# We are causing global warming??



## Archangel M (Dec 14, 2008)

More than 650 scientists disagree with man made global warming theory.



> Warming fears are the &#8220;worst scientific scandal in the history&#8230;When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.&#8221; - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
> 
> &#8220;The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn&#8217;t listen to others. It doesn&#8217;t have open minds&#8230; I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.&#8221; - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nomad (Dec 15, 2008)

How many of these "scientists" work for industries and/or governments that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in regards to fossil fuel usage?

Follow the money.

From the evidence that I have seen, the vast majority of scientists (myself included) believe that man-caused global warming is real, substantial, and a huge threat to our civilization going forward.

Then again, you can still find "scientists" saying evolution is not a validated scientific fact (it is) or that smoking does not really cause cancer (it does).


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 15, 2008)

Not this again


----------



## Twin Fist (Dec 15, 2008)

the jury is still WAY out on man being the cause of glbal warming.

wait, no it isnt

the earth has cooled and warmed in the past, and man had nothing to do with it.

it is arrogance and conciet of the highest order to think they we and we alone are responsible


----------



## Blindside (Dec 15, 2008)

Lets review a couple of threads before we start this again, shall we?

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57246

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61520

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61630


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 15, 2008)

Blindside said:


> Lets review a couple of threads before we start this again, shall we?
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57246
> 
> ...


 
And that is not all of them


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 15, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> More than 650 scientists disagree with man made global warming theory.


 


Nomad said:


> How many of these "scientists" work for industries and/or governments that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in regards to fossil fuel usage?
> 
> Follow the money.
> 
> ...


 


Xue Sheng said:


> Not this again


 


Twin Fist said:


> the jury is still WAY out on man being the cause of glbal warming.
> 
> wait, no it isnt
> 
> ...


 


Blindside said:


> Lets review a couple of threads before we start this again, shall we?
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=57246
> 
> ...


 


Xue Sheng said:


> And that is not all of them


 

I agree that it is a subject that is still not confirmed.

I agree that too many people are looking at one location on the planet with limited data and making sweeping judegments.

I agree that too many people are not looking at history but only recent history where we started cold. 

I agree that too many people are not doing the system approach.


I also agree that even if we are not the single cuase or the single most cause or even a plurality of the cause, it is something our culture and society does understand, and we can do what we can to make things better.

1) Emission controls on vehicles:
Pro: For cleaner air and localized air quality
Con: Cost it passed onto Customer and they do not understand
No one looks at the Power companies (* Cough - Coal - Cough *) as a larger source, until very recently. 

2) Wind
Pro: In areas where is is constant it is good
Con: It is not available everywhere
People complain about the eye soar
Impact to enviroment - people are concerned about birds, when it is the bat population that is harder hit.

3) Solar
Pro: Clean - Cheap once installed
Con: Not efficient in all locations. Cost for solar cells is up (* New technology i.e. China with 250% absorption rate, are coming out *) and using water is not always efficient as it takes energy to pump the water

4) Tidal 
Pro: In areas where is present it is constant
Con: Eye Soar along coasts
Cost of implementation and maintenace and impact to environment

5) Water - i.e. falls, streams, dams, etcetera
Pro: in areas that have flowing water it is very effective
Con: Some areas are seasonal
Some areas to be effective cause flooding of valleys where people and animals some endangered live

6) Nuclear
Pro: Effective and Efficient
Con: Waste Disposal
Location - Risk factors and local complaints of no one wants one in their back yard
No new reactor location (* last data I saw *) has gone online in the US since 1979. Some have been revamped or updated. 


Now, none of these will be the single source. But we should be looking into them all, and trying to make them cost effective and efficeint and accepted by the population. 

Why? 

Because the source of energy for Coal and Oil is limited and Wood and Peat is worse for emissions. 

I brought energy sources as the usual issue for humans effecting the environment is the by product of our energy production be it massive for large populations or for personal usage.


