97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[Chris]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Chris]

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11532237

 

[jreeves]

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

I don't doubt that some scientist say that there is a connection between man made CO2 and temperature change....

But climate records don't show a correlation...

 

[FistyTheBadger]

Chris, try and give us a thought or an insight.

 

[Chris]

Ice cover is the same....
Global temperatures have been dropping...

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

 

[jreeves]

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_11532237

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKAC4kfHruQ]YouTube - Another Global Warming Hoax exposed[/ame]

 

[Chris]

 

[jreeves]

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2007 Summation

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age - Pravda.Ru
The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Serbian mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal “Science” published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled “Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,” which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.

 

[jreeves]

World Climate Report » U.S. Temperatures 2008: Back to the Future?
The data are just in from the National Climatic Data Center and they show that for the year 2008, the average temperature across the United States (lower 48 States) was 1.34ºF lower than last year, and a mere one-quarter of a degree above the long-term 1901-2000 average. The temperature in 2008 dropped back down to the range that characterized most of the 20th century.

Figure 1 shows the U.S. temperature history from 1895 to 2008. Notice the unusual grouping of warm years that have occurred since the 1998 El Niño. Once the 1998 El Niño elevated the temperatures across the country, they never seemed to return to where they were before. Proponents of catastrophic global warming liked to claim that is was our own doing through the burning of fossil fuels, but others were more inclined to scratch their heads at the odd nature of the record and wait to see what happened next.

You see, prior to 1998, there was little of note in the long-term U.S. temperature record. Temperatures fluctuated a bit from year to year, but the long-term trend was slight and driven by the cold string of years in the late 19th and early 20th century rather than by any warmth at the end of the record. In fact, from the period 1930 through 1997, the annual average temperature actually declined a hair—despite the on-going build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The only suggestion that “global warming” had involved the U.S. was to be found in the post-1997 period—a period unusual in that the temperatures went up and stayed up at near-record levels year after year. It was not so much that temperatures continued to climb after 1998, but just that they never fell. This grouping of warm years nearly doubled the apparent overall warming trend in U.S. temperatures (starting in 1895) from 0.07ºF/dedade (ending in 1997) to 0.13ºF/decade (ending in 2007). And with this doubling of the warming trend came the big push for emissions restrictions.

But now, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken down—and maybe they weren’t a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.

Only time will tell for sure. But, at least for now, things seem like they have returned to a more “normal” state of being.

 

[DiamondDave]

kirkybot... copy and pasting the same goddamn thing over and over and over and over and over... like the mindless robot that he is.... even if there are questions (BIG QUESTIONS) and contradictory data showing otherwise...

fact - kirkybot.... you still only have unfounded and unproven THEORIES...

Your arguments are so full of holes, Swiss cheese manufacturers are jealous

 

[Old Rocks]

And CO2 comes from many more sources than just humans.. more cows now... volcanic activity dwarfs the amount we put forth from industrialization... plus the other factors than CAN AND DO effect climate, including (as stated) water vapor, global cycles, solar activity, etc...

Again.... you, and the chicken little human caused global warming conspirators, like to focus on the 1 thing.. whether the reason be self loathing, guilt, fame, notoriety, profit, job security, or whatever

It is a theory.. and whether it be a widely held one or an unpopular one is of no consequence... as shown before.. just because a theory is popular at any one given time, does not mean it is the only theory, the correct theory, or fact

But nice try again kirkybot....

Dave, once again your profound ignorance on this matter is showing. Man puts more than 130 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as do vocanos, USGS figures.Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects


Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

 

[Red Dawn]

Dave, once again your profound ignorance on this matter is showing. Man puts more than 130 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere as do vocanos, USGS figures.Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects


Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

How come liberals on this thread are making statements that are backed up by USGS, NASA, IPCC, and other respected and qualified scientific bodies with expertise on climate science....

....while Bush supporters are throwing out unsubstantiated claims like "the earth is cooling, and 1998 was the hottest year ever!". Claims which turn out to be false, but which are never retracted?

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't doubt that some scientist say that there is a connection between man made CO2 and temperature change....

But climate records don't show a correlation...

Crap. Do you ever read even kindergarten level science?

The Rise of CO2 & Warming

 

[dilloduck]

How come liberals on this thread are making statements that are backed up by USGS, NASA, IPCC, and other respected and qualified scientific bodies with expertise on climate science....

