (c486-c.425 BC)--
I admit that that was generally true before the space age.
Actually that is not what it means at all. #And there is good evidence to suggest that heat trapping gasses are contributing to warming. Furthermore the theory can be tested by reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale and continuing to take measurements.
So you want to spend billions of dollars and destroy the economy on a hypothisis? See this is were your junk cult science is a problem. you want to impose on me and every one out there your religion of global warming. based on nothing more the 20 years of computer models.
and unproven theroies.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]Furthermore the theory can be tested by reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale and continuing to take measurements.

And if you go to far with this little, not so easily reversed experiment, at the very least we end up with a mini-iceage like we did back from about 1400-1850, at worst everything 50 degrees latitude south of both poles ends up thousands of feet deep in ice.

What would be the response from the scientific community? Whoops.......our bad?

Tell me, what happens if we make ALL of the changes the scientific community wants and it turns out they were wrong?

Never trust people who've never had real jobs.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 23 2007,10:38)]Quote[/b] (n2ize @ Jan. 23 2007,02:09)]Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 23 2007,09:37)]Exhaust contains particles and gas. The warm or hot gas exhaust is lighter than air so it rises...but it soon cools and the weight of the particles decends as dust. Most of the dust and even the water vapour in exhaust does not rise into the stratosphere and it is a big stretch to believe that enough of it can reflect heat that is radiated from reflected sun energy back to the earth. Some of the water vapour forms rain clouds and comes back to Earth when it rains.

This is what the Greenhouse effect would require. It would require that man-made emissions cause such a significant difference that would prevent the Earth from reflecting light energy (from ultra violet to infra red) back into space. This would mean that an observer on the Moon would not see bright Earthshine anymore. If you want to believe that then you can believe that all the fish in the Pacific ocean will die if you pee into it.

w2ilp (Ignore Lousy Pollution)...Most of it gets grounded.

Everything that goes up must come down.
--Herodotus (c486-c.425 BC)--
I admit that that was generally true before the space age.
Actually that is not what it means at all. And there is good evidence to suggest that heat trapping gasses are contributing to warming. Furthermore the theory can be tested by reducing greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale and continuing to take measurements.
So you want to spend billions of dollars and destroy the economy on a hypothisis? See this is were your junk cult science is a problem. you want to impose on me and every one out there your religion of global warming. based on nothing more the 20 years of computer models.
and unproven theroies.
Quote[/b] ]
So you want to spend billions of dollars and destroy the economy on a hypothisis?


Global warming is not a hypothesis. It is a theory because it is based upon scientific evidence, reproduceable measurements, experiments, etc.

Quote[/b] ]
See this is were your junk cult science is a problem. you want to impose on me and every one out there your religion of global warming. based on nothing more the 20 years of computer models.


Actually your statement above shows a lack of understanding of science. If you had followed the peer reviewed scientific research behind climate change you'd be well aware that it is anything but &quot;junk science&quot;. It is based on a great deal more than 20 years of computer models and in many instances time has shown predictive computer models to be quite accurate.

As far as &quot;unproven theories&quot; go you are still missing the point. In science theories are not &quot;proven&quot; nor does &quot;proof&quot; imply truth. If you are awaiting absolute &quot;proof&quot; then you have to be willing to disregard a lot more than global climate change.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]It is based on #a great deal more than 20 years of computer models and in many instances time has shown predictive computer models to be quite accurate.

I get on the NWS website everyday and read their forcast discussions. They use a half dozen or so computer models to come up with that days forcast and the next three days. The amount of variablity between the different forcasts is amazing. Some of them initialize so badly compared to observed data they get discounted immediately. NONE of them are any good past 72 hours.

Yet, we are to believe that the chicken littles computer simulation of the entire planet's climate is good enough to to say for certain that global warming is caused by man and not a natural phenomena?

Please......

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 22 2007,15:57)]Observations of climate change do not and can not provide any answers as to why the climate is changing. #The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is also changing. #The changes are probably cyclic and of long periods, but they have not been tracked accurately for very long. #Any guess about why the Earth seems to be warming more now than in very recent times is hypothetical...IT IS ONLY A GUESS. #It is no reason to elect a politician or buy one noted scientist's opinionated book.

w2ilp (ignoring Loony Panics)
I am in agreement with you. #All of this &quot;junk science&quot; serves no other purpose than to alarm and panic the Sheeple. #Even the Weather Channel is in on it now with their scientifically-flawed &quot;Climate Code.&quot;

These GW wackos take 20 years' worth of climate data and try to tell everyone the world ecology is doomed to failure in 40-50 years. #That's like you or I looking at one piece of a jigsaw puzzle without looking at the picture on the box and immediately deciding what the picture is.

The junk scientists need to put ALL of the climate pieces together BEFORE making any rash predictions. #I find it simply amazing that the burning of fossil fuels has &quot;destroyed&quot; our atmosphere, whereas natural pollutants such as volcanoes and geysers have absolutely no effect on the climate. #That is, if you believe what they say.

They try to tell everyone that WE are the cause of the melting ice caps. #I have news for them. #The polar ice caps have melted before, many times. #It's called a cycle. #It is a concept that is far beyond the global-warming crowd's ability to comprehend.

n0jaa (Juxtaposing Atmospheric Analyses)

[WA3KYY]

IZE is correct about one thing: the theory of human cause for the observered climate change is testable. Unfortunately the experiment will take a significant length of time to conduct and require global cooperation to execute. The economic impact of conducting the experiment may be greater than the economic impact of dealing with the consequences of the warming itself.

