Climategate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oww-that-hurt

Here in Montana, USA, we have a place named Glacier National Park. The melting of the glaciers is well documented and studied here. It is estimated that by 2030 the last of them will gone, only to have a few small snow fields that are slow to melt before the next winter because they are in the shadows of the peaks.

Every indication is that the rapid increase in melting rates is due to global warming. Glacier core samples have accurate record keeping of atmospheric events. Geologic evidence of their withdrawal rates changing is documented by the lichen which grow at a certain rate and set up new 'house-keeping' on rocks as they become available. Since we humans began messing up the balance of things, the lichen are able to spread at a faster than ever rate because so much more bare rock is available to them.

---

No doubt that glaciers retreat in places. In yet other places there is growth, and um...more growth. Here is a list of growing glaciers. Yet mainstream media does not report any of this.

Not to mention this little tidbit of information...when was the media going to report it?

steelish, thanks for the interesting links.

I got a kick out the one that said Glacier's glaciers were on the 'verge' of regrowing just because of a little snowstorm. In an average year that area can measure snow depth in yards.

As of yesterday we in the Bitterroot Mountains are at 55% normal snow pack for this season. I can stand in my backyard (in the sunshine) and easily see a lot of bare soil at 8,000' and lots of bare patches over 9,000'. We are in the area of 150 miles south of Glacier Park.

About the local media here EVER reporting something accurate and timely will just not happen if there is even the slightest possibility that something about may not be politically correct. Thanks to the internet we can grab papers and university departments and on and on all over the world.

End of soap box.

The glaciers have retreated before! So why is it such a trauma event now? Of course if it is a desire to terminate the use of oil, and any fossil fuel, the retreat of the glaciers is a convenient issue to achieve the end of preventing man from using fossil fuels. The green folk that have been around forever have only that as their agenda. And will use any natural occurring event if it can be made to help them.
Man has, by human standards, been around for some time. During that time the planet has been warmer than now, and colder. By your estimation the existance of the Sahara is man's fault!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oww-that-hurt

Here in Montana, USA, we have a place named Glacier National Park. The melting of the glaciers is well documented and studied here. It is estimated that by 2030 the last of them will gone, only to have a few small snow fields that are slow to melt before the next winter because they are in the shadows of the peaks.

Every indication is that the rapid increase in melting rates is due to global warming. Glacier core samples have accurate record keeping of atmospheric events. Geologic evidence of their withdrawal rates changing is documented by the lichen which grow at a certain rate and set up new 'house-keeping' on rocks as they become available. Since we humans began messing up the balance of things, the lichen are able to spread at a faster than ever rate because so much more bare rock is available to them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

Not to mention this little tidbit of information...when was the media going to report it?

---

When the information about Mr. Jones of East Anglia came out it was not widely reported. I checked there was noting about his faults on ABC, CBS, AP, CNN, or any of the other mainstream outlets!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oww-that-hurt

I got a kick out the one that said Glacier's glaciers were on the 'verge' of regrowing just because of a little snowstorm. In an average year that area can measure snow depth in yards.

---

Glaciers where? Glacier's glaciers? Sorry, I just wanted to know which one you were pinpointing.

During my research on posting here I've also seen photos of people standing at glaciers that show NO MELTING at all since 1998. In the photos you can see a horizontal line in the ice showing the exact time melting stopped and new ice formed.

The earth has been around approximately 4.55 billion years. Dinosaurs roamed the earth for 165 million years. Huge volcanos belched sulfuric acid into the sky during the entire Jurassic Period and well into the Cretaceous Period. Homo Sapiens have been on earth for a mere 100,000 years - only since 1913 has large scale industrial factories existed (a mere 97 years). In 97 years we humans have effected the entire planet so much that we've changed global climate????

Am currently reviewing material on the Little Ice Age. May seem out of place but we are talking glaciers.
This was a period of cold last four to five hundred years where glaciers advanced. (temperatures about four degrees cooler than now)
Prior to that was the Medieval Warm Period. Again several hundred years, with temperatures four to seven degrees above the so called norm.
Begs the question how do we know the same is not happening now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

Glaciers where? Glacier's glaciers? Sorry, I just wanted to know which one you were pinpointing.

