Global Warming/Climate Change

[GTWT]

We were told by the experts in the 70's that we were all gonna freeze to death by the year 2000 by dingleberry scientists needing money and people were freaking out over it.

Rick

Sorry, Rick but that old wive's tale needs to be put to rest. Here's from the American Meterological Society:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an

imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated

the peer-reviewed literature even then.

[GTWT]

Also see if you can find where there is any real data that supports CO2 as a green house gas in an open atmosphere.

KingDL, You may want to ask the American Physical Society if CO2 is a greenhouse gas -

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Also, It's not the CO₂ gasses that humans are exhaling that are harmful. It's the heat energy that all of these people put off in all kinds of ways. I think some on here are arguing the semantics of how it's happening and can't see the forest for the trees.

Or are you guys really saying that a population boom of around 6 billion people over a 200yr period really would have ZERO impact on the earth?

[GTWT]

You should really have this discussion with the current U.S Secretary of State:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/16/politics/kerry-climate/

Yep, no agenda there.

Sorry, UNT90, I read your article about John Kerry. No where does he suggest that anthropogenic climate change will end the world. Exaggerate much?

[UNT90]

Sorry, UNT90, I read your article about John Kerry. No where does he suggest that anthropogenic climate change will end the world. Exaggerate much?

Right. Saying it is a great danger than weapons of mass destruction isn't a scare tactic at all, is it?

Also , he talked about the 1992 Rio conference. Sure would like to see what people were saying then and compare it to what has actually happened in the last 22 years.

Notice the tone from Kerry that there is no room for discussion. That this is a closed issue and the US government is only open to supportive research? How do you think that will affect people who make their living doing grant research in this field? Think it applies pressure to deliver what is expected?

You betcha it does. In spades.

Edited February 17, 2014 by UNT90

[HoustonEagle]

Right. Saying it is a great danger than weapons of mass destruction isn't a scare tactic at all, is it?

Also , he talked about the 1992 Rio conference. Sure would like to see what people were saying then and compare it to what has actually happened in the last 22 years.

Notice the tone from Kerry that there is no room for discussion. That this is a closed issue and the US government is only open to supportive research? How do you think that will affect people who make their living doing grant research in this field? Think it applies pressure to deliver what is expected?

You betcha it does. In spades.

To be fair UNT90, research has been ongoing since at least the 60's. At what point do you feel we should act, if ever?

[UNT90]

To be fair UNT90, research has been ongoing since at least the 60's. At what point do you feel we should act, if ever?

What do you mean by act? Do you mean shut down plants and kill jobs? Do you mean killing cows and humans to lessen CO2 output?

Act means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. You are going to have to be a bit more specific.

I do think we should do what we can WITHOUT AFFECTING JOBS OR ECONOMIC OUTPUT to live cleaner.

[FirefightnRick]

Sorry, Rick but that old wive's tale needs to be put to rest. Here's from the American Meterological Society:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Let me guess....you were around then and remember Time Mags report about it being reported and rehashed and reported in the MSM, right?

Time: "Another Ice Age"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1663607/posts

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.

Scientists have found other indications of global cooling. For one thing there has been a noticeable expansion of the great belt of dry, high-altitude polar winds the so-called circumpolar vortexthat sweep from west to east around the top and bottom of the world. Indeed it is the widening of this cap of cold air that is the immediate cause of Africa's drought. By blocking moisture-bearing equatorial winds and preventing them from bringing rainfall to the parched sub-Sahara region, as well as other drought-ridden areas stretching all the way from Central America to the Middle East and India, the polar winds have in effect caused the Sahara and other deserts to reach farther to the south. Paradoxically, the same vortex has created quite different weather quirks in the U.S. and other temperate zones. As the winds swirl around the globe, their southerly portions undulate like the bottom of a skirt. Cold air is pulled down across the Western U.S. and warm air is swept up to the Northeast. The collision of air masses of widely differing temperatures and humidity can create violent stormsthe Midwest's recent rash of disastrous tornadoes, for example.

Sunspot Cycle. The changing weather is apparently connected with differences in the amount of energy that the earth's surface receives from the sun. Changes in the earth's tilt and distance from the sun could, for instance, significantly increase or decrease the amount of solar radiation falling on either hemispherethereby altering the earth's climate. Some observers have tried to connect the eleven-year sunspot cycle with climate patterns, but have so far been unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of how the cycle might be involved.

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

Climatic Balance. Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate. Indeed, it is to gain such knowledge that 38 ships and 13 aircraft, carrying scientists from almost 70 nations, are now assembling in the Atlantic and elsewhere for a massive 100-day study of the effects of the tropical seas and atmosphere on worldwide weather. The study itself is only part of an international scientific effort known acronymically as GARP (for Global Atmospheric Research Program).

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countriesthe U.S., Canada and Australia global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

Hey, I got some carbon credits to sell to you. Interested?

Rick

Edited February 17, 2014 by FirefightnRick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Just look at these.... before and after pictures...

