Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming?

[sv3n 0]

That raises some interesting discussion about Al Gore's film, I'd love to hear the answers.

How do you explain the rise in ocean temps that have been killing coral and thereby causing a decrease in ocean wildlife?

Or the fact that the new "north passage" is opening up?

What's your take on smog?

Are these just natural occurances?

PS - if you're gonna post a bunch of accusations, post the answers to them.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's a reason why the ocean temps are going up causing fish and coral to die.

Are the oceans temps really going up?
Are fish and coral really dying due to higher oceans temps?

Source please.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/us/22coral.html?ex=1305950400&en=3a5f024814e926e3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/oceantemps.shtml



that's just a few that came up with a quick google search on......."oceans temps rising", happy reading.

A bunch of newspaper articles is not what I would call "peer reviewed" sources.

1. "Bill Goodwin, a resource manager for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary"....."Tyler Smith, a coral biologist at the University of the Virgin Islands"....."Andrew Baker, a marine biologist and coral specialist at the University of Miami"......"Scott Donahue, associate science coordinator at the Keys marine sanctuary"

2. "Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies"

3. "Using 22 different computer models of the climate system, Benjamin Santer and six other atmospheric scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, together with Tom Wigley, Gerald Meehl, and Warren Washington from the Boulder-based National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and scientists from eight other research centers, have shown that the warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans over the last century are linked to human activities.


Hurricane Ioke passes by the Hawaiian Islands on August 21, 2006, with 132-mile per hour winds in this satellite image. The storm, renamed Typhoon Ioke as it moved west across the International Date Line, later intensified to become the most powerful central Pacific storm on record. Click here or on the image to enlarge. (Image produced by Hal Pierce, SSAI/NASA GSFC.)
NCAR's primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation. Support was also received from the U.S. Department of Energy, which sponsors Lawrence Livermore."



So exactly how do you listen to an oil company sponsored study over people like these? What exactly would you consider a "good" source?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[speedy 0]

Quote

>A bunch of newspaper articles is not what I would call "peer reviewed" sources.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is not a newspaper. Nor is NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. And there is no such thing as a peer-reviewed source, although many science journals do publish peer-reviewed papers.

I am confused. Is the New York times not a news paper? The washington post is what then?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

There's a reason why the ocean temps are going up causing fish and coral to die.

Are the oceans temps really going up?
Are fish and coral really dying due to higher oceans temps?

Source please.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/22/us/22coral.html?ex=1305950400&en=3a5f024814e926e3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/12/AR2005101202498.html

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/oceantemps.shtml



that's just a few that came up with a quick google search on......."oceans temps rising", happy reading.

A bunch of newspaper articles is not what I would call "peer reviewed" sources.

2. "Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies"

You mean people like Dr. Hansen?
He was all fired up about global cooling back in the early 70s.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

Quote

3. "Using 22 different computer models of the climate system, Benjamin Santer and six other atmospheric scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, together with Tom Wigley, Gerald Meehl, and Warren Washington from the Boulder-based National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and scientists from eight other research centers, have shown that the warming sea surface temperatures (SSTs) of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans over the last century are linked to human activities.

So exactly how do you listen to an oil company sponsored study over people like these? What exactly would you consider a "good" source?

I don't know... are those scientists "using 22 different computer models of the climate system" involved with the climatologists who forecasted severe hurricane seasons for '06 and '07?

I ask because the '06 forecast was way off the mark and the '07 forecast is looking like a bust, too.

[billvon 2,463]

>I am confused.

Be confused no more! The links contain references to those peer-reviewed articles mentioned. From the posted links:
-------------------------
September 11, 2006

BOULDER—Rising ocean temperatures in key hurricane breeding grounds of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are due primarily to human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, according to a study published online in the September 11 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
-----------------------
World Temperatures Keep Rising With a Hot 2005

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 13, 2005; Page A01

Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculated the record-breaking global average temperature, which now surpasses 1998's record by a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, from readings taken at 7,200 weather stations scattered around the world.
-------------------------

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

You mean people like Dr. Hansen?
He was all fired up about global cooling back in the early 70s.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

Wow, a scientist who adapts his theories to fit new data? Unthinkable.
And to think I always thought that science was immutable, like religion or philosophy.
What will they tell us next, that the Sun doesn't really revolve around the Earth?

Cheers,

Vale

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

You mean people like Dr. Hansen?
He was all fired up about global cooling back in the early 70s.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

Wow, a scientist who adapts his theories to fit new data? Unthinkable.

Fool me once, shame on you...

[speedy 0]

Quote

>I am confused.

Be confused no more! The links contain references to those peer-reviewed articles mentioned. From the posted links:
-------------------------
September 11, 2006

BOULDER—Rising ocean temperatures in key hurricane breeding grounds of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans are due primarily to human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations, according to a study published online in the September 11 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS).
-----------------------
World Temperatures Keep Rising With a Hot 2005

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 13, 2005; Page A01

Climatologists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies calculated the record-breaking global average temperature, which now surpasses 1998's record by a tenth of a degree Fahrenheit, from readings taken at 7,200 weather stations scattered around the world.
-------------------------

The links contain how some journalists choose to interpret a study in the PNAS.
Typical alarmist reporting.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You mean people like Dr. Hansen?
He was all fired up about global cooling back in the early 70s.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/19/nasa-scientists-predicted-new-ice-age-1971

Wow, a scientist who adapts his theories to fit new data? Unthinkable.

Fool me once, shame on you...

Obviously, you have zero idea how the scientific process is supposed to work. Unfortunately, you're definitely not alone in this

Bye,

Vale

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Obviously, you have zero idea how the scientific process is supposed to work.

