Global warming...

[The Runar]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=1&hp

 

There's really nothing for me to say... just read the article. It's really interesting.

[Alg]

So Crichton was right?

 

The only thing I can say is that you still shouldn't be pumping all that crap into the Earth or wasting stuff. We may need it later.

[Skull]

Looks like a lot of pulling things out of context and misinterpreting wordings to me. The entire article also basically relies on the fact that the word trick was used in a few e-mails.

 

Climate change is real and even if it wasn't, that doesn't mean humanity should just keep going about dumping pollution into world.

[H2PM]

[The Runar]

Here's another article, which contains lots of examples. And yes, these have been confirmed to be true.

 

-----

 

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I dont remember. Darrell, does this sound right to you?

 

-----

 

Ive just completed Mikes Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keiths to hide the decline.

 

-----

 

The fact is that we cant account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cant. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

 

-----

 

Perhaps we'll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new page--Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa '06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

 

-----

 

I understand that global warming exists, but these scientists make it appear much worse than it actually is.

[magekillr]

It's a good thing I read the news everyday and see popular articles, or else I wouldn't have a response already saved:

 

Quote from my friend Andy, a meteorologist PhD student:

 

It's painfully obvious what is going on here... exactly not what FoxNews wants us to believe. You see, the thing is, yes, 1998 is the warmest year on record. For anyone with a degree in a relevent subject, you learn that the reason why it's an anomalously warm year compared to those around it is because of the extremely strong El Nino that was present for much of the entire year. These leaked emails are from 10 years ago. Hey guess what was 10 years ago, 1999, a year that was significantly cooler than 1998 due to not having an El Nino. People would jump on that as something to claim the earth is cooling when in fact... that's just not the case.

 

http://zedomax.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/instrumental_temperature_record.png

 

According to "chart that probably gets 50% of its views by myself alone" 1996 97 99 and 2000 are all cooler than any year from 2001-2008 (and 2009 as well is heading for being at least top three overall). In fact... in 1999 and 2000 the five year average doesn't even dip down. So no, the earth is not cooling unless you're using an asinine 1 year average that starts at 1998. You know what that is? Bias. Pure and simple. That's why I use comprehensive sources of data and worthwhile measures like five year averages (to flatten out variations from weather as opposed to climate, not like climate change deniers know the difference between the two anyway).

 

Oh, and another thing. Hacking is illegal but nobody seems to give a crap about that fact to the point where foxnews just calls it "leaked".

 

As for this "hide the decline" stuff, has anything been hidden? Heck no. We know from my own darn chart that 1999 was a good deal cooler than 1998. It's not something that happened. Nothing is hidden. We see it and heaven forbid when you hack into hundreds of emails you're going to find one person saying something in some stupid way.

 

Conclusion: Total non-issue, move along flat-earthers.

 

And a little bit from me: no, it's not a hoax, and it's probably the most dire threat to the human race right now.

[nerdboyxxx]

How can you say it isn't real? Honestly it's a bit obvious it is happening. And no don't tell me its a natural cycle; we didn't have cars back when "Jesus" was born (just an example). So, no, we are speeding up the process of global warming and we should stop. Why would we try and prevent a cleaner, better world anyway?

 

I don't believe the few scientists that carry on about the big hoax. The media shouldn't blow it out of proportion, but it is obvious that it is a major threat to our planet and our society/economies.

[Alg]

I don't believe the few scientists that carry on about the big hoax. The media shouldn't blow it out of proportion, but it is obvious that it is a major threat to our planet and our society/economies.

That's the one complaint I have about it, it really is barely a scientific issue anymore because of how political it is. And I'm having a hard time believing that it every prediction about it is true because instead of researching it further the option just seems to be find new ways to scare people into voting for you.

 

Regardless it still goes without saying that there shouldn't be so much pollution.

[magekillr]

I don't believe the few scientists that carry on about the big hoax. The media shouldn't blow it out of proportion, but it is obvious that it is a major threat to our planet and our society/economies.

That's the one complaint I have about it, it really is barely a scientific issue anymore because of how political it is. And I'm having a hard time believing that it every prediction about it is true because instead of researching it further the option just seems to be find new ways to scare people into voting for you.

 

Regardless it still goes without saying that there shouldn't be so much pollution.

 

Economics is politicized just as much; just look at a majority of Americans who think that unemployment will go up if we cut the stimulus. Yeah, it sucks that economic issues are politicized (like when the idiotic leftists argue for rent control or living wages), and it sucks just as much that environmental issues are politicized, but it's how it is.

