Home / Blogs / Technology / Thinking Tech
Follow this blog:
RSS

Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger

By | September 13, 2010, 12:23 AM PDT

Climatologists from all over the world will be meeting in Paris later this month to discuss extreme weather — heavy rains, flooding, high heat and lack of rain, cyclones, wind waves, storm surges and so on — and what they can do about them: How these events can be measured, compared to each other and used to predict future weather.

The scientists are concerned because there were several extreme events around the world this year, some happening at the same time — the extraordinary heatwave and wildfires in Russia, monsoons and flooding in Pakistan, landslides caused by heavy rain in China, and the separation of a large iceberg from the Greenland ice sheet. Add to these the droughts and fires in Australia, and a record number of hot days on the East coast of the U.S.

So far, hundreds of people have been killed, and millions have been displaced or lost their homes.

Writes the World Meterological Organization:

Climate extremes have always existed, but all the events cited above compare with, or exceed in intensity, duration or geographical extent, the previous largest historical events. According to Roshydromet, studies of the past climate show no record of similar high temperatures since the tenth and eleventh centuries in Ancient Russia.

The occurrence of all these events at almost the same time raises questions about their possible linkages to the predicted increase in intensity and frequency of extreme events, for example, as stipulated in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007. The Report stated that “…the type, frequency and intensity of extreme events are expected to change as Earth’s climate changes, and these changes could occur even with relatively small mean climate changes. Changes in some types of extreme events have already been observed, for example, increases in the frequency and intensity of heat waves and heavy precipitation events” (Summary for Policy Makers, WG I, FAQ 10.1, p. 122).

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, meanwhile, has updated its analysis of global temperature changes on the Earth’s surface and finds that they’ve risen as fast in the last decade as they have in the previous two decades. This year the mean temperature (as measured by instrumental data) over 12 consecutive months set a record high.

NASA scientists submitted a paper describing the changes to Reviews of Geophysics that describes human-made climate change as “an issue of surpassing importance to humanity, and global warming (as) the first order manifestation of increasing greenhouse gases that are predicted to drive climate change.”

The picture, from Goddard, is a map of world surface temperatures in July compared to the average temperature in July from 1951-1980.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Deborah Gage

About Deborah Gage

Deborah Gage was a contributing editor for SmartPlanet in 2010.

Deborah Gage

Deborah Gage

Contributing Editor

Deborah Gage has written for the San Francisco Chronicle, Minnesota Public Radio, Baseline and various magazines and newspapers. She is based in San Francisco.

Follow her on Twitter.

Deborah Gage

Deborah Gage

I pride myself on being an independent journalist. My reporting and writing are not influenced by any financial holdings, and I have no business affiliations with companies other than the publishers I write for as a journalist.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
59
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
If global warming is caused by man (greenhouse gasses), then why did the glaciers that covered North America melt thousands of years ago? Wouldn't the planet have to already have been warming up at that point in time?
Posted by keitha73
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@keitha
You have to factor population as well as energy use to see that the amount of CO2 had a slow increase that started in the bronze age and suddenly starts increasing after the industrial revolution. We are probably in post peak oil, meaning that we have burned through almost half of the world's oil reservoirs with the remaining half being burned at the current rate but also more expensive to develope new fields.

The current world population is doubling faster and that is effecting resources from ocean fisheries to habitat losses and stresses on food production. The number of cattle raised for beef production also produces greenhouse gases.

Most of the weather changes are also producing extremes in heat and cold in different places. The debate is on several points about whether man is partially at fault for the rise in CO2 or if this is a natural cycle that will pass. The controversy from the intercepted emails did force a review of the basis of the theories but has not changed the basis as far as the climate scientists have determined.

The debate should be more about risk assessment and prevention. If there is a risk and we pretend that there is no risk, then we will be unprepared to deal with the consequences. If we prepare to deal with the effects and nothing happens then we can be sure that there is an underlying problem with the research. We have fire insurance and do not worry that we have not justified having fire insurance due to lack of fire; this is a risk like global warming.
Posted by sboverie
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@sboverie
Very good point, but it could be stressed a little bit...
When we buy insurance for fire or hurricane, we always can, in
the event of one of those catastrophes come to us, to relocate up
to North a little bit, or go inside main land...
With global warming and all the signals we are seeing around us,
there won't be many places for relocation.
This year alone, we have seen tornadoes and hurricanes in
Brazil, and the wildfire never had been so intense in South
America.
I don't remember the last tine somebody spoke about wildfire in
Russia, and all of these are in the news this year.
Unfortunately, we can't pretend there is not a problem, just
because some people think so, and the future does not look
good, now that China is raising up. Some gross estimates tell us
China alone will demand 1.6 the current oil production by 2020.
Posted by FuzzyIce
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Skeptical..
I always doubt the legitimacy of a report claiming to cover global long-term weather patterns yet the base period is only 30 years.

Temperature data, along with ice sheet and glacier data are available going back much farther than that. Why limit yourself to only a 30-year period when hundreds of years of data are available? Why do they only use the data that supports their theory that this is a new warming trend when a look at the longer term of data shows natural cyclical temperature changes?

Massive storms moved into New England waters frequently throughout the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s with at least one category 3 hurricane hitting every century yet this years hurricane Earl is already being blamed on global warming. Science and history does not support the wild claims of the global warming cabal that a storm of Earls strength is unprecedented in New England waters.

If wild weather in New England is new with man made global warming than I guess the category 3 or stronger storms of 1635, 1815 and 1938 never happened. I guess the hurricanes of October 1782 and October 1804 that went extra tropical and dumped feet of snow with hurricane force winds never happened along with the dozens of other major storms seen over the centuries.

The global warming cabal likes to claim that many things are unprecedented when it suits them. Even if the science and history does not support them.

In 2007 global warming scaremongers said that droughts were hitting Australia because of man made global warming. Yet the scientific facts and historical records do not support such outlandish statements.

At least 9 major droughts have hit Australia since it was colonized in 1788. The worst on record was the Federation drought that started in the mid 1890s and lasted until 1902 with over 50 million sheep alone being lost. Science also tells us of a 20-year drought happening around 1660 that killed off large portions of the Great Barrier Reef. Science also says tells us that short droughts of 1 or 2 years happen every decade in Australia. Droughts are a natural phenomenon in Australia just as storms are a natural part of New England.

Supporters of man made global warming often overlook such facts when they limit the data ranges of their studies.
Posted by Hates Idiots
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
An admission is in the article..
-studies of the past climate show no record of similar high temperatures since the tenth and eleventh centuries in Ancient Russia.-

Coincidentally that time frame falls right into the Medieval Warming Trend. A period of time in which the Vikings found Greenland was green and grew vast fields of wine grapes while most of Europe and Asia baked in record temperatures and the great tribes of South America and Africa lost millions of people to famine brought on by extended droughts.

It is the same time frame that members of the man made global warming cabal based out of East Anglia tried to wipe all traces of it from the Internet.

As I have asked before. Did mans factories, cars and planes raise temperatures back then?
Posted by Hates Idiots
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@keitha73
Over the billions of years that the Earth has existed, the climate has changed a lot. Sometimes it got colder, sometimes it got warmer, and the mix of gasses like Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen, and Nitrogen has changed. Those changes were caused by many things, like sun activity, volcanic activity, radioactivity within the earth, and other things. The "global warming" they are talking about now is theorized to be caused by pollution from industrial society, like gasoline engines, power plants, oil heat, etc.

@sboverie confusing reply, even for someone who does know what's going on.
Posted by CaptOska
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
humans are the problem, start mass sterilizations, starting with all
the ugly people... there will be hardly anyone left in a hurray... hide
the beer from the judges.
Posted by jiohdi@...
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
When a report quotesthe IPCC report from 2007, then you can safely toss
the report into the nearest trash can and burn it.

It is completely worthless because that IPCC report from 2007 was full of errors, exaggerations, fabricated data, omitted data, very faulty models, very faulty predictions, and had predefined and desired results before the study was undertaken.

When you start with garbage, the results are going to result in producing massaged garbage. GIGO!
Posted by adornoe
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
sboverie: what the heck are you talking about?!?!
keitha made a couple of good points, and all that you replied with is the same old tired talking points from the global warming scaremongers.

You have to factor population

So, what was the size of the world population back in the stone age, or in the ancient world or the middle ages, or during the period known as the "industrial revolution"?

Was the population so large that it mattered at all for the world to be affected or alarmed by CO2 and global warming, in any of those periods? If you can't answer that, then you can't conclude anything at all, and your studies and conclusions will be purely guesswork.

as well as energy use

Again, what was the amount of energy used back during those periods I mentioned above? Were the Neanderthals burning too much wood to cook their food? Were they breathing too hard when chasing their prey and exhaling exorbitant amounts of CO2 and thereby harming the planet? Did global warming occur during their existence?

to see that the amount of CO2 had a slow increase that started in the bronze age and suddenly starts increasing after the industrial revolution.

Yet, there are a great number of scientists who can safely state that, CO2 is the result of warming, from the sun or whatever other source. CO2 increases as a result of global warming; global warming has occurred naturally throughout earth's history, and during those periods, studies have shown a delayed increase of CO2. So, you actually have matters backwards.

We are probably in post peak oil,

You are guessing. I did notice that you used the word "probably". Probably is not certainty, and there is nobody in the world that can with any kind of certainty, tell us we are in peak, or post peak, for oil in the earth's crust. In fact, there are scientists who actually believe that the earth's crust is constantly creating new oil, everyday and that nothing is going to stop that.

meaning that we have burned through almost half of the world's oil reservoirs

There you go again. Since no one can safely say what the true amount of oil in underground fields is, and how much we still have to discover, then neither you nor any researcher can safely claim that we've exhausted half the earth's oil reserves. In fact, there are more discoveries of oil reserves every month.

with the remaining half being burned at the current rate but also more expensive to develope new fields.

With new oil discoveries happening every month or year, and with more efficient energy uses being developed, it is estimated that from the known oil reserves, we have enough oil to last civilization for probably 50 to 100 years and probably a lot longer. But, that's with the known oil reserves. With new discoveries and new drilling being undertaken every month, we probably won't be running out of oil for many lifetimes. And, if it is true that the planet is constantly regenerating new oil fields underground, we probably never will run out of oil

The one fact in all of this, for all sides, is that, developing new oil fields is getting more expensive. But that's mainly due to the scaremongering from environmentalists, which almost always gets translated into more regulations and more expensive methods for drilling and for purifying that oil into the many other products that come from it . All of that translates to much higher prices for any product that comes from oil, including gasoline And, if we're not allowed to drill for oil on land, then whatever oil we can get will automatically become more expensive because of the lessened supply.

But, hey, it's okay to argue your point of view, and to support the junk science. But at least, try to present a more decent argument with real facts. My point being that if you used the real facts and not the corrupted or manufactured data, then you'd be presenting an argument against the global warming junk science.
Posted by adornoe
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Attn: Links between global warming theorists and extreme devoid of logic.
When the fools who follow those with an agenda to enslave them have allowed to be put in place complete bondage of future generations they will not care since they them selves grew up in an environment where to some degree there were people to think for them, feed them, house them, cloth them, take care of them etc., they know no better and cannot cope without. Therefore subconsciously they demand total bondage for the rest of us to justify their submission. Either we stand up to this intellecullay devoid nonsence spewed by so called scientists and backed by media lackeys ("SmartPlanet") with no professional desire to question or present alternative reports, or our silence will condemn us. The sky is not falling because the enviroment changes on this planet. This is an important characteristic of this earth and remains the few continsts of time. People come and go, animals come and go, plants and other speices come and go however the climate on this planet will alwasys be in a constant state of change.