PS: Also do not forget to look at the Core and the movement of the Magnetic Poll and energy released into the earth via plate movement. Also do not forget to look at the magentic areas of North in the South and see how they line up with the "wholes" in the O Zone Layer at the poll areas. A system approach will be the best, but people making lots of individual incremental changes will be the more realistic plan versus the one shot save everything plan.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 15, 2008)

My take on this thread...after all the others...

**Note: Image removed due to inappropriate language.**


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 15, 2008)

Rich Parsons said:


> PS: Also do not forget to look at the Core and the movement of the Magnetic Poll and energy released into the earth via plate movement. Also do not forget to look at the magentic areas of North in the South and see how they line up with the "wholes" in the O Zone Layer at the poll areas. A system approach will be the best, but people making lots of individual incremental changes will be the more realistic plan versus the one shot save everything plan.


 
Axis tilt, planetary orbit, oceanic conveyor belt system, melt water,  etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. The planet is a rather complex group of systems and possibly self-correcting. But that is not necessarily a good thing for the inhabitants of the planet.

The following is not directed at Rich or his post

I fail to see the need to place or deny blame on this topic. 

Is the planet getting warmer? 

Are large amounts of fresh water being dumped via melt into the oceans? 

Can we do anything about it? 

If we can't then hold on for the ride if we can then why don't we just shut up and work to fix it.


----------



## Ray (Dec 15, 2008)

Nomad said:


> How many of these "scientists" work for industries and/or governments that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in regards to fossil fuel usage?


Anyone who is an honest to gawd "scientist" should be smart enough to know they have a vested interested in knowing the truth about the cause of global climate change, and whether it is within the control of our species.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 15, 2008)

I watch a lot of Discovery and the History Channels... I like to think that most if not all the info on there is pretty accurate ... considering. 

They've found that the earth has been through a warming cycle and a freezing cycle before. 

Natural order of things. Natural course of the planet. 
Sure we helped pollute the air, land, water quite a bit but theory has it that if man were to suddenly leave the planet altogether it would rejuvenate it self right quick... geologically speaking... say about 1000 years or less. 

We could do with a lot less pollution and be more "green" as it were the popular saying these days. It would make it a much nicer, cleaner place for our children to grow up into. 

Sigh, but it can't be a singular effort. EVERY country on the planet must do their share. Hell we can't even get along that well much less even think about agreeing to reduce carbon emissions and such. Too much damn money to be made so cheerio pip pip and all that, we'll learn the lessons later eh?

Oh and the children can clean up the mess.


----------



## jks9199 (Dec 15, 2008)

I don't know... I think things are pretty simple.

The Earth is too complex a system for any one thing to be the magic cause of anything.  But that doesn't mean that what we do can't effect it -- for good or bad.

I do think it's interesting that not too many years ago, some scientists were questioning whether we were overdue for an ice age -- and if human activity had forestalled that.  

In short -- I see doing what we can reasonably do to protect and maintain the environment is a no-brainer.  But let's not fool ourselves that we can change hundreds of years of human and natural activity overnight, either.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Dec 16, 2008)

IMO, it really doesn't matter who caused global warming.  What matters is the potential consequences, and what can be done about it.


----------



## Nomad (Dec 16, 2008)

Ray said:


> Anyone who is an honest to gawd "scientist" should be smart enough to know they have a vested interested in knowing the truth about the cause of global climate change, and whether it is within the control of our species.


 
Unfortunately, if history has shown us anything, it's that many people are more than willing to sell their opinions and reputation if the price is right.  Of course this _shouldn't_ happen, but it clearly does (just look at the doctors employed by cigarette companies for many years to present their "findings" that tobacco wasn't harmful, in spite of the overwhelming evidence from independent professionals that it was).  The sole purpose was to muddy the waters and maintain their product value.  I believe that similar things are happening here with the anti-global warming crowd.

I would also quickly agree that we are not solely responsible for any warming effects that are happening; as has been stated, the earth is a very very large and complex system.  

