Ice core data shows that we have had comparable (but not higher!) temperatures several times in the past 10 000 years. What is unique is the rate at which that warming has occurred in the last half of the 20th century; the earth hasn’t experienced a change that rapid since the end of the last ice age.
Unlike most of the shills being paid to dissent with the consensus opinion on climate change the people working on the IPCC report are almost all scientists who have published numerous articles for peer reviewed periodicals.
Wow, they aren't being paid by millions of dollars in goverment grants? They are doing this out of their personal love for the polar bears?
Meteorologist do not study long term climate patterns and even if they disagree with the consensus opinion on global warming their opinions are scientifically worthless if they without peer review papers. (As I indicated in a previous post not a single one of the 928 peer reviewed papers on climate change to appear in the periodical science disagreed with the consensus opinion that it’s occurring and primarily human caused.)
Sounds like censorship to me. Obviously -- as I stated previously-- many credible scientists currently have dissenting opinions on global warming, not to include any speaks volumes about the ethical atmosphere in the camp of global warming alarmists. Many scientists have voiced concern that papers opposed to global warming are not even allowed to be published under the guise that there is no interest . Several foreign scientists which have questioned theories of global warming have been told to back down by their governments or funding would be taken from them. Its silly to imply the gold standard of knowledge should not be whether or not the opinion has been published in a certain journal.
Why are you bringing up a 10 year old IPCC report when a new one was published this week? In fact there have been 2 IPCC reports published since 1996, one in 2001 and 1 in 2007 and each has come out with stronger conclusions on climate change and humanities role in it.
Go ahead and summarize this "new" data that proves global warming isnt a natural phenomina and can be controlled by limiting CO2 emissions. I could find no such evidence in my research.
Household heating is not the source of the problem and there are low energy input heating mechanisms like geothermal heat pumps that have been proven successful and economical in cold climates.
Science is one of the world’s premier peer review periodicals. You cannot simply discount the worlds major peer review periodicals and retain any claim to be supporting credible science.
On the real censorship front, however, over the last 5 years the US government has had a policy of censoring references to global warming in the research it funds.
"Federal scientists have been pressured by the White House to play down global warming, advocacy groups testified Tuesday at the Democrats' first investigative hearing since taking control of Congress.
The hearing focused on allegations White House officials for years have micromanaged the government's climate programs and have closely controlled what scientists have been allowed to tell the public.
"It appears there may have been an orchestrated campaign to mislead the public about climate change," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California"
You also have oil companies *paying people cash* to publicly dissent with the consensus opinion on global warming.
-multiple studies each using different methodologies have confirmed that the last 30 years have been at least as warm as any period over the last 10 000.
-multiple studies have confirmed that the rate of warming during the 20’th century hasn’t been seen since the end of the last ice age. We have gone from a relatively cool period to 10 000 year highs in just 30 years.
-summer sea ice in the arctic have reached lows that have not been seen in at least 8500 years, and probably much longer (polar bears would have been extinct in north America if summer sea ice had stayed below current levels for any appreciable time)
-losses of summer sea ice in the artic is accelerating, and likely to disappear entirely in this century
-artic sea ice continues to thin, not only is their less, but the ice that does form isn’t as thick
-many artic ice shelves have decreased by as much as 90% and some have disappeared completely.
-the Greenland ice sheet continues to melt. (it’s actually getting smaller but slightly thicker in the centre, which is exactly what you would expect to happen. It thickens in the centre due to increase snowfall resulting from warmer water in the artic)
- nonanthropogenic explanations for these phenomena, like the modest increase in solar radiation during the 20th century have been studied and ruled out as being the major cause
Originally posted by SBC3 Hmm funny!!! Global Warming should be started... But here in detroite I had now 2 days off from school due to 20 below zero... GLOBAL WARMING = FAKE!
seriously, what did you expect from global warming. a 40 degree (fahrenheit or celsius i dont care) rise in temperatures per year?
Hmm funny!!! Global Warming should be started... But here in detroite I had now 2 days off from school due to 20 below zero...
GLOBAL WARMING = FAKE!
seriously, what did you expect from global warming. a 40 degree (fahrenheit or celsius i dont care) rise in temperatures per year?
Even small increases in temperature can have huge impacts. Global warming may disrupt climate patterns around the world and could lead to outbreaks of disease. Some symptoms are already appearing: rising tides, shrinking glaciers, melting permafrost and shifts in plant and animal habitats. Global climate change may mean that some areas will actually become colder.
Colorado's third big snowfall in a month also fits a pattern long predicted for global warming.
Our records go back about a million years in ice cores and sea bed sediments and it seems to be a solar length cycle based on our records of sunspots that go back several centuries and the Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10, that are produced here on earth. The Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10 cycle -- they follow the 1500 year cycle as do our temperatures.
We had Roman warming about the time of Christ (Hawkins' Note: If I am understanding Avery correctly, the last sun driven warming cycle before this one started about 200 BC and ran through roughly 350-400 AD). Then we had the cold dark ages. We had a warming in the 10th, 11th, 12th centuries. We had 650 years of the little ice age and now we're back warming again.