We need to have a rigorous evaluation of the costs of reducing emissions vs the costs of dealing with having to relocate populations from coastal areas and establishing new farming zones. We also have to take into account that continued warming is likely to occur even with a reduction in human emmissions of greenhouse gases due to the fact that we are still emerging from the last ice age.

It just may be more cost effective in the long run to begin the process of dealing with the results of a warmer climate now rather than spend money trying to slow the rise if we reach the same end point anyway and still have the expense of dealing with the warmer climate on top of the expense of trying to slow the rise.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 23 2007,10:21)]See here is the real truth the global warming scientist are not useing real scientific means they have formed a concenses of what they believe to be fact. And that is not true science,
Some exsamples of this are
1 were is the hypothis of this and has it been tested? no it has not.
2. the theroy of this is only maybe 20 years old has it be tested and proved to be fact no it has not and can not be 20 years of theroy vs 200 billion years of planet exsistance is not alot of data to go by.
3. we have had on this planet 3 ice ages the last one melted away in recored time from what? Cave men driving suv's don't think so man can not has not nor ever will beable to make any climatic changes that Al gore has talked about.
and please remember the number 1 cause for global warming sits in the center of the solar system it called the sun. the second biggest cause it water vapor from the oceans and lakes.
Global warming is a political junk scinence that is now a cult religion.
I propse that the likes of N2IZE give up their cars not use any electricity that they can not make on thier own, that means you make your own copper wire and your own solar celles and your own batteries and not use anything that has been touched by oil. exsample of this any thing that used oil to get to your home or has products that used oil to be manufctured. and when you do this then then will I listen to your pycho bable.
I am sorry if this offends you, OM, but while you seem very clear about what is, and what isn't, &quot;real science&quot;, your post makes it very clear that you have little grounding in science.

You have given the age of the Earth as over a dozen times greater than the age of the whole universe.

You recognise only three ice ages, research shows that there were a lot more than that.

You suggest the last ice age melted away in record time. It didn't. It even staged a little come-back. Here we call it the &quot;Loch Lomond Re-advance&quot;.

I put it to you and to W2ILP amongst others that you are criticising a science apparently without making any serious effort to understand it. W2ILP makes post after post pouring scorn on the efforts of the scientists working in this field but shows little more than the most superficial grasp of the science involved. No detractions have followed the procedure of analysing the scientific papers and step by step showing the fallacies that undermine the conclusions in them. Instead we get a lot of airy-fairy objections which boils down to the nay-sayers disliking the conclusions of the climatologists and therefore rejecting their efforts purely on the basis of this dislike.

Gentlemen, the campaign that you are conducting against the results of thousands of highly intelligent and motivated researchers around the world might indeed succeed in winning the hearts and minds of the general populace if you keep at it, but what effect will it have on the Earths climate.

Hint. Have you heard of King Canute?

If you are sufficiently shrill about it you might even manage to get those scientists silenced, although it would be the silence of Galileo, muttering &quot;but it still moves&quot; after a forced retraction.

Consider this: if you are wrong in your condemnation of this science, but your campaign against it carries the day, then the consequences could well be world-wide catastrophe. If on the other hand the climatologists carry the day, and CO2 emissions are reduced, but the science proves to be mistaken, the only outcome would be a conservation of a finite resource, with the beneficial result that it will last longer.

When it comes down to it, what we have here is a field of science with all the trappings that go with it. University Departments, Research Institutions, Learned Journals. It carries a lot of weight because it has earned it with decades of effort.

I challenge you to fight this science that you disapprove of with its own weapons. Master the physics. Peruse the data. Demonstrate the errors. Make testable predictions. Show the climatologists where they are going wrong, and have your own work subjected to peer review. Unless you can do this you are wasting your efforts trying to convince anyone except the man in the street.

73

Brian G8ADD

[al2i]

The entire global warming argument still begs the question as to why I personally should care. It snowed yesterday, it is snowing today, and I am having the Digital Cup's parking lot and my own driveway plowed for the umpteenth time this winter. None of our record-breaking snowfalls have melted yet. The &quot;crises&quot; seems to be snow and ice, not some effete, tanned guy complaining about the size of the beach in front of his his beachfront house.

Edit: I just looked at the snow pile on the end of my parking lot and it is about 8 ft high. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif The entire lot will be a lake at breakup, so I guess high water does bum me out after all.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 23 2007,10:21)]See here is the real truth the global warming scientist are not useing real scientific means they have formed a concenses of what they believe to be fact. And that is not true science,
Some exsamples of this are
1 were is the hypothis of this and has it been tested? no it has not.
2. the theroy of this is only maybe 20 years old has it be tested and proved to be fact no it has not and can not be 20 years of theroy vs 200 billion years of planet exsistance is not alot of data to go by.
3. we have had on this planet 3 ice ages the last one melted away in recored time from what? Cave men driving suv's don't think so man can not has not nor ever will beable to make any climatic changes that Al gore has talked about.
and please remember the number 1 cause for global warming sits in the center of the solar system it called the sun. the second biggest cause it water vapor from the oceans and lakes.
Global warming is a political junk scinence that is now a cult religion.
I propse that the likes of N2IZE give up their cars not use any electricity that they can not make on thier own, that means you make your own copper wire and your own solar celles and your own batteries and not use anything that has been touched by oil. exsample of this any thing that used oil to get to your home or has products that used oil to be manufctured. and when you do this then then will I listen to your pycho bable.
Quote[/b] ]
were is the hypothis of this and has it been tested? no it has not.