However, to blandly state that we are having NO appreciable affect as a means to avoid taking more responsibility for our collective actions as a species on this planet is to turn off all the lights and pretend that nothing is happening.

There are very solid statistics on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it has been steadily increasing since the advent of the industrial revolution.  It is not difficult to correlate this increase to the massive increase in the use/burning of fossil fuels which we know release CO2 into the atmosphere and the concommitant reduction of forested land that we know is quite efficient at consuming & sequestering CO2 and emitting O2.  

Furthermore, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that does have a marked effect on how much radiation bounces off a planet and escapes back into space.  Increased levels inhibit the escape; hence we get warming.  People have been successfully modelling this for many years using very powerful computers; the more complex the models get, the more accurate the results are to what we're seeing right now.

Is the earth self-correcting?  Almost certainly, in the long term... it's recovered from worse things than what we've been able to throw at it so far (eg. massive asteroids, the aforementioned ice ages, etc.).  I just doubt that many of us (humanity, that is) will be around to see it correct.


----------



## ginshun (Dec 17, 2008)

Honestly, I could do with a little global warming right abut now. I don't think it has been above 0 degrees F since Sunday.


----------



## Ray (Dec 17, 2008)

Nomad said:


> Is the earth self-correcting? Almost certainly, in the long term... it's recovered from worse things than what we've been able to throw at it so far (eg. massive asteroids, the aforementioned ice ages, etc.). I just doubt that many of us (humanity, that is) will be around to see it correct.


It is unrealistic to imagine the earth being "self-correcting" to provide an environment in which life (intelligent life included - whether that includes us or not, I'm not sure) thrives.  It is no more "correct" in the grand scheme of things than the sun someday going nova and wiping all life off the earth.  Why should we imagine our little blue planet is worth "saving"?


----------



## Lynne (Dec 17, 2008)

It's the New Zealander's flatulating cows.  NZ scientists admitted to being embarrassed by their cow's flatulence puncturing the ozone layer.  Oh brudda...


----------



## Nomad (Dec 18, 2008)

Ray said:


> It is unrealistic to imagine the earth being "self-correcting" to provide an environment in which life (intelligent life included - whether that includes us or not, I'm not sure) thrives. It is no more "correct" in the grand scheme of things than the sun someday going nova and wiping all life off the earth. Why should we imagine our little blue planet is worth "saving"?


 
Maybe, but the mass extinctions present in the fossil record do tell of some pretty massive catastrophes that the earth (and at least a small fraction of the life on it) has managed to survive, and "recover" from (extinction of dinosaurs, much larger mass extinction earlier (can't remember what period off the top of my head)).  It's happened before; I don't think it's difficult at all to imagine it happening again.  

From bacteria that thrive the what is pretty close to boiling sulfuric acid in ocean vents to stuff trapped under the ice in pockets in Antarctica; if one thing has been clearly shown, it's that life itself is pretty darn tenacious.  Very few catastrophes would be severe enough, IMO, to eliminate it entirely from the planet (ie. sun goes supernova, swallowed by a black hole, etc).  People, OTOH are relative newcomers to the planet, and on a geological timescale, may yet prove to be quite shortlived.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 18, 2008)

Nomad said:


> Is the earth self-correcting? Almost certainly, in the long term... it's recovered from worse things than what we've been able to throw at it so far (eg. massive asteroids, the aforementioned ice ages, etc.). I just doubt that many of us (humanity, that is) will be around to see it correct.


 
Yes it is self correcting but the question is how severe that self correction is, basically is it survivable or not.

Slow and easy, sure. It gets warmer, there is more water in the atmosphere, that reflects radiation back into space and the earth then gets cooler.