During my research on posting here I've also seen photos of people standing at glaciers that show NO MELTING at all since 1998. In the photos you can see a horizontal line in the ice showing the exact time melting stopped and new ice formed.

The earth has been around approximately 4.55 billion years. Dinosaurs roamed the earth for 165 million years. Huge volcanos belched sulfuric acid into the sky during the entire Jurassic Period and well into the Cretaceous Period. Homo Sapiens have been on earth for a mere 100,000 years - only since 1913 has large scale industrial factories existed (a mere 97 years). In 97 years we humans have effected the entire planet so much that we've changed global climate????

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

Am currently reviewing material on the Little Ice Age. May seem out of place but we are talking glaciers.
This was a period of cold last four to five hundred years where glaciers advanced. (temperatures about four degrees cooler than now)
Prior to that was the Medieval Warm Period. Again several hundred years, with temperatures four to seven degrees above the so called norm.
Begs the question how do we know the same is not happening now?

---

I agree with you...that is the point I am trying to make in my posts. We have only been around for 100,000 years...and it's only been the last 97 years in which we've had the type of industrialization that people claim "causes global climate change" or "global warming".

I find it hard to believe that in 97 (or even 200) years, that we (humans) brought about worldwide climatic change to a planet that is 4.55 billion years old and has withstood much worse than what we've thrown at it.

And the reported varience between Ice Age and Warm Period is four to seven degrees either side of a "norm".

And for those of you that insist on it this is from the folks at National Geographic!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

I agree with you...that is the point I am trying to make in my posts. We have only been around for 100,000 years...and it's only been the last 97 years in which we've had the type of industrialization that people claim "causes global climate change" or "global warming".

I find it hard to believe that in 97 (or even 200) years, that we (humans) brought about worldwide climatic change to a planet that is 4.55 billion years old and has withstood much worse than what we've thrown at it.

---

The same National Geographic that is saying this on thier website?

"Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace. It's becoming clear that humans have caused most of the past century's warming by releasing heat-trapping gases as we power our modern lives. Called greenhouse gases, their levels are higher now than in the last 650,000 years.

We call the result global warming, but it is causing a set of changes to the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns, that varies from place to place. As the Earth spins each day, the new heat swirls with it, picking up moisture over the oceans, rising here, settling there. It's changing the rhythms of climate that all living things have come to rely upon.

What will we do to slow this warming? How will we cope with the changes we've already set into motion? While we struggle to figure it all out, the face of the Earth as we know it—coasts, forests, farms and snow-capped mountains—hangs in the balance.

Greenhouse effect

The "greenhouse effect" is the warming that happens when certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping, like the glass walls of a greenhouse.

First, sunlight shines onto the Earth's surface, where it is absorbed and then radiates back into the atmosphere as heat. In the atmosphere, “greenhouse” gases trap some of this heat, and the rest escapes into space. The more greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, the more heat gets trapped.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since 1824, when Joseph Fourier calculated that the Earth would be much colder if it had no atmosphere. This greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earth's climate livable. Without it, the Earth's surface would be an average of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. In 1895, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered that humans could enhance the greenhouse effect by making carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. He kicked off 100 years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated understanding of global warming.

Levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have gone up and down over the Earth's history, but they have been fairly constant for the past few thousand years. Global average temperatures have stayed fairly constant over that time as well, until recently. Through the burning of fossil fuels and other GHG emissions, humans are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth.

Scientists often use the term "climate change" instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth's average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.

Aren't temperature changes natural?

The average global temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide (one of the major greenhouse gases) have fluctuated on a cycle of hundreds of thousands of years as the Earth's position relative to the sun has varied. As a result, ice ages have come and gone.

However, for thousands of years now, emissions of GHGs to the atmosphere have been balanced out by GHGs that are naturally absorbed. As a result, GHG concentrations and temperature have been fairly stable. This stability has allowed human civilization to develop within a consistent climate.