It's not a hypothesis. It's a theory based on a best fit interpretation of the available data.

Quote[/b] ]
. the theroy of this is only maybe 20 years old has it be tested and proved to be fact no it has not and can not be 20 years of theroy vs 200 billion years of planet exsistance is not alot of data to go by.


On the contrary it is based on a very large amount of data. various data proxies used to study climate change includes such things as ice cores, tree rings, etc. which give scientist a pretty reasonable idea regarding climactic conditions and changes over centuries if not thousands of years. That combined with weather records, temperature measurements, etc. yeild an enormous amount of aggregate data. The way to test the theory would be to reduce fossil fuel emissions and measure the resultant change in global temperature data over time.

Quote[/b] ]
3. we have had on this planet 3 ice ages the last one melted away in recored time from what? Cave men driving suv's don't think so man can not has not nor ever will beable to make any climatic changes that Al gore has talked about.


Actually there is compelling evidence to indigate that present day global temperature increase is anthropogenic.

Quote[/b] ]
nd please remember the number 1 cause for global warming sits in the center of the solar system it called the sun. the second biggest cause it water vapor from the oceans and lakes.


Measured solar output has not increased and certainly has not increased in the past half century to force the measured levels of global warming that have been measured. And although water vapour does enter the atmosphere it's atmospheric retention time is nowhere near that of the greenhouse gases like CO2. Furthermore atmospheric water vapor is in and of itself affected by temperature and will readilly precipitate from the atmosphere once saturated at a given temperature. For these and other reasons water vapor is not considered to be a climate forcing agent.

Link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142)

Quote[/b] ]
Global warming is a political junk scinence that is now a cult religion.


Global warming is a measured phenomenon. The science of climate study, which includes global warming research, is quite real and quite compatable with all other scientific methodology.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Jan. 23 2007,14:35)]The entire global warming argument still begs the question as to why I personally should care. It snowed yesterday, it is snowing today, and I am having the Digital Cup's parking lot and my own driveway plowed for the umpteenth time this winter. None of our record-breaking snowfalls have melted yet. The &quot;crises&quot; seems to be snow and ice, not some effete, tanned guy complaining about the size of the beach in front of his his beachfront house.

Edit: I just looked at the snow pile on the end of my parking lot and it is about 8 ft high. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif The entire lot will be a lake at breakup, so I guess high water does bum me out after all.
Well, OM, we had a light dusting of snow overnight after two days of frost. As a gardener I welcome that frost because it breaks up the dug-over soil and converts it to a tilth, but on the other hand it has turned the flowers on one of my rhododendrons into what looks like used tea bags. Yes, rhododendrons in flower in January! Through my life snow has got less and less frequent, so that there are kids in middle school that have never seen more than a couple of centimetres in a winter. This might be considered a plus in view of your situation, OM, but on the other hand we have more gales and floods than we used to have.

The point is that the effects of global warming in the developed world are trivial right now, the change in the climate is buried in changes in the weather, but the sea level is slowly and inexorably creeping up - except in places where the land is still rising due to isostatic adjustments to the loss of the ice cover of the last glaciation; yes, it IS that slow! However, the ice melt world-wide is accelerating - the highest mountains in Africa have lost their glaciers - and this suggests that the rate of sea level rise will accelerate.

I don't expect to live to see major flooding of coastal cities, but my children may. Does it seem odd to you that I should care about the kind of problems the world will face when we are not here and our children are having to cope? I do, and if you have children that you love, you should care too!

Personally, I suspect that the worst predictions, based on the least favourable position of the error bars, will prove unsound, but as I keep saying, no man in his right mind should ignore a threat. That does not mean that we should react in a hysterical manner, but slow and thoughtful planning for the worst eventualities would be a good idea.

73

Brian G8ADD

[ke7imb]

I have a question for all chicken littles out there on global warming.
do you parctice what you preach or are you like the pigs in the book animal farm were you are more equal then the rest?
See for me I don't buy in to the Junk political science.
Does N2ize drive a car? I bet he does, does he use electric power you bet. does he use fossel fuels and plastics that come from oil he uses a computer so yes he does. does he buy clothing? sure does and you know what if you bought it a Semi truck brought it to the store and they get a wopping 6 miles per gallon fuel milege
So see people why should we even give creedence to people who preach one thing and do the compleat opposite. Untill they shed all the things that they say cause green house gasses then all there talk is moot.
Oh and I bet people like n2ize will not respond to this as well because they will not give up any car computer or comfort that they enjoy but they darn sure want you too.

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 24 2007,09:17)]I have a question for all chicken littles out there on global warming.
do you parctice what you preach or are you like the pigs in the book animal farm were you are more equal then the rest?
See for me I don't buy in to the Junk political science.
Another bash at &quot;junk political science&quot;.

By what means do you arrive at the conclusion that it is &quot;junk&quot;? Have you studied it? Do you actually understand it? Can you re-assign values in the equations that falsify the global warming results, and if so can you defend your falsification using hard science? Not rhetoric, name-calling and wishful thinking, but hard science?