Or it gets warmer, the polar ice caps melt the glaciers melt, the earths crust rebounds and since there are a few volcanoes in Antarctica they become active as do a few others and you have a lot of ash in the atmosphere get enough ash you get rather harsh living conditions for the indigenous species of the planet but this could cause cooling a bit quicker...it can also blot out the sun and cause a lot of extinctions either directly or indirectly (Ex. plants die, nothing to eat). Throw enough fresh water into the ocean (melting ice) and the oceanic conveyor belt system shuts down, however you do not notice it for hundreds of years and it will start up again but now you are in to I believe about a thousand years or more between shutdown restart and recovery. That will really mess with earths temperatures by the way. 



Ray said:


> It is unrealistic to imagine the earth being "self-correcting" to provide an environment in which life (intelligent life included - whether that includes us or not, I'm not sure) thrives. It is no more "correct" in the grand scheme of things than the sun someday going nova and wiping all life off the earth. Why should we imagine our little blue planet is worth "saving"?


 
Actually it is a fact it is self correcting, however it cannot fix being burned up by a supernova. It is pretty much fixing stuff that occurs within its atmosphere. I had a professor in college that was talking about this topic and he did feel that there could possibly be a point where the planet could self correct in a catastrophic manor thereby causing mass extinctions. But I do not remember the entire lecture, that was over 20 years ago and I'm old and forgetful now


----------



## KP. (Dec 18, 2008)

There are probably 1,000 folks with doctorates in the sciences within a few  miles of me. Big state university, a bunch of fortune 500 companies with lab space.

It sounds like a big number, it's not.


----------



## Ray (Dec 18, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Yes it is self correcting but the question is how severe that self correction is, basically is it survivable or not.


To assume that the earth has a "correct state" just because life has existed her for a relatively brief moment of the universe's existance doesn't seem logical to me. 

Someday all life will be destroyed by the heat of our sun's nova; the atmosphere will be burned off and all water will be gone.

Since during the vast majority of eternity (or the life of the universe should it have an "end") the earth will be lifeless, it only seems natural to deem a lifeless rock as the "correct" state.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 19, 2008)

Ray said:


> To assume that the earth has a "correct state" just because life has existed her for a relatively brief moment of the universe's existance doesn't seem logical to me.
> 
> Someday all life will be destroyed by the heat of our sun's nova; the atmosphere will be burned off and all water will be gone.
> 
> Since during the vast majority of eternity (or the life of the universe should it have an "end") the earth will be lifeless, it only seems natural to deem a lifeless rock as the "correct" state.


 
OK let&#8217;s put it this way nature wants balance and if it does not have it then it tries to get it. I am talking within the biosphere of the planet earth and you are talking from a galactic POV. If you do not wish to believe that then that is fine I am not going to argue that facts here.

There is an oceanic conveyor belt system, this is scientific fact. It has shut down before due to disruption and it has started again due to planet rotation and water temperature differences. However if the sun went nova (and it is highly doubtful that it will, it simply is not big enough in terms of energy) it would most certainly stop since all the water of the planet would be burned off and it most certainly cannot correct itself in that event becuae I believe a nova wiould pull us in (more on this later). But I am not talking about novas, galactic collisions or meteors the size of the moon hitting the planet earth or meteors the size of the one the allegedly killed off the dinosaurs passing close enough to rip away the earth&#8217;s atmosphere. I am talking specifically of the planet earth and its systems. They are, whether you wish to believe it or not self correcting and this is because nature seeks balance, not in the hocus pocus metaphysical spiritual way but in a scientific, chemical, pressure, atmospheric way. 

Life on the planet earth hangs precariously in that balance but I highly doubt the planet cares about that one way or the other, it just is. And planetaty balance has little to do with life being on it or not. 

And yes eventually the earth will be lifeless but I fail to see how that applies to global warming and planetary tendancies. It is most certainly not a valid justification, IMO, to sit back and say the planet is getting hotter, who cares it will all be a lifeless rock one day anyway. 

