31,000 Scientist Say No To Global Warming

[wildsage]

[quote=blazinlow89;2957535]
Global cooling? - Forecast Earth
"Yep, global cooling is here! We no longer have to worry about global warming, but maybe we should be concerned about a coming ice age!
That's what one might think based on all the hoopla on this topic recently, such as here and here and here and here and here and so on and so on.
Aside from the global cooling frenzy, passions have also been running high as scientists try to analyze what would constitute a true deviation from the climate change consensus.
Whew! (At least hopefully the alleged 1970s global cooling scientific consensus has been debunked once and for all, although old myths die hard.)
My goal has always been to understand what's going on by looking at things objectively, and if at some point it becomes apparent that the long-term warming trend is truly reversing (and not just in winter) and the kinds of atmospheric patterns that have become a signature in recent years in association with the warming have disappeared, then that's what I'll say in a blog. But not in this one. I call 'em as I see 'em, and I still see the warming signals present -- in droves. [my emphasis of your source] I'm looking at things from the perspective of being an operational meteorologist, not a statistician or climate modeler."

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? - The Boston Globe
A commentary (editorial), not news.

DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
A website that actually does a poor job of showing sources (links are to previous blog entries) plus the data is old and a "snapshot" of a long-term trend.

Year of global cooling#-#-#Breaking News, Political News & National Security News - The Washington Times
A commentary (editorial), not news.

BMI Special Report -- Global Warming Censored
Yeah, right. Sometimes the news ignores crackpots & BS, but they also like controversy. Go Nexis Pat Michaels or Fred Singer, you'll find plenty of ink from them.

Originally Posted by blazinlow89

If i remember correctly you said in an earlier post that 2007 was one of the hottest years on record, yet from what i have been seeing worldwide average it was one of the coolest.

I have repeatedly posted findings from several sources that say otherwise:
Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation
"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle."
From one of your links: "2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001." Maybe that's because those have been the hottest years?
Im going to pull a couple excerpts from the last link.

Originally Posted by blazinlow89

Now i know this is media based info, however it seems that they want you to recognize someone so you will be on the global warming bandwagon. It also seems they dont want you to hear from the skeptics, cause the info they have doesnt go with the "consensus".

I'm not a bandwagon guy, I'm a science guy. If I see something on the news (or a forum or weblog) I'll google for sources and go check it out myself. (This is on top of the college studies in the earth sciences that I have done.)

Originally Posted by blazinlow89

On another post i made earlier bout gore not using his money to pay for alternative energy. He gets money donated to his foundation, its easy to say you donate money, when its money you had someone else donate you.

Al Gore has income from whatever sources. He chooses how to pay his bills and he chooses to spend extra for electricity from renewable resources.

Originally Posted by blazinlow89

Oh yeah forgot to add this.
Global Cooling: Amazing pictures of countries joining Britain in the big freeze | Mail Online
If its getting hotter than why are places that havent seen snow in decades all of a sudden getting it. Oh yeah global warming causes global cooling, its called natural cycles. Its easy to blame every strange weather pattern on global warming.

From your link: "The truth is that it is still much too early to draw any long-term conclusions from 2008's great freeze."
It has been explained several times: localized and short term weather events do not disprove global warming; those phenomena and the increasing prevalence of stronger storms have been predicted (and supported by science) as results of global warming.

[Lugnut]

Originally Posted by wildsage

The amount that solar irradiance affects global temperature is about half of the previous estimates, and is small compared to the effect of greenhouse gases

To paraphrase, "Green house gas has more effect on global temperature than the sun."


Uh.....

Would you mind expanding on that?

[Nucklesack]

No comments about who pays for Scientests grants? Dont want to discuss the possibility that Scientests could be also making sure they dont crap where they eat?

Originally Posted by wildsage

Who are the big players? I really didn't know it was such a racket.