What, in real terms, is your strident arrogance worth?

Let us turn your question on its head. Are you going to parrot &quot;Junk science, junk science, junk science!&quot; and let the rest of the world make sacrifices to save you whilst you indulge in a wasteful lifestyle?

Before you start bleating at me, let me inform you that I now recycle most of the household waste, have cut power and water consumption by about 30%, and drive an economical car with a lean burning engine. This may not save the planet, but if all the &quot;junk science&quot; sloganeers did the same the future would look better as would their bank balances.

By chanting &quot;junk science&quot; without making the effort to understand it, by burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away, by pretending that your ill-informed opinion counts for as much as that of a highly qualified scientist who spends his working life intensively studying the subject, by all these means, sir,

....you.....are.....part.....of.....the.....proble m!

73

Brian G8ADD

[ke7imb]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Jan. 24 2007,02:06)]Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 24 2007,09:17)]I have a question for all chicken littles out there on global warming.
do you parctice what you preach or are you like the pigs in the book animal farm were you are more equal then the rest?
See for me I don't buy in to the Junk political science.
Another bash at &quot;junk political science&quot;.

By what means do you arrive at the conclusion that it is &quot;junk&quot;? Have you studied it? Do you actually understand it? Can you re-assign values in the equations that falsify the global warming results, and if so can you defend your falsification using hard science? Not rhetoric, name-calling and wishful thinking, but hard science?

What, in real terms, is your strident arrogance worth?

Let us turn your question on its head. Are you going to parrot &quot;Junk science, junk science, junk science!&quot; and let the rest of the world make sacrifices to save you whilst you indulge in a wasteful lifestyle?

Before you start bleating at me, let me inform you that I now recycle most of the household waste, have cut power and water consumption by about 30%, and drive an economical car with a lean burning engine. This may not save the planet, but if all the &quot;junk science&quot; sloganeers did the same the future would look better as would their bank balances.

By chanting &quot;junk science&quot; without making the effort to understand it, by burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away, by pretending that your ill-informed opinion counts for as much as that of a highly qualified scientist who spends his working life intensively studying the subject, by all these means, sir,

....you.....are.....part.....of.....the.....proble m!

73

Brian G8ADD
So if I am not with you I am against you is that it? hmm? Sound like you took a line from George bush?

[G8ADD]

Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 24 2007,10:20)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Jan. 24 2007,02:06)]Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 24 2007,09:17)]I have a question for all chicken littles out there on global warming.
do you parctice what you preach or are you like the pigs in the book animal farm were you are more equal then the rest?
See for me I don't buy in to the Junk political science.
Another bash at &quot;junk political science&quot;.

By what means do you arrive at the conclusion that it is &quot;junk&quot;? Have you studied it? Do you actually understand it? Can you re-assign values in the equations that falsify the global warming results, and if so can you defend your falsification using hard science? Not rhetoric, name-calling and wishful thinking, but hard science?

What, in real terms, is your strident arrogance worth?

Let us turn your question on its head. Are you going to parrot &quot;Junk science, junk science, junk science!&quot; and let the rest of the world make sacrifices to save you whilst you indulge in a wasteful lifestyle?

Before you start bleating at me, let me inform you that I now recycle most of the household waste, have cut power and water consumption by about 30%, and drive an economical car with a lean burning engine. This may not save the planet, but if all the &quot;junk science&quot; sloganeers did the same the future would look better as would their bank balances.

By chanting &quot;junk science&quot; without making the effort to understand it, by burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away, by pretending that your ill-informed opinion counts for as much as that of a highly qualified scientist who spends his working life intensively studying the subject, by all these means, sir,

....you.....are.....part.....of.....the.....proble m!

73

Brian G8ADD
So if I am not with you I am against you is that it? hmm? Sound like you took a line from George bush?
Well, clearly you are not with me, and it is self evident that you are against me, and throwing Bush's name into the arena is not going change anything.

I delivered a challenge above.

Learn the science, analyse the research, and prove the global warming theory wrong. Prove it, don't waste time with name calling and ostrich posturing.

Prove it.

73

Brian G8ADD

[ke7imb]

Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Jan. 24 2007,02:35)]Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 24 2007,10:20)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Jan. 24 2007,02:06)]Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 24 2007,09:17)]I have a question for all chicken littles out there on global warming.
do you parctice what you preach or are you like the pigs in the book animal farm were you are more equal then the rest?
See for me I don't buy in to the Junk political science.
Another bash at &quot;junk political science&quot;.

By what means do you arrive at the conclusion that it is &quot;junk&quot;? Have you studied it? Do you actually understand it? Can you re-assign values in the equations that falsify the global warming results, and if so can you defend your falsification using hard science? Not rhetoric, name-calling and wishful thinking, but hard science?

What, in real terms, is your strident arrogance worth?

Let us turn your question on its head. Are you going to parrot &quot;Junk science, junk science, junk science!&quot; and let the rest of the world make sacrifices to save you whilst you indulge in a wasteful lifestyle?

Before you start bleating at me, let me inform you that I now recycle most of the household waste, have cut power and water consumption by about 30%, and drive an economical car with a lean burning engine. This may not save the planet, but if all the &quot;junk science&quot; sloganeers did the same the future would look better as would their bank balances.

