Interesting articles on global warming

[wevans]

http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/Obama- ... id/572105/
As for influences surrounding this knuckle-biting alarm, the researchers place blame on broad patterns of climate change. Included are rising regional temperatures, warming ocean currents and changing wind patterns. And while both research teams agreed that the existence of warm water might actually be part of the natural ocean system, they assert that climate change is a contributing factor in bringing the warm water in contact with the ice and causing it to melt.

But wait a minute. This isn’t exactly a new development that is readily attributable to smokestacks and SUVs. The West Antarctic ice sheet has been melting at about its recent rate over thousands of years. This condition is expected to continue until either it entirely disappears, or until such time as the next Ice Age intervenes to stop it.



http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... l-warming/
If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.

But the record of satellite measurements of global atmospheric temperatures now shows no warming for at least 17 years and 5 months, from September, 1996 to January, 2014, as shown on the accompanying graphic. That is surely 17 years and 6 months now, accounting for February.

[EddieJoe]

Sure, Waldo, just keep getting your science from FOX news. Earth is flat, moon is made of green cheese.

[big bend gyrene]

Yeah, Wevans! HOW DARE YOU use common sense to challenge the folks who:

1) Five years ago claimed the polar ice caps would be 100% gone today (that was back when they claimed we were in for warm winters due to "global warming" / before the name change to "climate change" due to the recent "polar vortex" phenomenon / ice cap growth).

2) Claimed the world's oceans would rise 20' by today. Funny, I still launch at Econfina and have to time my trips carefully to have enough water to put in at a ramp paved long before anyone was speaking a word about "global warming" / 20' ocean rises.

3) Claimed we would face ever more dramatic hurricane seasons in the US... before the hurricane seasons fell to near record low activities.

4) Hang on every word spoken by a man who has become a BILLIONAIRE off his proven dramatically false alarmist claims, only to build expensive beach houses with his gains during the supposed time leading up to the 20' ocean rise...

5) Have now been caught multiple times emailing each other about hiding data / silencing SCIENTIFIC studies that challenge government funded grant studies... studies that won't be issued future grants if "climate change" falls off the radar.

All that common sense logic shared above, Wevans, and you're the one that gets declared to be the flat earth / green cheese moon-man. Funny how that works, isn't it?! Yeah, just give in and buy every word spoken from the mouths of MSNBC, Al Gore, and those who think we all need to be taxed to infinity and beyond to force-fund a solution to a problem they haven't even come close to predicting with an iota of accuracy, and God only knows their answers always work flawlessly as promised, right?!

[wevans]

EJ, I believe FACTS, not a bunch of self serving, supposed honest scientist!! Our past is a window into our future, in many cases

[Jumptrout51]

I've got a fact for you.
The meteorologist (weatherman) can't even predict tomorrows' weather with accuracy.
It is understandable that EddieJoe would condemn Fox News for presenting scientific facts.
His news sources are not accustomed to presenting facts,scientific or otherwise.

[MudDucker]

Sure, Waldo, just keep getting your science from FOX news. Earth is flat, moon is made of green cheese.

Hey EddieJoe, you must get your news and scientific facts from MSNBC. A lot of leg tingling there, but nothing firing up above the shoulders!

[MarkM]

The way I see it, over the last few years is. And, I'm not trying to stir up anything or get into a political mess but. And, this doesn't work for everybody. If, you are a republican, you can't believe in global warming. If, you are a democrat, you have to.

[Tom Keels]

"The great thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not. "

[wevans]

"The great thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not. "

Science, yes scientist on the other hand, not so much the saying "ya get what ya pay for" has never been truer than now, when it comes to scientific studies

[Gumbo]

My neighbor and friend is a Professor at FSU. He has spent much of his career studying this issue. I'm going to trust his conclusions rather than those on the news or the internet. And his conclusions suggest to me that my F-150 is not helping things.

We are ruining our planet. "Tragedy of the Commons" was written in 1833 by William Forster Lloyd. I suggest that we are no different than the sheep herders back in the day, taking advantage of the luxury of the planet at our own peril.

[big bend gyrene]

"The great thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not. "

Science, yes scientist on the other hand, not so much the saying "ya get what ya pay for" has never been truer than now, when it comes to scientific studies

Exactly what Wevans said.