Occasionally, other factors briefly influence global temperatures. Volcanic eruptions, for example, emit particles that temporarily cool the Earth's surface. But these have no lasting effect beyond a few years. Other cycles, such as El Niño, also work on fairly short and predictable cycles.

Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than a third since the industrial revolution. Changes this large have historically taken thousands of years, but are now happening over the course of decades.

Why is this a concern?

The rapid rise in greenhouse gases is a problem because it is changing the climate faster than some living things may be able to adapt. Also, a new and more unpredictable climate poses unique challenges to all life.

Historically, Earth's climate has regularly shifted back and forth between temperatures like those we see today and temperatures cold enough that large sheets of ice covered much of North America and Europe. The difference between average global temperatures today and during those ice ages is only about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit), and these swings happen slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years.

Now, with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earth's remaining ice sheets (such as Greenland and Antarctica) are starting to melt too. The extra water could potentially raise sea levels significantly.

As the mercury rises, the climate can change in unexpected ways. In addition to sea levels rising, weather can become more extreme. This means more intense major storms, more rain followed by longer and drier droughts (a challenge for growing crops), changes in the ranges in which plants and animals can live, and loss of water supplies that have historically come from glaciers.

Scientists are already seeing some of these changes occurring more quickly than they had expected. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eleven of the twelve hottest years since thermometer readings became available occurred between 1995 and 2006."

PS: Here is a link in case anyone decides to have a hissy over the quotes authenticity.


http://environment.nationalgeographi...-overview.html

Yes the same Nat Geo. But how is this a problem?

As for the rest of your quotes. I'm not going to hissy. However, for my money, way too many of those in the AGW camp are to ready to insist that AGW is a fact even when the data can make it suspect. I just finished reading about Trop and Strat temperature variations. The author was confused that there was not a readily discernable corelation between the two but then went on to say that does not change the fact of AGW.
Virtually everything readily available in support of AGW seems to take the same tack. AGW is a fact and the data will be made to support that fact! At least that is the way it reads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

The same National Geographic that is saying this on thier website?

"Glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising, cloud forests are drying, and wildlife is scrambling to keep pace. It's becoming clear that humans have caused most of the past century's warming by releasing heat-trapping gases as we power our modern lives. Called greenhouse gases, their levels are higher now than in the last 650,000 years.

We call the result global warming, but it is causing a set of changes to the Earth's climate, or long-term weather patterns, that varies from place to place. As the Earth spins each day, the new heat swirls with it, picking up moisture over the oceans, rising here, settling there. It's changing the rhythms of climate that all living things have come to rely upon.

What will we do to slow this warming? How will we cope with the changes we've already set into motion? While we struggle to figure it all out, the face of the Earth as we know it—coasts, forests, farms and snow-capped mountains—hangs in the balance.

Greenhouse effect

The "greenhouse effect" is the warming that happens when certain gases in Earth's atmosphere trap heat. These gases let in light but keep heat from escaping, like the glass walls of a greenhouse.

First, sunlight shines onto the Earth's surface, where it is absorbed and then radiates back into the atmosphere as heat. In the atmosphere, “greenhouse” gases trap some of this heat, and the rest escapes into space. The more greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere, the more heat gets trapped.

Scientists have known about the greenhouse effect since 1824, when Joseph Fourier calculated that the Earth would be much colder if it had no atmosphere. This greenhouse effect is what keeps the Earth's climate livable. Without it, the Earth's surface would be an average of about 60 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. In 1895, the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius discovered that humans could enhance the greenhouse effect by making carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. He kicked off 100 years of climate research that has given us a sophisticated understanding of global warming.

Levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs) have gone up and down over the Earth's history, but they have been fairly constant for the past few thousand years. Global average temperatures have stayed fairly constant over that time as well, until recently. Through the burning of fossil fuels and other GHG emissions, humans are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming Earth.

Scientists often use the term "climate change" instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth's average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.

Aren't temperature changes natural?

