I would like to hear some opinions on this.

[Jones]

My broader point was that every goggle search I did returned over one million articles on each sub topic. There was even one that had 15000 scientists supporting the article that you found someone trying to discredit. I had also found that one.

Any google search will return millions of hit, most of which are of questionable value or just not much use. As far as this subject goes, I'm only interested in direct links to scientific research, or as close to the data as possible. That's all that I linked to illustrate my posts. If you really have 15000 scientists contradicting something I wrote then why didn't you post it? I wasn't kidding when I said that all I care about is the science. Instead you chose to post links to:

1)An article written by Lawrence Solomon, who was bluntly dishonest in the way he distorted the work done by the Max Planck Society.

2)A guy in St Petersburg who doesn't give any clue as to his methodology, no explanation why his conclusions are the exact opposite of the Max Planck Society(whose research methods are transparent), and has never submitted his work for peer review. He also dismisses the greenhouse effect, which doesn't lend much confidence to whatever else he may be doing.

3) Off the cuff remarks by a political appointee(your "NASA link")

4) A 15 year old girl and her high school science project.

I am not a scientist. My studies were in economics and that was a very long time ago. I can not prove my opinions are facts.

I'm not a scientist either. That's why I have no interest in debating global warming. My only interest in this subject is whether the conclusions are supported by the research, because if they are then global warming is a problem. If they aren't then I can quit looking at hybrids .

Posts like the one Char made to start this thread don't help anybody, and no I have no intention of going through it line by line. If you tell me that there are pink teapots circling Uranus, it's your job to prove it, not my job to disprove it. If Char wants to back up everything he said he's welcome to try. I already pointed out three things that were problematic (to say the least).

Do you know why Greenland is called Greenland. Its because when it was discovered it was all green.

If that didn't clue you in that there was trouble ahead, I don't know what to tell you

I see this as what you are doing when you say the sun does not make the earth warmer.

You've attributed this to me several times now, which is a little curious because it's something I've never said nor even implied. Can you at least point to me where you "think" I said it?

Happy Thanksgiving, and don't let them work ya too hard.

 

[wkmac]

As far as this subject goes, I'm only interested in direct links to scientific research, or as close to the data as possible.

Typically that seems like a wise and practical approach but it does have it's faults as well. Just consider what UN scientists over the last couple of days have admitted in regards to the overstating of African AIDS cases. It's not saying there isn't a problem but the ways data was collected and used to interpret it to identify actual cases was faulty and thus the conclusion was faulty. They've now adjusted to meet the facts for a better picture.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...in_article_id=495197&in_page_id=1811&ito=1490

Not many years ago many of the most prominent scientists were saying we were headed towards another ice age and that they saw signs of global cooling and now it's global warming. Now this could have been a result of making an adjustment to data in a new field of research and now the global warming model is more accurate or our weather patterns, solar activities, etc. are more vastly dynamic that we thought and this may or may not prove itself in the few years ahead as temps swing back to a cooler state. I said may or may not, not it will so don't go "GLOBAL" on me!


Our ability to document and study such endeavors is really less than 100 years old and although we have some documentation of historical patterns, we may not have the definded facts and details to make a hard analyst. This IMO is a learning process and mistakes will happen and the trend is to push the worse case scenario because everyone is scared to be caught pushing a Thunderstorm front moving towards New Orleans when it's really Katrina. Project the worse and hope for the best!

 

[av8torntn]

There is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming du

I think this is what you were looking for.


The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.
And...

It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out.
From this article.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/gore-gets-a-cold-shoulder/2007/10/13/1191696238792.html



They claim he is....

One of the world's foremost meteorologists has called the theory that helped Al Gore share the Nobel Peace Prize "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works".

I of course do not know him.

This for one of the lines you said was false.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...e's+'alarmist'+climate+change+film/article.do



When he said this I think you can just read this forum on another thread and see it is true.

The temperature increase everyone likes to freak out about is only .5 - 1 degree over the past 100 years.


So when the head of NASA says something in a prepared speech it is now an off the cuff remark?


Since you want conclusions based on research you surely cannot believe man has caused irreversible global warming as Gore suggests. But even though this does not reach your standards for research mainly because they take a different view than you here is another one. This is more history but someone once said you can predict the future with history.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release, 176495.shtml

As I said before there are millions of articles on both sides but it is silly to post them all. I think you know that I will not post one million articles like you asked.