Sun going Nova - likely no. It is not big enough and it does not have enough energy. It will eventually become a red giant and expand however but it will also loose some gravitational influence on the planet Earth as well so it is possible that the Earth will move further away form the red giant and have a larger orbit. This however does not mean business as usual it means catastrophe since I don't think the move will do Earth much good and reduced gravitational pull could cause some pretty serious issues on good ole mother earth as well and the red giant will actually make us much hotter and likely dry up all water and destroy all life on earth and earth will then likely be much mire like Venus is today. And no the planet cannot fix that. But heat the place up by a few degrees (not thousands of degrees) and you get more water in the atmosphere and that will eventually start reflecting the "yellow" suns radiation back and thereby start a cooling trend which left unchecked would likely result in an ice age. But then depending on the tilt of the access (which will be effected by greater amounts of ice) and the planetary orbit which changes between oval and circular as well it is also possible that that balance could be reached as a ice covered ball in space which is just fine for the planet but not so fine for its inhabitants. An ice ball is also incredibly good at reflecting radiation (aka heat) back into space and staying an ice ball. Actually we have come close to that before, but I have to apologize I can't remember which ice age that was off the top of my head.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 19, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> it is arrogance and conciet of the highest order to think they we and we alone are responsible



I don't think that anyone will make that claim.

But nature is about balance, and it doesn't take much to disrupt that balance and we are more then capable of disrupting that balance.

We've done it quite a few times, the Ozone layer is a global issue, and one that had we not changed gears would be a lot worse right now.

We've over hunted and over fished species to extinction.  At one time people would have said the same things about it being to massive for us to have an effect on when it came to the idea of polluting lakes and rivers, they where proved wrong.  We introduce a species to a new animal and it can have catastrophic effects, look at what rabbits have done to Australia, and they are just a furry little rodent in a very big country.

We are not the only cause, but when the other causes are balanced and we toss a new source of problems in the balance is offset, things accumulate, and we get problems.  It's like if you had a funnel, dn you are pouring water into it and it is draining.  Someone else comes along and starts pooring water in as well, even if at a much slower rate, now it can't drain fast enough and goes over.  Yes, that person was not the only person pouring water, but the addition they made pushed it over the top.

And you are right, the earth has warmed and cooled before, and it is something that it can do without any help from us.  But, we also know the effects of those warming and cooling cycles from studying geology and archeology, and the fact that it is looking like it might be entering another should be worrysome, as those effects would be very bad for us.

BUt just because we can't put out the fire, doesn't mean we should keep throwing gas on it.


----------



## Ray (Dec 19, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> OK lets put it this way nature wants balance and if it does not have it then it tries to get it. I am talking within the biosphere of the planet earth and you are talking from a galactic POV. If you do not wish to believe that then that is fine I am not going to argue that facts here.


"Nature" doesn't want anything, unless you're talking about living things.  The earth is not living nor are the mechanical processes that make life possible.


Xue Sheng said:


> There is an oceanic conveyor belt system, this is scientific fact. It has shut down before due to disruption and it has started again due to planet rotation and water temperature differences. However if the sun went nova (and it is highly doubtful that it will, it simply is not big enough in terms of energy) it would most certainly stop since all the water of the planet would be burned off...


I agree with you there. Again, you're talking about mechanical processes governed by physical laws.


Xue Sheng said:


> and it most certainly cannot correct itself in that event becuae I believe a nova wiould pull us in (more on this later).


There is no "correct" state of the earth.  Since "correctness" is a judgement call, it is only intelligent life that can conceive of it.  


Xue Sheng said:


> But I am not talking about novas, galactic collisions or meteors the size of the moon hitting the planet earth or meteors the size of the one the allegedly killed off the dinosaurs passing close enough to rip away the earths atmosphere. I am talking specifically of the planet earth and its systems. They are, whether you wish to believe it or not self correcting and this is because nature seeks balance, not in the hocus pocus metaphysical spiritual way but in a scientific, chemical, pressure, atmospheric way.


They do not "correct" they change according to the mechanical processes governed by physical law.  Rocks fall down mountains because of gravity..not because the valley floor is the "correct" place for them to be.