 

I'm not sure which predictions you're referring to, though. I don't like Al Gore running around with his advocacy, I think he's hurting the cause more than helping it. For one, he's trying to win people over by stating the "facts" with fear mongering. "ZOMG OCEANS WILL RISE X AMOUNT OF FEET IF WE LET THIS SHEET MELT!" Correct, Gore, but the sheet won't melt for a long time at the current rates. Meanwhile you have people who are already "skeptical" about a non-controversial issue in the science community because of said fear mongering. Still, he's not nearly as bad as the people shelling out denial like the OP; they're in a league of their own.

 

In America, supporting doing something about climate change isn't really politically positive. Most voters don't believe in evolution, so I can't imagine a large percentage believe in climate change. Not to mention the right wing constantly talks about clean coal and shale, two things that greatly contribute to climate change, and nuclear (nuclear power is a good thing, the left needs to stfu and accept it).

 

In any case, they are continuing to research it. Less than a decade ago we couldn't explain why the Ordovician had an ice age despite such high amounts of carbon. We knew that the solar output was much weaker, but the temperatures were still warmer than expected; the lower level of sun output should have made it go into an ice age alone. The reason for these warmer temperatures was because of the amount of carbon, however. But, why was there an ice age if there was such high levels of carbon? Well, thanks to research, recent research, we now know why. The oceanic crust in the northern Atlantic was going underneath the North American continent, and pushed up a substantial amount of Earth (a rise in the Appalachian Mountains). The CO2 would react with the rock, get stuck in the sea, and that's where all of the carbon went. Thus, we have substantial reductions in carbon, mixed with lower solar output, to explain the ice age during a time with huge amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[Nero]

It's so silly that in the age of the internet we still can't figure out the facts.

[Alg]

The difference between evolution and global warming is that you can't scare people with evolution though.

[Youmu]

Even if global warming isn't real, people should not abuse resources on Earth. The planet would be sucked dry and we all would die.

 

I've seen a documentary about how global warming is false, and it was pretty interesting. Never knew about stuff like how it was even warmer before than it was now, and how the temperature is actually decreasing after that period. I forgot what the documentary was called though.

[deathdrow]

Even if global warming isn't real, people should not abuse resources on Earth. The planet would be sucked dry and we all would die.

 

I've seen a documentary about how global warming is false, and it was pretty interesting. Never knew about stuff like how it was even warmer before than it was now, and how the temperature is actually decreasing after that period. I forgot what the documentary was called though.

The main factor of evidence used to prove global warming is a diagram or graph representing a HUGE rise, like a hockey stick, in amounts of carbon dioxide, or temperature or something, I forget now, but the main piece of evidence supporting global warming, or how the media portrays it, was horribly biased, I'll back that up later, but yeah. heehee.

[Saru Inc]

How can you say it isn't real? Honestly it's a bit obvious it is happening. And no don't tell me its a natural cycle; we didn't have cars back when "Jesus" was born (just an example). So, no, we are speeding up the process of global warming and we should stop. Why would we try and prevent a cleaner, better world anyway?

 

I don't believe the few scientists that carry on about the big hoax. The media shouldn't blow it out of proportion, but it is obvious that it is a major threat to our planet and our society/economies.

 

 

 

I have absolute no problem with going green. I have a problem with going green zealously. Global warming isn't happening, and since I wrote a research paper that was 14 pages (got a 98 hah :D) I'm going to assume I know more about the subject than you. It is fact that almost 2k years ago the earth was a lot warmer, it is a cycle. And also, we're coming out of a mini ice age of 500 years I think.

 

 

 

O and it's nothing personal.

[michel555555]

Climate change is happening. doesn't mean that humans are the cause of it. As my friend the fsm says, its not the increase of cars that have led to global warming, its the decrease of pirates!

 

As to why i know its happening. In june in alberta we had snow...

Here in winnipeg its almost december and i think we had 1 snow fall that was actually worthy of being called that. That doesn't seem so bad but here in winnipeg we have a saying, we only have 2 seasons winter and construction, so far just a lot of construction.

[warri0r45]

A few suspect emails from one university in Britain = decades of international climate research is a lie?

 

No. That's stupid.

[i_love_burritos]

Even if the data presented was altered, or skewed to present a false image. Even if it is one gigantic conspiracy, or I dont know, any other method to deny it it's validity --

 

No one's arguing with the fact that pumping tonnes of chemicals into our air and water is a bad thing.

No one's arguing with the fact that our finite resources are quickly being used up by our infinite and insatiable human needs.

No one's arguing with the fact that what is happening all around us is real, present and immeadiate.

 

So, stop spreading your lies.

[Hawks]

In the 80's everybody was screaming about 'Global Cooling'... Planting trees and all sorts of crap. Even if 'Global Warming' is really occurring, I maintain that it's not the fault of humans, it's a cycle the Earth goes through.

 

Even Al Gore's graph in 'An Inconvenient Truth' showed that.

