Global Warming-Doomsday Called Off

[Lorizael]

I was going to correct the factual errors in the article, but that would have taken far too much time and I'm on the verge of losing my job.

[Dr Strangelove]

What do tou guys think of the show's premise, that the warming may be natural and the money spent to cool the planet might be wasted?

Back in Oregon the temp might get up to 90F during the day and be 50F by the next morning. Heat radiates into space as you know. The show says the more heat there is the more that will radiate. But! It goes against all I've heard.

You reach a new homeostasis depending upon input and output. Input is dependent upon the sun, maybe we get a temporary respite with a 10 to 20 year cool sun period, but then what happens when that cycle is over. CO2 may have a lot to do with the output, the idea being that CO2 causes the retention of that heat. Do you not understand the concept of "greenhouse gas". When the cool sun period is over the CO2 will still be there unless something happens to reduce it.

[Dr Strangelove]

The big problem when they continually exaggerate it to Doomsday material is that it eliminates any room for rational discussion. There can be no middle ground. This turns off a lot of people and I think it hurts their cause in the long run.

Correct-amundo! Global warming might actually be pretty nice for Canada, northern Europe and Russia. Africa will bear the brunt of global warming. God knows they've got enough problems right now: AIDS, war, political instability. But really, who gives a rat's a** about Africa?

[Lancer]

But Dr Strangelove, over the last decade the planet has cooled, not warmed. Africa is better off now if warming would hurt them cooling should help them, yes?

[Flubber]

Correct-amundo! Global warming might actually be pretty nice for Canada,

Last week we could have definitely used some LOCAL warming .


More generally I have heard predictions all over the place as to the impacts. Other than getting a little warmer , which most see, by itself, as a reasonably good thing , there seemed to be concerns

- wet places on the coasts getting even more rainy
- Interior semi-desert becoming even drier
- pests like the pine beetle not being killed in sufficient numbers by winter cold
- Influx of new insects/ animals disturbing ecosystems

I'm not sure I like the idea of climate change that much. But any look at history reveals that climate is not static.

Since the science behind greenhouse gases seems solid the big question right now is how much warming is human caused. Is this a period when the earth would be warming anyway and the human contribution is miniscule? Or is this a period when the globe would be cooling and we are having massive climate altering impacts?


Note I do have difficulty with any idea that the earth is currently EXCEPTIONALLY warm right now . Part of this is my experience with our nothern drilling teams who were drilling wells inland and hundreds of km north of the current tree line. In various zones they found and brought up samples of large trees indicating that this area was once warm enough to have been forested.

That said , I am concerned that people might see a few stable years or even a couple of years of a downturn in global temps as a reason to discount the potential for human causes of warming. It seems to me that both sides of the debate want simplistic arguments to win the debate. A year or two or a decade or two of temperatures one way or another is trumpeted of PROOF of something or other instead of evidence to be weighed and considered in light of ALL the potential causes of warming.

[Ben Kenobi]

It's colder this winter than it's been in some time. Global cooling anyone?

[BlackCat]

Since the science behind greenhouse gases seems solid the big question right now is how much warming is human caused. Is this a period when the earth would be warming anyway and the human contribution is miniscule? Or is this a period when the globe would be cooling and we are having massive climate altering impacts?

according to this, we should be on some kind of peak, and could expect a serious drop from 0 to n x 1000 years ahead.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

Don't know how reliable the site is, but the Vostok results are as far as I know agreed upon.

[Lancer]

If the numbers were fudged to the point where the Earth is actually cooling but they are saying its warming then we're going in the wrong direction entirely. If you can't trust scientists on the matter what to do?

Here's a Newsweek article from 1975 about global cooling. The intro says around '79 the trend reversed but was that when they started fudging the numbers?

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

[SlowwHand]

If you can't trust scientists? Look around you. Do you trust the scientists here?

[Lancer]

Sloww, I'm talking about the scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. If you read the long article in my post above it has the details.

[Guynemer]

Panda.

[SlowwHand]

Sloww, I'm talking about the scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England. If you read the long article in my post above it has the details.

I'm not saying they're the same scientists. I'm talking about scientists under the same general umbrella.

[Lancer]

How about the scientists at NASA, we can trust them right Sloww?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/dec/03/nasa-embroiled-in-climate-dispute/

The fight over climate science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding the release of the same kind of information that landed a leading British center in hot water over charges that it skewed its data.

Christopher C. Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data dating as far back as the 1930s.

"I assume that what is there is highly damaging," Mr. Horner said. "These guys are quite clearly bound and determined not to reveal their internal discussions about this."

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed its data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for the hottest years, with 1934 listed as slightly cooler.


Mr. Horner, a noted skeptic of global warming and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism," wants a look at the data and the discussions that went into those changes. He said he's given the agency until the end of the year to comply or else he'll sue to compel the information's release.

Mark Hess, public affairs director for the Goddard Space Flight Center, which runs the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) laboratory, said officials are working on Mr. Horner's request, though he couldn't say why they have taken so long.

"We're collecting the information and will respond with all the responsive relevant information to all of his requests," Mr. Hess said. "It's just a process you have to go through where you have to collect data that's responsive."

Mr. Horner's fight mirrors one that has sprung up in Britain since the release of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, which appear to show researchers shaving their data to conform to their expectations. They also note efforts to try to drive global warming skeptics out of the conversation.

The center's chief has stepped down pending an investigation into the e-mails.

[MrFun]

I can trust scientists, but I cannot trust immoral, manipulative people such as Lancer.

[KrazyHorse]

ndApa