When I was in Alaska, they claimed every glacier there was getting smaller except FOUR (of 100's) .. all at sea level and getting larger because of ice/snow melting upstream.. I went to Hubbard Glacier which is growing (also Misty Ford ) and they fear Hubbord is about to block another stream which could cause flooding of some small town upstream..

I am not about to argue whether the Earth is warming or not or why if it is.. ( I think it is somewhat.. but no idea if man caused) Warming is not so much about temps in towns but about warmer oceans (3/4 the surface with more evaporation and results in more rain and snow in many places... the second part is about ice/snow melting at poles and at high elevations which if excessive could raise the ocean level... It is not about what as lot of people think or claim it is... "much warmer temps overall on land."... some places will be cooler and, some more wet, and some more dry.

You get to decide after seeing the pictures what is going one .

http://greekgeek.hubpages.com/hub/Pictures-of-Retreating-Glaciers-A-Century-of-Melting

____________________

That might do but it would not post the site what I really wanted

Search Google for : " glaciers melting before and after " and look around at photos..

Sometimes the truth just isn't what you want it to be. .... but it is still the truth anyway..

It amazes me that anyone would deny the obvious and I don't get why they make it political at all ... it is all about science.

..

Edited February 17, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GTWT]

Do you mean killing cows and humans to lessen CO2 output?

You're kidding, right? No one has ever suggested that short-term CO2 exchange by organisms has an effect on atmospheric greenhouse levels. The pronlem is the release of CO2 sequestered in fossil fuels.

[GTWT]

Really Rick, the Free Republic?

Dude the hullabaloo about a new ice age was precipitated by an article in TIME. Time isn't a scientific journal. TIME isn't peer reviewed. Read the American Meterological Society article I posted for you.

Continuing to refer to old canards like, "well, in the 70s the scientists were saying the earth was cooling..." doesn't help your argument. It just makes you seem to be regurgitating silliness you're heard on O'Reilly, Watts-Up-With-That, and in (God help you) the Free Republic.

Science isn't always easy to understand. Science doesn't always tell you what you want to hear. Science is, however, our best approximation to reality.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Really Rick, the Free Republic?

Dude the hullabaloo about a new ice age was precipitated by an article in TIME. Time isn't a scientific journal. TIME isn't peer reviewed. Read the American Meterological Society article I posted for you.

Continuing to refer to old canards like, "well, in the 70s the scientists were saying the earth was cooling..." doesn't help your argument. It just makes you seem to be regurgitating silliness you're heard on O'Reilly, Watts-Up-With-That, and in (God help you) the Free Republic.

Science isn't always easy to understand. Science doesn't always tell you what you want to hear. Science is, however, our best approximation to reality.

[UNT90]

Really Rick, the Free Republic?

Dude the hullabaloo about a new ice age was precipitated by an article in TIME. Time isn't a scientific journal. TIME isn't peer reviewed. Read the American Meterological Society article I posted for you.

Continuing to refer to old canards like, "well, in the 70s the scientists were saying the earth was cooling..." doesn't help your argument. It just makes you seem to be regurgitating silliness you're heard on O'Reilly, Watts-Up-With-That, and in (God help you) the Free Republic.

Science isn't always easy to understand. Science doesn't always tell you what you want to hear. Science is, however, our best approximation to reality.

Or regurgitating what I was taught in 7th grade science class.

If only you had said science isn't always right, but you just can't get there, can you? ;-)

Your refusal to admit that any human element exists in science is quite astonishing. You read the Kerry article. He publicly states that there is no question this is happening and calls any peer reviewed science to the contrary crap.

Now, as far as peer review goes, who are the peers reviewing? Have they published like-minded papers in the past? They definitely know what the government EXPECTS from the research, because John Kerry has told them exactly what will and will not be accepted by the government. And who provides grants for scientific research on this topic? To the tune of 18 billion since 2000? The US government.

Again, read "Death of Innocents." Besides being a really good read, it gives you insight into just how far some people will go in the name of self-glorification and a government paycheck and how important the "peers" are in peer reviewed science.

Edited February 17, 2014 by UNT90

[UNT90]

You're kidding, right? No one has ever suggested that short-term CO2 exchange by organisms has an effect on atmospheric greenhouse levels. The pronlem is the release of CO2 sequestered in fossil fuels.

No, I'm seriously serious about killing people and cows (insert eye roll here).

[Stix]

You're kidding, right? No one has ever suggested that short-term CO2 exchange by organisms has an effect on atmospheric greenhouse levels. The pronlem is the release of CO2 sequestered in fossil fuels.

No one has ever...?

https://www.google.com/#q=global+warming+cows

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

[UNT90]

I like steak.

[Green Mean]

I like steak.

I like steak too.

[Stix]

I like meat pies.

[GTWT]

If only you had said science isn't always right, but you just can't get there, can you? ;-)

Your refusal to admit that any human element exists in science is quite astonishing. You read the Kerry article. He publicly states that there is no question this is happening and calls any peer reviewed science to the contrary crap.