Google Carbon Offsets, also Google Al Gore Carbon Offsets, seems he made a pretty penny last year.
Use the same criteria of skepticism you show towards Big Oil

Originally Posted by wildsage

I consider the "hysteria" the oil-fed response of "FREEZING IN THE DARK, CRASHING ECONOMY" to the initial suggestion to conserve energy, reduce waste, cut emissions.

We're in agreement with conservation, but once again a middle ground has to be met from both sides.

Originally Posted by wildsage

No, there is not. That's what they want you to believe but 20 solid years of that excuse forced closer looks by more specialists and has resulted in firm conclusions from refined data that says global warming is happening and man-made effects contribute to it.

Global Warming as a natural cyclical event may be occuring. Man Made global warming, or man can do anything about Natural Cyclical Global Warming is debatable.

Originally Posted by wildsage

I don't believe that there is any such thing, never heard of it. Rush Limbaugh or WorldNetDaily?

Nope nice try, but you should know from the Religion debates, that i do my own research.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report
Climate change hits Mars
Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists
Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find
Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
Global Warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter (pay attention to their sources, not the site itself )

[greg_the_great]

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie

Just reading through all the post. Thought I would join. Amazing the denial that Al Gore is an idiot.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12679

I understand that it is difficult to read things that do not support the end of all things, but give a shot. It is also amazing to me that over the last couple of years, there have been a many articles about the farce, and they seem to disappear off the websites, but every article about the warming remains.

www.SolarMonitor.org

The sun does have an effect on the temperature of the Earth. Just dumb to say otherwise.

Dash of Calabash » Blog Archive » New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling

AccuWeather.com: Global Warming News, Science, Myths, Articles

How can anyone be intellectually honest and say that there is proof that we as human have control over the rise and fail of temperatures. If the Earth is as old as you think, and it has survived the Big Bang, meteors, floods, fires, evolution, do you really think that we matter much? And so what if we do cause the temp to go up a little? Will we not adapt, or "evolve" to meet the change?

So WILDSAGE, the real question is, will you support the building of nuclear reactors across the US and world to provide the energy? It would also be a great way to produce the hydrogen that would power our vehicle and have nothing but water released from the process? You seem to know the answers, but offer no real solutions. Oil is not "fossil" fuel. It is a continual source of energy and we will never run out of it. So make a change, build a reactor.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by wildsage

It has been explained several times: localized and short term weather events do not disprove global warming; those phenomena and the increasing prevalence of stronger storms have been predicted (and supported by science) as results of global warming.

Yet, what is "short term"? Globally, regarding temperature? 1 year? 100 years? 1,000 years?

Show me long term, geologically speaking, man made global warming.

[wildsage]

Global Warming Science and Public Policy - 35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore’s movie
I'll get back to you on that.

The American Spectator
Great, more data-mining from oil-owned Pat Michaels. Virtually all the other data on the link that he references (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/)
shows evidence of global warming. So there is more ice in the Antarctic -- what does that mean? Global warming models are imprecise about isolated phenomena (and the scientists admit that). Is it an anomaly or does it offset the consistent higher temps in most of the rest of the world?

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

I understand that it is difficult to read things that do not support the end of all things, but give a shot. It is also amazing to me that over the last couple of years, there have been a many articles about the farce, and they seem to disappear off the websites, but every article about the warming remains.

The reason they disappear is that they were bogus to begin with. Someone eventually points out the lie so the greedheads move on to another lie.

www.SolarMonitor.org
Thanks for the kewl link to solar info. WTF does that have to do with this thread?

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

The sun does have an effect on the temperature of the Earth. Just dumb to say otherwise.

Never disputed that solar radiation has some influence on global temps, just keep pointing out that it has less influence than GHG.

Dash of Calabash » Blog Archive » New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling
Would have been nice if this guy had something besides text on his blog. No source for data? Must be opinion.

