O.k. I have to get a few things straight. First of all, I get very very annoyed when people insist that global warming is a man made problem. I am tired of people getting in my face and telling me to drive a lousy hybrid and save the whales at the same time. In fact, while I am at it-why don't I hug a few trees. I am tired of Al gore wannabes "protecting" the earth and hosting late night concerts to collect money for the glorious cause of "saving our planet". Please, there is nothing you can do to save the planet. Save your sanity before you drive yourself insane.
A New study conducted by "climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia found that the climate change models based on human influence do not match observed warming. The new report, which challenges the claims of Gore and the IPCC, was published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society." The study shows that the greenhouse effect has a very tiny impact on climate change. What is causing the changes is not our lifestyle, but changes in the sun itself. Scientists suggest further, drawing from their studies, that there is no point in controlling greenhouse gas emissions. It is only a waste of time and money.I am surprised that the world has allowed this belief in man's impact on global warming to be jammed down their throat. How can we trust the people who release such statements and data, when they overestimate the effectiveness of greenhouse gases on global warming. They have ignored natural negative feedbacks in the atmosphere that reduce these emissions. I am just disappointed that our trusty scientists would manipulate information like that and convince man that it is OUR problem and OUR fault. It conveninatly benefits them as they just scoop in money gained from "guilt trips" and hybrid sales and what not. Bogus, this is complete bogus I tell you. go hug a tree instead. It will do you greater good.
However,
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I thoroughly agree with you, but what happened to the rest of the post?
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have." - Barry Goldwater
"... the ostensible means [diversity] of acheiving a desired end had become the end itself." - Clarence Thomas
I like your Goldwater quote.
My other favorite of his (that I often rip off and change when needed) is his one about "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
oh, yeah sorry about the rest of the blog. I need to edit that. Thanks for letting me know.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/536161/
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/home
Just to make it easier for people to see the full article.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I got my source from Michael Savage.com but given the fact that most of you guys don't like him and will automatically disqualify any evidence from his cite, I left out the link. I am glad that you could find alternative ones.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
Alenka, you've made some good points. Still, we shouldn't be over lax with our treatment of the world. It's like cleaning up after yourself. You don't need to go buy a hybrid car, hug a tree, and host a concert that doesn't help anything. You could simply throw your trash in a garbage can instead of on the sidewalk.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
YEah, I know good point. But I already do that stuff. I meant why go the extra mile for something that won't do any good or make any difference any way? ITs just that this issue is too big a deal, and we should focus more on world peace or feeding the hungry or something instead of on something that we have minimal control over.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
I just finished the book, "Ocean of Air", by Gabrielle Walker [LA Times book review:
www.latimes.com/features/printedition/books/la-bk-lord12aug12,1,4993690.story?coll=la-headlines-bookreview]
Gabrielle has a balanced look at the global warming question, and she agrees with you that the climate cycles affected by carbon dioxide, ozone, water vapour, etc., are largely outside our influence and have been operating on their own for millennia. We do, however, have an influence in the disruption or tainting of the natural cycles, and could forseeably really screw things up.
Not to mention the poisons we pump into the air every day. Try living in Los Angeles on a bad air day, or Elizabeth, New Jersey, or remember the deadly smog in London during the height of the industrial revolution . . . And in fact while we do what we can to secure a better future, we should not neglect the good we can do for right now.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Okay, thanks for letting me know. I am more than happy to read an unbiased informative book on this topic. And yes, I think Los Angeles needs urgent care.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
I agree with almost all of what you say, except for the "theres notheing you can do to save the planet" part. While I'm totally with you one the bogusness of global warming (something thats been going on naturally in cycles since the beginning of time) There still is a certain impact we have on the planet. Pollution still is a problem that harms the enviornment. Air pollution is barely a bugbite compared to anyother type of them, but dumping garbage in oceans, deforestation, strip or chemical mining, and pollution to water suppies, natural and manmade, they are all problems that harm the enviornment. Now i don't care if you do anything or not. I plant lots of trees and bushes at my house, not to save the enviornment, but because i have several acres to do so, and I love to have them. The only reason people should get hybrids is if the either like them, or they like to save money on gas (which is normally used up on the increased price of the car itself) And as for the whales, well who cares. I live too far away from them for it to really matter.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Okay, okay point taken. There ARE Things you can do to help. Just be responsible in what you do and clean up your environment around you. I was just speaking more about the people who get in your face about global warming and think you are their enemy when you say its not our fault.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
will, if you don't believe in global warming that is good for you. but you do know that you are contributing to terrorism don't you?
