'Global Warming Will Stop', New Peer-Reviewed Study Says |
Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )
Welcome to ThoughtVent, a free community where you can talk to your peers about whatever you want. Using the site is easy and fun. Once registered, simply click on the category that fits your topic and click on the New Topic button to start talking with our other members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.
Click here to Register!
![]() ![]() |
'Global Warming Will Stop', New Peer-Reviewed Study Says |
May 31 2008, 02:19 PM
Post
#31
|
|
![]() Who's your Daddy? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderator Posts: 2,224 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA Member No.: 11 |
Okay John so you got some information from sources outside the U.S. What makes you think that the sources you quote are any more reliable the the ones here that have been tainted by our government? But, all the sources that tell you that GW is man's fault because of CO2 emissions are perfect and beyond reproach? "Some information from sources outside the U.S."? What about the almost 32,000 folks who signed that petition? All I'm asking is that we ALL get the best scientific advice that we can. You and Al Gore only want the debate squashed and will not allow the truth to be discussed. You think that is the better way? You deserve any hardship this may cause you, but the rest of us who only want an accurate, fair assessment of the situation, do not. Instead of "attacking the messenger", you might want to do some research. Just a suggestion. -------------------- |
|
|
|
May 31 2008, 03:21 PM
Post
#32
|
|
![]() Genius ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,139 Joined: 8-November 07 From: England Member No.: 216 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Of all the problems discussed on this, polar melts are the most potentially catastrophic. It would however, even with this most dangerous of prospects, be wrong to claim that it had never occured before. Europe around the 11th. century was much warmer for example, with what we believe cold countries, like Norway, experiencing a golden age in population and farming due to much warmer temperatures. The simple truth is that you can write about it until your fingers turn blue; it is impossible to prove either way. My opinion is as worthless as anybody elses, (but I'll give it anyway as I'm usually right) -------------------- Snana, the friendly Sioux. |
|
|
|
May 31 2008, 03:34 PM
Post
#33
|
|
![]() Vented Out ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Global Moderator Posts: 1,254 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Sydney Australia Member No.: 15 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period My opinion is as worthless as anybody elses, (but I'll give it anyway as I'm usually right) No one can fortell the future,unless your God or Psychic. I would hope, man survives the effects,far better than just satisfactory. Man is his own worst enemy. -------------------- ![]() I Search for the Sjogren's Foundation,Who will you search for? I once had a life.. now I have the Internet... |
|
|
|
May 31 2008, 05:45 PM
Post
#34
|
|
![]() Who's your Daddy? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderator Posts: 2,224 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA Member No.: 11 |
No one can fortell the future,unless your God or Psychic. I agree with that. So why accept the future that you are being told will happen (the Al Gore apocalypse)? Why accept that the only solution is to do what he says (through his financially lucrative carbon trading concept)? Especially when there is so much doubt. -------------------- |
|
|
|
May 31 2008, 06:10 PM
Post
#35
|
|
![]() Vented Out ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Global Moderator Posts: 1,254 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Sydney Australia Member No.: 15 |
I agree with that. So why accept the future that you are being told will happen (the Al Gore apocalypse)? Why accept that the only solution is to do what he says (through his financially lucrative carbon trading concept)? Especially when there is so much doubt. Many World Countries are dealing in Carbon Trading,so don't say there is so much doubt. Do you really understand the concept. Do you know better, than all the Brains, of these Countries,combined? It's allright to be an armchair expert on these subjects. I don't accept anyting,I don't agree with. All AL Gore has done, for me,if make me aware, there could be a problem. Think of a Ruse John,and you too can make Millions,if you can sell your ideas. Here is a Wiki Article,you may find interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading -------------------- ![]() I Search for the Sjogren's Foundation,Who will you search for? I once had a life.. now I have the Internet... |
|
|
|
May 31 2008, 06:49 PM
Post
#36
|
|
![]() Who's your Daddy? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderator Posts: 2,224 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA Member No.: 11 |
Do you know better, than all the Brains, of these Countries,combined? Do I? Nope. But, I do know that there is plenty of disagreement and plenty to debate. I will say this - if I was a financially connected to this scheme as many of the politicians and scientists, i'd probably be saying it was necessary, too. What's going to happen when all the efforts make no difference? Will they give the money back? BTW - we may be entering an extended cooling period due to solar inactivity. I guess they'll claim that they have "saved the world from warming" if it comes about. Unfortunately, cooling is much worse for most of us than equal warming. Will we be able to blame them for causing the cooling? more -------------------- |
|
|
|
May 31 2008, 07:14 PM
Post
#37
|
|
![]() Vented Out ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Global Moderator Posts: 1,254 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Sydney Australia Member No.: 15 |
I see where your'e coming from.My thoughts on this, is we are never going to know, the absolute real truth, because money corrupts.Money is the root of all evil,as they say.Like all Governments,they only divulge what they feel necessary.We all must do our part to preserve our Planet for future Generations,and don't rely on the information,they say is fact,when most of the time it's False information,being fed to us.I look at the graphs of the ever expanding Ozone layer,and the melting of the Poles and know all is not well.Our coral reefs are dying here,at an alarming rate.Whether Natural or Man induced,our Planet is not very healthy at the moment.