PS sboverie@...The abiogenic hypothesis argues that petroleum was formed from deep carbon deposits opposed to the generally accepted theory that petroleum is derived from ancient biomass. Keep in mind there are over 200 years of known oil reserves in Canada alone which feeds the US and CDN demand, let alone what exits in other parts of Canada, Venezvella, Falkland Islands, Arctic etc. If Peek oil and biomass theory were correct then we were suppose to have run out by now or at a point were no auto maker should be inventing money today to make engines or others to make any man made machine for that mater and that was without the consideration of China and India as insutrilized producers in the world competing for that resource.
Posted by mario@...
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Ostrich
Now I'm worried.
Here are articulate intelligent people, hell-bent (term used advisedly)
on global warming denial.
Sure, global temperatures have risen and fallen. Man has only been
dominant species for a short time, and this round of temperature rise
coincides with quite a lot of man's activities.
Let's get this straight - the world (according to the Gaia theory) will
survive. However our dominant position might be replaced by eg
cockroaches.
The least we can do is a risk assessment and risk mitigation. The
best we can do is examine our activities, consider if CO2 and CH4
emissions are material, and if they are, then curtail them. To put
profit over action is to condemn our children, and probably our own
old age.
Posted by HugoM
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@adornoe
You push any argument to an illogical extreme. The evidence for peak oil is how much money is spent to find and produce oil. Saudia Arabia had large proven reserves and are spending more money to develop offshore wells. BP spent a lot of money to drill a well under 1 mile of water (a technological impressive feat although things did not go well).

I used "probably" because the big oil producing nations are playing the cards close to their chests. The easy and cheap oil has been found and the costs to find and produce are going up and not down.

My point to the nay sayers is why not assess the risks? Just saying that climate change is based on junk science does not address the risks.
Posted by sboverie
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
sboverie: what you're doing is not just "assesing the risks", and your
fellow "global warmists" are not either.

The purposes for the "global warming scaremongering" is not to save the planet or the people or any species on the planet nor it's varied environments.

My point to the nay sayers

Nice! "Naysayers"!

Why not call them "people with opposing, yet plausible arguments"?

But, you can't do it because you, like the democrats and all of the global warming proponents, are working towards an agenda. That agenda has government controlling all jobs and all businesses and all citizens via big government programs, including with the heavy regulations and taxation of the many different kinds of energy sources.

is why not assess the risks?

It's highly doubtful that any scientist on the opposing side of your argument is going to disregard any risk for the fulfillment of an agenda. In fact, the opposition, by design, wouldn't have an agenda because what they're proposing is that, the science if very faulty and full of errors, and "agendized". Their argument is for using "sound scientific principles" during any research. An agenda is not what should drive good and real science. The agenda is the purpose for the "global warming" scaremongering.

Just saying that climate change is based on junk science does not address the risks.

Like I said, if the risks were there, and somebody did actually prove those risks, I highly doubt that anybody, scientist or journalist or regular person, would want to ignore them. That would not make a kind of sense to just ignore the risk of an impending disaster.

The facts do not back the "science" behind global warming, and if at any point at all, the science veers from sound scientific research, then that science can rightfully be called "junk" if the proponents would disregard all of the points to the contrary. And there are a huge number of areas where the science for "global warming" fails. The biggest failure came into existence when it became "agendized" and politicians and journalists became the main driving force or proponents in trying to convince the world that we had an impending disaster for the planet and humankind.

There is a lot more sound science behind the "naysayers" than in the proponent ranks.
Posted by adornoe
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
Let's say these folks are right..... the planet is overheating and
that man IS the cause. Now what? The UN studies say the planet
can not sustain more than 2 Billion people. Period. We've got
close to 7 billion! 7 Billion! There aren't enough caves on earth to
house even a fraction of those folks. There isn't enough fertile
soil upon which to "plant" these people where a back-braking
hand labor effort devoid of factory and industrial support could
MAYBE produce enough food to sustain a human being. There
aren't enough wild animals to slaughter and to wear their skins to
keep folks warm.... they'd still need the Burlington Coat factories
of the world just to survive a single winter. Get real. Unless there
is a DRAMATIC and QUICK decrease in human populations,
then, according to these Chicken Little types, we are all doomed!
DOOMED!
Posted by melvinshapiro@...
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@adornoe
It is useless to discuss anything with you. You put words in my mouth that I did not say and you do not argue in kind. The problem is you will use insults to make your point. If it makes you happy, you WIN! But, I respectfully disagree with you.

Risk assessment is to look at what problems may happen if a danger occurs. Insurance companies do this with home insurance, what is the risk that a particular home owner's house will get flooded, catch on fire or collapse in an earthquake? These are real risks that have different degrees of probability based on location and environment.

If global warming is a possible threat, then the problems will effect the water supply, the food supply as well as weather phenomenon. The potable water supply is not infinite. The oceans are showing stresses on fish and other foods; this has several factors including overfishing. Risk management would be to take steps to protect potable water resources, use sustainable fishing as well as farming techniques and design and build structures that can better withstand the change in weather.

It is good to be skeptical and not take the latest predictions on face value. Being prepared for something that may not happen is also being prepared for things that have happened and do happen.
Posted by sboverie
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
Everyone in these discussions goes to the extremes, even to the point of degenerating into name calling. Please read my entire post before berating me or my opinions.

Fact: The area I Iive in(Kentucky) is warmer than when I grew up.

Support: I remember close to a foot of snow every year with schools planning for a month of snow days each winter. My 8 year old son has never seen a foot of snow, though he and I both wish that he could. It is hard to make a decent snowman with only 3 or 4 inches of snow and forget about a fort or the like. The best I can do for him is to use a snow shovel on most of the yard to create the snowman in the middle of the now exposed grass. So yes, this area is warmer than it was thirty years ago.

Question: Did Man cause it?
My Opinion: I doubt it. The majority of the evidence that can be gleaned from the intense arguments on both sides suggest that the Earth goes in cycles and it may be time for a very harsh cycle. Or a short hiccup...only time will tell.

Question: Will Man end up depleting the oil reserves or even destroying the world?
My Opinion: No. To both questions. The oil reserves on this planet will never be exhausted.

And no, I do not believe the Earth is continually producing oil. It would not matter if it was. The fact is that no matter how much some people may want to believe it, the world population will never become an altruistic society trying to make everything better for the next generation. The majority of the world is just struggling to make their lives and the lives of their children better. The majority of the world cannot afford to consider how their great-grandchildren are going to get by. They have too much on their plate to think about generations that have not been born yet.

That means that oil reserves will be governed by the same thing that they have always been governed by: economics. When producing / drilling / whatever for oil becomes more expensive than the 'green' alternatives (or any other alternatives that may arise), they will stop using oil. Period. There will still be reserves left but no one will want them because everyone will be using the cheaper alternatives. And until that happens, oil will be sought after wherever it exists and there is nothing that can stop it.

So by all means, create alternative sources of energy. Support Solar, Wind, Hydro, or whatever is popular this week. I hope you come up with whatever you think will 'save' the earth.

As a member of the planet's majority just trying to get by, I applaud your efforts...just don't try to force them on us. Expect up to embrace your technology when it makes our lives easier and not before. We have enough trouble as it is.
Posted by AnAnyMouse
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@keitha73

yes, thats what happenes after an ice age... the glaciers melt... however they aren't supposed to ALL melt... and in the last few years i think only 1 has been reports to be sustaining its size.

and in fairness we have absolutely no idea what caused the last ice age... but we do know that atmopheric composition (including all the greenhouse gases) is a factor in what *CAN*, as is changes in the earths orbit, or even the spin of the axis' or techtonic plate movement, then there the more obvious factors like solar output, changes in the ocean current, or major volcanic eruptions (and i supposed possibly a result of global nuclear winter, as this is a possibilty now as well).

the mini ice age however we do have an almost certian grasp on, and that was the gulf current stopped or was otherwise so significantly disrupted that it couldn't bring the warmer waters up to europe and thusly plunged europe into an earth age.

as sboverie says population is a major factor, for alot of reasons too...

-methane (from farming as he mentioned), which is ever increasing, and you have added 150% to the level that existed 150 years ago, and even at that time we were engaged in heavy farming.

-CO2 (also mentioned), the most abundant greenhouse gas, and we've added about 30-35% to the base level of 150 years ago, and again this would have been already much higher than natural level as a result of us (as also mentioned), however combined with centuries deforestation, and about of 2 centuries of industrial lumbering has made CO2 a two-fold threat, in the last 63 years alone (a very breif peroid of deforestation and this is also in a peroid when conservation began to counteract it) 50% of the earth tropical forests have been deforested, and its predicated that deforestation od the earth could reach 90% in only 20 years, about 90% of north america has been deforested already... so its really nopt that hard to believe consideing there will by that time be another 2 billion people living on earth, barring some global catastrophe.


@hate idiots

actually this ISN'T predicting the weather, its predictict the long term climate trend, and the weather that will be (barring the laws of physics changing) asscoiated with such climate shift.. if they were predicting weather it wouldn't be in a broad range and would be a reagional issue... not to mention it wouldn't cover more than a 2 week time peroid.... there is a difference between weather and climate, weather is, in its simplest explaination a specific instance of climate in a specific, and often in small geographic area of the world and over a short peroid of time minutes up to 10-14 day, whereas climate is basically the parameter range (the range of weather), over very large geographic area and over long peroids of time, years up to even millions of years.

why do they look at only 30 years... simple... they don't... they typically look back as far as 150-160 years, when the information was actually recorded in detail, and fro mthe 1960's when satelitte information became available.

ironically, you did EXACLTY what you in the same instance accuse them of doing cheery picking information to suit their point... when what they REALLY said was that the accelerated warming has continued this decade just as it did inthe last two before that... its also risen almost consistently and ALWAYS averaging a warming trend over several decades since up to AT LEAST 15 decades ago.

as for hurricane igor... fine... good point... how about hurricane igor? its happening RIGHT NOW. its predicted to go right through bermuda (higher north than earl) and along the coast and much like hurricane earl eastern canada will likely be receiving it directly... its still a bit early for an accurate prediction but its following the same more northly path that the bulk of the hurricanes this year have had, hence why the US has been that bad yet this year despite it being a faily active hurricane year thus far already.

and no anthropogenic global warming does not mean that those storms didn't occur... what it means in more of those freak storms are likely to occur, those storms are part of the normal climate.. hence why they don't occur on a regular basis.... and moreover... we've been affecting climate and weather for THOUSANDS of years... however its only been since the industrial age that our affects can actually be noticed within our own liftimes, hence how the global warming awareness movement started.

