Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

[Jiro]

It isn't that complicated. It's possible to track changes to global warming. The problem is to forecast what those changes excactly will do with the earth.

When we notice that the density of salt in the northern atlantic decreases, it's easy to spot it to be due to melting of poles. Scientist also know that the salt density is what makes the warm water drop and go back south. Decreased salt density in the north ocean will slow down the circulation. It's already slowing down. What is complicated, is what the consquences of this will be.

This denial of global warming reminds me the problems Galileo and Darwin faced in their lifetime. People simply didn't understand how science could figure out those things and did not belive them. Nowdays 97 percent of climate researchers agree with each other, but still many people thinks global warming is controversial and yet to be proved.

actually it is that complicated. That's why there is no consensus agreement on cause of global warming within a scientific community

 

[Jiro]

As for the "sole major cause", you are wrong. CO2 have been proved to increase temperature in controlled expirments in labs.

a lab.... I see... not exactly a surefire answer for real-life phenomenon.

The last 100 years, human activities are responsible for 30 percent of CO2 in the air. We know this by doing test of CO2 in the air with chemistry, and can track down where CO2 come from. We have measured an increase of temperature along with an increase of CO2, that correlate with lab tests. What we lack is a model that can explain the rise in temperature by natural causes. Skeptics are frantically trying to find scientifical models that can explain the temperature rise by natural causes, but have failed so far. The sun model is at it best, funny and have close to zero scientifical support, even NASA who study the sun and delivers the hard facts, confirms that global warming seems to be due to human activities like it said in your link.

Your arguments are based on beliving. You belive something is false, even if you don't have a scientifically supported model that can replace what you think is false.

and your argument is based on what? Al Gore's fancy keynote presentation? the one with no substantial and scientific backing? Al Gore's able to come up with a brilliant answer (with absolutely no substantial, surefire scientific statistic, evidence, data, research to back it up) while a scientific community with thousand of scientists & experts with ph.d and extensive background cannot even come to consensus agreement on cause of global warming?

 

[Jiro]

You seriouly think that climate researchers "knows" this and try to hide this fact from the public, or are so stupid they don't realize this?

we were wrong about Earth being flat.... and we were wrong about Earth being center of universe. Surely we could be wrong about the cause of global warming.

so to answer your question - the climate researchers simply do not know for sure.

 

[Jiro]

bottom line - Earth is correcting itself. simple as that. it's not a doomsday. it's not an Armageddon. just a nature correction.

 

[Jiro]

What are you suggesting? Should we relax our pollution controls to enable these companies to operate cheaper? Do you think, even if this were done, that one penny of that extra profit would find it's way to John Q Public? Or would it become another penny in the CEO's inflated salary? What about the health implications of increased pollution: fact or fiction? Feel free to research this and more.

do nothing? absolutely not! pollution control is absolutely vital because it's an immediate cause-and-effect scenario that can immediately harm people.

Acid Rain is an immediate cause-and-effect disaster. an unregulated factory spews some dirty toxic smoke to sky and it gets accumulated in the cloud and then it gets rained down to Earth.

Smog is an immediate cause-and-effect mess too. When left unregulated, smog will simply accumulate in the air, rendering air toxic and unhealthy for people to breathe.

Both will cause birth defects, asthma, cancers, etc immediately. Both disasters are immediately caused of human activity.

But global warming? Rise in sea level? Melting icebergs? El Nino? To blame it on men as it's an immediate cause-and-effect situation caused by men??? It is not a pollution nor a harmful disaster for Earth.

simple english - Acid Rain is NOT EQUAL to Global Warming. Acid Rain is caused by men. Global Warming is caused by Earth itself.

 

[flip]

What they don't tell you is that as the concentration of CO2 increases it inversely get less effective as a "forcing agent" on increasing temperature. Besides, 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Yet, carbon dioxide does play a role...albeit a very minor role when it comes to climate change. Yet, when we exhale our breath it contains about 4% CO2 by volume with the surrounding air. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration at 380 ppm. But what people do not understand is that CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth! And it is certainly not a pollutant to begin with!