By chanting &quot;junk science&quot; without making the effort to understand it, by burying your head in the sand and wishing the problem away, by pretending that your ill-informed opinion counts for as much as that of a highly qualified scientist who spends his working life intensively studying the subject, by all these means, sir,

....you.....are.....part.....of.....the.....proble m!

73

Brian G8ADD
So if I am not with you I am against you is that it? hmm? Sound like you took a line from George bush?
Well, clearly you are not with me, and it is self evident that you are against me, and throwing Bush's name into the arena is not going change anything.

I delivered a challenge above.

Learn the science, analyse the research, and prove the global warming theory wrong. Prove it, don't waste time with name calling and ostrich posturing.

Prove it.

73

Brian G8ADD
here is scientific facts
facts (http://www.cs.usask.ca/undergrads/kmb129/490/assignments/assignment_1/against_global_warming.html)
here are another group of true scientist that debunk your claims
CO2 science (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp)
Do you want me to go on?

And here is one more Bill Gray (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_pf.html)

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 23 2007,12:07)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Jan. 24 2007,02:35)][quote=ke7imb,Jan. 24
Prove it.

73

Brian G8ADD
here is scientific facts
facts (http://www.cs.usask.ca/undergrads/kmb129/490/assignments/assignment_1/against_global_warming.html)
here are another group of true scientist that debunk your claims
CO2 science (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp)
Do you want me to go on?
I think you'd better. The first link is a (right wing?) funded site (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dio xide_and_Global_Change) and the second is an undergraduate's homework assignment for a class in computer science and ethics.

Just because you can find it on the web does not mean that it is an accepted source of information.

[W2ILP]

I say that global warming caused by exhausts is a hypothesis. #Some want to call it a theory because they have been hood-winked into believing that there is some evidence for it. #But worst of all some politicians want to develop it into a LAW! #
There are few laws in science. #Ohm's Law is one we are most familiar with...but there are lots of federal and civil laws and many of them aren't scientifically logical. #
When the president made a State of the Union speech he proposed many theories which many folks don't exactly agree with. #Some of his theories are based upon flimsy &quot;What if &quot; hypothesis...but since the congress is no longer ruled by Republicans few of his theories can become laws.... I hope. # He wants to leave no child behind and to put more science and math teachers into the schools in the U.S. #but he wants to freeze or reduce taxes by eliminating &quot;earmarks&quot;...like funding the schools. #He remains in favor of subsidizing highly profitable industries so that they can reduce theoretically harmful pollution and theoretically reduce hypothetical global warming...without being a non-theoretical earmark.

There is a big difference between social studies and sciences. #Unfortunately some people who dare to call themselves scientists are only involved in socially studying stuff (without scientific procedure) that they think might be socially correct or might be personally profitable.

I have noticed that the best students in technical colleges today...who write the best technical papers are Asians. #Maybe this is because Americans have not learned the difference between science and liberal art subjects. # Maybe it is because most of the elementary education in the U.S. is run by liberal artists.

There is a place for seeking the danger of pollution. #It is easily found in the lungs of the inhabitants of major cities...but it is not up in the sky. # Why do politicians always attack the wrong problem? #You would at least think that they might know the difference between Iran and Iraq...although it isn't rocket science. #Presently both parties of our government realize that there is a problem with medical care in the U.S. #They know that doctors, patients and hospitals are all getting worse off than those in other nations. #We spend twice as much as other nations for care that may be worse. #The other civilized nations of the world let the government provide a one-payer medical care system.
The proposed solutions in the U.S. are all aimed at trying to solve the problems by insuring that private insurance company remain highly profitable at the unnecessary expense of all concerned.

I bring up these subjects here, where it has nothing to do with global warming because I dunno what the cause of global warming is with scientific certainty and I dunno exactly which political advisers motivate the hot air from our nation's leadership either. #It must be the lobbyists...There must be some powerful ones remaining...because Abramoff is now in jail.

w2ilp (Inexcusable Lobbied Politicians)...may be responsible for unproven theories as well as illogical laws....and global warming theories as well.

[ke7imb]

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Jan. 24 2007,03:16)]Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 23 2007,12:07)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Jan. 24 2007,02:35)][quote=ke7imb,Jan. 24
Prove it.

73

Brian G8ADD
here is scientific facts
facts (http://www.cs.usask.ca/undergrads/kmb129/490/assignments/assignment_1/against_global_warming.html)
here are another group of true scientist that debunk your claims
CO2 science (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp)
Do you want me to go on?
I think you'd better. The first link is a (right wing?) funded site (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dio xide_and_Global_Change) and the second is an undergraduate's homework assignment for a class in computer science and ethics.

Just because you can find it on the web does not mean that it is an accepted source of information.
So what if they are funded by people you don't agree with it is still the truth plain flat and simple. Also I can see now you are of the mind set that you are all for free speach So long as it agrees with your political views any thing else is shouted down and dismised. And what of Bill Gray? he is no undergrad he is the formost Huricain predictor out there and he will tell you to your face that global warming is a fraud.