you don't had to buy a hybrid but that suv/hummer in you garage gets its gas from oil companies that import their oil from saudi arabia. everytime when you buy oil, you are infact helping osama bin laden kill americans.
if you believe that there is nothing to be done about global warming, that is your choice but you do know that by going green, it will help you financially? like buying a green light bulb or a hybird car, you would save money from replacing the light bulb or paying more money for your electricity when it come to paying the bil.
but it is your choice. if you want to buy osama bin laden oils for your suv, paid more money for your electricity bills, get sick from smog/car exchaustan just so that you can fell morally superior to al gore and the liberuls that you hate, than that is your choice.
as for me, i would rather tried to save my money by buying green products. i am thinking long term when it comes to economic while people like you chose to focus on short terms. hey, no offense or anything. enjoy paying those expensive electricity bills.
you don't had to buy a hybrid but that suv/hummer in you garage gets its gas from oil companies that import their oil from saudi arabia. everytime when you buy oil, you are infact helping osama bin laden kill americans.
And, by your logic, buying foreign cars contributes to communism (since we're buying from countries with communistic governments/economies) and buying American cars contribute to monopolies (the American companies help keep each other in business and are, for all intents and purposes, one company).
Oh, and I hope you produce your own electricity for your home, oil for your hybrid (because they do still require oil and actually don't get that much better gas mileage than a good standard car such as a Civic), and grow your own food, because all that still requires oil or importing (which again requires oil for the transportation vehicles). Otherwise, you'll really be a hypocrite.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
HUn, you are NOT saving money by buying hybrids. In fact, if you do the math it will cost you MORE than just buying a simple car. Google it or something.
"Al-Gore wannabes" HAAAA!!!! I LOVE THAT. Thanks, a new name for tree huggers. i do believe we should do better in protecting our environment but i don't believe the end of the earth is in our control.
Let me just throw this out there. A few months ago, I didn't believe that climate change was man's fault at all. For a while now, I've been doing research on climate change and my mind has been changed, slowly. I would never call myself a tree-hugger or anything like that, but I've started to see that our planet is in danger because of the things we've done. On top of that, the preventive measures suggested by the U.N. have other benefits, such as lowering the amount of pollution and helping further develop developing countries.
But I still don't believe that man is the only reason. I still believe it's part of a cycle. I'm not sure which one it's due more to,
I find it extremely disheartening that scientists can't be trusted.
Years ago I abandoned the religious mumbo jumbo and put my faith in science and reason instead.
But it turns out that the scientists are mainly just a bunch of whores who will say anything if it keeps the grants and the money flowing. I think there are lots who know that global warming is garbage science but they have a vested interest in perpetuating the scam because that is where they get their paycheck.
I think a lot of good can come from things like hybrids. The United States will be tremendously better off if we can reduce dependence on foreign oil. And I have no problem with cleaning up the environment just for the sake of having a healthier place to live.
But lets do things for honest reasons rather than manipulating the public with fear mongering. The people who cried wolf on this issue are rightly going to lose a lot of credibility.
Scientists are human, thus falable, but science is a valid process.
This article does not actually debunk global warming. We are in fact in a warming trend. This just points out the flaws in the computer models ability to predict the climate. Since these models can't predict the weather for 7 days it shouldn't be any suprise they fail in predicting outward several years.
It is stil possible that the predictions are going to meet the worst case scenario that the alarmists predict. They have lied extensively, and should be stripped of any credentials for that alone even if they turn out to be partially correct.
Al Gore getting the Nobel sould tell you how effective this hysteria has become. He was caught lying, it was pointed out in another film, as well as many articles for over a year before the award, and he still got it. It would take decades of moderate temperatures to discredit this, and then they will claim it was their 'efforts' that saved the day.
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake
Since these models can't predict the weather for 7 days it shouldn't be any suprise they fail in predicting outward several years.
While these ones can't (they're about 20 years old and taken from old equipment), newer models can fairly accurately forecast up to 15 days ahead.
Other models are used to determine long-term trends.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"they're about 20 years old and taken from old equipment"
The models are computer algorithyms based on historical data. They have been updated almost constantly especially of late. The discrepency this paper talks about is also based on the models ability to predict historical periods. The true test will be the future projections.
---
"newer models can fairly accurately forecast up to 15 days ahead."