If this were a human caused warming, it should have started about 1940 and trended strongly upward as global industrialization followed World War 2. That isn't what happened. The warming started about 1850. We had a surge of warming from about 1850 to 1870. We had another surge from 1916 to 1940 and then, when the greenhouse gasses began to spew from the factories, the temperatures went down for 35 years. 1976 to 1998, we had another surge of warming, but we've had no warming in the last 8 years. So, what we have is an erratic warming that started too soon to be blamed on humans and is not following in the footsteps of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The typical warming has been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius. Some of them have been a bit warmer than that. The one about 5000 years ago was quite warm. Obviously, all of our wildlife species and plants have been through these cycles before and we haven't studied their coping strategies, but we know they have them because they're here.
And, we can't really predict how long this will last. The 1500 year cycle is very regular during the ice ages and it's less regular during the warmings, but we've probably got several hundred more years of warm, stable, sunny weather and then we'll have another icy age, either a little ice age or a big one, in which case, things will either get quite a bit colder or a whole lot colder and the weather will be cloudy and unstable and people will wish they were living in a warming.
2 billion dollars a year are spent in federal research grants to set-up computerized climate models.
Greenpeace wouldn't be selling memberships to people terrified of warming, and Al Gore would have to get a real job if people would get it through their thick heads that HUMANS DO NOT CREATE GLOBAL WARMING!.
Ok....one more time to the tree huggers! Our records go back about a million years in ice cores and sea bed sediments and it seems to be a solar length cycle based on our records of sunspots that go back several centuries and the Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10, that are produced here on earth. The Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10 cycle -- they follow the 1500 year cycle as do our temperatures. We had Roman warming about the time of Christ (Hawkins' Note: If I am understanding Avery correctly, the last sun driven warming cycle before this one started about 200 BC and ran through roughly 350-400 AD). Then we had the cold dark ages. We had a warming in the 10th, 11th, 12th centuries. We had 650 years of the little ice age and now we're back warming again. If this were a human caused warming, it should have started about 1940 and trended strongly upward as global industrialization followed World War 2. That isn't what happened. The warming started about 1850. We had a surge of warming from about 1850 to 1870. We had another surge from 1916 to 1940 and then, when the greenhouse gasses began to spew from the factories, the temperatures went down for 35 years. 1976 to 1998, we had another surge of warming, but we've had no warming in the last 8 years. So, what we have is an erratic warming that started too soon to be blamed on humans and is not following in the footsteps of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The typical warming has been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius. Some of them have been a bit warmer than that. The one about 5000 years ago was quite warm. Obviously, all of our wildlife species and plants have been through these cycles before and we haven't studied their coping strategies, but we know they have them because they're here. And, we can't really predict how long this will last. The 1500 year cycle is very regular during the ice ages and it's less regular during the warmings, but we've probably got several hundred more years of warm, stable, sunny weather and then we'll have another icy age, either a little ice age or a big one, in which case, things will either get quite a bit colder or a whole lot colder and the weather will be cloudy and unstable and people will wish they were living in a warming. 2 billion dollars a year are spent in federal research grants to set-up computerized climate models. Greenpeace wouldn't be selling memberships to people terrified of warming, and Al Gore would have to get a real job if people would get it through their thick heads that HUMANS DO NOT CREATE GLOBAL WARMING!. We have to ask, what is the impact of a warmer climate? It's not the warming itself that we should be concerned about. It is the impact. So we have to then ask: What is the impact on agriculture? The answer is: It's positive. It's good. What's the impact on forests of greater levels of CO2 and greater temperatures? It's good. What is the impact on water supplies? It's neutral. What is the impact on sea level? It will produce a reduction in sea-level rise. It will not raise sea levels. What is the impact on recreation? It's mixed. You get, on the one hand, perhaps less skiing; on the other hand, you get more sunshine and maybe better beach weather. Let's face it. People like warmer climates. There's a good reason why much of the U.S. population is moving into the Sun Belt, and not just people who are retiring.
From the very same article,
"Well, there's no question in my mind that humanity is able to affect climate on a local scale. We all know that cities are warmer than the suburbs or surrounding countryside. So there's clear indication that human beings, in producing energy, in just living, generate heat. We're not going to go back to living without energy."
(Maybe you should read it a little better) The article is actually very good, a nonbiased look at the issue and very informative. It, however, does not back up your claim that humans do not affect the climate, As per usual you focus in on only what you want to see and respond to or with, instead of looking at the whole picture.
I do agree that doomsday is the least likely outcome, but why chance it? Why keep on kicking the problem instead of trying to help? Money? You talk about 2 billion dollars in a budget of trillions of dollars (I believe it's around 29 trillion now) 2 billion is a fart in a windstorm compared to what is spent on other endeavors (like, oh, the military budget, oOOo now they won't be able to buy a few toilet seats and commies will crawl up your arse in the latrine).