This post has been edited by DSTM: May 31 2008, 07:39 PM -------------------- ![]() I Search for the Sjogren's Foundation,Who will you search for? I once had a life.. now I have the Internet... |
|
|
|
May 31 2008, 08:42 PM
Post
#38
|
|
![]() Who's your Daddy? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderator Posts: 2,224 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA Member No.: 11 |
Somewhat, and there are a lot of things we could, and should, be doing better.
But - the CO2 issue isn't based on settled, or clear, science. It's a hypothesis or theory (according to who one talks to). Scientists never agree on either a hypothesis or a theory. That's the nature of the scientific method. From a scientific standpoint, the debate should not be suppressed by the politicians and the money-hungry people. They say that as CO2 levels in the atmosphere rise, it causes the temperatures to rise. However, at no point in recorded history has it happened that way, it is always temperature goes up, CO2 levels go up - temps go down, CO2 levels go down. Just that fact alone should make even the least scientific of us wonder, shouldn't it? Especially since, in the last 8 years or so, the anthropogenic CO2 emission levels have continued to rise even faster than they did the previous 10 years, but the global temperature stopped rising, and even the Global Warming Alarmists are saying that we might continue cooling until around 2015. Then they say it will begin rising again. This does not square well with what they say is forcing the rise, but does match up well with what "skeptics" are saying - that other forces, such as the sun, are really the dominant forces, and CO2 levels may be either a very minor player or not making any difference at all. The lobbyists and big money folks (Al Gore has stated that he is spending as much as $300 million on advertising his belief) are, as usual, having all too much influence on what our governments are doing. -------------------- |
|
|
|
Jun 1 2008, 05:21 AM
Post
#39
|
|
|
Advanced Venter ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 260 Joined: 16-January 08 Member No.: 367 |
But, all the sources that tell you that GW is man's fault because of CO2 emissions are perfect and beyond reproach? " You deserve any hardship this may cause you, but the rest of us who only want an accurate, fair assessment of the situation, do not. Instead of "attacking the messenger", you might want to do some research. Just a suggestion. You are the one who has been providing me with the links to educate me on what you have been saying. I suggest you get off the computer and look at your sky, your earth , and look at the thermometer yourself instead of listening to what someone else has printed. A wise man once said: belive nothing of what you read, and only half of what you see. I want to apologize for this staement up front, so I'm sorry. Quit relying on others to make your decisions get out and do some science yourself. Do something like taking leaf counts, absorbsion rates of carbon in water, maybe take the temperature readings from different points on the planet. Atmosphere gasses in and out of different cities. Tap into the weather reports at the poles. Check water temperatures in the Humbolt current. See at what rates our food sources are being depleted due to global warming and not just overuse. Those good scientists you're always refeffering to do simple stuff like that don't they? Pick up a robin's egg and measure the shell thickness to see what effect co2 has had on them. Ask a department of natural resourse worker what effect the co2 has been having on all animals reproduction rates. ( specially insects ) Just measuring gasses, temperature and arguing patterns is insufficient to be of any accuracy when discussing anthropogenic global warming. You know what, forget it! You're right and I'm wrong and for me this debate is over. It's just not worth it as I will have been long since dead before you come to see your folly! |
|
|
|
Jun 1 2008, 09:00 AM
Post
#40
|
|
![]() Who's your Daddy? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderator Posts: 2,224 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA Member No.: 11 |
You are the one who has been providing me with the links to educate me on what you have been saying. I suggest you get off the computer and look at your sky, your earth , and look at the thermometer yourself instead of listening to what someone else has printed. A wise man once said: belive nothing of what you read, and only half of what you see. I want to apologize for this staement up front, so I'm sorry. No need to apologize. Nowhere have I said or denied that the climate is changing. We - you, I, and DSTM (among others) - agree that the previous warming and last 8 years or so of "moving toward cooling" is changing the climate, especially in a variety of local areas. QUOTE Quit relying on others to make your decisions get out and do some science yourself. I don't have the scientific background to do this. Even those that claim "climatologist" credentials rely on others for their data. QUOTE Do something like taking leaf counts, absorbsion rates of carbon in water, maybe take the temperature readings from different points on the planet. Atmosphere gasses in and out of different cities. Tap into the weather reports at the poles. Check water temperatures in the Humbolt current. See at what rates our food sources are being depleted due to global warming and not just overuse. Those good scientists you're always refeffering