Xue Sheng said:


> Life on the planet earth hangs precariously in that balance but I highly doubt the planet cares about that one way or the other, it just is. And planetaty balance has little to do with life being on it or not.


the fate of all life on earth is sealed...it will all perish.  And the earth will perish.


Xue Sheng said:


> And yes eventually the earth will be lifeless but I fail to see how that applies to global warming and planetary tendancies. It is most certainly not a valid justification, IMO, to sit back and say the planet is getting hotter, who cares it will all be a lifeless rock one day anyway.


Now, I never said we shouldn't find the truth and do what we can to lengthen the time of our species.  We are programmed to "survive."  Of course we should follow our tendancies to do so.  I'm all for doing something while I live...it keeps me from being bored while I wait for the eventual demise of life.  when the sun explodes, it will also wipe out any trace that we ever existed.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 19, 2008)

Ray

Balance is a fact, don't believe me study river systems and what happens when dredged or straightened. Study climatology or Physical Geography, fluvial geomorphology; look at the Little Ice Age. I am not making this up man this is from science and study. It is obviously not conscious and it is obviously not by choice it is just how it works.

But you believe what you will I'm done trying to convince you of otherwise


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 19, 2008)

Y'know, I'm starting to think that the Pastafarians are on to something.  2008 is going to end up being the coldest year of the decade, whereas 2007 was like the fourth warmest.  

You know what else happened in 2008?

Pirate attacks.  Lots and lots of pirate attacks. 

Coincidence?  I think not.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 19, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Y'know, I'm starting to think that the Pastafarians are on to something. 2008 is going to end up being the coldest year of the decade, whereas 2007 was like the fourth warmest.
> 
> You know what else happened in 2008?
> 
> ...


 
:anic: uh oh :uhohh: ummm... aaaa... ALL HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER

:bow::bow::bow:


----------



## Ray (Dec 19, 2008)

Xue Sheng said:


> Balance is a fact, don't believe me study river systems and what happens when dredged or straightened. Study climatology or Physical Geography, fluvial geomorphology; look at the Little Ice Age. I am not making this up man this is from science and study. It is obviously not conscious and it is obviously not by choice it is just how it works.
> 
> But you believe what you will I'm done trying to convince you of otherwise


Look at the "big" picture.  For example, you can't judge the life of a person by a single day...just as you can't judge the life of the earth by the stage that favors our existence.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Dec 19, 2008)

Ray said:


> Look at the "big" picture. For example, you can't judge the life of a person by a single day...just as you can't judge the life of the earth by the stage that favors our existence.


 
Look at the "scientific" research and the situation as it applies directly to the biosphere of the planet earth. Not as it applies to or solar system or the Milky way Galaxy.

I'm done and out, beleive what you will and look at it as you please. I'll stick with the science
Later


----------



## Cryozombie (Dec 19, 2008)

I watched the Video by the Internet Skeptic and he raises some good questions about some of the Science involved in the topic.

I'm not saying his conclusions are right or wrong, just some of his questions seem like the correct ones to ask.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2008)

Heh. Even a CNN meteorologist says man-made global warming is arrogant.

Seriously, if the weather report was 100% accurate for one week, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe what the weather guessers say about what is coming decades down the road. Weather guessers are the only people, outside of politics, that can be wrong 100% of the time and still stay employed.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2008)

Ten DUD predictions of Global warming gloom and doom


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 20, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Heh. Even a CNN meteorologist says man-made global warming is arrogant.
> 
> Seriously, if the weather report was 100% accurate for one week, I'd be a lot more inclined to believe what the weather guessers say about what is coming decades down the road. Weather guessers are the only people, outside of politics, that can be wrong 100% of the time and still stay employed.




and the "weather guy" has nothing at all to do with this.

Long term global climate patterns and short term local weather forecasts are very different things.

