Man Made Global Warming Theory = Human Excrement

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
proving that God doesn't exist, which isn't science at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is science. Saying the opposite is like saying that Copenicus proving that the earth wasn't the center of the universe was not science either.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
The earth, by many accounts will enter a cooling phase on 2012 when the sun calms down a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it I am just supposed to take your word on this....

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trying to predict the next moves of a 4 Billion year old planet 100 years from now is stupid, especially when we cannot predict the weather a week in advance....

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke or do I have to explain why predicting global weather 100 years from now is MUCH easier than predicting local weather in a week?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a link to show how accurate the predictions regarding global weather were 100 years ago?

[oldbookguy]

Wow, cool graph.
I notice though it was not until the late 1960's ocean temp and stom intensity rose and fell together. prior to the late 1960's they went in opposites. Odd.

So, that begs the question, WHAT event (other than ocean temp) caused this?

How many other things can we find (not CO2 as the temp was dropping in the 7o's)?

Perhaps in this way we can solve the mystery, why is the temp. rising.

I'll start.

1. We started caring about pollution (that hazy crap) and started reducing that in the air circa late 1960's. Perhaps that is a contributor, nothing to reflect the heat or to absorb it (remember, we also prevent forest fires which could help off set this some).

2. NEXT PERSON

obg


[ QUOTE ]
This is why I can't stand Gore, he's such an easy target. Then again this article is pretty easy to rip apart as well. Plus I'm not even sure gore said all of those things.


From the article:
[ QUOTE ]
Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain."

[/ QUOTE ]

So lets go look at the actual paper. The blue is what the Chicago Sun-Time quoted and the red is something important that they left out:

<font color="blue">The Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins (&amp;#8722;42 ± 2 Gt a&amp;#8722;1 below the equilibrium-line altitude (ELA)) and growing inland (+53 ± 2 Gt a&amp;#8722;1 above the ELA) with a small overall mass gain (+11 ± 3 Gt ; 0.03 mm, 1 SLE (sea-level equivalent)).</font> ..... <font color="red"> Thinning at the margins of the Greenland ice sheet and growth at higher elevations is an expected response to increasing temperatures and precipitation in a warming climate. </font>

Basically warmer ocean = more snow for Greenland. But that snow can only counteract so much melting. Keep in mind both of these sentences are from the very same paragraph in the abstract.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00175/art00001

And lets look at the title of the paper:

Mass changes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and shelves and contributions to sea-level rise: <font color="red"> 1992-2002</font>

The movie inconvenient truth came out in 2006 which was four years after this survey was completed. In 2005, before gores movie came out, NASA had satellites up measuring Greenland melt. What were the results?

News: NASA's Grace Finds Greenland<font color="red"> Melting Faster</font>

In the first direct, comprehensive mass survey of the entire Greenland ice sheet, scientists using data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) have measured a significant decrease in the mass of the Greenland ice cap.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news-pr...lease=2005-176

So we have a triple whammy of quoting something out of context, using old data and ignoring the Grace satellites which were up and running when Gore launched his movie.

From the article:
[ QUOTE ]
Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

[/ QUOTE ]

I went here:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?requ...levance#results

Clicked on Journal of Climate and searched for: Glaciers growing Himalayan Mountains

I had one hit and that was not the right paper. I searched for "Glaciers confounding" and had zero hits. We seem to have a missing journal.

From the article:
[ QUOTE ]
Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

[/ QUOTE ]



No comment necessary. I might to a full writeup on my blog. But I think I've made my point.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Arnold Day]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trying to predict the next moves of a 4 Billion year old planet 100 years from now is stupid, especially when we cannot predict the weather a week in advance....

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a joke or do I have to explain why predicting global weather 100 years from now is MUCH easier than predicting local weather in a week?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have a link to show how accurate the predictions regarding global weather were 100 years ago?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I am talking about how in many systems it is impossible (with current technology) to predict local condtions but very easy to predict global ones.

[Praetorian Card]

No. Read this though...

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/finan...8db11f4&amp;p=4

[adios]

There's no record and/or proof that man can predict global weahter 100 years in advance accurately yet you claim it is much easier than predicting short term weather fluctuations accurately. Interesting.

[Praetorian Card]

You are mixing facts with beliefs. Movements have a tendency to do that. There are thousands of mainstream dissenting views on AGW. I could list link after link, but you won't read them, so what's the point.

The cruel irony of the AGW crowd is they are doing everything in their power to not only force a decrease in fossil fuel use, BUT to control the proliferation of such energy sources to the third world countries in such desparate need of such energy.

The AGW elitists, generally speaking, are so consumed with "saving the planet" from a mythical destruction, they'll do so at the expense of those countires so desparate for affordable energy. You really need to visit someone cooking fish in a malaria enclosed mud hut and you'll appreciate what energy really means - watch some 10 year old coughing out his lungs while he cooks his dinner swatting mosquitos and you'll gain perspective. I've seen it many times, and then to see some elitist hypocrite pontificate about the evils of fossil fuels from his air conditioned mansion in Hollywood is a effing joke.

But don't let that stand in your way from believing you are making a difference by turning off yout study light night at night. After all, some must perish so the masses can live, right?

[Arnold Day]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no record and/or proof that man can predict global weahter 100 years in advance accurately yet you claim it is much easier than predicting short term weather fluctuations accurately. Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is becuse predicting short term weather accurately is one of the hardest things to do from a math stand point. The most powerful supercomputer in the world was running weather simulations a while back and I don't think it did that great.

Think of this analogy. There is a huge box with many particles. If you know a few things about the box like the temperature and the pressure you can predict what certain global parameters are going to be at anytime in the future. To predict where an individual particle will be in say 2 minutes is pretty much impossible even if you know the initial conditions very well.

I am not actually claiming that humans have a good idea of global weather in 100 years. I am saying that doubting it because we can't predict local weather well is foolish. Well foolish is a bit harsh as it may not be that obvious. At the very least somebody who doesn't know this shouldn't be offering his opinion on the subject to others as this is pretty simple stuff compared to the debate on how accurate our long term global climate models are.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
There's no record and/or proof that man can predict global weahter 100 years in advance accurately yet you claim it is much easier than predicting short term weather fluctuations accurately. Interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Climate models can reconstruct the past 130 years with a pretty high accuracy. Given that the models are based off of physics and not statistics (i.e. they don't use training data) this says mountains about their usefulness.