I laugh at the liberals who act as if, to quote our fearless leader (and God knows he would never tell a lie... about keeping your doctor if you want to, not raising taxes on the middle class despite a 2% payroll tax on anyone who works, etc) that 97% of scientist agree on man-made global warming. Not even close. There is healthy dissent on both 1) whether the PAST warming seen in the early 2000s was outside VARIABLE norms (we had past ice ages and tropical warming trends well before man after all) , and 2) and even if so, whether it was caused by man.

Not one liberal speaking up in this thread has: 1) acknowledged how insanely off the mark the alarmist predictions made by Gore and GOVERNMENT funded scientists proved, 2) spoke to climategate and subsequent scandals within the scientific community where evidence came out in the open on efforts to hide/mask/flat out change data that didn't support warming, 3) have spoken to the God-given common sense examples I provided on how false past claims proved to be, much like those just a blip of time back in the 70s when it was claimed we would all freeze to death shortly.

REAL scientists know there is no such thing as "settled" science. Science is about forming a hypothesis and continually testing it against near infinite variables to see if it continues to stand the test of time. Unbiased science requires 1) complete independence from political / financial bias, and 2) a continuing skepticism on any claims of "absolute knowledge" with the view that claims of knowledge are based on hypotheses that SHOULD be continually challenged with skepticism, and independent analysis. Scientific history is filled with hypotheses that were believed to be near universally true at the time that they were made, but then proved to be absolutely false.

To those that buy Tom's ridiculous quote, "The great thing about science is it's true whether you believe it or not", you might want to pause and weigh that the scientific community largely held that a firmly agreed-upon earth-centered model of the solar system until Copernicus published his heliocentric (sun-centered) model. Those old enough to serve might recall how the government that now heavily regulates cigarettes proactively ISSUED them back in the first half of the 1900s. Here's a poster that I think speaks well to being skeptical of the belief that scientist can't be wrong OR even more importantly influenced by big money into supporting claims they might otherwise not.

I want to make clear that I don't think global warming is not possible, but I absolutely believe it healthy to analyze claims made in recent years to see if they proved true and to maintain a skeptical eye if those claims clearly were proven far off the mark / subsequent data didn't end up supporting the claims.

Love to see one of the unquestioning believers take on the points I made earlier in the post, point by point.

Also believe Mark M's not too far off the mark and this post is likely best moved to the political section.

[big bend gyrene]

One more point to ponder... even if possibly right on analyzed problems, think scientists can't do great harm with "fail proof" solutions they offer? Putting aside the argument that global-warming alarmists are simply seeking a tax dollar grab, let's look at a few relatively recent historical solutions. Anyone say the words "Kudzo" -- brought to the US by SCIENTIST in 1876 to control erosion -- didn't behave quite like the scientist expected. How about "Asian Carp"... brought in by US scientists only a bit over 20 years ago to help control algae... now wiping out native fish diversity throughout the great lakes. Anyone on the board remember "thalidomide"? Temporarily an over-the-counter sedative... that is until 10,000 cases were reported of infants with malformation of limbs, and with only 50% of the 10,000 even surviving.

Skepticism... it's an absolutely healthy scientific habit for those who believe in "real" science versus those who use terms such as "settled science".

[big bend gyrene]

Gumbo, on the premise that living next to a college professor who believes in a certain stance makes one right, nothing more than an address change might influence your stance.

Professor Richard Lindzen, Alfred P Sloan Professor of Meteorology at Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a highly regarded physicist once described climate change alarmism on The Larry King Show as "mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves."

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has written: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see."

Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, a former warming alarmist (and still a self-described "luke warmer") has infuriated many of her more extremist colleagues by defending skeptics and by testifying to the US House Subcommittee on the Environment that the uncertainties in forecasting climate science are much greater than the alarmists will admit.

[Salty Gator]

Just curious, do y'all not believe in evolution either?

[wevans]

I am skeptical of the FULL theory of evolution Did man evolve, I believe yes. Did we evolve from APES, I am doubtful. Man, like all creatures are constantly evolving. But I have to wonder, if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes on the planet? I am more inclined to believe that we were created or transplanted to this planet by a higher being "no, not a god" and have evolved from that point in time to what we are now