"In 2007 global warming scaremongers said that droughts were hitting Australia because of man made global warming. Yet the scientific facts and historical records do not support such outlandish statements."

ah YEAH actually they do... we've altered the global climate and thusly the global weather patterns australia received the drought becasue other areas receive too much percipitation... climate (and thusly weather) is like everything else in the scietific realm; a mathematical formula, you CANNOT alter one side of the equation without equally altering the other side. and not only that as as its a mathematical formula and we know warmer air holds more moisture (water vapour), that the percipation potential of the earth increases as well, in short meaning the problems of floods from rain will actually get worse even if for no other reason and similarly with the higher temperatures from global warming droughts will increase as well

and actually no, the federation drought was not the worst on record... it was the longest, but not the worst... the worst has actually been from 2003 to now (its already the worst on on record) ... and BTW you can look that up too if for whatever reason you don't believe me... also if you look up the history of droughts in australia, you will note that they are becomming far more frequent and far more arid. and via global warming (aside from la nina events as in 2000) there is prolonged peroid of end [of the droughts] in sight.... no-one disputed that droughts are a natural occurance... only that in this frequency and extremity of them isn't natural, hence why you can point of the freak occurances of it rather than be able to show that its actually part of their normal climate and would thusly happen regularly and not just once and a while and on an escalating pattern with global warming... and science shows that too... but it doesn't fit your view (aagin what you accused them of doing; which they actualy didn`t if you read the whole sentence, and its context rather than just the time peorid that the sentence was explaning.

as for the mideval wamring peroid... you`ll also note that was a spike... infact it was a sharp spike from the 1000 years before (which you don`t mention)... not a consistent rise like we have now, which has been consistant forlonger than the whole of the midevel warm peroid, most of which wasn`t a consistant warm peroid, if you add all the years that were consistantly warmer you might get 50 years spread out over 150 years
then (despite that on a long term graph it it basically just one prolonged spike followed by a smaller spike about 50 years after the first spike ... and BTW the temperature also rose more steadily, and from a higher base temperature than we had in 1850, hence even if we had absolutely nothing to do with climate in the mideval era (and we certianly would have, we were buring thing en mass, and deforesting, that alone has an effect on global climate its still happening MUCH faster than any peroid thats considered natural, including the mideval era...

as a general rule of thumb natural climate change takes THOUSANDS of years to occur (there are extreme exceptions, like essentially flash freezing of animals (and probably humans too) from the last major ice age, which is still a major mystery to the scientific community...however since the industrial age we`ve seen climate shifting in our own lifetimes, in my case, in only the last 25 years i`ve seen a dramatic change in climate (of course its alittle more noticable in countries like canada, russia or other northern european countries.

unfrotunately man-made global warming in an unescapable (scientifically) undeniable reality. CO2 is a greenhouse gases we emit it by the tons, there we are responsible for same of the warming if for not other reason... the same applies for CFC`s, methane, and even radiant heat and water vapor (as well as other ways such as deforestation, and construction; dark surfaces attract and store more heat, and most natural surfaces are light tyically tan to deep green) after you account all of those. no-one of a scientific standpoint would be able to deny the fact that yes global warming IS occuring at least in part by us... hence the virtual scientific consensus, the irony is that most of the global warming controversy comes from the average person... not scientists, whom the last i check were in 97% agreeance.. and even if they weren`t, given scientific facts like greenhouse gases, and radiant heat its the ONLY logical outcome... again its a mathematical formula and we are changing the equation... hence we are also changing the outcome, therefore we are causing (atleast in part) global warming. scienfitically its undeniable...

what however is deniable is intentions and goals of the people that are pushing things like carbon taxes. it might be more fruitful to stop denying our obvious impact on the earth`s climate and focus more on exposing why they are pushing it... becasue i too don`t believe its for all the right reasons, but that still doesn`t change the fact of our impact.

in my opinion, the greatest flaw in in global warming models is that they don`t account for things like future deforestation, future added radiant heat, and many don`t account for even the permafrosts and frozen underwater methane pockets all of which exasberate antropogenic global warming by that much more.


@adornoe

lets assume for a moment that it is and was garbage... how would throwing the report in the trash and many like it have been correct.. and in fact when they have been in error they were in error on the conservative side, meaning the reality was actually worse than the prediction was.. hence one of the reasons why climate models tend to get worse every year... because they miss factors that if included would actually make their prediction worse, hence newer models with more variablespredict worse future trends.


its amazing how atleast 2 (you and another person) people couldn`t understand sboverie`s points or otherwise recognise that they are indeed facts (aside from possibly peak oil, we`re still finding new reserves)... which leads me to believe this post will be well beyond most people`s grasp (but by all means TRY to understand it, and if you doubt it try verifying it)

as for abiotic oil theory (its actually only a hypothesis; in sciencific terms its a guess, an educated guess, but a guess none-the-less, if it is a reatily (and its only an alternate theory, and as far as i know its has not basis to even be a theory, and seems to only exist to justify the large quantities of oil in the earth, typically such people also believe that life hasn`t existed on earth for 3.8 BILLION years, and as such can`t explain all the oil on earth) it CANNOT go on indefinately, and logically would be increasingly slowing down it generation of oil ever since the process started... and thusly even then we`d hit peak oil eventually... anything thats finite has a peak and after such will run out peak oil is a reality... if not now (and i don`t think we have ), then, probably sooner than later eventually it will be.


@mario

``If Peek oil and biomass theory were correct then we were suppose to have run out by now or at a point were no auto maker should be inventing money today to make engines or others to make any man made machine for that mater and that was without the consideration of China and India as insutrilized producers in the world competing for that resource.``

say what....

do you even have the slightest understanding what peak oil is... of course not because you defeated the point of the second paragraph in the preceding paragraph where you explicitely state ( as have i, nor will any scientist or statistician disagree), that new oil reserves are constantly being found (which thusly push back peak oil) and BTW if you going to argue against biomass originated oil your also going to have to come up with a new theory to explain coal as they are both formed under the same process, the difference being one starts out as animals, zooplankton or algae and ther other (coal) is formed from planet.. hence if you disregard the biomass theory then coal schouldn`t exist...

but here`s a thought... and i`m sure many haven`t considered it... maybe... just maybe both theories (well technically one`s a Theory and they other is a hypothesis) are correct.
Posted by Daryl420
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
sboverie: we were discussing apples and then you brought up oranges...
Risk assessment is to look at what problems may happen if a danger occurs.

But, that's not what arguing for or against global warming is about, is it?

My argument, and that of most of those that disagree with global warming "science:, is about the science and the conclusions and the remedies being proposed by the scaremongers.

When proposals for remedies are made using a very faulty and very questionable science, then the fault lies with those that produced the junk science.

Insurance companies do this with home insurance, what is the risk that a particular home owner's house will get flooded, catch on fire or collapse in an earthquake? These are real risks that have different degrees of probability based on location and environment.

Apples and oranges.

You're talking above about localized and frequent events which can and do cause damage on a weekly or monthly or yearly basis around the world.

The global warming science is making long-term predictions using scientific methods that are very faulty and in many respects, not even science. No one should ever make plans for, or do risk assessment against a prediction that is very questionable and agendized. Would you make assessments against a prediction which says that in some 20 or 50 years, the earth is going to suffer the consequences of a huge solar storm which might destroy all electrical and electronic equipment on the planet, and thereby, life as we know it? You wouldn't, especially when the predictions might have been made by people with agendas, and used very questionable methods to arrive at their desired results.


If global warming is a possible threat, then the problems will effect the water supply, the food supply as well as weather phenomenon.

Nobody is saying that global warming, if it happened wouldn't be a threat. What is being questioned is the quality of the science being used and the scaremongering that is occurring from the faulty analysis being performed. The agenda is what's driving the science, and any science that's conducted for political or ideological purposes should automatically be questioned and tossed aside.

The potable water supply is not infinite. The oceans are showing stresses on fish and other foods; this has several factors including overfishing.

We can and are doing something about those things, all without involving the junk science of global warming.

Risk management would be to take steps to protect potable water resources, use sustainable fishing as well as farming techniques and design and build structures that can better withstand the change in weather.

There you go. You provided your own answers to the problems. But, those same arguments can be made without having to bring up global warming at all.

It is good to be skeptical and not take the latest predictions on face value.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Admitting that there is a problem is the first step towards a recovery. wink

But, in this case (global warming), it's a lot safer to say that the predictions are completely unwarranted when the science is very questionable and mostly driven by agendas. Agendas do not lead to good scientific results.

Being prepared for something that may not happen is also being prepared for things that have happened and do happen.

Being prepared for something that may never happen is too much overkill.

And it would be completely destructive to whole societies if the solutions proposed involved allowing governments to take full control of industries and the way we live our daily lives. That's what would happen with the solutions being proposed by the scaremongers and politicians.

No thanks!

Come back to earth and let's discuss the real everyday problems and not the unreal and imagined 50 or 100 year faulty predictions from a junk science meant to give governments full control of everything in our lives.
Posted by adornoe
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@adornoe


``what you're doing is not just "assesing the risks", and your
fellow "global warmists" are not either.

The purposes for the "global warming scaremongering" is not to save the planet or the people or any species on the planet nor it's varied environments.``

yeah i suppose you know our motives better than we known our own motives... could you possibly be more arrogant and ignorant than by that comment.

``Nice! "Naysayers"!

Why not call them "people with opposing, yet plausible arguments"?``

then why do you describe us as ``scaremongering``

your a naysayer... thats what a naysayer does... and no for the most part they`ve not been plausible... not after they`ve been put into context after being cherry picked to try and prove their point (seeing as most of the evidence doesn`t support them)...

your a naysayer just the same as a guy on the street with a sign saying ``the end is nigh`` would be called a doomsayer.

naysay (transitive verb) means: To oppose, deny, or take a pessimistic or negative view of.

you can take offence by it, but its apt.

``The agenda is the purpose for the "global warming" scaremongering. ``

ummm yeah... about that... it not scaremonger when its true... its only scaremongering when its false... and good luck trying to prove that. you might as well try skating up a 90 degree incline against the gravity of a black hole; you`ll have about as much luck.

``Like I said, if the risks were there, and somebody did actually prove those risks, I highly doubt that anybody, scientist or journalist or regular person, would want to ignore them. That would not make a kind of sense to just ignore the risk of an impending disaster.``

when i guess that just proves how nonsensical the denyers are since the science of global warming is clearly against them and thats exactly what they are doing... ignoring it... and further they fund their own studies (usually funded by energy companies; ever wonder why) to attempt to cast doubt on the global warming issue, many of them don`t even use science all all... they just simply deny whatever the glabl warming related claim is, like all those studies they funded that said the ocean level were rising... meanwhile anyone with a functioning brain can see the glaciers melting around the world can figure that one out for themselves.

``The facts do not back the "science" behind global warming, and if at any point at all, the science veers from sound scientific research, then that science can rightfully be called "junk" if the proponents would disregard all of the points to the contrary.``

so why don`t you just come out and say what you must logical believe (assuming there is a logic to your belief), that you don`t believe that greenhouse gases exist... because if they do then we ARE responsible.. otherwise you have a paradox where they are only not greenhouse gases when we emit them... which needless to say would be completely assinine..

or that you don`t believe that we create heat which gets trapped in our atmosphere... which if you don`t believe that then the earth would have abiout the same temperature as the moon... because if our heat doesn`t get trapped neither could could the sun`s heat become trapped.

``And there are a huge number of areas where the science for "global warming" fails``

can you evidence even one.... because i have NEVER seems an arguement agaianst global warming that wasn`t either flimsy or completely wrong or out of context... i wait your arguements for how anthropogenic global warming fails (if you have any), although in fairness you may not understand the reply, and will almost certianly ignore it without thought; its become all too common in the deniers.

``There is a lot more sound science behind the "naysayers" than in the proponent ranks.``

LMAO... lets see some for a change rather than hearing about the ``sound science`` against global warming that never seems to actually exist when its challenged... so by all means give us your most damning arguement anthropogenic global warming.. but chances are i`ve already dealt with whatever arguement you`ll be able to paraphrase from the lead skeptic of global warming



@melvinshapiro

``The UN studies say the planet
can not sustain more than 2 Billion people. Period. We've got
close to 7 billion! 7 Billion! ``

are you aware thats out of context...

thats billion people by current (inefficent and wasteful) WESTERN STANDARDS... the earth can sustain AT LEAST a doubling in population... more if caves and undergorund were used as well and if farming whiched to vertical farms which in theory be more than 100 times more space efficent than current farming technique as well as being more water efficent, and can be located within even cities like san fransico and new york city where normal farm never could exist, which also dramatically reduces tranportation costs (and thusly also most of the associated pollution)..

meat is where the problem is.. meat requires alot of resources to raise... but this too can be curtailed though americans (canadians and some europeans) might have to give up eating contests which while half the world starves is abhoringly unethical and immoral... and wasting the world resources while others have to go without, as sad as it is, we people can`t make responsible choices, unfortunely they have to be legislated, because lets face it you can`t summarilly execute people for being stupid, ignorant or greedy... and unfortunately this is how the government has operated for decades (and at this point is probably they only way they know how, whether the change is for better or worse) because society proves over and over ad nasseum that its not capable of governing itself even a fraction as well as most tribal societies, which do whats best for the WHOLE of the society.. a concept most westerners can barely understand, much less would they consider it, despite that fact they`d probably benfit from it, unless they are one of the upper 1-5% (which i doubt any of us are, nor 99.5-99.9% of people globally)... and james thompson kind of proves that point by saying that oil will be used until its no longer economical (the same arguement would obviously apply to coal as well), despite that its highly negative to society and could have been replaced DECADES ago.. and weren`t for the exact same reason... which leaves 3 responsible options, either people move away from oil and coal, governments globally ban the usage of oil and coal as fuel... or (and this is the one they are trying the hardest to do; almost certianly because it the most benifitical to them, the most benifital to us is if WE move away from coal and oil, not the government doing it for us, as that only continues to prove how much most people actually do NEED government to have a functional and progressive society) tax their output from the source, which will make green options more viable, however from my understanding the taxes collected will not be used for furthering the global green inititive, and rather will just be sat on to bankrupt the world`s already poor countries, which in many cases can`t afford power for all it people (technically neither can we, because we typically only produce enough to sell, and never enough to give away to people who can`t afford it, because we deliberately keep it scarce,) much less, green energy which requires a much larger initial investment...