A Chemist can't tell you weather or not a specific molecule will decay in a given time period, but he can give you the odds of it doing so, and he can tell you with a very high level of accuracy how many will have decayed at after any length of time.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 20, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> and the "weather guy" has nothing at all to do with this.


 Yeah, tell that to Heidi Cullen. She wanted to withhold or revoke certifications for meteorologists who fail to toe the line on global warming.





> Long term global climate patterns and short term local weather forecasts are very different things.


Except, if they cannot accurately make short term predictions, why on Earth would you accept their long term predictions?





> A Chemist can't tell you weather or not a specific molecule will decay in a given time period, but he can give you the odds of it doing so, and he can tell you with a very high level of accuracy how many will have decayed at after any length of time.


That is nice, but, has absolutely nothing to do with the facts that of the millions of years of weather patterns the Earth has endured, we have accurate record keeping for less than 200 years. Not to mention the total lack of accurate predictions.


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 20, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Ten DUD predictions of Global warming gloom and doom





> concluded that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years.



It (2008) was the fourth busiest Atlantic hurricane year since 1944. The National Climatic Data Center said 2008 is "the only year on record in which a major hurricane existed in every month from July through November in the north Atlantic."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/11/30/hurricane.season.ends/index.html



> "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time," claimed Dr David Barber, of Manitoba University, ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free.




There is no "Manitoba University", it is "The University of Manitoba"


> _In fact_, the Arctic's ice cover this year was almost 10 per cent above last year's great low, and has refrozen rapidly since. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing. Been told either cool fact?



Making it the second lowest level on record, and 34% below the long term average.  Remember, long term patterns, not short term.  The last major  El Niño effect ran into early 2007.

http://nsidc.org/news/images/20081002_Figure2.png



> That makes 1998 still the hottest year on record since the Medieval Warm Period some 1000 years ago. Indeed, temperatures have slowly fallen since around 2002.



again, long term is what matters, not taking short term stuff going back only as far as is convenient, lets put that in context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png


----------



## Andrew Green (Dec 20, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Yeah, tell that to Heidi Cullen. She wanted to withhold or revoke certifications for meteorologists who fail to toe the line on global warming.



People are wrong on all sides of all issues.




> Except, if they cannot accurately make short term predictions, why on Earth would you accept their long term predictions?


Because long term predictions are more reliable.



> That is nice, but, has absolutely nothing to do with the facts that of the millions of years of weather patterns the Earth has endured, we have accurate record keeping for less than 200 years. Not to mention the total lack of accurate predictions.



And fairly accurate records going back a lot longer due to being able to study the effects of weather.  Ice samples, tree rings, sediment patterns, etc


----------



## Big Don (Dec 20, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> People are wrong on all sides of all issues.


 Gee, but, you said the trained professional meteorologist had nothing to do with this. Yeah, politicians like Gore are so much more knowledgeable about the science than trained scientists...





> Because long term predictions are more reliable.


How do you figure? Thirty years ago the "scientific consensus" was we were headed towards a new Ice Age. 30 years isn't long term?


> And fairly accurate records going back a lot longer due to being able to study the effects of weather.  Ice samples, tree rings, sediment patterns, etc


Yeah, and fairly accurate records said the city of Troy was a myth, until it was found...


----------



## Ray (Dec 20, 2008)

Andrew Green said:


> Because long term predictions are more reliable.


Here's a short-term type of prediction: Tomorrows high temp will be 92F to 96F. That's based on what they see "right now." And it's usually accurate to some degree of precision. It's the precision that's the kicker.

Here's a long-term type of prediction: It will be warmer in July than in December in Iowa. That's based on the normal pattern. It is very accuracte and not precise at all. Of course, it is "usually" correct.

The reason they can't make accurate short-term predictions is the same reason they cannot make accurate long-term predictions to any precision. Just ask one to give you forecasts for the weather of each day of 2010, then see how precise they were. They'll be all over the map (probably within the standard bell-shaped curve; unless there's a volcano, or some other unpredicatable event).


----------