What proof do you have that I "have zero idea how the scientific process is supposed to work(s)"?

Did you concluded that from my last two posts?

[billvon 2,463]

>The links contain how some journalists choose to interpret a study in the PNAS.

PNAS study:
---------
Previous research has identified links between changes in sea surface temperature (SST) and hurricane intensity. We use climate models to study the possible causes of SST changes in Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions. The observed SST increases in these regions range from 0.32°C to 0.67°C over the 20th century. The 22 climate models examined here suggest that century-timescale SST changes of this magnitude cannot be explained solely by unforced variability of the climate system.
---------

Published in a peer-reviewed journal and accurately described by the article.

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Quote

Obviously, you have zero idea how the scientific process is supposed to work.

What proof do you have that I "have zero idea how the scientific process is supposed to work(s)"?

Did you concluded that from my last two posts?

Actually, I'm glad you pointed this out, as it allows me to apply your "Fool me once..." principle to my own statements thus providing a fine example of its fallacy (your principle's, that is).
Firstly let me admit that I was wrong in claiming that "You have zero knowledge etc. etc.", as I cannot provide proof of my assertion based on the available data, which right now consists only of your previous posts.
So, I have decided to admit my mistake and offer you an apology. At the same time I wish to reformulate my theory regarding your knowledge of the basic principles of science. My new theory is "NCclimber has shown no knowledge in his previous posts of how the scientific process is supposed to work".
This does not necessarily mean you actually have no knowledge, heck for all I know you might actually be an esteemed epistemologist, but maybe you have chosen to make your statements based for example on political motives, even though you are well aware htat they are wrong but have chosen to ignore this uncomfortable truth
But wait a sec, let's apply your "Fool me once..." principle to this specific situation that I have created.
Since a couple of posts ago I have made scientifically incorrect statements and have admitted to this fact publicly, going as far as formulating a new scientific theory, this, according to your principle, makes me wrong again!
The mere FACT that you actually indisputably appear, based only on your previous posts where you try and discredit a scientist by showing that he is in fact doing what a scientist is supposed to do, to have no knowledge of what science is about (note again the use of the word APPEAR), according to your line of reasoning should not be taken into account in any way whatsoever, simply because I was wrong once and even admitted it openly.
Wow this is getting complicated, I'm beginning to get an headache

Cheers,

Vale

[speedy 0]

Quote

>The links contain how some journalists choose to interpret a study in the PNAS.

PNAS study:
---------
Previous research has identified links between changes in sea surface temperature (SST) and hurricane intensity. We use climate models to study the possible causes of SST changes in Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions. The observed SST increases in these regions range from 0.32°C to 0.67°C over the 20th century. The 22 climate models examined here suggest that century-timescale SST changes of this magnitude cannot be explained solely by unforced variability of the climate system.
---------

Published in a peer-reviewed journal and accurately described by the article.

So there is a link between SST and hurricane intensity, but obviously based on predictions for the 2006 hurricane season, these are not well understood.
The models may well suggest that soley unforced variability would not produce such SST increases. There again the models suggested an active 2006 and 2007 hurricane season. How much of this 0.32 - 0.67 increase over 100 years is not due to unforced variability?

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[ChrisD 0]

I was speaking with some undergrads at MIT yesterday. The topic was "summer jobs." We all noticed a number of posters and flyers that were pasted and stapled to walls everywhere, litter'arly everywhere. Most universities have a policy that you need to register or at least be a student to post shit paper in the halls walls....

So without the "stamp" of approval you can tell when some "outside" agency or company has littered the walls with junk paper.

This mass posting of offers for "Summer Jobs for The Enviorment" was everywhere so the topic of disscussion was who and why were they doing this, and what can we do about it other than remove the offensive and against school policy postings?

So some of the students I spoke with decided to give the 1-800 number a call and see who and what was and is behind this.

Turns out that this work at home job consists of monitoring web sites: Blogs, forums, news stations, etc.. And then responding with: Moderate, middle of the road comments debunking global warming and other ecology minded responses. All for about 7 dollars an hour. Reminds me of religion and Judas?

Seems they install some sort of keystroke monitoring software and yo get paid for how much time yo spend cutting and pasteing "canned" responses to any "search" of topics that have the key words: Global Warming, etc.," in the phrase or similar.

Some job hu?

Seems also that the "supervisors" are trained to find individuals with a lot of time on there hands, need money, and are a bit of social outcasts....

Never mind the fact that they are also selected on thier personal views and knowledge level of issues pertaining to science. In other words lot's of buisness majors and liberal arts students are the ones that get these "desirable" jobs.

Go to any college or public place like "Harvard Square," and you will see these same ads stapled to telephone poles or posted on the walls outside popular hangouts!

Grass roots advertising, or companies with millions to spend any way they see fit? Please keep in mind that the average super bowel 20 seconds of time cost 2.5 million. That's $125,000.00 peer second!

So how much do big coal and the crotch brothers have to spend? How miuch is just one percent of their gross?

Can yo say that one percent of the conglomerated energy companies gross is over one trillion dollars?

You all need to start focusing on the cure to understand why the fat cats spend less than one percent to ensure their going to survive at the publics expense. Nothing new here, History is rife with explotation at the expense of the mindless and powerless... and gulliable....


All you have to do is count the number of posts on a subject to see who and what these Judas's are. Do a search for Global Warming, and respond only to those, move on to the next webb site...


How can some people post the amount they do, and in the same breath claim they have full time jobs?

Figure it out for yourself folks; paid advertising or public forum?

C

But what do I know, "I only have one tandem jump."