Oh and as to your hatred of hippies, I hate them too, they all turned into hypocrites (I call them Hippicrites) and became the corporate suck up yuppies, adding to the problem.
Comments
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Hmm funny!!! Global Warming should be started... But here in detroite I had now 2 days off from school due to 20 below zero...
GLOBAL WARMING = FAKE!
The Big MMORPG List
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
seriously, what did you expect from global warming. a 40 degree (fahrenheit or celsius i dont care) rise in temperatures per year?
seriously, what did you expect from global warming. a 40 degree (fahrenheit or celsius i dont care) rise in temperatures per year?
Even small increases in temperature can have huge impacts. Global warming may disrupt climate patterns around the world and could lead to outbreaks of disease. Some symptoms are already appearing: rising tides, shrinking glaciers, melting permafrost and shifts in plant and animal habitats. Global climate change may mean that some areas will actually become colder.
Colorado's third big snowfall in a month also fits a pattern long predicted for global warming.
True story... We've raped the planet to near death, just because people are Chinese.
I CREATED MYSELF!
"<Claus|Dev> i r pk"
SW:TOR|War40K:DMO|GW2
Ok....one more time to the tree huggers!
Our records go back about a million years in ice cores and sea bed sediments and it seems to be a solar length cycle based on our records of sunspots that go back several centuries and the Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10, that are produced here on earth. The Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10 cycle -- they follow the 1500 year cycle as do our temperatures.
We had Roman warming about the time of Christ (Hawkins' Note: If I am understanding Avery correctly, the last sun driven warming cycle before this one started about 200 BC and ran through roughly 350-400 AD). Then we had the cold dark ages. We had a warming in the 10th, 11th, 12th centuries. We had 650 years of the little ice age and now we're back warming again.
If this were a human caused warming, it should have started about 1940 and trended strongly upward as global industrialization followed World War 2. That isn't what happened. The warming started about 1850. We had a surge of warming from about 1850 to 1870. We had another surge from 1916 to 1940 and then, when the greenhouse gasses began to spew from the factories, the temperatures went down for 35 years. 1976 to 1998, we had another surge of warming, but we've had no warming in the last 8 years. So, what we have is an erratic warming that started too soon to be blamed on humans and is not following in the footsteps of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The typical warming has been 1 to 2 degrees Celsius. Some of them have been a bit warmer than that. The one about 5000 years ago was quite warm. Obviously, all of our wildlife species and plants have been through these cycles before and we haven't studied their coping strategies, but we know they have them because they're here.
And, we can't really predict how long this will last. The 1500 year cycle is very regular during the ice ages and it's less regular during the warmings, but we've probably got several hundred more years of warm, stable, sunny weather and then we'll have another icy age, either a little ice age or a big one, in which case, things will either get quite a bit colder or a whole lot colder and the weather will be cloudy and unstable and people will wish they were living in a warming.
2 billion dollars a year are spent in federal research grants to set-up computerized climate models.
Greenpeace wouldn't be selling memberships to people terrified of warming, and Al Gore would have to get a real job if people would get it through their thick heads that HUMANS DO NOT CREATE GLOBAL WARMING!.
We have to ask, what is the impact of a warmer climate? It's not the warming itself that we should be concerned about. It is the impact. So we have to then ask: What is the impact on agriculture? The answer is: It's positive. It's good. What's the impact on forests of greater levels of CO2 and greater temperatures? It's good. What is the impact on water supplies? It's neutral. What is the impact on sea level? It will produce a reduction in sea-level rise. It will not raise sea levels. What is the impact on recreation? It's mixed. You get, on the one hand, perhaps less skiing; on the other hand, you get more sunshine and maybe better beach weather.
Let's face it. People like warmer climates. There's a good reason why much of the U.S. population is moving into the Sun Belt, and not just people who are retiring.
From the very same article,
"Well, there's no question in my mind that humanity is able to affect climate on a local scale. We all know that cities are warmer than the suburbs or surrounding countryside. So there's clear indication that human beings, in producing energy, in just living, generate heat. We're not going to go back to living without energy."
(Maybe you should read it a little better) The article is actually very good, a nonbiased look at the issue and very informative. It, however, does not back up your claim that humans do not affect the climate, As per usual you focus in on only what you want to see and respond to or with, instead of looking at the whole picture.
I do agree that doomsday is the least likely outcome, but why chance it? Why keep on kicking the problem instead of trying to help? Money? You talk about 2 billion dollars in a budget of trillions of dollars (I believe it's around 29 trillion now) 2 billion is a fart in a windstorm compared to what is spent on other endeavors (like, oh, the military budget, oOOo now they won't be able to buy a few toilet seats and commies will crawl up your arse in the latrine).
Oh and as to your hatred of hippies, I hate them too, they all turned into hypocrites (I call them Hippicrites) and became the corporate suck up yuppies, adding to the problem.
µV