Now, as far as peer review goes, who are the peers reviewing? Have they published like-minded papers in the past? They definitely know what the government EXPECTS from the research, because John Kerry has told them exactly what will and will not be accepted by the government. And who provides grants for scientific research on this topic? To the tune of 18 billion since 2000? The US government.

Again, read "Death of Innocents." Besides being a really good read, it gives you insight into just how far some people will go in the name of self-glorification and a government paycheck and how important the "peers" are in peer reviewed science.

1. Science isn't always right, but it is still right much more often than pseudoscience.

2. Of course there's a human element in science just like in all human areas. Science, however, has some advantages over some of those other fields. Most importantly, science is a very public endeavor - the work is published. It's reviewed by other scientists, published in journals that value their reputation highly, and then that work is open to the critique of other experts in that field.

3. John Kerry is a politician, not a scientist. He doesn't control the grant process in the NIH or the NSF. Grants proposals are reviewed by panels of scientists. These scientists rate the proposal - not John Kerry.

4. As for the peer-review process. Every article submitted to a scientific journal, every proposal submitted to NSF, is reviewed by scientists expert in the relevant field. What would you suggest would be better? To have climate articles reviewed by you, Rick, & Lonnie?

[GTWT]

No one has ever...?

https://www.google.com/#q=global+warming+cows

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

Ah Stix....., You do understand that the methane in cow farts was derived from the plants the cows ate. The plants obtained the carbon in the methane from the atmosphere. The carbon in the atmosphere came from some previous cow fart (et al.). Cow farts aren't the problem.

Again, the problem is the release of fossil C by human activities.

[UNT90]

1. Science isn't always right, but it is still right much more often than pseudoscience.

2. Of course there's a human element in science just like in all human areas. Science, however, has some advantages over some of those other fields. Most importantly, science is a very public endeavor - the work is published. It's reviewed by other scientists, published in journals that value their reputation highly, and then that work is open to the critique of other experts in that field.

3. John Kerry is a politician, not a scientist. He doesn't control the grant process in the NIH or the NSF. Grants proposals are reviewed by panels of scientists. These scientists rate the proposal - not John Kerry.

4. As for the peer-review process. Every article submitted to a scientific journal, every proposal submitted to NSF, is reviewed by scientists expert in the relevant field. What would you suggest would be better? To have climate articles reviewed by you, Rick, & Lonnie?

If you believe group think doesn't exist in science, you are just flat wrong. Again, read that book. That doctor continued to get research grant after research grant and became famous and prosperous selling an unneeded medical device all while a mother murdered her children with him as an unwitting accomplice.

Too busy getting research grants and building his kingdom to care about actual science, and he was assisted by numerous peer reviewed publications.

But that never happens, right? Especially when there is 18 billion that the federal government is willing to spend.

[The Fake Lonnie Finch]

This is great. Now, whenever scientists admit to lying to keep their government grants, I have to peer review their work in order for them to really be discredited. Their own admission isn't enough.

Stupid.

I once had a government professor tell me that lobbyists didn't really effect legislation. She gave me a list scholarly articles to "prove" her point. God bless her. She really did believe what she was saying, and believed it, and taught it. The academics she esteemed, who lied to each other in their scholarly journals, would have been proud.

She had reached the point on intellectual inbreeding that discounts/ignores the real world. Climate change scientists, and their adherents, appear to be at the same point. They are incredulous when people are skeptical of them...even after they are caught in lies. In fact, sadly, they seemed to double down after being caught in their lies.

Finally, a good rule of thumb in life is, the most desperate sounding/urgent the plea, the greater the odds there's a shill/sale (throw in, power grab also for governemtnal things) behind it. Since the revelation that climate changes scientists and, at minimum, the U.S. Department of Energy, are okay with lying to the public for money, I view them with about the same seriousness as I do the robocalling "Google Ad" outfits.

Edited February 18, 2014 by The Fake Lonnie Finch

[forevereagle]

You're kidding, right? No one has ever suggested that short-term CO2 exchange by organisms has an effect on atmospheric greenhouse levels. The pronlem is the release of CO2 sequestered in fossil fuels.

No one has ever...?

https://www.google.com/#q=global+warming+cows

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

Ah Stix....., You do understand that the methane in cow farts was derived from the plants the cows ate. The plants obtained the carbon in the methane from the atmosphere. The carbon in the atmosphere came from some previous cow fart (et al.). Cow farts aren't the problem.

Again, the problem is the release of fossil C by human activities.

I don't think that he was claiming fact about anything, just disputing that it has never been suggested as you were quoted.

Edited February 18, 2014 by forevereagle

[GTWT]

Hi Lonnie,

Any specific examples of scientists caught lying to keep their government grants? Let's discuss specific instances rather than the rather cowardly attempt to blacken an entire profession.

[oldguystudent]

My brief foray into doctoral level publications was one of seeing peers who despise each other, publicly call each other hacks, work tirelessly to not only discredit each other but also to outright shame and ostracize each other. Outside things like the tobacco industry funding research work a wink and a nod, I do believe there is considerably less group think than people think. That mentality took a huge hit back around 74 when Dupont went knocking on the door of the guy who posited a hole in the ozone over Antarctica.