Global Warming

[SnuggleySoft]

Are you joking? the link you gave me says this:

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

So no, it isn't a scientifically peer reviewed paper...

[Takeshi_02]

You know, I had honestly forgotten about that disclaimer. Here's the story behind it if you care to read it. On the rare occasion the APS actually wanted an opposing viewpoint of the issue, they then backed off for their own reasons.

I hope you took a few minutes to look through his actual work, it's worth the read.

[SnuggleySoft]

If the author worked for Thatcher isn't he probably a bit biased? I don't want to read Karl Rove's paper on global warming. >_>

[Takeshi_02]

Well of course he's biased to the conclusion of his work, just as Al Gore is or Dr. James Hanson is. To ignore others work simply because you may not like their ideas does nothing to refute the validity of the claim.

Again, I'm of the same mind as the Viscount, but I don't mind reading opposing peoples work. I'm actually really waiting for someone, on either side to produce a working climate model that can predict weather systems over a long period of time both in the past and the future. Once something like that comes into existence, I think we'll have something more concrete that even laymen can look to for answers.

[<<< Epi >>>]

I'm actually really waiting for someone, on either side to produce a working climate model that can predict weather systems over a long period of time both in the past and the future. Once something like that comes into existence, I think we'll have something more concrete that even laymen can look to for answers.

You'll likely be waiting for a while weather systems are quite dynamic. This is why climate models predict climate, not weather. You can get into the climate is built off weather since it is a 30-year average argument, but this would degrade into semantics quite quickly. Reproducing the past is no longer the real problem. The real hurdle is predicting the future since there are inherent uncertainties. This is one reason why you will notice that climate model predictions are called scenarios. Because each scenario is built upon certain criteria to work a certain way. This is why you never get 1 scenario but hundreds and thousands that are then grouped into a range of possibilities.

But to lend credence to the models, if a model can accurately predict the past, it is then used to predict future scenarios. If a model cannot predict the past then it shouldn't be used, and usually never is.

[Cultist of Personality]

"If a model cannot predict the past then it shouldn't be used, and usually never is."

Except in the case of Global Warming. For some reason, it is acceptable for climate scientists to enter values for climate forcing variables that are 3X or more the accepted values for CO2 temperature forcing. The IPCC's models don't show the cataclysmic temperature rises unless the forcing values are skewed, and they know it. If you want to get an opposing view of the global warming debate, give a read to Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered by Lord Monckton from Physics and Society in July 2008, the rebuttal by Gavin Schmidt, a contributer to UN climate studys, and Monckton's response. They are an interesting read. Basically, my conclusion, The climate change debate is more about power, money, and politics than acutal science.

I have yet to see a single climate model that can reproduce accurately past climates, and even the most "accurate" fall apart as they near the little ice age, and become rediculous by the time you reach the midaeval warm period. Add to that, temperatures have been decreasing slightly since 1998 ("No significant global warming since 1995" by Jarl R. Ahlbeck D.Sc. and lecturer at Abo Akademi University, Finland) despite IPCC predictions of accelerated warming, and a rapid increase in anthropological CO2 emissions over the same time, I think it's time to go back to the drawing board on the whole man made climate change discussion.

With the science in doubt, one must ask, who benifits by woodenheadedly sticking to their guns in the face of contradictory observations?

Politicians, researchers, and fearrmongers.

Personally, my conclusion is that the "debate" continues because there is far to much money and power involved in the so called climate crisis for the political eliete to give up until the last gasp. Universities and researchers, with billions of dollars of research money at stake, can't afford for this cash cow to be slaughtered before the milk has run dry, and the fearmongers can use the anxiety that predictions of catastrophic climate change to push their agenda to put more and more power in the hands of their new aristocracy.

They know they can do it, because the average person is too ignorant of the science to know good research from bad, and are too bogged down in the durggery of real life to take the time to become more informed and come to an educated opinion. Instead, we allow media, politicians, and fearmongers make up our minds for us.

Follow the money and power. Al Gore is making million selling carbon ofsets, Disney is making billions scaring you to death with movies and NBC news stories about the terrible future we all face, and governments arround the world are stealing the rights and property of the peoples they represent, all in the name of saving the world.

Global warming insn't a religion, as has been incinuated here, it is the cult of personality, with Global Warming as one of its major pillers of faith that has taken over, and created a climate where charisma is more important than qualification or education. As an American, I have often wondered why I turn on the news and see "Experts" like Segorney Weaver and Ted Turner "Educating" the country about the threat of global climate change. Obviously it's not about education or experience, it's about popularity and charisma. Why would educated and inteligent people listen to actors as experts? Because you recognize them, trust them without cause, and they are offering to save you from yourself. Everyone wants to be absolved of their guilt. All Hail the Flim Flam Man. He will set you free, as long as you are his willing slave.

[carnage]

everyone shld get 2 aircon if 1 does not work

[watchman]

And why would you listen to the "experts" on climate change when their credability seems to be on a serious downswing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7009081.ece

[raiman]

in that article they dont dispute that fact that they are melting just a big discrepancy in the time line.

Also read this article by NASA...
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/loo...akobshavn.html

According to many experts this will completely change the flow of the oceans with in a few short years creating massive havoc in Europe most closely resembling an ice-age, with in this decade.

No one credible disputes global warming anymore. They just debate time tables and levels of destruction.

[watchman]

actually quite a lot of news of late on how the "experts" cooked the books a bit to make the case for global warming.

Expect you and I are on different sides on the global warming issue and a lot of other issues, but hope that doesn't drive either of us away as if everyone agreed on every issue there wouldn't b much point in discussing issues. These forums are so dead that I am just glad to see that anyone is still visiting them at all regardless of if they happen to agree with my side of an issue or not.