And if you're going to say to look at the end of the graph, where he's in a bucket truck:

EXTRAPOLATING IS DANGEROUS and often does not show what's really going to happen.

 

And I also [kind of] maintain that it's also due to the significant drop in the number of pirates in the world.

 

OF COURSE YOU SHOULD RECYCLE AND CONSERVE ENERGY, where it's practical to do so.

 

And here in Michigan (where we also have only two seasons =P) we're on track to have a pretty bitter winter (according to the Almanac, and it was right about a COOL SUMMER.)

[Rebdragon]

Instead of throwing trillions of dollars at climate bull [cabbage] maybe we could spending it helping people who are dying in Africa because they don't have access to medicine that costs less than a buck.

 

Or, you know, we could spend trillions making it two degrees cooler for them. I'm sure that's what they need most.

[i_love_burritos]

Instead of throwing trillions of dollars at climate bull [cabbage] maybe we could spending it helping people who are dying in Africa because they don't have access to medicine that costs less than a buck.

 

Or, you know, we could spend trillions making it two degrees cooler for them. I'm sure that's what they need most.

 

Oh, I dont know Rebdragon. We'll have to tax people for that.

 

Oh, yes. Tax innnocent hardworking Americans out of their precious money. Is it worth it ? Naww, [bleep] it.

[Rebdragon]

I get the point, but I don't get how the "it would cost less" point got past you :/ .

 

And why do you use my full name.

[Gwasha]

Instead of throwing trillions of dollars at climate bull [cabbage] maybe we could spending it helping people who are dying in Africa because they don't have access to medicine that costs less than a buck.

 

Or, you know, we could spend trillions making it two degrees cooler for them. I'm sure that's what they need most.

 

I really hope I can use that funny point in a real life. Thanks for the laugh.

 

And stupid point, but if global warming does exist, don't we all want to be able to go to Antartica for vacation?

[Impersonator]

Apparently the Sahara desert is growing. Less land for Africans = less Africans able to live there.

Not to mention that the rising temperatures will increase the length of droughts and decrease food production on a continent where starvation is already a huge problem...

So, are we going to give medicine and food to Africans today, helping them live and reproduce, so that their children can suffer through the same poverty, disease and starvation that we tried to save their parents from? Really, the ones we helped are likely to live long enough to have MORE children to suffer...

Oh, and of course there's the issue of warlords confiscating supplies which were meant for the general population, only making their regimes stronger.

 

Maybe we should stay out of Africa and let the Africans handle it? I don't think they'd mind if we managed to make the world a few degrees cooler if it meant stopping the growth of the Sahara and more seasonal temperatures for growing crops.

 

Oh, and anyone who thinks that global warming = more cropland farther towards the poles- ecosystem growth doesn't work that way. It's a very slow process to naturally develop soils into sustainable fertile land.

 

Also- no-one argue with Saruman, he's an expert (he got a 98)

[i_love_burritos]

I get the point, but I don't get how the "it would cost less" point got past you :/ .

 

And why do you use my full name.

Yes, I did read the part it says it "would cost less" to eradicate disease poverty etc...

 

But you are a fortunate white male, going to an Ivy League college if I'm not mistaken, and you've already mentioned several times your hatred for America's tax system.

I thought you would agree. Still the US is one of the largest [if not the largest, memory not failing] foreign aid donaters, but most of this is through the IMF and World Bank [practically the same now] And everyone knows that this money is only used to serve the economic and often strategic interests of the donor country.

 

But, I'm going off topic. And, I call you Rebdragon, because your name is Rebdragon. Or Reb ?

[Saru Inc]

Apparently the Sahara desert is growing. Less land for Africans = less Africans able to live there.

Not to mention that the rising temperatures will increase the length of droughts and decrease food production on a continent where starvation is already a huge problem...

So, are we going to give medicine and food to Africans today, helping them live and reproduce, so that their children can suffer through the same poverty, disease and starvation that we tried to save their parents from? Really, the ones we helped are likely to live long enough to have MORE children to suffer...

Oh, and of course there's the issue of warlords confiscating supplies which were meant for the general population, only making their regimes stronger.

 

Maybe we should stay out of Africa and let the Africans handle it? I don't think they'd mind if we managed to make the world a few degrees cooler if it meant stopping the growth of the Sahara and more seasonal temperatures for growing crops.

 

Oh, and anyone who thinks that global warming = more cropland farther towards the poles- ecosystem growth doesn't work that way. It's a very slow process to naturally develop soils into sustainable fertile land.

 

Also- no-one argue with Saruman, he's an expert (he got a 98)

 

DAMN STRAIGHT 98 [bleep] (I didn't make the title page correctly :( )

 

We've been throwing money at GW for decades. And the Sahara is still growing? FASCINATING. Maybe because throwing money at it does nothing? We've learned at least this from Obama.