LOL! Don't bet your dry socks on it. I'm a sailor, and a hiker, so I've had plenty of real world experience with 'fairly accurate' weather forecasts. Here in Florida they can do about 3 days in the winter, and far less in the summer. When I was growing up in Oregon they could tell you (and still can) within an hour of when the rain would hit, Because of the lack of reliable winds, and no mountains the prediction in the SE US is lucky to predict anything. Even huricanes and tropical storms are sighted, not predicted. A normal summer weather prediction reads 40% to 60% chance of rain, Partly sunny to partly cloudy with isolated possibly severe thunderstorms. Basicly 'I don't know"
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake
See Darwins Beagle's response below. He does a good job of explaining it in detail.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
"Darwins Beagle's response"
I read it, he does have a good understanding. I tried to discuss it with him, and IMHO he is a little one sided in his position. Certainty adversarial rhetoric about facts is out of place when it comes to science.
We went back and forth on this blog:
http://www.progressiveu.org/102413-impending-natural-disaster
I just don't see how his type black and white simplicity is helpful. Michael Savage is worse, but I think both of them are too invested in an opinion about the unknown.
Warming is a reality right now. The future the climate models predict is untested. It may come true, the accuracy of those models has been questionable so far, but hopefully is improving. The problem with calling them accurate based on tests using historical data is that they were created using that same data. Naturally they work based on the information that created them. 20/20 hind sight is easier than foresight. Conditions, especially regarding CO2 levels, are unprecidented.
Controlling and predicting climate is a worthy area of study, but the political debate regarding it is more hysterical/Denialist than scientific. Of the 170+ nations that agreed to the first treaty only 6 met the goals set forth. I would like to hear a more realistic debate of more effective measures. Here is an article that takes a sceptics view:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&statu...
To see a world in a grain of sand
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour.
-William Blake
... since you didn't give the citation. A google search shows this abstract that matches what the journal and the institutions of the authors.
Unfortunately our library doesn't carry that journal so the abstract is all I can access. Having said that, it should be noted that nowhere in the abstract does this paper claim that global warming is not anthropogenic (ie human caused). What it claims is that present models do a bad job of predicting tropospheric temperatures around the tropics.
That does not address the evidence that global warming is anthropogenic. That evidence rests on:
(1) The physics of the absorption and reradiation of energy by CO2
(2) The (now) 800,000 year long corellation between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations.
(3) Estimations of human output of CO2
(4) Corroboration by measuring increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
(5) Corroboration that the increase is due to burning fossil fuels by showing that ther has been an enrichment of 12C/13C ratios. (living organisms tend to preferentially use 12C over 13C. An increase in the atmospheric 12C/13C ratio is difficult to explain in any way other than being due to human burning of fossil fuels.
You should understand what it is that you post before you post it. What you have more than likely done is take something from a global warming denier who didn't understand what the paper said and then repeated it. You should have at least checked it out to the point that you could understand what the authors of the paper said. It would have been even better if you would have checked out what reputable people in the field have to say about the article. For the mainstream scientific view www.realclimate.com cannot be beaten in my opinion.
I searched their website to see if they had anything to say about this paper, and they did.
Here is a graph of the results from the paper you reference above:
From the looks of the graph it like the graphs predicted by the models clearly overestimates the observed temperature. However, things are not always as they appear.
Measurements can only be made to a certain level of accuracy. That level of accuracy is dependent upon the measuring devices used and human error in making the measurements. This means that there is an inherent level of error. There is a way of getting an idea of what that error is. The way to do it is to make multiple measurements and see the variance. Simple statistics allows one to estimate the error. Usually in scientific publications error bars are included to show the error inherent in the measurements. It is possible that one could obtain graphs like that in the paper, but the error bars could be of such an extent that the difference between the model and the observations would be insignificant. Unfortunately the paper failed to include error bars.
Furthermore, the dataset that the paper used is known to have problems. It was taken from early satellite readings. Satellites do not measure temperature directly. They infer it from interferometry readings from cloud tops. In making these readngs the satellites need to be calibrated. The calibration procedures were not worked out properly to begin with. They have been improved since. Furthermore since the original data from the early satelites is still available, one can rerun it using the updated calibration procedures.
When one does that, puts in the appropriate error limits and compares the models to observation one gets this graph:
In this graph the upper and lower curves with the triangle data points represent the limits of the expected errors. The large open circles represent prediction of models and the closed black circles represent the observation.
Notice that the observations falls well within the errors for the models. So contrary to what the authors of the paper report, the models ARE accurate in their predictions of temperatures.
Cheers,
Darwin's Beagle
===
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. - Anatole France