The average global temperature and concentrations of carbon dioxide (one of the major greenhouse gases) have fluctuated on a cycle of hundreds of thousands of years as the Earth's position relative to the sun has varied. As a result, ice ages have come and gone.

However, for thousands of years now, emissions of GHGs to the atmosphere have been balanced out by GHGs that are naturally absorbed. As a result, GHG concentrations and temperature have been fairly stable. This stability has allowed human civilization to develop within a consistent climate.

Occasionally, other factors briefly influence global temperatures. Volcanic eruptions, for example, emit particles that temporarily cool the Earth's surface. But these have no lasting effect beyond a few years. Other cycles, such as El Niño, also work on fairly short and predictable cycles.

Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than a third since the industrial revolution. Changes this large have historically taken thousands of years, but are now happening over the course of decades.

Why is this a concern?

The rapid rise in greenhouse gases is a problem because it is changing the climate faster than some living things may be able to adapt. Also, a new and more unpredictable climate poses unique challenges to all life.

Historically, Earth's climate has regularly shifted back and forth between temperatures like those we see today and temperatures cold enough that large sheets of ice covered much of North America and Europe. The difference between average global temperatures today and during those ice ages is only about 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit), and these swings happen slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years.

Now, with concentrations of greenhouse gases rising, Earth's remaining ice sheets (such as Greenland and Antarctica) are starting to melt too. The extra water could potentially raise sea levels significantly.

As the mercury rises, the climate can change in unexpected ways. In addition to sea levels rising, weather can become more extreme. This means more intense major storms, more rain followed by longer and drier droughts (a challenge for growing crops), changes in the ranges in which plants and animals can live, and loss of water supplies that have historically come from glaciers.

Scientists are already seeing some of these changes occurring more quickly than they had expected. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, eleven of the twelve hottest years since thermometer readings became available occurred between 1995 and 2006."

PS: Here is a link in case anyone decides to have a hissy over the quotes authenticity.


http://environment.nationalgeographi...-overview.html

---

considering earth is about 3,000 years past due for an Ice Age, I think its safe to say nobody really knows. Besides, I'd rather live on a boat than under a glacier

I really shouldn't have left this thread on email alerts, I keep getting dragged back to it when I should have given it up. Because what can you say to comments like

Quote:

---

considering earth is about 3,000 years past due for an Ice Age, I think its safe to say nobody really knows.

---

Or in other words, considering that there is more than one theory about climate, even though the other theories' predictions have not come true for a century and the AGW predictions have consistently come true for the last fifty years, we can still point to the other ideas to claim nobody "really" knows. On that basis, so longs as the Flat Earth Society still exists (http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...rthsociety.htm) one can argue that nobody really knows the world is round.

Meanwhile, along with NASA http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...w.php?id=43306 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...w.php?id=43083, the US Geological Survey and the Pentagon, we now have to add to the ranks of the AGW conspiracy that well known organ of state socialist propaganda, the Economist: http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ry_id=14966227 Since it's a magazine for the rich, that's a paying link, but if you aren't interested enough to pay to know exactly what they think there are plenty of blogs with a summary.

Quote:

---

In 97 years we humans have effected the entire planet so much that we've changed global climate????

---

Oddly enough, that's what an increasing number of paleogeologists think, to the point of changing the textbooks to say so: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0326101117.htm But of course you already list the world's geologists among the conspirators. Thank goodness we've got tabloid journalists to tell us why all these different scientific disciplines are wrong.

Quote:

---

Government, lately ANY Government is of the opinion that what they "know" and "believe" is of more import than anything anyone else knows!

---

What can one say? Pot... Kettle... Oh, never mind.

I admire your strength for staying with this, Denu, I couldn 't face it. I'm off out again.

Even if man-induced global warming is (were, since i think all the scientists have it quite right) just a possibility, the implications and effects are so huge that it still would be smart to do everything we can do prevent it from getting any worse.

Alas, i'm a pessimist when it comes to believe in collective learning. Well, learning might be possible, but not acting accordingly.

What can I say Leo...I may not be a pain slut per say, but I am one determined slave with a maso-streak..lol.