Here is an entertaining one about the cows.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion...7911841.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials

Just so you do not think I forgot about the volcano eruption. I read somewhere about it but I do not have time right now to find it.

 

[av8torntn]

And for a scientist who shared the nobel prize with Gore speaking out against his hype.

 

[wkmac]

The temperature increase everyone likes to freak out about is only .5 - 1 degree over the past 100 years.

The amount of temp rise is correct but the span of time is another issue. You correct in using the span of 100 years but the actual rise has been recorded over the past 20 years although to be acurate there was a spike in temps in the late 1930's and early 1940's. Other than that the mean temp has remained below the average meanline.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

This is from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change so I hope it meet's his criteria of scientific foundation. The IPCC also shared the 2007' Nobel Prize with Al Gore for it's work on Climate conditions.

Another effect that has gotten more and more press has to do with the sun itself. Some have suggested the sun is getting hotter and to further that point, they suggest looking our our neighbors within our own solar system to see what is happening there. Good idea, let's do that.

What's happening on Mars?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

What about Pluto?
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

Hints of Climate Change on Jupiter!
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_jr.html

Global Warming on Neptune's Moon Triton.
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

All have evidence suggesting a warming effect but all 4 have one thing in common. No people. But let's look further into this area of solar effect as it relates to earth and see what other ideas are brewing. As to solar radiation itself, not a purely scientific source but you can research the data for support but here's a trendline over 30 years pertaining to solar activity.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png

What about the concept of "Orbital Forcing"? This one I happen to find interesting because not only is there a solar connection so to speak but it also has a completely natural CO2 release effect totally apart from human activity. Yeah, nature I'm surprised to learn has her own way of getting up in the middle of a very cold night and bumping up the thermostat so to speak to warm things up for in the morning.

Orbital Forcing is a concept that the earth's axis and orbit over time is in a state of change and that this change has a collective effect known as the Milankovitch cycles that effect climate. It is also strongly believed this effect leads to natural CO2 releases ahead of ice ages that IMO would suggest the natural process of ice and glacial movements throughout the history of our planet. If we have annual seasonal changes of spring, summer, winter and fall over the span of a solar year, IMO it's not hard to accept other patterns of hot and cold stretched out over vast amounts of time. There is some evidence to suggest the summer is now about 4 days longer than winter and spring is about 2 days longer than fall and some people think oribital forcing or rather the Milankovitch cycle is playing an effect.

As to natural CO2 releases there is evidence of this with the Vistok Ice Core in Antarctica going back 400k years in sutdies of ice core samples there.

For starters this article has some interesting data:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

However, in keeping with Jones good idea of trying to maintain purely scienctific sources, consider these links:
https://web.archive.org/web/20080512092938/http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm
Graphics from the above showing CO2 levels over the 400k year cycle
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/vostok.co2.gif

As to temperture comparisions:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/jouz_tem.htm
Trend graphics of temp.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/vostok/graphics/tempplot5.gif

Other sources of data on this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok.html
I'll let you decipher through the tons of data instead of posting and commenting here as you all think my posts are to long anyway and there is tons of good data to consider.

Although not a pure scientific source someone took the data from Vostok and combined it into a graphic comparing temp./CO2 levels and dust(particulate material)levels on the same graph over the 400k year study cycle.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

As to ice levels I found this unscientific source as it pertains to ice volumes over the same 400k year period.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/friend/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

As I've read other scientific data IMO is does correlate to scientic fact but that's JMO based on my own reading of the data. I thnk like myself you'll notice a trend as it pertains to ice volume that surprisingly fits into the other trends of natural CO2 increases and temp increases. Are we just inside a natural trend of Mother Nature and happen to be heading towards a natural peak in the cycle?

I guess by now like myself you will have noticed the same trending patterns over time as I have but it would appear that CO2 levels do have a rise and fall cycle to them as well as ice volumes and none of the other cycle peaks based on using our Human condition today as a comparative have a "Human Factor Cause and Effect" to it. It would seem to suggest that nature itself has a common cycle in relation to CO2, temp and ice volume cycles all on her own but this time in our history we do have the human effect factor. I don't think at this point anyone can truly project over the longhaul if this human factor will be any effect, a positive or a negative.