AccuWeather.com: Global Warming News, Science, Myths, Articles
From your source: "low solar activity that may counteract man-made greenhouse temperature increases" Hey, genius, how could that counteract something that doesn't happen?
(Answer: it couldn't because solar irradiance has a much smaller effect that GHG.)

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

How can anyone be intellectually honest and say that there is proof that we as human have control over the rise and fail of temperatures. If the Earth is as old as you think, and it has survived the Big Bang [the earth survive the big bang? homeschool, much?], meteors, floods, fires, evolution, do you really think that we matter much? And so what if we do cause the temp to go up a little? Will we not adapt, or "evolve" to meet the change?

Do you really think that man-made effects have no influence? If so, you probably don't believe in evolution -- you certainly don't understand it. Regardless, I'm not a "save the planet" fool; the planet will survive -- will your kids & grandkids? The fact is we can't control the rise & fall of temps but that doesn't mean we can't screw it up.

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

So WILDSAGE, the real question is, will you support the building of nuclear reactors across the US and world to provide the energy?

Hell, no. Not until they find a safe way to dispose of the waste. We have the solution in renewables but as long as idiots like you keep saying they won't work they won't get started so they will never compete on an equal basis.

Originally Posted by greg_the_great

Oil is not "fossil" fuel. It is a continual source of energy and we will never run out of it.

OMFG, do you really think that?

[wildsage]

A relief: much better sourcing than most of these no-read yahoos.

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

No comments about who pays for Scientests grants? Dont want to discuss the possibility that Scientests could be also making sure they dont crap where they eat?)

Nope, I admit that I'm not a finance guy. All I know is that scientists (other than industry mouthpieces) tend to get paid regardless, otherwise their research can be suspect. So who would pay them ? The polar bear lobby?

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Google Carbon Offsets, also Google Al Gore Carbon Offsets, seems he made a pretty penny last year. Use the same criteria of skepticism you show towards Big Oil

Wow, seriously had no idea that there was such a market. Of course it is relatively small compared with big oil. (Remember about 16 months ago when the RECORD annual earnings for Chevron & Exxon were published? With gas above $1 more per gallon, why aren't they back in the news?) I'm not going to defend Al Gore but I will argue that the science presented in his movie is sound.

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

We're in agreement with conservation, but once again a middle ground has to be met from both sides.

Here's the middle ground: fossil-fuels have had the run of the playground for generations. I don't advocate shutting them down, nor the nukes at this point, but it's time to let solar & wind play a part rather than just dis them as "not ready yet."

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report)

your source: Baliunas speculated it is "likely not the sun [my emphasis] but long-term processes on Mars and Pluto" causing the warming. However, until more information is gathered, Baliunas said, it is difficult to know for sure.
Pat Michaels [!!!], past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and senior fellow at the Cato Institute, similarly expressed a desire for more information about the Martian climate. "What is the internal dynamic that is warming Mars?" asked Michaels. "Given the fact that there are not a lot of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on Mars, and given the fact that new research [this is from 2005] indicates that 10 to 30 percent estimated conservatively of Earth's recent warming is due to increased solar output [long since debunked], the Martian warming may support that new research."

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Climate change hits Mars)

"The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth."

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists)

Nothing offered that correlates with terrestrial processes.

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Pluto is undergoing global warming, researchers find Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds)

Sorry, N, the info in this article belies the headline: "the majority of climate scientists and astrophysicists agree that the sun is not to blame for the current and historically sudden uptick in global temperatures on Earth, which seems to be mostly a mess created by our own species."

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

Global Warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter
(pay attention to their sources, not the site itself)

One at a time:
"Abdussamatov" repeatedly quoted as comparing warming of the other planets as analagous to earth's; ya know, the deniers consistently claim that scientists don't have enough data and/or understanding to explain Earth's warm-up but phenomena on planets that we can't even touch are sufficient refutation against the volumes of hands-on data we get from our planet?