to do simple stuff like that don't they? Pick up a robin's egg and measure the shell thickness to see what effect co2 has had on them. Ask a department of natural resourse worker what effect the co2 has been having on all animals reproduction rates. ( specially insects ) That, and more, is being done. I'm asking for reasonable scientific debate to determine what, if anything, we humans can do or are doing regarding the situaton. QUOTE Just measuring gasses, temperature and arguing patterns is insufficient to be of any accuracy when discussing anthropogenic global warming. Ain't that the truth. There are a ton of different aspects that effect weather and climate. From what I've read, there is not one climate modelling system that takes all of these aspects into account. How can the models be effective if they leave out things like solar cycles when discussing future climate change? The models that predicted (back in the 90's) that warming would continue as atmospheric CO2 levels rise have all been shown to be inaccurate as the warming has not continued the way they predicted. QUOTE You know what, forget it! You're right and I'm wrong and for me this debate is over. It's just not worth it as I will have been long since dead before you come to see your folly! No, I am not right if "this debate is over". To me, this isn't about me being right or wrong, or you being right or wrong. To me, this is about the scientists and advisors being allowed to engage in proper scientific debate so the information we get is a close to right as possible. As long as that debate is stifled, we may be wasting a tremendous amount of time, effort, and money doing something that may not make any difference at all. I agree - the stakes are high. Shouldn't we want to get it right and as soon as possible? -------------------- |
|
|
|
Jun 1 2008, 10:59 AM
Post
#41
|
|
![]() Genius ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,139 Joined: 8-November 07 From: England Member No.: 216 |
QUOTE No one can fortell the future,unless your God or Psychic . ......er, yes, that is why I said it was 'my opinion which is worthless' and that you can discuss it until your fingers go blue etc. etc.... This post has been edited by The Colonel: Jun 1 2008, 11:00 AM -------------------- Snana, the friendly Sioux. |
|
|
|
Jun 1 2008, 12:26 PM
Post
#42
|
|
![]() Who's your Daddy? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderator Posts: 2,224 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA Member No.: 11 |
So then, it would be reasonable to assume you are not God
and you don't have psychic abilities? -------------------- |
|
|
|
Jun 1 2008, 03:09 PM
Post
#43
|
|
![]() Venter ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 15-August 07 Member No.: 32 |
"White House: Humans 'Very Likely' Causing Warming"
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/...ausing-warming/ QUOTE May 29, 2008, 1:53 pm This just in from the White House: Global warming is real, and humans are very likely to blame. “Scientific Assesment of the Effects of Global Change on the United States,” one of two reports released today by the Bush administration, acknowledges that rising temperatures and a changing climate could pose challenges for everything from agriculture and water to energy use. The language, tough by the administration’s standards, largely parrots previous reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, down to the “likely” and “very likely” italics. But the reports are still significant, given the popular perception for years that the administration was at odds with the bulk of scientific research. The conclusion? “[M]ost of the recent global warming is very likely due to human generated increases in greenhouse gas concentrations.” While there are still questions about the role of sunspots and other natural variations, the report says that “emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use and from the effects of land use change are the primary sources of this increase.” As for the impacts, the report paints a fairly grim picture. In the short term, warmer temperatures and higher CO2 concentrations will be good for agriculture—before becoming a bad thing. The health impacts will probably be bad on balance—more malaria, Lyme disease and the like. Ecosystems will suffer. Water supplies will tighten. But for all the talk about how global warming is affecting the energy mix, the adminsistration’s take on energy is especially interesting: “To date, most discussions on energy and climate change have focused on mitigating human effects on climate. However, along with this role as a driver of climate change, the energy sector will be subject to the effects of climate change.” That is, the U.S. will need more juice the hotter it gets. And not just for air conditioning, though that’s big part of it. Industrial processes will require more energy, like big refrigeration units. Farms and cities will need more pumped water, requiring more electricity. The upshot? [C]limate change is expected to cause a significant increase in the demand for electricity in the United States, which would require the building of additional electricity production facilities (and probably transmission facilities) at an estimated cost of many billions of dollars. "Under Fire, White House Releases Report About Global Warming" http://www.abcnews.go.com/Technology/story...9856&page=1 QUOTE May 29, 2008