Now am I suggesting throw caution to the wind and do what we want? OH HELL NO! We have no idea or data to show what our effect in this mix will have. It could be a drop in the bucket in the big scheme of things but it could just as well make a bad situation worse and the fear is once in it, the conclusion could be horribly bad and reversing the ill effects a longterm process with the worse being no reversal at all. Most I've seen believe a long reversal process if it goes critical mass.

Western civilization in expanding it's own economic systems as well advancing trade and democratic societies have moved what were previously undeveloped countires into modern industrial societies with some becoming giants like China and India. Imagine a moment adding those billions of people into the mix of living as we do in the west with all having cars, stereos, TV's, gas grills and the list goes on. What effect does this have on the whole climate picture? What about the amount of land needed to be cleared of trees that consume CO2 and expel O2 and replace with homes and building for business to sustain the economics. Or the land needed to grow crops to feed these new centralized industrial armies of advancing societies?

That is the big question and really IMO at the heart of the debate but at the same time there is IMO no clear cut answer either!

 

[av8torntn]

I took it as the point was that people freaked out over the rise of less than one degree. I still say if you do not think people freak out over this non issue you may need to get out more. I do not think there would be permanent irreversible damage if the temperature rose five degrees in one day much less one degree in 20,50, 100 or 1000 years. I am not arogant enough to believe that I can do permanent harm to the enviornment.

I will also agree with the line that humans thrive in warmer climates.

 

[tourists24]

Dont worry everyone, thirty years ago scientists swore we were headed for global cooling; now it's warming. Give it 30 more and we'll be ready to cool off again.

When you get a scientist to predict the weather for next week accurately then come talk to me about 20 years....lol

 

[wkmac]

I took it as the point was that people freaked out over the rise of less than one degree.

OK, if you say so.

I still say if you do not think people freak out over this non issue you may need to get out more.

Is it they freak out over less than 1 degree or have we been conditioned on both sides depending on your political beliefs to have a kneejerk reaction? Hmm! Whatever your side gives I'll always give the opposite and any facts be dam#ed! Is that where we are at? Not picking on you or anyone else, it just appears the nature of the beast in these debates.

I do not think there would be permanent irreversible damage if the temperature rose five degrees in one day much less one degree in 20,50, 100 or 1000 years.

I'd be inclined to agree as well but if you read some of the data and what scientists are saying, not the political spin of each side, some of the evidence points to defined cycles of warmer temps and natural occuring releases of CO2 over the last 400k years. If you look at the first link and go to graph b it shows the temps of the Northern Hemisphere for the last 1000 years and what is noticable is a steady rise starting in the early 1900's but then in the 1940's a marked downturn that led the scientific community to suggest a coming ice age in the 1960's and 1970's. In the 1980's a marked upturn back to a rising temp albeit a less then 1 degree as you said. The question that no one has the answer for has to do with is this some odd anamoly that will self correct in short order or a hard trend of human activities an their effects that we need to worry about? For people on the leading edges of science it is a legit and fair question that needs to be asked but I don't think there is a clear answer one way or the other. Some think we shouldn't risk the chance of being wrong and modify human activity and others feel the opposite. Some feel there's no risk either way. It's Vegas and the odds are 50/50 as to who is right in the end! Problem is, in one scenario you may win but really lose and that is what is really driving some folks. But there are others driven for political profit and still others driven to stop those from profitting and that us really the only issue and not about any environmental problems if in fact they do exist.

I am not arogant enough to believe that I can do permanent harm to the enviornment.

Man, I'm glad we cleared that up as I was just beside myself worried sick about that!

I will also agree with the line that humans thrive in warmer climates.

I'm not so sure about that. The illegals from the south aren't as quick to drop themselves in colder climate areas so hard cold snap might work a lot better than a fence!


Now we have another reason to hug more trees!!!!!!

 

[wkmac]

Dont worry everyone, thirty years ago scientists swore we were headed for global cooling; now it's warming. Give it 30 more and we'll be ready to cool off again.

When you get a scientist to predict the weather for next week accurately then come talk to me about 20 years....lol

Very true!

 

[av8torntn]

OK, if you say so.

I did.


On another note does it not seem odd that the earth has a way of always bringing the environment back to a natural state. It was not very long ago when everyone was freaked out about a hole in the ozone. People were freaked out about a new ice age coming. People are now freaked out about a one degree rise in the average of the earths temperature.

I remember when I was learning to fly we had to learn very, very basic things about the weather. They presented it as fact that heat caused weather. Heat would cause wind which in turn would lower the temperature and the winds would die down. Heat would cause thunderstorms which in turn would lower the temperatures and the thunderstorms would die out. It just seems like the earth has a great way of taking care of itself. I am sure this was the simplest way for them to teach us and they probably left out years of instruction to truly understand weather patterns. I am not really even sure if they understand them. It is easy to make fun of the local weather guys for missing the forecast the next day or week but you guys will have me to believe what Al Gore says is somehow fact?


Of course you may be right. People may just be vested in the opinions of their political party. I may be right and the scientists may just be vested in the desire for more public funding. We may both be right and they are the same thing.


Oh I was wondering if anyone saw the flaws in the math problem I posted about Gores claim that the sea level would rise by 20 feet? I came up with several last night but I thought it may be fun to be the target for a little while longer before I go back into hiding.

 

[av8torntn]

OK, if you say so.

I'm not so sure about that. The illegals from the south aren't as quick to drop themselves in colder climate areas so hard cold snap might work a lot better than a fence!


Now we have another reason to hug more trees!!!!!!

But they are not fleeing to the south pole. Maybe they are just passing through on the way to the north pole to hang out with santa.

 

[av8torntn]

Wkmac just because I do not know. What is a confidence range? If it means what I think it means they must be joking with a same confidence range ten years ago as 1000 years.How accurate are historical records on temperature records considered?

Even though that graph would prove what I thought. That is that the earths temperature changes I just find it very suspect to large errors when they go back one thousand years.

I think the top graph would really prove what I thought. There is no man made global warming. Just in case I am wrong I may leave my car running in front of my house all winter just to see if I can keep it warm enough for green grass year round.

I was thinking maybe if the freon caused a hole in the ozone to allow to many greenhouse gases to escape causing the rapid drop in the earths temperature maybe you guys can get together and force the government to let us have freon back. That was a joke. I do not think my automobile idea would be cost effective. Maybe I could buy just a small engine and fabricate a large fuel tank to hook it up to. I could route the exhaust just over my yard. The neighbors may complain but I may could just tell them I have purchaced carbon offsets so I could get the benifit of global warming without harming the enviornment.

 

[wkmac]

AV8,
I want to address your post #31 first and then I address the other.

As to the politics and for funding access? Sure it's driven by politics, I won't say dogmatically in all but I do think in a lot of cases it is. It's just as fair IMO to say this as others say that when Exxon or BP Oil do a study that it is tainted as well. Do you think that UPS would fund a study for public consumption who's goal was to show that in the few years ahead that large scale package delivery services were no longer needed and should be abolished? I think we both know the answer to that question.

It was all the rage to say it's global cooling because starting in the 1940's until the early 1980's the mean global temp was dropping and scientists saw the trendline and other data and the evidence on hand seemed to support that conclusion. But in 1980 or so the temp swung upward and here we are today and it's all the rage to say global warming because the data supports that. What I think and others do as well is pointing to a root cause. There is a political agenda among some who say it's human activity but there is also a school of thought that being we don't know, maybe it's just a good idea to be safe and limit our own known contributors to warming "in case" they may be more a factor than we at this point realize.

My wife's boss had a gut problem that as we age some have worse than others. The doctor was unable to pinpoint a root cause so he had his patient strip his diet down to very bare bones and as time went on they plugged various foods in and out of the diet and then monitored the results. Over time, they were able to pinpoint the foods that caused his problems so instead of having to take drugs to mask the situation, he now avoids those foods and lives life very well. Many scientists know they can't stop the naturally occuring CO2 and some scientists are dumping iron oxide into the ocean to overbreed a type of plankton that consumes vast amounts of CO2 but I side on caution that this may have unintended consequences. Reducing man's output of CO2 at this moment may seem like something that should be done but there are potential unintended consequences as well and some of that is believed to be economic. I would be so inclined to agree that this would be the case most likely.

But I still think the root problem again "IMO" is positioned in the political and that egos are such that one side doesn't want the other side to win no matter what. As a result no one is willing to sitdown and lay out all the facts out on the table, take the time instead of 30 second political soundbits to educate everyone on all aspects of this and then I think a lot of this can be done by people choosing themselves outside of any gov't mandates or programs to make some minor changes in their lives and I think many will. It's not hard to show by doing certain things we limit our environmental impact but we also limit our hard earned dollars from flowing out of our country to the likes of oil producing states like Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iran and even Russia who IMO is still not to be trusted. These monies have had a habit of finding their way into the hands of people who don't have our best interest at heart. The way I see it, you attack 2 problems with one solution.

 

[wkmac]

AV8,

As to post #33.

What is confidence range? Well the exact definition I don't know but here's my stab at it anyway. Confidence range I would think means you have certain factors of knowns that show a certain range and then you can project some form of conclusion or theory if you like based on these knowns. Now this will be an example but it also gets in the historical temp records aspect.

Obviously, until into the last century, we didn't have accurate temp. records but we have had those records for say the last 5 to 7 decades. Being that's the case, scientists have studied aspects of nature during these periods to learn and come to some conclusions to help them better estimate past weather conditions. 2 of those areas are ice layers and tree rings. If you have the known data of weather as we do these days and you look at ice and tree ring samples, you document the characteristics of such from year to year. If the weather is hot and dry the ring features for that year are one way, if wet and cool, it's another. But they even are more definded with specific temp. ranges based on ring features. Ice is the same way. It's taking a known factor to project a conclusion for an unknown period so to speak. Study of space is the same way. Certain chemical compounds burn and give off a certain spectrum of light so scientist studying the stars using this known project that some interstellar objects contain this or that compound because of the known here on earth. How accurate is it? It's the best we can do until we get to go there and it seems to make sense.

Ice core and tree ring samples seems the best science can do and to be honest I think it is good science but can it be inaccurate? Sure, but it still seems an honest approach so for now I'm willing to go with it. Based on the knowns of our day, they project back in time a temp. range that they use to issue a more precise temp. for the purpose of trending data but it is not without the potential for error if you are looking for a committment of error free data.

As to CO2 levels, again it's using modern day knowns in sceince to project backwards in time to establish a picture of what it was like. This is probably more from the ice core samples as the ice itself will have trace elements of atmospheric conditions of times including O2, N, CO2, CH4 and the presence of particulate matter. The presense of various volcanic gases along with volcanic ash in the ice core is used to not only measure the possible amount of ash cloud disbursment and with the geologic data, it places a estimated date in time of erruption.

We use known data from Mount St. Helens when it errupted in 1980'. I remember well the scientific projections that the area would be a unlivable wasteland for years (I even heard a 1000 year projection) but the next year there were signs of life and within a couple of years it was exploding with life. Mount St. Helens proved a treasure trove of data that was used to gather hard facts in the current to project a possible picture of the past. Look science isn't perfect by any stretch and even though many scientist hates this comparsion, science shares a common ground with religion in that in some cases you have to come to it with some faith. Some religious leaders make projections off of biblical prophesy and are wrong but we still flock to their churches and absord every word they speak. Some folks justdo this with scientists on the idea they are "freethinkers" and way beyond the childish religious dogmas of the day. Little do they realize the very similar characteristics and yes I have a number of so-called "free thinkers" as friends and I love ragging them on it and they hate me to death when I do.

To accept the Garden of Eden story of creation, you have to come by it with faith. Same is just as true of Darwinism or the Big Bang Theory IMO. Now I happen to believe the Big Bang is possible but it also complies completely with my idea of a higher power, God if you will, as starting it all. A principle premise for me in physics is you can't get something from absolutely nothing. In others words, something or someone (if you need a personified power) had to lite that firecracker! Eden is still a part of that mix but I don't think of it as the absolute beginning point of all time nor the absolute beginning point of mankind. It is however a very important lesson in life that I think get's overshadowed but that's a whole other thread in itself.

We are all free to accept, reject, condemn or whatever, the science behind what is called global warming. Simple fact is, temps, (although small) are going up but the real question is what is the specific cause and is human activity the root culprit? I do think historical scientific projections do question the "only caused by human action" camp but the real question is, what will our actions add to what is believed to be a known based on the data at this time and what can we do to find an answer?

That honest question has been trampled by the political debate of the divide that exists in this country and IMO it's driven by egos more than a drive to assert a known truth and it goes both ways. We are all at fault here IMO and no one is left out.

I never said one thing to you about believing what Al Gore sez is fact. If you go back and look at all my posts on this issue I've always suggested the cause if any was multi-fold. My post with all the links clearly show for one, that I believe this is a reoccuring cycle in the life of our planet. To my knowledge, Gore has never acknowledged this point as it would call into question the "only human activity" cause of Global Warming. I also pointed out several articles showing a solar connection to the warming problem as it's also being seen on other planets as well and unless someone can prove otherwise, there are no people living there.

Or is this really just a case of ego and the fact that I'm just not completely and totally on your side on this issue? I guess Jones is mad at me to because I'm not on his side totally either and I guess we need to throw Diesel in this mix as well because I know he knows we don't agree. I would say Big Arrow too but the moment he saw you fencing with Jones and Diesel, he's on your side no matter what the issue is!
I'd bet a few others fall into that camp as well.

I agree with you that some people are using this issue for the purpose of a political agenda, you are 100% correct on that and I'll stand with you against anyone who would deny otherwise. Even Patrick Moore, founder of GreenPeace who left the organization to found GreenSpirit agrees and advocates that point. There are responsible voices out there asking good questions and looking at the data with some honest eyes. Don't disregard them because you made a mistake like I did early on and prejudged them because they didn't walk and talk the exact same way you do.

JMO

 

[wkmac]

AV8,

Here's something of interest you might check out in relation to the link posted by Brett636 in post #12.

In the article quoting the NASA study he was referring to, you find the following quote:

The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized.

According to their study data, in the late 1990's things stablized again in relation to the Artic Oscillation back to near what it was in the 1970's. Now click open the first link in my post #26 and look at graph (a). When did the uptick in temperture according to the graph begin? 1970's. When did the artic oscillation begin? 1970's. So far we have 2 sources confirming one another. Here's where it get's interesting IMO.

Look again at the graph but with this thought in mind "until the late 1990's, when it again stabilized." What happened to the temps in the late 1990's according to the graph? They flattened out. In fact if you look at the several years before the last 2 reported, the temp. spiked and then dropped the last 2 reported years. Now the trendline could be forming a stairstep pattern and that in another year or 2 of reporting we could see an upward tick but looking back down the trendline, no step is this pronounced.

Might be an element of this issue you might want to watch.

Just a thought!

 

[Jones]

With impeccable timing, this report was released today:

WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin 2006

 

[wkmac]

With impeccable timing, this report was released today:

WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin 2006

With a title like that I'm scared to open the link afraid it will fart at me!

 

[Jones]

With a title like that I'm scared to open the link afraid it will fart at me!

There's a bad analogy lurking in there somewhere, but I'll let someone else make it

 

[av8torntn]

That was a pretty good report. They flew an airplane to measure the gases in the atmosphere. They must not think we are about to have a climate crisis either. If they do believe the hype they may just not care about the damage they are supposedly doing. That plane is no fuel miser.

I did not read the entire report but I did find it interesting that they say methane gas rates were increasing at a faster rate than co2. Maybe the cow fart guys are on to something. Sorry I am not willing to give up steak and potatoes either.


Also did it explain why the temperatures were rising at the arctic ice caps faster than the level of greenhouse gases and slower in areas with more greenhouse gases?

 

[av8torntn]

AV8,

As to post #33.

What is confidence range? Well the exact definition I don't know but here's my stab at it anyway. Confidence range I would think means you have certain factors of knowns that show a certain range and then you can project some form of conclusion or theory if you like based on these knowns. Now this will be an example but it also gets in the historical temp records aspect.

That is similar to what I thought. My problem even though those graphs would offer proof to my opinion is how does this range not change over the years? They would have me to believe that the range is the same last year as ten years ago, 150 years ago, and 1000 years ago. I am looking for a better explanation than ice layers or tree rings or newspaper articles from 1850. They can take a carbon atom and tell me how old something is and also give you an exact range of error but they have to look at a tree ring to figure out how hot or cold it was 1000 years ago and they give me the same confidence as someone who had a thermometer last year.

That honest question has been trampled by the political debate of the div

I think the honest question is the political debate.

I never said one thing to you about believing what Al Gore sez is fact.


I never said you did but this thread is about what Al Gore said and more importantly to me is that so many people take it as fact. If I put it some other way I do offer my apologies.
JMO