and thats not the whole of the UN saying that either BTW, thats only the member that actually do support population reduction; not everyone in the UN does.... there basically a more liberal variation of the group in the US and europe that want the world population brought to to 500 million (look up georgia guidestones

no, were not doomed... but unless we change the balance of resource globaly things are going to get tight, and conflict will arise as a direct result.
Posted by Daryl420
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@adornoe

``But, that's not what arguing for or against global warming is about, is it?``

umm yeah actually it is.... like rising sea levels, health problems from greater temperature variation, asscoated weather annomolies , species die-offs... its is all risk assement INHERENT to global warming...... you obviously have very little understanding of the risk assment involved in global warming... not surprising since you denying its occuring in the first place, and call anything that proves it `junk science`... junk science actaully USED to mean something... because of people like you its just another meaningless word from rampant mis-use.
Posted by Daryl420
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Daryl420: you too are wrong...
Daryl420
``But, that's not what arguing for or against global warming is about, is it?``



umm yeah actually it is....

umm... NO! It actually isn't.

like rising sea levels, health problems from greater temperature variation, asscoated weather annomolies , species die-offs... its is all risk assement INHERENT to global warming......

You're actually arguing for things that are real and that have occurred and can be predicted to occur, with some certainty in our lifetimes, or even shorter periods of time.

Global warming is real. Just like climate change is real.

The globe does warm and it does cool. Nobody can deny that.

The argument is about the predictions regarding global warming that use faulty and agendized methods. My argument is about using faulty and questionable science to make predictions and then perform "risk assessments" against a "lie".

Get the difference?

I'm not arguing against conducting studies and risk assessments regarding normal weather situations. Those are necessary. Understand the difference?

you obviously have very little understanding of the risk assment involved in global warming...

If you start out with a false premise, and then base all of your other research and actions on the false premises, then you are conducting nothing more than a fraud all around. Can't you understand that?

Risk assessment based on a prediction which is itself based on very faulty science is the same as perpetrating a fraud and a hoax on all society.

In that sense, it is you that is not understanding the points being made by the so-called "deniers" like me. If the science is faulty to begin with, everything else that emanates from it, including "risk assessments" studies, are fraudulent investigations and "research".

not surprising since you denying its occuring in the first place, and call anything that proves it `junk science`...

I'll never deny that climate change occurs and at times, the climate change comes in the form of "global warming". The problem is in the kind of "junk science" being perpetrated on the world by the agenda driven proponents of the movement.

Furthermore, although you may have periods of "out of the ordinary" cool weather and "out of the ordinary" hot weather, the fact is that in the last 10-12 years, the globe as a whole has actually cooled.

So, no, the globe is not warming. And the predictions for warming are mostly based on the faulty science and on the agenda of big government proponents.

So, though you may not like it, it is still junk science. It's full of holes, and if those holes aren't plugged, and if the "science" doesn't drop its agenda, then it will continue being junk science.

junk science actaully USED to mean something...

It still has a very good meaning, and if the people who update the dictionaries around the world would be honest about it, the phrase "junk science" would have as its synonym the phrase "global warming", along with a picture of Al Gore doing his powerpoint presentation in front that famous map with the hurricane on it.

because of people like you its just another meaningless word from rampant mis-use.

It's people like you who are easy and willing dupes for the agenda of global warmists.

There is no misuse of the phrase "junk science" and there couldn't be a more representative example of it than "global warming science".

If you knew anything about real science and how it should be conducted, then even you would classify "global warming" as junk science.

Look, there is an asteroid (meteor or whatever), due to come in very close proximity to our planet, some time around 2029 or 2035. That is a much bigger threat and a much more real threat than a prediction base on junk science. Shouldn't the planet be more worried about something as real as an actual meteor that we can see and track, and that has a real potential to strike the planet and wreak more damage on the planet than anything else in the next 100 years, or the last 100 years? So, why aren't researchers and government conducting "risk assessments" on something which could potentially be a lot more real and lot more devastating than "global warming"?
Posted by adornoe
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Milankovitch cycles
@keitha

The cycle of glaciations and deglaciations over the past million years or so are probably largely driven by what are called Milankovitch cycles. That is changes in the eccentricity, axial tilt and precession of the Earth's orbit change the strength of the sunlight. hitting the Earth. Once they get the process started then internal factors such as the warming atmosphere increasing atmospheric water vapor and the warming oceans releasing CO2 provide a positive feedback that drives more warming. Then when the Milankovitch cycles shift to the cooling phase the water vapor and CO2 forcing can't keep it up and so start dropping as well.
Posted by riverat1
13th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Did man cause it?
@James Thompson Question: Did Man cause it?

A couple of points:

CO2 can be shown in the laboratory to absorb certain wavelengths in the Infra Red spectrum. We measure the spectrum coming off the Earth's surface and so know how much energy in the IR bands the atmospheric CO2 should be absorbing. We can check that by comparing the spectrum at ground level to the spectrum in the stratosphere.

We know how much CO2 emissions there are from human activities. It turns out the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is less than half of yearly human emissions. From ice cores we know the atmospheric CO2 levels never got much above 300 ppmv for at least the last half a million years. Since continuous monitoring of atmospheric CO2 levels started is has gone from about 315 ppmv in 1958 to about 390 ppmv in 2010. So if human CO2 is not causing the increase you have to say what absorbs 100% of human emissions and emits the CO2 to increase the level.

So if you put CO2's capacity to absorb IR radiation together with an increasing level of atmospheric CO2 from human activities you would expect the Earth to warm. Of course it's immensely more complicated than that but that's at the bottom of it all.
Posted by riverat1
14th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
I can only sit here in amusement at all the things being said here. That the earth is billions of years old (who can prove that one?) and this whole global warming thing is merely a ploy to get government funding to employ scientists. Face it, we cannot control the earth nor its cycles. Nor can we delay the destruction of the earth as we know it. It will happen. Not that we should be careless with our resources or abuse nature. But in the end only One is in control, and not man.
Posted by swcook6
14th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@riverat1

Thank you. That is a clear and straight-forward argument without becoming beligerent. Both sides of this issue would do well to try that tact if they wish to actually change any minds.

As to my point of view, I do not doubt that Man is creating CO2 and 'possibly' contributing to a global warming effect.

I do however think that the planet goes in cycles and is probably heading in whatever direction it is going whether Man helps it or not.

Either way, no change will be effective until it is accepted by the masses and the masses have always done and will always continue to do what is in their best short term interest. Like it or not, most of the world is just struggling to get by and can not afford to think about such lofty goals.
Posted by AnAnyMouse
14th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
@adornoe Apples and Oranges
Interesting that you did not pick up that I was not avocating for or against global warming. It particularly galls me when you respond to my statement that it is good to be skeptical as if I had to accept the problem. I am not interested in convincing you about global warming pro or con, I am pointing out that the threat assessment is not being done by throwing out all the information about climate change.

To make the point a bit more clear, lets talk about the subject in terms of gambling. We are collectively making bets on whether or not there is global warming. Making a bet on this subject without doing more to determine the probabilities is just betting on a hunch.

What I am advocating is making informed decisions on dealing with problems that can be addressed. Too many think that events will be so complex that we can not do anything to prepare. Extreme events are unpredictable but that does not mean that preparations can not be done. Those who do prepare even a little bit will be able to get through a crisis better than those who do nothing.
Posted by sboverie
14th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Further testing is what is needed...
Some points have been made on both sides but lets hit the bottom line. While the earth may be warming, an item still in question, the bigger problem is trying to prove that man is behind any warming that is happening.

Another thread on this site started with an article that stated if man stopped producing CO2 and made every possible effort to remediate the CO2 in the air that the cumulative effect would not stop global warming.

Simply put, they said that stopping all man made CO2 emissions and cleaning up the CO2 we put there will not stop global warming.

This statement alone, made by members of the pro global warming community, cast doubts on mans ability to impact global warming, good or bad.
Posted by Hates Idiots
14th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
Hate,
Actually, the atmospheric modelling done by climatologists around the world is quite complex and is run multiple times with various assumptions made based on reasonable variations. Some of the time, the emprical effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases are removed to see if they can make the other variables account for the data that shows that global warming is occurring. And guess what: they simply can't do it. Take all of the other variables: sunspots, milankovich cycle, albedo/absorption, etc. simply cannot account for the amount of global warming that is observed--in fact, if we removed greenhouse gases, we would most likely be in a cooling climate scenario.

So you're wrong. This is what made responsible climatologists come up with the conclusion that it is human generated greenhouse gases that are causing the observed increases in temperatures. This modeling alone, leaves deniers fumbling for diversions on what else could cause the observed increases in global temps. And in case anyone has any questions about any of the so-called contradictions that deniers bring up about the quality of the science, go to www.realclimate.org to see the rebuttals of qualified scientists are to these charges.

I hope that this conversation can evolve from whether or not climate change is occurring (as it surely is) to what we should be doing about it. I thought that is what this entire website was about. The jury is in about global warming; how bad it is will depend on how quickly we can respond to the writing on the wall, so lets' hop to it folks.
Posted by klassman6
14th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Try reading a book.
The internet is full of lies on global warming so I encourage anyone reading this to read a book and fact check me.

New England was hit by a huge flurry of large tropical storms during the Little Ice Age (about 1250 to about 1850) so your statement that the frequency of large storms in New England, or for the entire east coast for that matter, has grown since the 1600s is flat out wrong.

The Little Ice age also shows there was significant cooling of the globe after the Medieval Warming Trend ended, so your statement that temperatures have been on a steady rise since the Medieval Warming trend is wrong.

The Medieval Warming Trend was not a temperature spike as the high temperatures lasted from about 800 AD to about 1200. A 400 year period of high global temperatures is far from a spike. I would call it a slow burn, so that statement is wrong.

I keep seeing people here ask what motive people would have for perpetuating a global warming fraud. How about money?

For a real look at the face of global warming fraud just take a look at Al Gore. The prophet of global warming has reportedly made over 1 BILLION dollars from trading in carbon credits.

If man generated global warming is such a problem why does its biggest prophet, Mr. Gore, have two homes that are both huge and not eco-friendly. His first house consumes 10 times the energy of any other private residence in the state. Talk about a carbon foot print. His second house is in sunny California yet there is not a solar panel in sight.

He flys the world in a private jet pumping pollution into the air at a rate 100 times faster than the average person while feeding a guilt trip to people so they will buy carbon credits and put money in his pockets.

Why was his movie ruled as propaganda by a liberal court in England? In court Mr. Gores scientists failed to refute 9 factual scientific errors in his movie brought by a lawsuit intended to get his movie out of UK schools.

Because of this lawsuit his movie can no longer be shown in UK schools as part of science classes. It can be shown only as part of social studies classes. It must be played with a disclaimer that it contains factual scientific errors and should be considered an example of propaganda.

Anyone who says there is no motive behind perpetuating the global warming fraud has not followed the money. When Al Gore gives up his private jets and eco-killing lifestyle and donates much of his money to saving the planet I'll consider believing him and all of you.
Posted by Hates Idiots
14th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
"The argument is about the predictions regarding global warming that use faulty and agendized methods. My argument is about using faulty and questionable science to make predictions and then perform "risk assessments" against a "lie". "

and yet at no point have you EVER pointed out how its faulty... and as for the agenda... thats almost irrelevent when you account for whats happening... like i've said to someone else, you'd probably be more fruitful in your pursuits if you stick to the science and not ANY agenda (including whatever yours is)... the fact (all) people have agenda does not take away from the reality of anthropogenic global warming...

and yes again those things ARE the risk asseessment of global warming... and only a few at that.

and again if you believe global warming is a lie then you have ALOT of scientific evidence to fight against... and it does become junk science because it disagrees with you and whoever you get your talking points from (because they certianly aren't comming from 97% of the scientific community that is in consensus about ANTHOPOGENIC global warming... not just the fact that global warmign is occuring, but that WE are causing it; at least to a far greater degree than could happen naturally, which apparently is the only kind of global warming folks like yourself think exist... yet that global warming happens the EXACT same way, only by a difference source).

``I'm not arguing against conducting studies and risk assessments regarding normal weather situations. Those are necessary. Understand the difference?``

actually that EXACTLY what tyour doing when you call global warming related science ``junk science``.

``If you start out with a false premise, and then base all of your other research and actions on the false premises, then you are conducting nothing more than a fraud all around. Can't you understand that?``

its your OPINION that its a false premise... unfortunately science disgree with your opinion... and even if science didn`t... logic does.

and BTW that premise was a direct result of scientific evidence, if didn`t just come out of bno-where as you make it sound (and as a false premise would be, had it been based on a false premise as its your opinion that it was)... hence how we know beyond doubt that its getting significantly warmer a global scale but again even without the evidence being on the side of anthropgenic global warming, logic still is because we KNOW CO2, methane and water vapour are greenhouse gases and we emit them... hence if there wasn`t even evidence logic still dictates we are indeed warming the earth?.

yeah i live in canada BTW... EVERY SINGLE YEAR we have another years worth of evidence supporting global warming... try peddling that crap to someone at the equator... you *might* be fool that into being a global warming denier (its less directly noticible the further from the poles you get)... unfortunately countries like mine are some of the evidence of global warming, because we used to have an actual winter season, we USED to be looked at as the frozen north, yet now even the parts that histoprically were frozen are either thawing or are green again already.

``it is you that is not understanding the points being made by the so-called "deniers" like me.``

oh i do understand them... hence why i can so easily refute them, because they are ALWAYS either wrong or out of context... i`ve also being doing it for the better part of 10 years... i might as well being doing it professionally.

``I'll never deny that climate change occurs and at times, the climate change comes in the form of "global warming". ``

no what you deny is thast we are changing it usign the same methods that made the earth stay warm in the first place,, hence if you don`t believe that CO2, methane and other greenhouse (that we are emitting) cause global warming then you logically cannot believe that nature can do it either... since the ONLY difference is the source, not the method.... and on that not if you were right than the earth would ALWAYS be in a perpetual ice age.... you can`t have it both ways...yet thats what your arguing and calling anything that supports global warming junk science... which is to say the least is ignorant.

``Furthermore, although you may have periods of "out of the ordinary" cool weather and "out of the ordinary" hot weather, the fact is that in the last 10-12 years, the globe as a whole has actually cooled. ``

LMAO... yeah from 1998; the hottest year on record (try agin)... again thats you (a denier) cherry picking a fact and taking it completely out of context to ATTEMPT to support your position (just as i pointed out in the previous post which you then argued against, and now in the exact same post you prove my point by doing exactly what i said the deniers do, not to mention you again called it junk science despite that you blantantly misrepresented facts to justify that slander against global warming science`, and morevor you proved my point about `junk science` becomming meaningless via rampant misuse)... the TREND is up (desp?te the spike in 1998 caused by el nino)... even in since 2007 when it got cooler, it was STILL warmer than the average in the decades before it... north america was particularly cold this last winter (but that also prdicted via global warming; look up ``global weirding``, its a laymans explaination for what to expect from global warming).


``It's people like you who are easy and willing dupes for the agenda of global warmists.``

really... maybe you should think about that comment after you re-read my posts and realize that my support of the global warming phenomenon is independent of ANY agenda other than my own, which is to stop accelerated global warming, and thusly all the risk associated with it.... then why does my person therory of global warming transend their... i`ll give you a hint... i`ve been thinking about these things for a decade... and not just repeating talking point like you have... agina hence why i can so easily refute them... because i have already refute these exact claims dozens of times before. it might help if you actually had actual evidence to the contrary of global warming rather than just ignortantly labeling it as junk science. despite that half of my points aren`t even mention by 90% people supporting or even the people researching global warming.

``There is no misuse of the phrase "junk science" and there couldn't be a more representative example of it than "global warming science".```

again nothing more than an opinion... an opinion you hold out of ignorance through long since refuted ``conservative`` talking points

if you want an actual example of junk science, look up christian science and its support for a young earth (6000-12000 years old), or its `proof` of `god` via the complexity and diversity of life on earth, and the earth itself, whereas in your opinion ``junk science`` is anything based on a premise you don`t agree with, despite that that that the body of evidence was overwhelming even in the 60`s is constantly getting that much stonger... THATS what junk would be... again just proof of your misusage of the phrase `junk science`.

``If you knew anything about real science and how it should be conducted, then even you would classify "global warming" as junk science. ``

and if you tried usng your opinions in a science class, you`d fail... why, because your not using science... and i`ll believe global warming is junk science when the evidence supports that opinion.... its doesn`t, despite how adamently you believe to the contrary.

``Look, there is an asteroid (meteor or whatever), due to come in very close proximity to our planet, some time around 2029 or 2035. That is a much bigger threat and a much more real threat than a prediction base on junk science.``

your partially right on this point... IF it hits it will be a much bigger threat however theres no garuentee it will hit... infact the current odds are somewhwere between 1 in 16000 to 1 in 38000... since global warming is occuring its odds are exactly 1 in 1... hence its a MUCH bigger threat than the POSSIBILITY of an asteroid strike... if the odds were equal, yes, you`d be correct.

``So, why aren't researchers and government conducting "risk assessments" on something which could potentially be a lot more real and lot more devastating than "global warming"?```

they have been... since at least the 90`s in a serious capacity... your WAY behind the information curve here (much like in global warming as well).... the problem is that we have no curent defense against asteroids... nukes would barely work at all, lasers would just just bore a hole through it or slice it in half by its spin and a kinetic impactor would just make it feild of debris that would be just as devasting, but directly impacting over a larger area...

global warming on the other hand can be VERY easily curtailed (including methane which can directly be used as an energy source rather than remaining as a greenhouse gas) given enough political will and moreover could`ve been done DECADES ago when we first knew about it..
Posted by Daryl420
14th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@riverat1

``So if human CO2 is not causing the increase you have to say what absorbs 100% of human emissions and emits the CO2 to increase the level.``

actually thats a result of a very important factor missing (as i mentioned in my previous posts) deforestation causes the year to yerars atmospheric level to rise as well because the earth then has less potential to absorb CO2 and as a result builds up in greater quantity.... otherwise good detailed explaination of the CO2 aspect of global warming.

and of course there are other things like volcanic activity and wildfires both of which put out massive amounts of CO2 in addition to industry....


@swcook6

``I can only sit here in amusement at all the things being said here. That the earth is billions of years old (who can prove that one?)``

geologists actually...

and BTW, life on earth (single celled life) goes back all the way to 3.8 billion... again thats why we have scientists... to think and research the thing most to are too lazy or too willfully ignorant to do themselves.

``this whole global warming thing is merely a ploy to get government funding to employ scientists.``

well in truth there is some of that... but its also on both side of the aisle, the energy industry funds the other side and i sure some probably do exaggerate their claims... however the part that should also be noted is that even the most dramatic climate models from 10-20 years ago are underestimations of what has actually occured since, and a gross underestimation of compared to cureent climate models, which will probably again be found to be and underestimate after they start including more of the factors i was mentioning in my first post, climate model are still pretty primative (but constantly improving) as they dont, or maybe cant (with current technology) factor in all the variables, or maybe they just havent thought of them yet.

``Face it, we cannot control the earth nor its cycles. Nor can we delay the destruction of the earth as we know it. It will happen.``^

actually first of all we arent controlling it, i think its abundantly clear we`re not in control (not unless we want it to get hotter and less inhabitable on earth)... trouble is neither is nature, hence the problem... ... but we are indeed causing changes in climate.

and yes we can delay the destruction of the earth as we know it... and global warming is one of the easier global problems well ever have to solve.

"But in the end only One is in control, and not man."

sorry but im and atheist, hence i cannot accept that answer until someone can prove there`s a "god", and then moreover prove that ``god`` is all powerful... faith hasn`t ever solved any of the world problems, nor will it fix global warming... as an atheist i don`t have the luxury of ignorantly leaving things like this up to ``god``, because i know beyond doubt that this wont fix itself, well, eventully it will, however it will be quite violent, and at some point it will almost certianly trigger an ice age... and most of civilization wont survive that (of course since you probably think there`s and afterlife you probably don`t have the same level of intrest in the continuance of civilization and the human race on earth)... so its not in our intrest to leave things to chance (or as you call it, ``god``).


@hate idiots

`` Further testing is what is needed``

i think everyone on the global warming side of the arguemnt would argee, esspecially given that ``further testing`` solidifies their point

``the bigger problem is trying to prove that man is behind any warming that is happening. ``

do you believe in greenhouse gases... if not than your not qualified to be talking about global warming in even the most vague sense, as greenhouse gases in the main arguement of global warming and we already know beyond all reasonable (sane) doubt that greenhouse gases do indeed cause warming, and if so then you do than eventually will have to admit that we are indeed causing warming... you absolutely cannot have it both ways... that would be a paradox.

the bigger problem is actually getting people to accept that it is indeed occuring and that changes must be made to curtail it... proving its occurance was easy because its the only logical answer once you accept that greenhouse gases exist, and the green house effect was proven nearly 200 years ago.. hence we have to be causing at least some of the warming... then of course there the fact that the global warming trend continues irregardless of whether solar activity is higher or lower than normal, if we had no effect the sun would he have as far more subtaintial effect by comparison to whats actually occuring, and as a result it wouldn`t continue to warm during lower output.

``Another thread on this site started with an article that stated if man stopped producing CO2 and made every possible effort to remediate the CO2 in the air that the cumulative effect would not stop global warming.``

yeah, thats actually an increasing concern because of the triggering of the melting permafrosts, and methane is a MUCH more volitile greenhouse gas...

and it would actually stop warming over time because CO2 stays in the atmosphere for between 200-250 years (depending on conditions) and methane only lasts about 20-25 years (but also has 20-25 times more effect)... so even in the worst case scenerio for curtailling global warming it would take 250 years... however it should cool way before that, even in our life times....

and ther are other things we can so to accelerate the reversing of our global warming effects, reforestation, esspecially in place formally covered in snow or ice... reducing heat output (which can be acheived through advancements in energy efficency alone), replacing air travel with high speed rail (which can also be done under water) which produces MUCH less heat, and isn`t putting it directly into atmosphere that is significantly colder than ground level, hence amplifying the effect of whatever heat it is outputting; which is an enourmous amount)

``This statement alone, made by members of the pro global warming community, cast doubts on mans ability to impact global warming, good or bad.``

only because it was out of context... i just provided the context.

``The internet is full of lies on global warming so I encourage anyone reading this to read a book and fact check me.``

i already did... that was included in my first post..

again when things are taken out of context, of course what it means will change too.

``For a real look at the face of global warming fraud just take a look at Al Gore. The prophet of global warming has reportedly made over 1 BILLION dollars from trading in carbon credits.``

unfortunately that has nothing to do with how much awareness about global warming he has helped get out there... nor does it take away from the fact thats its occuring... unfortunately he`s a business man, and as such is always looking for a way to get rich, and he`s been using global warming to get rich, but again his agenda or anyone elses doesn`t take ways from the fact that its actually occurring. in short global warming isn`t a fraud... but many people`s motive are... and i would assume gore would be one of them based on his lifestyle (as you also mention in the following paragraph, on a side note i actyually found it quite humerous when an artile came out detailing how much more energy efficent geaorge W bush`s private house was compared to gore... you`d think it would be the exact opposite)... not his agenda to get rich of carbon credits... which really is a scam, uits a way for people to legall pollute more than the legal amount, by purchasing carbon credit from a company that doesn?t use all of theirs... there`s been awareness of this even in pop culture since the 90`s.

``When Al Gore gives up his private jets and eco-killing lifestyle and donates much of his money to saving the planet I'll consider believing him and all of you.``

well thats the difference between us (well one of them anyways) i already know that his agenda and global warming aren`t one and the same and i accept that as a businessmen, in a monetarily rule society he`s going to exploit its occurance for his own gain.. the same way that the oil industry exploits the existance of oil for money, he`d have an extremly hard time getting rich if everybody whose job it is to know about global warming knew it was a hoax, when infact 97% of such people (exclusively scientists in this case) support anthropogenic global warming, which leaves only 3% that either thinks that its either naturally caused (which the science doesn`t support for at least a few reasons, if not a laundry list of reasons) or a hoax.

if you really want al gore to give up his business agenda then your talking about getting rid of capitalism, or at least in that aspect of the economy so there`s no incentive to get rich... or just make carbon credit illegal.
Posted by Daryl420
14th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Daryl420: when trying to make your points, don't use junk science to do so.
"The argument is about the predictions regarding global warming that use faulty and agendized methods. My argument is about using faulty and questionable science to make predictions and then perform "risk assessments" against a "lie". "

and yet at no point have you EVER pointed out how its faulty...
You must be brand new to the discussions and to the whole argument regarding the ?junk science? in global warming.

The science is junk when:

- the researchers involved ?pick and choose? what data to include in their ?research? out of whatever data is available
- the data is fabricated because they can?t find all the data that will prove their ?predictions? (remember the ?hockey stick??)
- the models used for predictions use very faulty assumptions
- the models are fed only the data that supports the desired results
- data is omitted which wouldn?t support those results
- the data is massaged to conform to the models predictions
- the global warming researchers (or ?scientists?) disregard, or outright reject, any opposing research that doesn?t support global warming
- the science becomes a political weapon for agendas
- the people mostly pushing the research and results are journalists and politicians
- the ?scientists? involved work in collusion to discredit opposing views and opposition science
- the scientists and universities involved stand to gain through funding or grants for their studies
- the analysis from the models and from observations is geared towards only proving the science, and negative analysis is disregarded or not reported

In essence, at every step of the way in the ?research?, there are problems and very unsound science.

The goal from the beginning for the global warming scientists was to figure out a way to prove their hypothesis, while disregarding anything that indicated otherwise.

Here?s a more complete article that explains many of the problems that were encountered along the way in the science, and on the implications from that science.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/global_warming_science.html

The bottom line to this whole ?global warming? junk science debate is that, when you start out with a false premise, everything else that results from it can rightfully be discarded along with the science.

So, any tangential studies, such as risk assessments, that are undertaken to alleviate the effects of the faulty predictions, should rightfully be tossed into the trash bin along with the science.

BTW, did you notice or are you aware that, in many of the points that you?re making to refute my points, you?re using some of the stated results that came from the global warming ?science?, such as the ?warmest year? and the ?warmest period? and so forth. When you use science that has already been discredited, you are not refuting anything at all and you?re just quoting the same junk science that good science refutes.

You can?t make your points using already discredited science.
So, it makes no sense for me to try to answer all of your points when you start out with an already discredited science to quote from. You can?t use a fallacious argument to back up your points.

You need to do a lot more careful ?research? on your own about what really was happening in the ?global warming? hoax. After all, being in ?denial? about the real truth will just keep you quoting the same junk science while refusing to acknowledge the problems with that science.
Posted by adornoe
14th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Links between global warming and extreme weather are man made.
Daryl420

to answer you question: YES, I know what I am talking about.

Peak Oil THEORY: is the point in time when the maximum rate of global petroleum extraction is reached, after which the rate of production enters terminal decline. M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970 however it rose again when oil from Alaska began to be used in the late 70's. Then in 1974 he estimated it to be in 1995 however oil production did not peak in 1995 but in fact climbed to more than double the rate initially projected due to factors such as shift to electricity and natural gas for heating, a lower level of growth in the mid 1980s, the use of more energy-efficient internal combustion engines as well as other factors. Further world petroleum extraction is not yet in decline. Some early estimates had it near 2020, then it was raised to 2060-2095 by the American Petroleum Institute assuming total world oil reserves at between 1.4 and 2 trillion barrels and consumption at 80 million barrels per day. A resent study published in the journal Energy Policy from Oxford University, however, predicted demand would surpass supply by 2015 (ceteris paribus). As of 2009 world oil consumption is at 83.6 mbd thus reaching the projected 2015 level of consumption would represent an average annual increase between 2009 and 2015 of 2.7% per year while EIA's own figures show both declining consumption and declining supplies during the 2005-2009 period. The fact is it cannot be accurately determined if and when we will run out of oil. There are still an aggregate of hundreds of years of untaped oil reserves according to CIA publicized estimation. If we run out depends on several variables. First on which theory of how oil is created is correct. Second the efficient use of it and second the rate of consumption. These variables themselves depends on other variables and conditions which must be correct and present.

Further, until recently, unconventional sources, such as heavy crude oil, oil sands, and oil shale are not counted as part of oil reserves. Then there are synthetic sources. Thermal depolymerization could be used to manufacture oil indefinitely, out of garbage, sewage, and agricultural waste. Second, a 2007 news bulletin published by Los Alamos Laboratory proposed that hydrogen (possibly produced using hot fluid from nuclear reactors to split water into hydrogen and oxygen) in combination with sequestered CO2 could be used to produce methanol, which could then be converted into gasoline however at current technology and cost structures, gasoline prices would need to be above $4.60 "at the pump" in U.S. markets.

Add to this several knowledgeable people in the matter such as Abdullah S. Jum'ah, President, Director and CEO of Saudi Aramco states that 'the world has adequate reserves of conventional and non conventional oil sources that will last for more than a century.' Economist Michael Lynch says that the Hubbert Peak theory is flawed and that 'there is no imminent peak in oil production.' He argued in 2004 that 'production is determined by demand as well as geology, and that fluctuations in oil supply are due to political and economic effects as well as the physical processes of exploration, discovery and production.' This idea is echoed by Jad Mouawad, who explains that 'as oil prices rise, new extraction technologies become viable, thus expanding the total recoverable oil reserves.' This, according to Mouwad, is one explanation of the changes in peak production estimates. Leonardo Maugeri, group senior vice president, Corporate Strategies of Eni S.p.A., dismissed the peak oil thesis in a 2004 policy position piece in Science as "the current model of oil doomsters," and based on several flawed assumptions. He characterizes the peak oil theory as part of a series of "recurring oil panics" that have "driven Western political circles toward oil imperialism and attempts to assert direct or indirect control over oil-producing regions". Maugeri claims the geological structure of the earth has not been explored thoroughly enough to conclude that the declining trend in discoveries, which began in the 1960s, will continue. He goes on to claim that complete global oil production, discovery trends, and geological data are not available globally.

The point is this, in order to have an intelligent and factual discussion on the subject of climate change (which is in fact a natural and necessary process or the earth would cease to exist) or global warming (depending on season - used only in or shortly after summer months by the deceivers), we need to examine many aspects that affect the process of climate change to determine if in fact the climate is changing in a manner which from our current level of information and interpolation is inconsistent which what is "normal" and WILL lead to a detrimental outcome. That has not been determined yet only predicted by those who where shown to falsify data to achieve or prove their theory. That is a fact, all else in conjecture since this is a very complicated area to determine due to too many unknowns.

Therefore why are those who are uncertain speaking with certainty? In fact they tell us we MUST change our ways or else we are doomed. Have we not heard that before for the last 2000 years? So why are are supposedly democratically elected governments formulating policy such as the implementation of smart meters in order to conserve (shifting time usage is not conservation) energy by over charging and taxing an already economically depressed populous even more when there is no factual basis that there is a necessity to do so? Is that not immoral and a form of bondage/slavery? Are you not critial enough to queswtion and ask why?

Yes is great that we discover new technology which allows us to be more efficient and utilize less inputs for a greater output however why should this be done at the profit of a few while making the majority worse off? Are we not intelligent enough to achieve our desired outcome in another way? If not then we should not embark on such a journey. After all would you pay more for less? Or perhaps this new world system is purposefully being created this way in order to maintain the status quo of a few haves and the rest have nots? I believe we are intelligent enough to create new technology without having to tax the populous in the process the fact is is being done this way is therefore a conscious choice. I value new technology and efficiency however I value my freedom much more.
Posted by mario@...
14th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
Daryl,

I would consider deforestation a part of human emissions and to the extent that they are caused by human actions wildfires as a secondary cause of human emissions. Also, volcanic activity in an average year outputs around 1% of human caused emissions of CO2 so it amounts to a rounding error.
Posted by riverat1
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Cycles
@James Thompson

Yes, the Earth's climate does go in cycles but the changes we are currently seeing are occurring much faster than they normally would which puts major stress on the ecosystems that sustain all life on the planet.
Posted by riverat1
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
keitha73, to see why the last ice age may have ended, read this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100908132214.htm

The earth's axis shifted and the southern hemisphere began warming, releasing co2 that helped warm the rest of the earth over a very long time span.
Posted by waltsyd
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@...adornoe

"You must be brand new to the discussions and to the whole argument regarding the ?junk science? in global warming."

nope, as i said i've been doing this on a serious capacity for 10 years... hence why i have sdo many answer for silly arguements (like your "junk science" claims without any evidence to support the claim) and facts being taken out of context in an attempt to try to refute global warming... omewhing for which earth physics would have to dramatically change to cease being a fact.

"- the researchers involved ?pick and choose? what data to include in their ?research? out of whatever data is available"

thats done to draw comparison to seperate general global warming from anthropogenic global warming, as a result we KNOW we are causing global warming... hence its not junk science... its the scientific method.

"- the data is fabricated because they can?t find all the data that will prove their ?predictions? (remember the ?hockey stick??)"

the hockey stick for a FUTURE PREDICTION... and guess what so far were still on track for that hockey stick CO2 curve (roughly 1% increase per year, steadily... of course it not a perfect "hockety stick" but rather it appears to be because it cover a VERY long term average.

" the models used for predictions use very faulty assumptions"

because the future hasn't happened yet... that should be obvious to even a child with a scientific mind... or even a logical mind....

your right to an extent, the assumption often are wrong... however they are almost always an UNDER ESTIMATION... again hence why climate model perpetually get worse despite being more accurate, via including more known variables.

"- data is omitted which wouldn?t support those results"

this is almost verbatiam of for first point, thusly its already been explained.

"- the global warming researchers (or ?scientists?) disregard, or outright reject, any opposing research that doesn?t support global warming"

because it alsmot always out of context, via using breif and of spoty climate anomollies to attempt to refute the current warming (which again less than 3% of scinetists actually disagree on)

"- the science becomes a political weapon for agendas"

actually again agendas have nothing to do with the reality of global warming, it does however have to do with how the reality of global warming is being manuipulated for financial and political gain... they are two entirely seperate seperate thing... unfortunately the deniers are unable to differentiate the twwo from one another most of the time, as is the case for several members here who have used that as a reason to attempt to disprove global warming.... it just doesn't work that way.

"- the people mostly pushing the research and results are journalists and politicians"

again political and financial gain from global warming have nothing to do with whether its actually occuring or not... that just plain faulty logic.