[W2ILP]

n2ize

IF The Hawkings theory of global warming being caused by the &quot;greenhouse effect&quot; is true , (although I submit that it is not.) then it would be impossible to reverse it by reducing the use of energy or automobiles or smoke stack industries now. #The fact is that there has been a reduction in exhausts in the past 50 years. #The early industrial revolution used soft coal furnaces more than those now in use both in the U.S. and the U.K. #The record of gas emission shows that cities like Pittsburgh, Pa are no longer responsible for high levels of industrial smoke. #Catalytic converters and other devices have made automobile exhausts lower in pollutants and inspections of emissions have been made mandatory by law in most states. #Yet the climate on Earth is changing in the direction of being warmer now. #If we could (and I doubt it could be possible) reduce our emission of potentially polluting exhausts by 50% how long do you think it would take to change the global warming trend? #Isn't it more likely that the warming trend will change by itself or for other more significant reasons?

I have replaced most of the electric lamps in my home with lower wattage fluorescent types because this helps reduce my electric bill...but it isn't going to make a difference even if the Henny penny theories are true.

You can get Sun burned from ultra violet rays on a cloudy day and those same rays won't get trapped into any green house when they get reflected!

w2ilp (Industries Limited Pollution)...but the Earth got warmer lately because the Sun wasn't aware of it....even already yet.

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 24 2007,11:19)]I say that global warming caused by exhausts is a hypothesis. Some want to call it a theory because they have been hood-winked into believing that there is some evidence for it. But worst of all some politicians want to develop it into a LAW!
There are few laws in science. Ohm's Law is one we are most familiar with...but there are lots of federal and civil laws and many of them aren't scientifically logical.
When the president made a State of the Union speech he proposed many theories which many folks don't exactly agree with. Some of his theories are based upon flimsy &quot;What if &quot; hypothesis...but since the congress is no longer ruled by Republicans few of his theories can become laws.... I hope. He wants to leave no child behind and to put more science and math teachers into the schools in the U.S. but he wants to freeze or reduce taxes by eliminating &quot;earmarks&quot;...like funding the schools. He remains in favor of subsidizing highly profitable industries so that they can reduce theoretically harmful pollution and theoretically reduce hypothetical global warming...without being a non-theoretical earmark.

There is a big difference between social studies and sciences. Unfortunately some people who dare to call themselves scientists are only involved in socially studying stuff (without scientific procedure) that they think might be socially correct or might be personally profitable.

I have noticed that the best students in technical colleges today...who write the best technical papers are Asians. Maybe this is because Americans have not learned the difference between science and liberal art subjects. Maybe it is because most of the elementary education in the U.S. is run by liberal artists.

There is a place for seeking the danger of pollution. It is easily found in the lungs of the inhabitants of major cities...but it is not up in the sky. Why do politicians always attack the wrong problem? You would at least think that they might know the difference between Iran and Iraq...although it isn't rocket science. Presently both parties of our government realize that there is a problem with medical care in the U.S. They know that doctors, patients and hospitals are all getting worse off than those in other nations. We spend twice as much as other nations for care that may be worse. The other civilized nations of the world let the government provide a one-payer medical care system.
The proposed solutions in the U.S. are all aimed at trying to solve the problems by insuring that private insurance company remain highly profitable at the unnecessary expense of all concerned.

I bring up these subjects here, where it has nothing to do with global warming because I dunno what the cause of global warming is with scientific certainty and I dunno exactly which political advisers motivate the hot air from our nation's leadership either. It must be the lobbyists...There must be some powerful ones remaining...because Abramoff is now in jail.

w2ilp (Inexcusable Lobbied Politicians)...may be responsible for unproven theories as well as illogical laws....and global warming theories as well.
Quote[/b] ]
say that global warming caused by exhausts is a hypothesis. Some want to call it a theory because they have been hood-winked into believing that there is some evidence for it. But worst of all some politicians want to develop it into a LAW!


It IS a theory for the very reason that there is good evidence in support of anthropogenic climate change. If you have read any of the peer reviewed scientific litterature that has been published over the past several decades you would be aware of the reasons why scientists conclude that there are anthropogenic causes linked to climate change and that there is considerable evidence upon which those conclusions are based.

Quote[/b] ]
There is a big difference between social studies and sciences. Unfortunately some people who dare to call themselves scientists are only involved in socially studying stuff (without scientific procedure) that they think might be socially correct or might be personally profitable.


The science behind climate research is quite sound and quite in line with accepted scientific procedure. There is nothing unscientific about it. However attacking the science and declaring it invalid based on personal conjecture is unscientific.

[AE6IP]

Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 24 2007,10:39)]And what of Bill Gray? he is no undergrad he is the formost Huricain predictor out there and he will tell you to your face that global warming is a fraud.
He also blew his prediction for the '06 season.

People make mistakes and science isn't the result of one person's opinion, no matter how smart they are.

Gray criticizes certain aspects of climate models and then turns that criticism into a full blown tirade against all of the science behind climate warming.

But why do you believe Gray rather than say The union of concerned scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/)?

What makes his opinion more compelling than theirs?

[ke7imb]

Quote[/b] ]It IS a theory
It is just that a theory.
Quote[/b] ]The American Heritage Science Dictionary - Cite This Source theory # (th&amp;#275;'&amp;#601;-r&amp;#275;, thîr'&amp;#275;) #Pronunciation Key # #
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

by this alone global warming is not able to be proven
or this may sum it up too
Quote[/b] ] Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus - Cite This Source
Main Entry: theory
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: belief
Synonyms: approach, argument, assumption, base, basis, code, codification, concept, conditions, conjecture, doctrine, dogma, feeling, formularization, foundation, grounds, guess, guesswork, hunch, hypothesis, idea, ideology, impression, method, outlook, philosophy, plan, plea, position, postulate, premise, presentiment, presumption, proposal, provision, rationale, scheme, shot*, speculation, stab*, supposal, suppose, supposition, surmise, suspicion, system, systemization, theorem, thesis, understanding
Antonyms: fact, proof, reality
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
* = informal or slang

So which is it out the above words?