Jay Pasachoff, an astronomy professor at Williams College, said that Pluto's global warming was "likely not connected with that of the Earth. The major way they could be connected is if the warming was caused by a large increase in suraced: nlight. But the solar constant--the amount of sunlight received each second--is carefully monitored by spacecraft, and we know the sun's output is much too steady to be changing the temperature of Pluto."

[Nucklesack]

Originally Posted by wildsage

A relief: much better sourcing than most of these no-read yahoos.

Originally Posted by wildsage

Nope, I admit that I'm not a finance guy. All I know is that scientists (other than industry mouthpieces) tend to get paid regardless, otherwise their research can be suspect. So who would pay them ? The polar bear lobby?

Nah i'm not saying that, I'm not even saying that research shouldnt be done. BUT Scientists are subject to the same pressures from the Environmental lobbies as the Big Oil Scientists are.

Originally Posted by wildsage

Wow, seriously had no idea that there was such a market. Of course it is relatively small compared with big oil. (Remember about 16 months ago when the RECORD annual earnings for Chevron & Exxon were published? With gas above $1 more per gallon, why aren't they back in the news?) I'm not going to defend Al Gore but I will argue that the science presented in his movie is sound.

I dunno, Big Oils "profits" are based on a small profit margin, the Profit Margins for Carbon Offsets are much greater.
My point with Al Gore is his "Facts" arent held up for the same accountability as Big Oil's, because Big Oil makes a profit. Al Gore has just as much Profit at stake with making sure people buy into the Carbon Offsets.

Originally Posted by wildsage

Here's the middle ground: fossil-fuels have had the run of the playground for generations. I don't advocate shutting them down, nor the nukes at this point, but it's time to let solar & wind play a part rather than just dis them as "not ready yet."

Who's dis'ing them? The only people i've heard complain about both Solar and Wind Farms are the NIMBY's, who generally are the same people complaining not enough people are using alternative sources of energy (Kennedy with the Nantucket wind farms come to mind)

[Lugnut]

Originally Posted by wildsage

Never disputed that solar radiation has some influence on global temps, just keep pointing out that it has less influence than GHG.

How is it that green house gas's have more effect on global temps than the 1.5X10^17 watts of solar energy that hit the earth every second?

[SamSpade]

Quote:
Originally Posted by greg_the_great http://forums.somd.com/images/button...c/viewpost.gif
Oil is not "fossil" fuel. It is a continual source of energy and we will never run out of it.

OMFG, do you really think that?

If you mean, does it come from decayed dinosaurs, yes, it is not a fossil fuel. Even geologists who believe in the biogenic origin of petroleum don't claim this. They believe it is a part of long process of decayed sediment on ocean floors. Even so, there's evidence to believe that most organic matter in the ocean never reaches this point.

Believe it or not, there's a growing theory that oil does not derive from "fossil" material at all. One supporting piece of data is that we are currently drilling far beneath the lowest known fossil layers and extracting oil from them. A second observation is that all the world's biomass could not account for the volumes of oil that have been accounted for or used thus far. It's believed that it did NOT derive originally from living organisms.

Hence the abiogenic process of petroleum origin. Some parts of the world, such as in Russia, this is what geologists believe. I suspect there's a little of both going on, but neither process is subtle or simple.

I do faintly recall while in high school, someone set out to "prove" the abiogenic origin by drilling in a place where oil deposit couldn't possibly have formed biogenically. This was about thirty years ago - lemme check, quick - ok, found it - a guy named Thomas Gold convinced the Swedish government to drill a very deep borehole to prove his theories. They'd found a region in the granite layer that had once been struck by a meteorite, so it made drilling down 4.5 kilometers much easier. It yielded about 80 barrels of oil. Not much but it helped to prove Gold's much maligned theories.

There's a lot about this, and I'm not a geologist. I think, practically, it doesn't matter. Even if oil is "renewable", it's not "renewing" at a pace with demand. So the point on a practical level is moot.