"- the ?scientists? involved work in collusion to discredit opposing views and opposition science"

a person with no more than high school science education or a decent middle school scinece class and refute most of the point opposing global warming... its really not that hard, esspecially not in the information age, where the information isn't reserve only for the privledged elite..

its not so much collusion as multiple studies varifying thwe same thing; global warming... and again anyone with even a decent layman's science background can do the same.

" the scientists and universities involved stand to gain through funding or grants for their studies "

as they do for THOUSANDS of other fields... at this point it not even being takien out of context... it just grasping at straws.

" the analysis from the models and from observations is geared towards only proving the science, and negative analysis is disregarded or not reported"

well maybe it would if they could produce a climate model that show that things aren't getting worse and hence warmer.

"The goal from the beginning for the global warming scientists was to figure out a way to prove their hypothesis, while disregarding anything that indicated otherwise."

thats what hypothesis are form for, its an educated guess to prove something... hence if you have a problem with that, you have an inherent problem with the scientific method, and thusly science itself.

and by the way wrong outrightwrong on that last sentence... again its mostly to do with the fact that are aren't any scientifically accepted model to disprove global warming and secondly they after pointed out facts that are running contrary to global warming; one being global dimming, which it slightly offsetting global warming by blocking a portion of sunlight, but in reality that not refuting global warming it just a factor that delays it while causing other problems... but in the end the fact of the matter is there's not much out there to disprove global warming and almost nothing that isn't taken out of context, as i've well evidenced.


"when you start out with a false premise, everything else that results from it can rightfully be discarded along with the science"

except that its not a false premise, and it not only scientifically supported but supported out of a matter of pure logic given established facts.

again you THINK its a false premise but that doesn't make it so, nor have you evidenced otherwise, however it [global warming] has long since been established scinetifically infact technically the premise was proven in the 90th century when they discovered the greenhouse effect.

"So, any tangential studies, such as risk assessments, that are undertaken to alleviate the effects of the faulty predictions, should rightfully be tossed into the trash bin along with the science."

thats an astounding measure of ignorance... you disagree with science rather than try to refute it, you ignore it... yeah that makes sense...LMAO

"you?re using some of the stated results that came from the global warming ?science?, such as the ?warmest year? and the ?warmest period? and so forth."

yeah... that what is SUPPOSED to be done in a discussion, the use of scinetific facts... the fact you disagree with them is utterly irrelevent, such to is your disbeleif in global warming, it occurs whether you believe it or not... but thats the nature of anything in reality... reality is not subjective... thusly nor are facts. and again my global warming theory goes well beyond any climate model i've ever heard of... unlike most people on either side of the debate i have actually spent YEARS think about this, from the information we have... hell i even run climate model on my computer for a UK climate predictions group.

"So, it makes no sense for me to try to answer all of your points when you start out with an already discredited science to quote from."

then you sould have no problem prove that its discredited by actually refuting it... perhaps you might try refuting information rather than just ignoring it... what a novel idea eh!

"You need to do a lot more careful ?research? on your own about what really was happening in the ?global warming? hoax. After all, being in ?denial? about the real truth will just keep you quoting the same junk science while refusing to acknowledge the problems with that science."

funny because had you read my point you'd know i have done my research... ehnce why to can't refute my point, bnot have you even attempted to do so... ignorance seems to be preferable to you... the truth is you know less about global warming than the scientists did i nthe 60's or even the scientist thats discovere the greenhouse effect in 1824... you might not like it but those are the facts... and i welcome you to try to refute me... i'd actually be more comfortable if i didn;t think global warming was occuring... but comfort and reality have nothing to do with each other.

so if you THINK global warming is false then you have alot of leg work to do to prove it... you can't just disregaurd a whole body of science then claim that science is on your side because you've disregaurd everything you disagree with... which ironically is what you accuse them of doing (again without proof, or taken out of context) .
Posted by Daryl420
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
It seems to me that you lot are increasing Global Warming or Climate Change by posting most of your letters. I think you really need to have an audience that will listen to you, and I, for one, am bored by your inane nonsense.
Posted by bwarren3@...
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@riverat1

no arguement on those points from me (ibncluding you points to James Thompson)... aside from possibly volcanic ouput, i though we were up to 230 times more than volcanoes on an average years; but that basically only reinforces your point.


@mario

well that was a tad bit drawn out to basically confirm (in much greater detail) what i said about peak oil...

as for global warming and the agenda of people using it for their gain its imparitive that we learn to seperate science from agenda, they are not the same, and should be be treated as such... for instance i don't agree with some of the agenda about global warming but that by no means dictates that global warming is false or should otherwise be disregaurded.
Posted by Daryl420
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Daryl420: Your circular arguments will not change the fact
that, "global warming science" is still mostly junk science.

"The goal from the beginning for the global warming scientists was to figure out a way to prove their hypothesis, while disregarding anything that indicated otherwise."

thats what hypothesis are form for, its an educated guess to prove something... hence if you have a problem with that, you have an inherent problem with the scientific method, and thusly science itself.

Huh!?!?!

That's what hypothesis is for??

But, they gave up on the hypothesis for "global cooling", which was the prior thesis for the climate "scientists". Why did they give up on that research? Why didn't they follow up on that big lie?

Chances are, with more and more of their predictions not coming true, and with the world sliding into cooler weather year in and year out, that those same "researchers" will change to some other hypothesis that they will think they can "prove" then, or that the opposition will have a hard time disproving.

And, hey, it's not me that's having a problem with the scientific method; it's the "scientists" that are working on the "science" who have a problem with the scientific method.

Some of the predictions that they made years back and which were supposed to occur by the year 2000, never occurred, and, the glaciers melting and the seas rising were supposed to have happened to a life-altering level by now. Those didn't happen!

Look, you and all the junk science researchers may be able to rebut all the points that anybody puts up against the global warming "science", but the rebuttals are not always factual.

Obama and the democrats always try to rebut republican points about the huge job losses that have occurred under Obama, even after the TARP and stimulus packages were passed. Obama and the democrats claim that, more jobs would have been lost if the stimulus package had not been passed, and they further claim that some 3.5 million jobs have been saved by the stimulus. Neither Obama nor democratic leaders are able to prove their claims, but they, Obama and the democrats, can also claim that the republicans cannot disprove those claims. But, it's very hard to disprove the negative that the democrats are talking about without any real hard evidence to the contrary. So, the democrats can continue to claim as true something that can't be disproved. (It's the "you can't disprove a negative" argument).

That's the same kind of scenario with global warming science. Claims can be made about what the future holds if man continues "polluting" the atmosphere with more CO2. Neither the global warmists nor the opposition can say for certain that global warming will cause devastating weather in the future, or not. Thus, frightening scenarios can be proposed in order to scare people into undertaking actions to combat something that will probably never occur. That's scaremongering people into wanting government to do something about it, "just in case". That's highly stupid and would be very devastating to economies all over the world.

Look, I never claimed that "global warming" doesn't occur. If you read from my posts above, you'll see me accepting the fact that global warming does occur. You'll also note that I also accept that global cooling also occurs. In fact, I'll admit that catastrophic global climate changes have happened in the past and will in the future, whether we help or not.

What I don't accept is the proposition that the globe is warming as a consequence of humankind's consumption of fossil fuels. The fact is that the globe has been in a long-term warming cycle that started a couple hundred years ago, and an overall much longer period of warming that started some 10-20 thousand years ago. We might have intermediate periods of short-term cooling or warming, but nobody should take a period of 2 or 3 or 4 decades, and then conclude that it's because mankind has been using more oil than in the past. Like I asked before, whatever happened to global cooling that was being predicted in the mid-70s, which was supposed to have devastating effects for the world in the next 50 to 100 years? A great many scientists and laymen took those warnings very seriously back then too. Even now, there are scientists who are warning about a period of global cooling in the next 30 to 50 years.

But, the science is still mostly junk science, with a few facts interspersed within it here and there so as not to look completely fraudulent and irrelevant.

And, it is true, according to temperatures records from all over the world, that the globe, as a whole, has actually cooled in the last 10 to 12 years. Global warming "scientists", and their supporters, will of course try to explain away the data, as you have done.

Furthermore, you might be one of the only few who is still supporting, in any fashion, the "hockey stick" "research". That was one of the biggest frauds in the "science", even if most of rest of the "science" is very iffy. If the "hockey stick" research had been a person, and that person had been Hitler, you would still be calling Hitler a great person and a great humanitarian who only had the best interests of the world in mind. An indefensible lie, is still a lie, no matter how much you want to change history or the facts.
Posted by adornoe
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@adornoe

When was "global cooling" the prior thesis for climate scientists? If you're talking about a couple of articles that appeared in Newsweek & Time in the 1970's then you are misinformed. An examination of papers published in the 1970's on the subject showed 10% predicted cooling but 62% predicted warming.

Some of the predictions that they made years back and which were supposed to occur by the year 2000, never occurred, and, the glaciers melting and the seas rising were supposed to have happened to a life-altering level by now. Those didn't happen!

Care give me some specific examples of those predictions? I think you'll find that real scientific studies on the subject talk about the problem gradually getting worse over decades and centuries, not in the next 20 years. How life-altering will it be if sea level has risen by 3 feet in 2100 as current projections predict? Not so much for you but maybe for your children and grandchildren and the world they live in.

The globe has not cooled in the past 10-12 years. In the vilified CRU data 1998 was the warmest year but in the NASA/GISS data 2005 was the warmest and 2009 tied with 1998 as the 2nd warmest. So far the first 8 months of 2010 have been the warmest ever but depending on how strong the developing La Nina is it may or may not set the new all time record (for the instrument record that started in the mid 1800's).

As far as the famed "hockey stick" graph, you need to move on. More than a dozen similar studies have been done since it came out in 1998 by different researchers using different datasets but they all look similar. Why don't you attack something more recent?

Nice touch there at the end, Godwin'ing the discussion. happy

Oh, BTW, the TARP package was a Bush II product although I believe Senator (at the time) Obama did vote for it.
Posted by riverat1
15th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
Lider Chat sitesinde
Sohbet etmek i?in
mirc sitemizden mirc indir
meniz gerek forum
sitemizde payla?maya bekliyoruz.
Posted by liderr
16th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Agenda at play
adornoe@...why waist so much time with riverat1

Daryl420...if my responses are lengthy how would you describe yours:). Seriously, I do not agree in the peek oil theory since it is has been proven to be false due to the discoveries of more oil plus androgenic hypothesis or another in which the earth is constantly producing oil makes most sense to me and some other scientist conducting research in this area.

As for agenda and science, unfortunately they cannot be effectively separated since that is our human nature. We always have an agenda with whatever we embark on. Whether one of discovery, of influence, of control and manipulation etc. We cannot simple devoid ourselves form our nature. Those who are honest about that receive the most credibility; those who insist otherwise are deceiving themselves and others. Further those paymasters behind the scientists do have an agenda. They are rich and powerful and altruism was not the means they employed to acquire both. Thus do you naively believe that a Bill Gates or a Rockefeller has you or your family?s interest at heart when they sponsor the foundations and research that they do? If so why has Bill Gates been sued numerous times for anticompetitive practices and the Rockefeller's made their fortune from oil, banking and funding wars, not very altruistic means to success. Therefore given their nature to achieve their goals, the question is what is there agenda? Which is more likely, to protect and acquire more wealth or to help you?
Posted by mario@...
16th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
Oh Mario,

Do you believe the Koch's or Richard Melon Scaife or the Coors family has you or your family's interest at heart when they sponsor the foundations and research that they do? What is their agenda? Which is more likely, to protect and acquire more wealth or to help you?

I don't think either side has much to brag about in that respect.

Oh, and I don't appreciate you talking about my waist wink
Posted by riverat1
16th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
riverat1/Daryl420: Here are examples of "scaremngering", all in one page:
Most are not related to "global warming", but it presents a picture of how wrong "scientific" predictions can be, especially when those scientists are mostly engaging in speculation and guesswork, and sometimes, agendized science.


Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn?t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/earth-day-predictions-of-1970-the-reason-you-should-not-believe-earth-day-predictions-of-2009

Example:

?The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.?
? Kenneth Watt, Ecologist
Posted by adornoe
16th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Dary420: Here's a webpage for you...
You'll probably discount that too as coming from a "naysayer" but, that scientist undoubtedly is infinitely more qualified to talk about "global warming" than you are...

A Demonstration that Global Warming Predictions are Based More On Faith than On Science

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/a-demonstration-that-global-warming-predictions-are-based-more-on-faith-than-on-science/
Posted by adornoe
16th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Daryl420: Go to this web site where you'll see "science" and religion kinda
mixing...

The Hamilton Spectator (14 Oct) reported IPCC chairman, Sir John Houghton (a climate scientist) thus -

"Houghton calls global warming a "moral issue". Reducing greenhouse gas emissions will, he says, "contribute powerfully to the material salvation of the planet from mankind's greed and indifference." "

Who says science and religion don't mix?

http://www.john-daly.com/press/press-00b.htm#supermodels

(A bit old, but still very applicable)
Posted by adornoe
16th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Kenneth Watt is an ecologist.
In 1970 the world had been "chilling sharply" for about twenty years. But Kenneth Watt is an ecologist, not a climate scientist so he is not authoritative on the subject. There was an explosion of industrial activity after WWII and the cooling was partially due to pollution, particularly sulfur dioxide (SO2) which also produces acid rain. When we started cleaning up the pollution in the late 1960's to 1970's then the cooling effect from it went away. As I said in the previous message there were far more scientific papers on the possibility of global warming than cooling in the 1970's.

Roy Spencer is one person on your side of the issue that I have some respect for since he is a scientist working in the field. But he is in a tiny minority in regards to his position and has had to correct some of his work in the past when errors were discovered in it. I listen to what he has to say but take it with a grain of salt as it goes against the consensus. Maybe he'll turn out to be right but it's not too likely. In the mean time it doesn't hurt to reduce the pollution that comes from burning fossil fuels regardless of whether they cause global warming or not.

I agree with Houghton, global warming and our modern capitalist system is a moral issue. If we can't get a handle on it we leave future generations a resource impoverished Earth that further limits their possibilities. And in case you are wondering I am a capitalist. I just believe we should internalize all of the costs that are currently externalized so we pay the true cost of what we do (the song "To dream the impossible dream" pops into my mind). If we did then gasoline might cost $10/gallon in the USA.
Posted by riverat1
16th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@adornoe

"Your circular arguments will not change the fact
that, "global warming science" is still mostly junk science."

and that your OPINION (and thats all it is thus far), no if you want it to be anyhting more than just a nonsensical opinion you NEED to back you opinion up... not ignore science because you don't like it... thats whats children do when they hear things they don't like... you might as well stick your finger in you hers start yelling and say "i can't hear you"... that the same level of arguement that ""global warming science" is still mostly junk science."" is.

"Huh!?!?!

That's what hypothesis is for??

But, they gave up on the hypothesis for "global cooling", which was the prior thesis for the climate "scientists". Why did they give up on that research? Why didn't they follow up on that big lie?"

yeah, in the 70's, when they had a few colder years (not nearly enough to distrub a long term trend), and contrary to your claim they did follow it up it was found faulty because the earth was warming, hence global warming..

science is a self-correcting institution, its unlike religion in that it adapt to the information... science is in reality never wrong for that reason (rather its just not understood at the given time), but rather the proposed theory or hyposesis can be... however the global warming hypothesis has thus or never been proven wrong, and has infact been strengthened by the fact that it hasn't and almost certianly cannot be disproven, since for that to occur it would actually have to stop happening and infact reverse, which defeats the purpose to trying to disprove it.

"Chances are, with more and more of their predictions not coming true, and with the world sliding into cooler weather year in and year out, that those same "researchers" will change to some other hypothesis that they will think they can "prove" then, or that the opposition will have a hard time disproving."

actually they're predictions are coming true... and for that matter FASTER than was predicted, hence why new climate model are almost always more dramatic then the ones the decade before,

and the years HAVEN'T been getting colder, they just haven't STEADILY been as higher as they were in the hottest year on record (1998), which is again, at best, you taking a fact out of context and, at worst, you're deliberately lying... and BTW i've already cover this in this thread (your obviously not reading my postys in their entirity)

"And, hey, it's not me that's having a problem with the scientific method; it's the "scientists" that are working on the "science" who have a problem with the scientific method. "

no you have a problem with the scientific method... they made a hypothesis, their hypothesis was proven, and reapeatidly verified (for the better part of 50 years), and you call it junk science... hence you have a problem with the scientific method... and BTW incase you haven't heard the investigation into climategate found no wrong doing by the climate scientists... just a gross misunderstanding for the scientific method and scientific slang, which a hacker with an obvious anti-global warming agenda (much like yourself in that respect), hacked into and and made public to discredit global warming (obviosuly without understanding it himself, if he even read it), and in the end he not only looks like a criminal, but a complete idiot too for basically yelling fire when there wasn't one.

"Some of the predictions that they made years back and which were supposed to occur by the year 2000, never occurred, and, the glaciers melting and the seas rising were supposed to have happened to a life-altering level by now. Those didn't happen!"

maybe, MAYBE, in the earliest, crudest global warming models, i'll just have to assume your correct (even if your not) since i've heard of no such admission, but i doubt they said anything akin to life altering given the ocen level increase and rate of glacier melt was MUCH slower back when global warming first became a major concern in the late 50's, early 60's.

and yes they WILL have live altering impacts eventually... especially when costal cities and even small coastal or island countries start disappearing, and they will... the melting glacier water has to go somewhere... that somewhere is the ocean... and the it can increase 60 meters, over 185 feet, (conservatively), or up to 80 meters, almost 250 feet, if it were to be allowed to melt entirely...

so even if they did make that statement, they were right... but their timeframe would have been wrong... but the climate and sea level models out in the last 30 years are progressively getting more dramatic, reflecting the ever accelerating global warming.

"Look, you and all the junk science researchers may be able to rebut all the points that anybody puts up against the global warming "science", but the rebuttals are not always factual."

good luck refuting anything i've said... i dare you to try... you'll only make yourself look worse skating uphill into a brickwall...lol

and no crap that rebuttals aren't always factual... if they were i wouldn't be correcting people so often; namely you in this thread.

and likewise if mine weren't factual you would be able to refute anything i say whereas you never done any such thing... and i assume you would if you could.

"Obama and the democrats always try to rebut republican points about the huge job losses that have occurred under Obama, "

well there your agenda right there... thank for showing your true stripes.

"Neither the global warmists nor the opposition can say for certain that global warming will cause devastating weather in the future, or not.

Thus, frightening scenarios can be proposed in order to scare people into undertaking actions to combat something that will probably never occur. "

again this is you showing how far behind the science curve you are...

we've known for a FACT for at least 2 decades that warmer ocean temperatures directly cause more frequent and stronger hurricanes... are hurricanes not devastating?

we've known for a FACT (for many decades) that colder cold fronts colliding with warmer warm fronts directly cause more frequent and stronger tornadoes, are tornadoes not devastating?

we know for a FACT that warmer more arid condition s casue more wildfire, are wildfire not devastating?

are floods not devasting... they've been happening more frequently... how about droughts, they've bee more frequent and and drier... yeah i'd say the effects are ALREADY devasting... IF your watching.

"You'll also note that I also accept that global cooling also occurs. In fact, I'll admit that catastrophic global climate changes have happened in the past and will in the future, whether we help or not."

yeah you did... however you left out that they naturally occur over THOUSANDS of years... not decades.

and yes, they will occur with or without us (you'll never see me say otherwise, ever)... but nothing like this... this is the natural cycle on steroids (stronger) and meth (faster) at the same time.

"What I don't accept is the proposition that the globe is warming as a consequence of humankind's consumption of fossil fuels. "

well sorry... but it is.. and thats a fact... again good luck disproving it...

and moreover that not even close to the only way wer are causing it, as my previous posts point out (some of which aren't even factors taken into consideration in climate models; because they aren't climate, but are intrictly tied to global warming, such as human caused radiant heat, and deforestation).

"The fact is that the globe has been in a long-term warming cycle that started a couple hundred years ago, and an overall much longer period of warming that started some 10-20 thousand years ago."

and again your out of context on both accounts as those peoroids you reference to are ICE AGES... of course its warmed since the major and minor ice age ended... if not you wouldn't be alive... and where you are now would probably be under a mile of ice.

i hope you realize how flawed an arguement that was.


"but nobody should take a period of 2 or 3 or 4 decades, and then conclude that it's because mankind has been using more oil than in the past."

they don't.. at this point your not even taking things out of context your either just plain ignorant, or your lying... the most basic peroid of time is 150-160 years (to the pre-indurstial era), and the longest ones (of a climate we've existed in) goes back 1-2 MILLION years, though that timeframe is mostly used to CO2 tracking... and BTW CO2 hasn't been this high since the early time of homo erectus (1-2 MILLION years ago) and no less than 5 times longer ago than homosapien was even in existence.

"and then conclude that it's because mankind has been using more oil than in the past."

yes thats part of it... but by no means the whole picture.

"But, the science is still mostly junk science, with a few facts interspersed within it here and there so as not to look completely fraudulent and irrelevant."

well it might help if you understood what you were talking about rather than just repeating the talking points from anti-global warming pundit without thought, which is evident as nearly everything you've said is out of context, and in some cases a complete lie (whether knowningly or unknowingly).

"And, it is true, according to temperatures records from all over the world, that the globe, as a whole, has actually cooled in the last 10 to 12 years."

and AGAIN (for i believe the third time in this thread), thats out of context as that was ONLY 1 year (and was a dramatic spike above the trend), and an el nino year at that.

"Global warming "scientists", and their supporters, will of course try to explain away the data, as you have done"

only because your wrong, specifically in this case wrong because its out of context... if ti wasn't and you were correct AND in context i would have to agree with you, and would be happy to do so.

"Furthermore, you might be one of the only few who is still supporting, in any fashion, the "hockey stick" "research". That was one of the biggest frauds in the "science", even if most of rest of the "science" is very iffy."

first off, it hasn't been proven a fraud... it was proven FLAWED... big difference.

secondly, it was a crude representation of the NORTHERN hemisphere (not of the whole earth as global warming model are), and the premise of it was indeed correct, that its warmer than it was in the past 1000 years (the new graph cover 2000 years), and any information earlier than 1850 is spotty because it wasn't measured first hand... much less with precise instruments...

I btw don't use that graph to support anty of my claim anyways... i use mostly raw data, and when i use graph i use multiple source (as should always be done)... and most importantly i try to keep everything in context.

and no hitler wasn't a great person, infact he was quite a mess up person... still a creative genus though, and its ironic you brought that up as when i was in school years back, i actually did defend some the things hitler did (nor did i have to changes facts or history to do it then either)... even in my teen years i was able to differentiate the good things from the agenda... because they aren't one and the same...

throwing the baby out with the bath water is NEVER a scientific, nor logical approach.
Posted by Daryl420
16th Sep 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Links between global warming and extreme weather get stronger
@riverat1

ah yes... i forgot about 2005.... but for me (in southern ontario; roughly the 49th parallel) 1998 was the hottest year... i can actually still remember losing 75-85% percent of the fish in the family aquarium.. even the tank water was in the high 30's (Celsius) for about 2 week, the house was in the low to mid 40's.

i thought that too about the hitler comment too, but i couldn't remember the name... and i think my rebuttal was more impactful... plus it reinforces an either point i hasd made about seperating the good facts/science (or in that case social benifit) from the the agenda (which in the case of my example was horrendous).

and yes, obama did (as senator) vote for the TARP bill.
Posted by Daryl420
16th Sep 2010
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!

Join Login

Keep Up with SmartPlanet

SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter
SmartPlanet Weekly Newsletter

Facebook Activity

View Results

Quick Poll

Where do you believe consumers are in their adoption of the cloud?

View Results

Blog Archive