[n2ize]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Jan. 24 2007,12:12)]n2ize

IF The Hawkings theory of global warming being caused by the &quot;greenhouse effect&quot; is true , (although I submit that it is not.) then it would be impossible to reverse it by reducing the use of energy or automobiles or smoke stack industries now. The fact is that there has been a reduction in exhausts in the past 50 years. The early industrial revolution used soft coal furnaces more than those now in use both in the U.S. and the U.K. The record of gas emission shows that cities like Pittsburgh, Pa are no longer responsible for high levels of industrial smoke. Catalytic converters and other devices have made automobile exhausts lower in pollutants and inspections of emissions have been made mandatory by law in most states. Yet the climate on Earth is changing in the direction of being warmer now. If we could (and I doubt it could be possible) reduce our emission of potentially polluting exhausts by 50% how long do you think it would take to change the global warming trend? Isn't it more likely that the warming trend will change by itself or for other more significant reasons?

I have replaced most of the electric lamps in my home with lower wattage fluorescent types because this helps reduce my electric bill...but it isn't going to make a difference even if the Henny penny theories are true.

You can get Sun burned from ultra violet rays on a cloudy day and those same rays won't get trapped into any green house when they get reflected!

w2ilp (Industries Limited Pollution)...but the Earth got warmer lately because the Sun wasn't aware of it....even already yet.
The problems is that your argument is only accounting for a microcosm of the whole picture. On the macro level global CO2 levels continue to rise. Even with the natural absorbtion of CO2 buy plants, water, etc. the rate in which CO2 is being released into the atmosphere overrides the rate at which is can be adsorbed. Thus the majority of CO2 released from fossil fuel consumption makes it up into the atmosphere and unlike water it doesn't precipitate out and it stays up there long enough to achieve &quot;greenhouse gas&quot; status. Matter of fact the real acid test would be to reduce anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases globally.

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 23 2007,12:39)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Jan. 24 2007,03:16)]Quote[/b] (ke7imb @ Jan. 23 2007,12:07)]Quote[/b] (G8ADD @ Jan. 24 2007,02:35)][quote=ke7imb,Jan. 24
Prove it.

73

Brian G8ADD
here is scientific facts
facts (http://www.cs.usask.ca/undergrads/kmb129/490/assignments/assignment_1/against_global_warming.html)
here are another group of true scientist that debunk your claims
CO2 science (http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp)
Do you want me to go on?
I think you'd better. The first link is a (right wing?) funded site (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dio xide_and_Global_Change) and the second is an undergraduate's homework assignment for a class in computer science and ethics.

Just because you can find it on the web does not mean that it is an accepted source of information.
So what if they are funded by people you don't agree with it is still the truth plain flat and simple.
When you pay someone to say what you want them to say, they'll say what you want them to say.

Quote[/b] ]
Also I can see now you are of the mind set that you are all for free speach So long as it agrees with your political views any thing else is shouted down and dismised.


Anything without merrit can be easily dismissed. This has NOTHING to do with politics. You used unreliable sources to claim something as fact. Where is the body of peer reviewed evidence that agrees with your position?

Quote[/b] ]
And what of Bill Gray? he is no undergrad he is the formost Huricain predictor out there and he will tell you to your face that global warming is a fraud.


What of Bill Gray? Bill Gray has no scientific theory on global warming. His science on Hurricane prediction is respected, however, he has no evidence to support his position with respect to climate change. As far as I know he has not published his ideas and subjected them to peer review.

[KE5FRF]

One very short comment:

The weather man told us yesterday that the rain would stop. It rained today.

When scientists can reliably predict from one day to the next the weather, THEN I might consider their predictions for the coming years. Until then, I remain skeptical of so called global warming.

[G8ADD]

W2ILP, it's a pity I feel I have to come back on your last post, because so much of it seems to me to be good common sense!

The hypothesis or theory is not that global warming is caused by exhausts. There are several steps missing here.

Global Warming is what is observed. Many lines of evidence, far too many to detail here, show that the Earth's atmosphere is warming up, slowly and fairly steadily (allowing for such incidents as volcanic eruptions).

Also observed is a concurrent rise in CO2 levels.

CO2 is known to be an efficient Greenhouse gas.

These three statements are observations, they cannot be falsified, they are what is.

The theory is that the increase in CO2 is linked to the global warming, by increasing the heat trapped by the Greenhouse Effect. The link between increasing CO2 and increasing trapped heat is a reasonable assumption, it doesn't violate anything that can be regarded as established science. Other possible causes of the increase in temperature of the Earth's atmosphere have been investigated and rejected.

Another reasonable assumption is that as long as the CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise, so will the temperature. It is difficult to see how that assumption can be falsified.

We then examine the rise in CO2 levels to seek out a cause for them. Now clearly, the amount of CO2 injected into the atmosphere by volcanoes and other geological sources is going to be a variable in the short term, but averaged over a longer term it is going to be essentially constant. We can eliminate these sources from our enquiry. This leaves us with such sources as biodegredation and burning of organic fuels. It can be argued that biodegredation is increasing in importance due to such causes as forest clearance and soil deterioration, but this apparently is not sufficient to account for more than a part of the inrease in CO2 levels, which leaves us with the burning of organic fuels, such as gas, oil, coke and wood.

We find that the increase in CO2 levels is paralleled by the increase in the amount of organic fuel burning. Note that the link is not with exhausts as in vehicle exhausts, but with exhausts as in the byproduct of converting organic fuels into usable energy.

Whilst we are discovering and listing sources of CO2, we also need to investigate the way that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, we need to look at the CO2 sinks. CO2 is trapped in vegetation and in the products of the decay of vegetation such as humus, peat and coal, and in the production of new oil. It is dissolved in the ocean and deposited as coral, sea shells and calcareous oozes.

This is important because the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is due to an imbalance between sinks and sources. If we wish to modify this balance we need to look both at reducing the output of the sources AND at increasing the efficiency of the sinks.

There is another step to look at, it is far more complex and difficult. If the observed trends in temperature continue how will the Earth react to them? Will the type of reaction change with time?

The ice is melting, it appears to be melting faster than expected, which on the surface suggests an accelerating rise in sea level, but will it continue to do so? The amount of ice in a glacier is the product of a balance between precipitation and ablation. If the amount of precipitation grows faster than the rate of melting then the glacier will grow. If precipitation increases and the glaciers grow then the rate of sea level rise will reduce or even reverse itself. Climate modeling is like a game of consequences!

There is nothing in the above that cannot be discovered with ease by an intelligent man, but I hope I have assembled this precis of the facts in an illuminating way.

As I see it much of the controversy is due to people taking things out of context and oversimplifying. Thus we get statements like &quot;I say that global warming is caused by exhausts is a hypothesis&quot;. No, it is a small part of a vast and complex subject and presented out of context. As such it causes a misdirected controversy.

73

Brian G8ADD

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Jan. 23 2007,13:47)]One very short comment:

The weather man told us yesterday that the rain would stop. It rained today.

When scientists can reliably predict from one day to the next the weather, THEN I might consider their predictions for the coming years. Until then, I remain skeptical of so called global warming.
Your statement demostrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the entire debate. Before you subject others to your opinion, perhaps you should at least educate yourself on the terms that both sides of the argument understand.

Start with &quot;weather vs climate.&quot;

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Jan. 24 2007,14:58)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Jan. 23 2007,13:47)]One very short comment:

The weather man told us yesterday that the rain would stop. It rained today.

When scientists can reliably predict from one day to the next the weather, THEN I might consider their predictions for the coming years. Until then, I remain skeptical of so called global warming.
Your statement demostrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the entire debate. Before you subject others to your opinion, perhaps you should at least educate yourself on the terms that both sides of the argument understand.

Start with &quot;weather vs climate.&quot;
Do you have a sense of humor?

Damn, this world is going off the deep end and sinking fast.

First of all, I made no comment in regards to my opinion pro vs. con in the global warming debate. I have little doubt that the activities of man have some bearing on climate trends around the globe. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, OM. However, I think evidence is inconclusive as to the degree of our effect, or the ultimate outcome. It is my opinion that likely we are going through a &quot;chicken little&quot; phase with this thing, and will ultimately find out that the Earth's atmosphere is hardier than you believe and has a natural &quot;immune system&quot; that reacts to changes and brings things back to equilibrium. But this is just my suspicion, nothing more.

My comment was really a skeptical criticism of the scientific community and the myth that science has all the answers.

My comment was very simple. If you had a sense of humor you could learn to read between the lines and understand my point. I'll leave it at that. If you can't figure it out I won't bother explaining it further to you.

GEESH.

[W2ILP]

Even if there is abundent CO2 in the atmosphere has anyone proved that radiant light can not penetrate it less when being reflected by Earth than it is penetrated by initially getting from the Sun to the Earth. #That is what would be required for the greenhouse effect to be responsible for significant warming. Heck we can't bounce HF waves off of CO2 layers so why should we be led into believing that shorter light waves could be reflected back to Earth by CO2 layers?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif Use you knowledge guys. #There are no known layers that can reflect UHF RF. #It isn't easy for gas that is rareified to reflect sufficient quantities of light....even when the gas is ionized. #For one thing the gas is translucent even to our visual examination and at the molecular level it is easily passed by light waves that are only angstroms long anyway. #How thick would the CO2 have to be to use it as a mirror?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif #Even Hawkings couldn't see himself in it!

w2ilp (Incidental Light Passes)...but casual physics students fail to understand the facts of phototransparency. #Maybe they should take the heat without any further attempt at logical explanation.

[ab8ro]

Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Jan. 23 2007,15:24)]Quote[/b] (ab8ro @ Jan. 24 2007,14:58)]Quote[/b] (KE5FRF @ Jan. 23 2007,13:47)]One very short comment:

The weather man told us yesterday that the rain would stop. It rained today.

When scientists can reliably predict from one day to the next the weather, THEN I might consider their predictions for the coming years. Until then, I remain skeptical of so called global warming.
Your statement demostrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the entire debate. Before you subject others to your opinion, perhaps you should at least educate yourself on the terms that both sides of the argument understand.

Start with &quot;weather vs climate.&quot;
Do you have a sense of humor?
Needs more funny.