And regardless of weather it is warming or cooling(which despite all the hoopla and back and forth) ....the real main issue is...(imho of course)...the ceasassion of harming our enviroment (not to mention each other) and using up all the unrenewable rescources while we try to live together on the only planet in the freaking solar system that we can actually live on without being in space suits 24/7 ...before it is in fact too late for not only our posterity, but ourselves.

Leo, thats not even remotely the same. I'm not getting my information from some random guy. I'm getting it from Bill Bryson, a respected author from a highly esteemed book. Denu, you're quote that temperatures change regularly is also not correct.
The trend indicates that Earth is under a mile of ice way more than its not. Its actually a 25 to 1 ratio. You get these big freezing 25 MILLENIA long ice age, with a few brief period of warm teperatures that don't last much longer than 10,000 years. So theres that . . .
Second of all, Mount St. Helen threw more dirt and crap and gas into the air in the 80s than humans have in the last 200 years, and Vesuvias (spelling?) lowered the Earths temperature for the 50 years following it killing everyone
Finally, we know the facts they present are A LIE plain and simple.

Just a reminder from your "friendly neighborhood moderator" to play nice.

There are many "experts" who disagree on this topic, I find it unlikely that we "armchair quarterbacks" are likely to be able to determine what/who is or isn't "correct" "lying" "ignorant" etc.

So please lets keep it civil as I have enough work to do already.
Thank You in advance for your cooperation.

Respectfully,
Tantric

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TantricSoul

There are many "experts" who disagree on this topic, I find it unlikely that we "armchair quarterbacks" are likely to be able to determine what/who is or isn't "correct" "lying" "ignorant" etc.

---

While probably quite true, it's important to know which experts agree and which do not. If nine doctors tell you that you're dying and one lawyer says that you're not, which should you believe?

The AGW controversy is somewhat like this. A very large, and growing, majority of those who have spent their careers studying climatology (experts) agree that AGW is happening. A large majority of those who oppose AGW have not spent their careers in this field, and therefore cannot be considered experts in that field! My money is with the climatologists.

But the AGW "predictions" have not been that accurate. In fact the penultimate Global Warming supporter at East Anglia himself has said there has been no warming in the last 12 - 15 years.
Added to that is data showing that the planet is in fact cooling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

I really shouldn't have left this thread on email alerts, I keep getting dragged back to it when I should have given it up. Because what can you say to comments like
Or in other words, considering that there is more than one theory about climate, even though the other theories' predictions have not come true for a century and the AGW predictions have consistently come true for the last fifty years, we can still point to the other ideas to claim nobody "really" knows.

---

But that then gives rise, again, to the question; "what is the proper temperature for the planet?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lucy

Even if man-induced global warming is (were, since i think all the scientists have it quite right) just a possibility, the implications and effects are so huge that it still would be smart to do everything we can do prevent it from getting any worse.

Alas, i'm a pessimist when it comes to believe in collective learning. Well, learning might be possible, but not acting accordingly.

---

There are as many non experts on one side as the other. All that does it make it all harder to decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

While probably quite true, it's important to know which experts agree and which do not. If nine doctors tell you that you're dying and one lawyer says that you're not, which should you believe?

The AGW controversy is somewhat like this. A very large, and growing, majority of those who have spent their careers studying climatology (experts) agree that AGW is happening. A large majority of those who oppose AGW have not spent their careers in this field, and therefore cannot be considered experts in that field! My money is with the climatologists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

There are as many non experts on one side as the other. All that does it make it all harder to decide.

---

And many of those who "agree" stand to gain significant funds by "agreeing"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

When the information about Mr. Jones of East Anglia came out it was not widely reported. I checked there was noting about his faults on ABC, CBS, AP, CNN, or any of the other mainstream outlets!

---

Of course not. Those are the media outlets who support the current "regime" and will gain by supporting the claims.

Try reading this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil

But that then gives rise, again, to the question; "what is the proper temperature for the planet?"

---

Sorry and with all due respect, but that is total rubbish. There is no 'proper' temperature for the planet. The planet gives a rat's ass about its temperature. We as a species, don't, or shouldn't, because large parts of our civilization pretty much depend on more or less the temperature we have now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

While probably quite true, it's important to know which experts agree and which do not. If nine doctors tell you that you're dying and one lawyer says that you're not, which should you believe?

The AGW controversy is somewhat like this. A very large, and growing, majority of those who have spent their careers studying climatology (experts) agree that AGW is happening. A large majority of those who oppose AGW have not spent their careers in this field, and therefore cannot be considered experts in that field! My money is with the climatologists.

---

Climatology is a small field funded by government organizations. Those who disagree openly, receive little funding but they do still exist. Weathermen, chemists, physicysts, foresters, solar experts, engineers and thousands of informed people recognize the issue isn’t settled.

Evidently, the government's money (in essence, our tax-payer money) is with the Climatologists as well.

The recent Icelandic eruption released more co2 in ONE DAY than ALL OF EUROPE did in a year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

Climatology is a small field funded by government organizations. Those who disagree openly, receive little funding but they do still exist. Weathermen, chemists, physicysts, foresters, solar experts, engineers and thousands of informed people recognize the issue isn’t settled.

Evidently, the government's money (in essence, our tax-payer money) is with the Climatologists as well.

---

I would hope you can back this up with data. Otherwise it sounds all too much like the usual conspiracy nuts who accuse everyone who disagrees with them of conspiring with the government. The 9/11 'Truthers', the anti-Obama 'Birthers', or any other similar group. They claim to know the real truth and anyone who presents data or information that shows them to be wrong automatically becomes a member of the "conspiracy".

"Weathermen, chemists, physicysts, foresters, solar experts, engineers and thousands of informed people" are not experts in climatology. While there may be some overlap, especially with weathermen and solar experts, this does not necessarily give them the expertise to analyze and interpret the complex data which climatologists use.

And the claim that the climatologists are pawns of the governments is just misleading. In the modern world virtually all scientific research is financed in some manner by the government or big business/industry. It's just too damned expensive to set up independent laboratories on your own.

The bigger question is, who gains by falsely proclaiming global warming, and who gains by falsely denying global warming. Sadly there are suspects on both sides, making it even more difficult to determine the truth. And the fact that the media will tend to portray only the most dire and horrific effects of GW, or the most dire and horrific outcomes of fighting GW when it doesn't exist, only makes matter worse.

My personal feeling is that the scientists are getting it right. But it's a very complex issue, with a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. And there's still a lot of science to be done. Let them do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

The recent Icelandic eruption released more co2 in ONE DAY than ALL OF EUROPE did in a year.

---

While this is true, it is also misleading. Volcanoes and other natural sources of CO2 are relative constants in the long term. They've always been there, and as far as people are concerned they always will be. CO2 emissions from them will have peaks and valleys but the average effect will remain relatively constant.

But this does illustrate some of the complexity of climate study. When determining CO2 levels, or temperatures, or any number of other factors, in the past, one of the things climatologists have to consider is the effects of localized geothermal activity. Krakatoa had a devastating impact on global climate for several years, lowering temperatures significantly. Mt. St. Helens had a similar effect on the US for a time. Mt. Pinatubo, in the Philippines, blew a massive hole in the ozone layer, something scientists never expected could happen. As scientists learn more about how these things effect our climate, they have to go back and reanalyze data that may have been affected by them.

One very important thing that non-scientists should familiarize themselves with is how the scientific method works. It's a self-correcting process which helps to advance good science while minimizing bad science. But it is still a human process, so there are mistakes and misunderstandings. There can also be fraud and deceit. But it's the best process we have for learning the truth.

Which is why the scientists shouldnt let the politicians jump the gun for them via the media when they make statements of theory that have as of yet to be proven as facts.

Like humanity is the sole cuase of global warming when they still are not sure that we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Which is why the scientists shouldnt let the politicians jump the gun for them via the media when they make statements of theory that have as of yet to be proven as facts.

---

Another of my pet peeves, here. You do not prove theories with facts. An hypothesis must explain the facts, all of the facts, and predict future facts, before it can be considered a valid theory. The layman/Hollywood definition of theory is completely wrong. A scientific theory is about as close as you can get to explaining the real world.

Quote:

---

Like humanity is the sole cuase of global warming when they still are not sure that we are.

---

I doubt that anyone outside of the media (and politicians, of course) are claiming that humanity is the sole cause of global warming. But the evidence does show that we are a significant contributor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by denuseri

Which is why the scientists shouldnt let the politicians jump the gun for them via the media when they make statements of theory that have as of yet to be proven as facts.

Like humanity is the sole cuase of global warming when they still are not sure that we are.

---

Scientists are never "sure" in the sense you mean. Even if every known scrap of evidence supports a theory, a good scientist always keeps in mind that something might be discovered tomorrow that would undermine it. The only advice any honest scientifist can ever give is "The best evidence we have is that X is the case."

Politicians understand this, and base their decisions on the probabilities. So do we all in matters of common sense. If your doctor told you the evidence was 90% that you had a life-threatening condition, you wouldn't tell him to wait till he was sure before treating it: anyone can see that it would only be 100% certain when you died.

The only people who demand 100% certainty in science are those with a financial or ideological interest in attacking a theory, like creationists and AGW deniers, because they know that that demand can never be met. And the only people who proclaim any theory to be 100% certain are journalists; the scientists who they interview will always tell them the odds, but "as certain as the evidence allows" doesn't make as good a headline as "SCIENTIST PROVES..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

And the only people who proclaim any theory to be 100% certain are journalists; the scientists who they interview will always tell them the odds, but "as certain as the evidence allows" doesn't make as good a headline as "SCIENTIST PROVES..."

---

I know I've told this story before, though perhaps not here:

During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, both before and after, reporters for the networks repeatedly asked climate and weather experts whether global warming had caused Katrina to become so strong. All answered with a definitive, "Unlikely" or "Probably not."

Then someone asked the question of a "climate specialist." His response was that it was absolutely certain that global warming had caused Katrina to grow from a category three to a category five! No mention of data which supported his statement, no clarification of just what kind of "specialist" he was, just that statement.

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

I know I've told this story before, though perhaps not here:

During the Hurricane Katrina disaster, both before and after, reporters for the networks repeatedly asked climate and weather experts whether global warming had caused Katrina to become so strong. All answered with a definitive, "Unlikely" or "Probably not."

Then someone asked the question of a "climate specialist." His response was that it was absolutely certain that global warming had caused Katrina to grow from a category three to a category five! No mention of data which supported his statement, no clarification of just what kind of "specialist" he was, just that statement.

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

---

And chances are good the specialty was in political advocacy at that.

On the other hand, if you focus on quality sources like peer-reviewed journals you can see all sorts of evidence that man-made chemicals are altering the Earth's temperature, and you can't see a single good study saying they don't without looking back several years. It's not because politics or other factors drive the agenda, its that those models have been refuted through further study.

We can't model everything that happens in the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean we don't understand enough of the picture to reach a meaningful conclusion. Building a nuke required splitting the atom, but it doesn't require understanding the subsubatomic particles, just the subatomic ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SadisticNature

We can't model everything that happens in the atmosphere, but that doesn't mean we don't understand enough of the picture to reach a meaningful conclusion. Building a nuke required splitting the atom, but it doesn't require understanding the subsubatomic particles, just the subatomic ones.

---

It's worth remembering, too, that there were scientists, reputable ones, who were afraid that setting off the first atomic bomb could destroy the atmosphere. The science said it was extremely unlikely but, as noted earlier, scientists rarely can say something is impossible. There were also fears about that big collider in Switzerland. But it's already been run and, lo and behold, no black holes eating up the Earth!

The point is, there will always be those on the margins who will play up the extreme possibilities, whether through honest concern or simply to get their faces on the news. Just remember: while a 99.999% probability may not be the same as absolutely true, it's a hell of a lot more likely than driving home from work without having an accident. Worrying about the .001% will keep you huddled in your home, afraid to open your eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Want to guess which statement received the most coverage for the next week? You guessed it! The climate "specialist" clip was played over and over again, on several different networks. None of the climate experts were ever quoted.

---

And this is where deniers get their idea that climatologists are a monolithic conspiracy that only repeat the party line.

Watch this video

Oh, and how about this one?

Hmmm...

And what about these experts?

No, there's no conspiracy!


Wow

And then there's this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

And this is where deniers get their idea that climatologists are a monolithic conspiracy that only repeat the party line.

---

I agree, to think that there's a plot against the good and unsuspecting taxpayers is a bit of a stretch.
There's been arguments on both sides since the Treaty of Rome (1957) from solid scientific research as well obscure ranters (God bless internet).

Besides, if there's a country in the western world far behind it's peers in research, investment and successes where sustainability is concerned is the US.

Respectfully,

FS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by steelish

Watch this video

---

No one questions the fact that plants grow better with CO2. But did that demonstration show the impact of additional heat? What about additional rain causing of higher humidity levels in the air? Would the plants be able to grow where they have grown before if these conditions change? None of these questions are demonstrated in the video. Yet they are critical as to whether crops we need for survival could still grow on our farmland!

Quote:

---

Oh, and how about this one?

---

Dr. Idso is not a climatologist, though his field of study does include the interaction of CO2 with agriculture. But as I noted above, that doesn't mean the plants will continue to grow where we need them to grow. Also, the Center he represents (and founded) refuses to reveal the sources of its funding, and information suggests that a significant portion may come from big oil. Hardly a disinterested party!

He states that CO2 "could not be the primary cause of glacial/interglacial temperature changes", which may well be true, but those changes would have, as now, released CO2 and methane which had been trapped, which explains the rise of those levels after the start of the warming. But claiming that these gases do NOT affect temperatures is blatant lying. Laboratory testing done all over the world have shown that they do, indeed, cause the kinds of effects which climatologists assert. This is not just interpretation of historical data but actual laboratory testing!

Quote:

---

Hmmm...

---

Yes, John Christy does oppose those who promote cataclysmic changes from global warming. He does not deny the fact that global warming is occurring, nor that mankind is at least partly responsible. This video is another example of the media spinning the story to suit their own agenda.

Quote:

---

And what about these experts?

---

Syun-Ichi Akasofu - a geophysicist, NOT a climatologist.
Tim Ball - head of another group which won't reveal its funding sources.
Ian Clark - another non-climatologist.
Piers Corbyn - a weatherman! And an astrophysicist. NOT a climatologist.

I hope I have cast enough skepticism on these videos to encourage others to research the rest. I have neither the time nor the inclination to point out the problems in them all.

As for my own stance, while there is still some question in my mind over the significance of global warming, there is little question that it is occurring. As I have stated, laboratory testing has shown that CO2 and methane and water vapor are significant greenhouse gases. Historically, CO2 and methane levels have increased because of higher global temperatures, as they are released from trapped reservoirs in the tundras and sea beds. But we are already starting to see those same reservoirs beginning to release their gases, which will only further increase the CO2 and methane content in the atmosphere. And this time, the CO2 and methane are LEADING the warming, rather than following.

Things are definitely changing. I don't know if they'll get as bad as some of the doom-criers claim. I tend to doubt it myself. But the changes are, indeed, happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thorne

Syun-Ichi Akasofu - a geophysicist, NOT a climatologist.
Tim Ball - head of another group which won't reveal its funding sources.
Ian Clark - another non-climatologist.
Piers Corbyn - a weatherman! And an astrophysicist. NOT a climatologist.

---

You're right....an astrophysicist and a geophysicist are both numbskulls and don't know of what they speak. Climatology is a "generated" field of study that is fairly new...but then, geophysicists and astrophysicists are morons and know nothing of the planet.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't help but be dry and sarcastic in this post. To dismiss long standing fields of study in favor of a new field which supports a viewpoint you're in favor of is to me the same as refusing to see the forest for the trees.