Again, are you sure that mankind is solely responsible for 30% of all CO2 in the air? We are still learning about Earth and how it is the biggest emitter and absorber of CO2. In fact, recently it was discovered that the decadal oscillating Atlantic ocean currents pump huge amount of CO2 every 65 years during the positive phase. We all know, well, at least some of us do, that the ocean acts as a huge CO2 sink during colder climate periods absorbing more and CO2 than during warmer years when water is warmer is less capable of absorbing CO2. Much like a warm cup of soda is unable to hold any of it's CO2 versus for long compared an ice cold cup of soda is able to hold it's bubbly CO2 for a lot longer. Same idea with the ocean but it has a lot longer lag time in absorbing and releasing heat.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/Summary-bayreuth.pdf

Models are not proof. Any self-respecting scientists, such as I, can attest to that with my background in computational modeling in contaminant hydrogeology which was the basis of my 5 year thesis result. Bottom line, they are simply but predictive models that comes with parameters (unknown and known). the range of sensitivity for each parameter involved, temporal and spatial scales, unknown and known feedbacks, the issues of thermodynamics, entrophy, etc..etc..ad nauseum. There are several competing climate models out there and in order for a climate model to have any sense of validity the model must be actively validated somehow against the real thing. And that's extremely hard when it comes to climate modeling when meteorologists cannot even accurately predict the next hurricane two weeks out.

My arguments are based on facts and knowledge of geophysics, earth science and hydrology. BTW, where are your links to support your claims and arguments?

I have already posted a link explaining how the sun can influence global warming, but did you care to read it? Why should I care post more links when you don't read them? I have tons of links I can provide you with, but need to know if it will be a waste of time or not first.

You questioning if mankind is responsible for 30% of CO2 i the air is hard evidence how little you really know of CO2 and the science behind it. People who knows what CO2 really is, can detect the babyscience talk you are doing on CO2 here.

 

[flip]

Ummm ... that would be 97% of the "climatologists" participating and not 97% of ALL climatoligists in the world. Yet they do not state how many of the 3,100 some odd scientists surveyed were actually climatologists. But funnily enough you and others conveniently ignore the facts there are reputable and professional scientists who disagree with the notion about global warming as man-caused.



http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

97%? Er, yeah. Right. :roll:

It's about 20 percent or so "reputable and professonial" scientist that deny it. A large majority of scientist, 80 percent of scientists agree it's driven by human activities. The numbers among average joe is more equal, and that's very telling to me how skeptical people can be to science when they don't understand it, and instead resort to faith or apathy.

You can't stop resorting to junk science, do you?

" * Based on publications in the refereed literature, only approximately 10% of the 687 individuals could be indentified definitively as climate scientists.
* Only approximately 15% could be identified as publishing in fields related to climate science. Examples include solar physicists studying solar irradiance variation.
* For approximately 80% of these individuals, no evidence could be found that they had published research remotely related to climate science. Examples include purported meteorologists—the largest professional field found—who have no refereed scientific publications and whose job is merely to report the weather forecast.
* Almost 4% have made statements suggesting they largely accept the scientific community’s consensus view that global warming is occurring and that greenhouse gases appear to be a significant cause. (This is a tentative approximation, because these same individuals may have made other statements elsewhere. This nonetheless raises the question whether they should have been included on the Senate Minority Report’s list in the first place.)"

Senate Minority Report on global warming not credible, says Center for Inquiry | Grist

 

[flip]

I'd be interested to see what survey you're talking about. If, for instance, you're talking about this one (Survey Tracks Scientists' Growing Climate Concern - US News and World Report), then it's 97% who agree the Earth has warmed over the past 100 years, but only 74% who believe it was induced by humans. Less than half believe it will be catastrophic.