....while Bush supporters are throwing out unsubstantiated claims like "the earth is cooling, and 1998 was the hottest year ever!". Claims which turn out to be false, but which are never retracted?

Just to mess with your head.

 

[del]

Crap. Do you ever read even kindergarten level science?

The Rise of CO2 & Warming

not as extensively as you do. what's your point, rocky?

 

[Old Rocks]

World Climate Report » U.S. Temperatures 2008: Back to the Future?
The data are just in from the National Climatic Data Center and they show that for the year 2008, the average temperature across the United States (lower 48 States) was 1.34ºF lower than last year, and a mere one-quarter of a degree above the long-term 1901-2000 average. The temperature in 2008 dropped back down to the range that characterized most of the 20th century.

Figure 1 shows the U.S. temperature history from 1895 to 2008. Notice the unusual grouping of warm years that have occurred since the 1998 El Niño. Once the 1998 El Niño elevated the temperatures across the country, they never seemed to return to where they were before. Proponents of catastrophic global warming liked to claim that is was our own doing through the burning of fossil fuels, but others were more inclined to scratch their heads at the odd nature of the record and wait to see what happened next.

You see, prior to 1998, there was little of note in the long-term U.S. temperature record. Temperatures fluctuated a bit from year to year, but the long-term trend was slight and driven by the cold string of years in the late 19th and early 20th century rather than by any warmth at the end of the record. In fact, from the period 1930 through 1997, the annual average temperature actually declined a hair—despite the on-going build-up of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The only suggestion that “global warming” had involved the U.S. was to be found in the post-1997 period—a period unusual in that the temperatures went up and stayed up at near-record levels year after year. It was not so much that temperatures continued to climb after 1998, but just that they never fell. This grouping of warm years nearly doubled the apparent overall warming trend in U.S. temperatures (starting in 1895) from 0.07ºF/dedade (ending in 1997) to 0.13ºF/decade (ending in 2007). And with this doubling of the warming trend came the big push for emissions restrictions.

But now, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken down—and maybe they weren’t a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.

Only time will tell for sure. But, at least for now, things seem like they have returned to a more “normal” state of being.

Pure bullshit. First, the continental US is only 2% of the worlds area. Secondly, worldwide, 2008 tied 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record. That, in spite of a strong and persistant La Nina. The curve is still upward and accelerating.

 

[del]

Pure bullshit. First, the continental US is only 2% of the worlds area. Secondly, worldwide, 2008 tied 2001 as the eighth warmest year on record. That, in spite of a strong and persistant La Nina. The curve is still upward and accelerating.

is it too late to panic?

 

[FistyTheBadger]

How come liberals on this thread are making statements that are backed up by USGS, NASA, IPCC, and other respected and qualified scientific bodies with expertise on climate science....

....while Bush supporters are throwing out unsubstantiated claims like "the earth is cooling, and 1998 was the hottest year ever!". Claims which turn out to be false, but which are never retracted?

The reason is that scientific entities have become politicized and the direction they have turned is liberal. Research that disagrees with global warming as a conclusion, or certain aspects of what is accepted by liberals is global warming is ignored, ridiculed, not funded, and stopped in the processes of scientific submission.

Remember, history is littered by experts respected by the people of their time, but who were plainly or by some relevant or crucial degree wrong.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is easy to get a computer model to spit out the result you want when the information you enter is skewed or not even valid to begin with. What I find amusing about global warming is that we couldn't stop it if we wanted to, even if we are responsible. They've pretty much already told us that. So instead of figuring out how we're going to change it, why not figure out how to deal with it if it actually takes place. If the Southwestern US is going to completely dry up, how are we going to get water to the people that live there? Maybe we should be thinking about that rather than how we're going to change something that we can't.

Part of what you post is correct. What is in the atmosphere right now in the form of GHGs we are going to have to deal with 50 years down the road. So we had better prepare for that. But we can, by decreasing our output of GHGs, ameliorate the problem after that.

Will we do that? I seriously doubt it. Too many really stupid people who will fight recognizing an inconvieniant truth untill they are in dire staights. The people on this board and others demonstrate that.

 

[dilloduck]

is it too late to panic?

sell all your winter clothes before they become worthless----I'm having a sale on mittens and ear muffs right now.