Today, the White House finally released an overdue report on the comprehensive impact of global warming on the United States. It is the first such report from the Bush administration since it took office more than seven years ago. Starting to catch up with the understanding long agreed on by the world's climate scientists, the report says, "It is likely that there has been a substantial human contribution to surface temperature increases in North America." With recent U.S. wildfires, downpours, drought and smog, the report paints a sobering picture of threats to America's food, water and energy supplies -- stressed in an ever hotter country. Integrating federal research efforts of many agencies and literally thousands of scientists, it reports that the global climate disruption now under way is already damaging U.S. water resources, agriculture and wildlife and is expected to keep doing so -- often worsening -- for "the next few decades and beyond." There is no part of the country that escapes some sort of consequence," said Anthony Janetos, director of the Joint Global Change Institute Temperatures are expected to continue rising by about 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit before the century is out. The report says that in the West grain harvests and vegetable and fruit crops are more likely to fail because of rising temperatures. It also points out that weeds -- of concern both to farmers and those who suffer from pollen allergies -- are growing more rapidly due to elevated levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the air. "These are consequences for forests in our backyard, for agriculture on which we depend, for the water resources that we depend on, both for agricultural production and household use and manufacturing, that this is the basis of a good quality of life for everybody," Janetos said. The report projects a likely increase in frequency and severity of heat waves and other extreme weather events, including storms and floods, stating that "cold days and cold nights are very likely to become much less frequent." It also projects that because of worsening weather and heat the nation's transportation systems face "significant challenges." Coastal and river flooding and landslides are hitting roads, rails and ports, and heat spells buckle or soften roads. Forests in the West, Southwest and Alaska will be assaulted by more frequent forest fires and decimated by insects that no longer die off in winter because winters are generally warmer. In the middle of the country are reports increasing drought. Janetos warns that these dire effects are already under way, not lurking the future. "These are things that are happening today. They're not just things that will happen 30, 40, 50, 100 years from now," he said. "We wanted to be within the planning horizon that land managers and conservation planners and farmers actually have to deal with." Rick Piltz at Climate Science Watch worked on the report for the administration before quitting in 2005, protesting the White House was rewriting the science. He and other administration critics charge the White House delayed this report for years and is taking credit for it now while passing any decisions about action to the next president. "Here we have an administration that has one foot out the door. They have run out the clock on taking any really meaningful action on climate change." Piltz said. During a teleconference with reporters, White House associate science director Sharon Hays said the report "communicates what the scientists are telling us." But Piltz points out that the scientific community has been articulating these findings for years and says that the subsequent action on the report is what will count. "This is something that has been well understood in the scientific community and the government for some time now," Piltz said. "Even after we lift the hand of censorship off this climate science communication, we still need the political leaders to embrace it and learn from it and act on it." -------------------- |
|
|
|
Jun 1 2008, 03:59 PM
Post
#44
|
|
![]() Who's your Daddy? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Moderator Posts: 2,224 Joined: 13-August 07 From: Tampa Bay Area, Florida, USA Member No.: 11 |
This report agreeing with the AGW/CO2 "consensus" comes, what, only 2 weeks after almost 32,000 people, a good portion scientists, say that Global Warming is not being caused by man's CO2 emissions? See US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works: Inhofe Debunks So-Called 'Consensus' On Global Warming , only one such article on the US Senate Committee's website that speaks against the AGW/CO2 "consensus". Yep, as was said earlier in this thread, "The lobbyists and big money folks ...are, as usual, having all too much influence on what our governments are doing." -------------------- |
|
|
|
Jun 1 2008, 04:37 PM
Post
#45
|
|
![]() Venter ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 57 Joined: 15-August 07 Member No.: 32 |
This report agreeing with the AGW/CO2 "consensus" comes, what, only 2 weeks after almost 32,000 people, a good portion scientists, say that Global Warming is not being caused by man's CO2 emissions? That doesn't sound like a majority to me.... At the very least, this latest report dispels anything anyone is going to say about global warming being a scam scam perpetrated by Gore, when you have the Wall Street Journal, as much of a right-wing publication as you could find, publishing a report about global warming directly from the Bush administration. -------------------- |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |