Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[Tifone]

Originally Posted by licker

...we cannot account for it melt or ocean temp increases (remember this is a global phenomena right?) or air temp increases, since the latter is clearly falling.

Clearly wrong:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Originally Posted by licker

But you do realize science is not conducted by majority right?

Noo! Not by the vast majority of academic scientists for sure! ( http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 ; http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 )
The real science is only done by the few who uncovered THE CUNSPIRACYY!

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Edi

If we intend to be serious about stopping the man-made effect that contributes to (as opposed to being the sole cause of) global warming, all of us would have to take a massive hit into our lifestyles, is what he means, I suspect.

It just so happens that the 650 skeptics are a drop in a bucket compared to the larger body of climate scientists who have achieved a consensus that humans have a significant effect on global warming, increasing it. That's comparable to some intelligent design proponents who made a lo tof hay about some Steve somebody who was a scientist and backed their crazy ideas. An Australian organization of scientists signed up 700 scientists from that same field whose first name was Steve to refute his bull**** and in the glkobal warming discussion, the 650 denier scientists are a comparable example.

The primary cause of global warming is build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gases, notably CO2. The amount of atmospheric CO2 has increased fivefold in the last 150 years and almost all of that carbon has a radiological footprint of being millions or tens or hundreds of millions of years in age. That means that nearly all of it is of fossil origin, i.e. coal. Unless that is taken out of the atmosphere by some means, there is no way to return to the same mechanisms that caused the early medieval warm bump and the mini ice age in the 1600s.

The increase of the greenhouse gases leads to less reradiation of heat into space, so the earth absorbs more from the sun than it emits back out on the night side. Increase of temperature causes the ice caps to melt, which reduces albedo, which again reduces the amount reflected and reradiated out.

If there are slight dips and and bumps in a curve that overall has an upward trend, the individual dips and bumps don't mean much. Likewise, a transitory local weather phenomenon does not mean much, because the heat distribution throughout the world is not even by a long shot and local variation can be significant without impacting the overall trends at all.

There are also some other factors that cause variation. Large volcanic eruptions cool temperatures because of the obscuring effect the ash has on the sun, causing less heat to reach the ground. Another factor on the geological timescales is continental placement. The earth has been much warmer at some points, because during those periods there was no Central American isthmus to block the warm equatorial current that would have counteracted the effect of the cold currents circling Antarctica and some other continents were likewise in other places.

The fact that things have been warmer in the past is also not at all an argument for why warming back up to those temperatures would be beneficial for humankind as a whole, because our current societies were built during a colder period and the warming is causing a LOT of damage to the environment. That is an undisputed fact and only a fool would argue nothing should be done to mitigate that damage.

There are more than 11,000 sceptics, not 650.

I tend to agree carbon emissions ahve increased temperatures. However, I by no means accept it as fact.

Kind of doesn't matter, does it? We have to go on the best guess we have. Lots of scientists think CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming, then perhaps it behooves us to adopt nuclear energy.

[licker]

Clearly wrong about what?

That we cannot account for the loss of energy in the ice melt and decreasing temps?

I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not saying that the ice isn't melting, indeed, that is one place for the energy to go.

[Tifone]

@ chris - Or even better, energies which don't produce nuclear wastes!

@ licker - Clearly wrong about temperatures falling. Second link provided expecially => air temperatures

PS @ chris: could you please provide some link to the "more than 11,000" academic scientists which are skeptics about GW. Possibly something which shows their peer-rewied works on the matter. (Even better, if not payed for this by the Bush administration lol )

[licker]

Air temperatures from March...

Global temp fell almost .5C in 2007.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/1...ast-12-months/

Where did all the energy go?

Answer is it didn't come in the first place.

[Tifone]

Yeah, a graph about 12 months makes a whole lot of a difference. You are just rushing the science for your purpose.
Like JimMorrison said, and I said, not only one year can be cooler than another (chaotic nature of weather), but this is totally irrelevant in a trend showing on a long period of time. Single years taken by themselves can not establish or refute a trend.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/214357/31

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/184932/56

Going to bed now. See ya tomorrow.

Don't have too much fun with snowballs without me!!

[thejeff]

And how many of those "academic scientists" are actually climate specialists working in the field and not a geologist or something. Just being a generic scientist gives you no more credibility than any random fool posting on a blog.

[Tifone]

(thejeff a quotation would have helped... I've used the expression both referring to "GW-believers" -post 81- and "GW-unbelievers" -post 84- scientists. /about the former ones, you can eventually check the links/

Lol, believers and unbelievers. Sounds like a religious thread for real )

PS Oh about the water vapour argument licker called: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/222357/40

About the sun and cosmic rays, something interesting here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666

[licker]

Originally Posted by Tifone

Yeah, a graph about 12 months makes a whole lot of a difference. You are just rushing the science for your purpose.
Like JimMorrison said, and I said, not only one year can be cooler than another (chaotic nature of weather), but this is totally irrelevant in a trend showing on a long period of time. Single years taken by themselves can not establish or refute a trend.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/214357/31

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/184932/56

Going to bed now. See ya tomorrow.

Don't have too much fun with snowballs without me!!

Single years? Though if you are claiming that the loss from 2007 is irrelevant due to it being only 12 months, why are you then trying to refute me by showing me data from ONE month? In any case, that data doesn't show what it seems you think it does.

So show me the trend since 1998 please. The point about '07 is that so much heat was lost that it essentially 'undid' all the warming from the past 10 years.

I don't know what this gristmill site is anyway, or why articles from 2006 are relevant, but I'll try to look at them when I have more time.

[Tifone]

I just find comfortable to link the gristmill site since it is are full of useful reliable scientific souces and charts.

The trend since 1998 is showed in SEVERAL of the links I already provided, you would do me a favour to read before posting, it's tiring and cumbersome to me to talk about the same thing again and again, and ultimately pointless if you don't read the answers I provide. Here it is again, with your theory nicely debunked:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

And again about your old "warmer is better" theory:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/9/131657/6469