This isn't conspiracy theory stuff. Scientists themselves complain about it. For example, Richard Lindzen, a scientist at MIT, wrote about it in the Wall Street Journal.


Extra - WSJ.com

And yes, I believe other sciences suffer from these problems. To quote Discover Magazine, "Science, like any other human endeavor, is susceptible to trends and pendulous swings of groupthink." How often does the term "than previous thought" pop up in science literature? Quite often.

The more complex the system, the more rigorous researchers must be. The more impact a scientific conclusion has on society, the more careful researchers must be to filter out their own biases. In that sense, physics is actually one of the easiest sciences because it is the simplest. It gets much more difficult as you move into biology, psychology, and sociology. It's much harder to avoid cargo-cult science with the sciences dealing in more complex phenomena.


Ahh, the precautionary principle. If that applied universally, we would be subject to the whims of anyone who wanted to scare us into doing anything they wanted. "You have to scrap your constitution and put us in charge of everything immediately so we can sterilize women and control the allocation of resources or else we'll all devolve into cannibalism within 10 years!!!" "Well, they may be wrong and they do seem a little power-hungry, but gee honey, what if they're right? Better go along with it, just in case."

The history of alarmism has shown us that the burden of proof should be on them and the public should be skeptical of alarmist claims.

Here is a link:
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

Your example of cannibalism is not very useful for comparision. Another example of precautions that fits climate more;
A doctor tells his patient in ill shape that he has to eat this and that food to avoid serious health issues. The patient refuse to do so because "there is no hard evidence this and that food is bad and scientists seems to disagree".

Is the patient a smartass or not?

 

[kokonut]

I was just asking.

This proves the global warming do exist.

Um, the crux of the issue is whether global warming is man-caused. Not whether global warming exist or not since global warming and cooling have gone on for eons.

Glad to see that you finally learned that plants can and do grow in Greenland.

Tell me, what was life was like for the Vikings on Greenland some 1000 years ago? Could wheat and fruits be grown there at that time?

 

[flip]

actually it is that complicated. That's why there is no consensus agreement on cause of global warming within a scientific community

Many scientific communities don't have a final consensus. Science is about exploring. And, it's a myth it's so complicated you have to put a lot of faith in it. It's after all, a difference between religion and science.

 

[flip]

a lab.... I see... not exactly a surefire answer for real-life phenomenon.



and your argument is based on what? Al Gore's fancy keynote presentation? the one with no substantial and scientific backing? Al Gore's able to come up with a brilliant answer (with absolutely no substantial, surefire scientific statistic, evidence, data, research to back it up) while a scientific community with thousand of scientists & experts with ph.d and extensive background cannot even come to consensus agreement on cause of global warming?

Whats the point with lab test then? Jeez..

Al Gore is a funny guy, though he is on the track. A overwhelmy large majority of the scientic community agree that human activities are to blame. The myth you come up with here, that they can't agree, is a myth alive among half of the the average joes.

 

[flip]

we were wrong about Earth being flat.... and we were wrong about Earth being center of universe. Surely we could be wrong about the cause of global warming.

so to answer your question - the climate researchers simply do not know for sure.

If you think a 97 percent of them agreeing does mean they are lost in the dark and can't agree with each other, ok...

 

[Hwy99]

Um, the crux of the issue is whether global warming is man-caused. Not whether global warming exist or not since global warming and cooling have gone on for eons.

Glad to see that you finally learned that plants can and do grow in Greenland.

Tell me, what was life was like for the Vikings on Greenland some 1000 years ago? Could wheat and fruits be grown there at that time?

History of Greenland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hwy99]

But what confused me is this:

The vegetation is generally sparse, with the only patch of forested land being found in Nanortalik Municipality in the extreme south near Cape Farewell.

arable land: approximately 0% ; some land is used to grow silage.
permanent crops: approximately 0%
permanent pastures: 1%
forests and woodland: approximately 0% ; there is a forest in Nanortalik municipality.
other: 99% (1993 est.)

Continuous ice sheet covers 84% of the country; the rest is permafrost.

Geography of Greenland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems are not very much there, but there are potiential that they can grow..

 

[kokonut]

It's about 20 percent or so "reputable and professonial" scientist that deny it. A large majority of scientist, 80 percent of scientists agree it's driven by human activities. The numbers among average joe is more equal, and that's very telling to me how skeptical people can be to science when they don't understand it, and instead resort to faith or apathy.

You can't stop resorting to junk science, do you?

" * Based on publications in the refereed literature, only approximately 10% of the 687 individuals could be indentified definitively as climate scientists.
* Only approximately 15% could be identified as publishing in fields related to climate science. Examples include solar physicists studying solar irradiance variation.
* For approximately 80% of these individuals, no evidence could be found that they had published research remotely related to climate science. Examples include purported meteorologists—the largest professional field found—who have no refereed scientific publications and whose job is merely to report the weather forecast.
* Almost 4% have made statements suggesting they largely accept the scientific community’s consensus view that global warming is occurring and that greenhouse gases appear to be a significant cause. (This is a tentative approximation, because these same individuals may have made other statements elsewhere. This nonetheless raises the question whether they should have been included on the Senate Minority Report’s list in the first place.)"

Senate Minority Report on global warming not credible, says Center for Inquiry | Grist

Junk science are actually for those who think that increasing CO2 concentration amount is the main driver of global warming thinking in terms of strict casaulity.That is where your folly lies as a non-professional scientist yourself. A trapping of your own ill-prepared thinking and pre-conceived notions. The problem is that this is just not strictly a climatology field but rather a multitude of science fields such as geology, oceanography, geochemistry, astrophysics, atmospheric physics, limnology, sedimentology, dendrology, paleoclimatology, geophysics and so on and so forth.

Btw, there were hundreds of scientists who are global warming skeptics (i.e. man-caused) converged a a few months ago in a 2 1/2 day of climate change conference.
The Heartland Institute - Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change

My suggestion? Watch this powerpoint presentation. Simple yet explainable in some parts, quite heady to read in others of which I enjoy reading anyways (warning: big file 20 mb)
http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Fred_Goldberg.ppt

 

[kokonut]

History of Greenland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're not answering my question directly. Simply putting up a link is not answering my question. I want to hear it from you. If there's anything you read and learned you tell me that here. Again, what was life was like for the Vikings on Greenland some 1000 years ago? Could wheat and fruits be grown there at that time?

 

[kokonut]

Many scientific communities don't have a final consensus. Science is about exploring. And, it's a myth it's so complicated you have to put a lot of faith in it. It's after all, a difference between religion and science.

Er, Al Gore made this statement that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

The new religion is global warming.

 

[kokonut]

A overwhelmy large majority of the scientic community agree that human activities are to blame. QUOTE]


Overwhelmingly large majority? Link please! A kingdom for a horse! Oh, and now it's "scientific community" and not specifically climatologists?


Ahem! -> The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com

And let it be a lesson learned for you, Flip. Here's a link sure to get a chuckle or two. At least it did for me.
Scientist who boasted he could 'slaughter' skeptics in debate backs off...'I certainly will not schedule some political show debate in front of a non-scientific audience' | Climate Depot

 

[kokonut]

But what confused me is this:

Geography of Greenland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems are not very much there, but there are potiential that they can grow..

Perhaps a better source next time?

History - Skov & Landskab

Not much? Well, it is Greenland. But trees and crops do grow there and people do harvest them and sell them.

 

[deafskeptic]

No. The premise all along has been about global warming and that is what this is all about. Global warming. Changing over to "climate change" is an attempt to cover-up and confuse people of what the agenda is about and that is....global warming. Ta da!!!

I'm afraid you're mistaken on this one.