Who was it said the planet was cooling?
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: The Crest Re-Opens!
Next: Solstice Party
From: Twibil on 9 Dec 2009 20:14 On Dec 9, 4:13 pm, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > There is much to learn on this topic and the science is not in. Sigh. Creationists say the same thing about evil-lution because they don't want it to be true, and they will *always* say that; no matter *how* much evidence is "in". But just saying so doesn't make it true, no matter how much they'd like it to be so. In fact, a huge majority of the world's climatologists and geophysicists agree that man-caused global warming is absolutely real, and that it's happening even faster than they'd predicted. The glaciers and polar ice caps are melting at an accelerating rate right this very moment, and no amount of mealey-mouthed excuses will cause that to become less real. Intelligent people prepare for hurricanes even though they know the storms might not hit them at all, and they don't waste time arguing about whether God is directing the storm's path or if it's a matter of sheer chance. Because it really doesn't matter.
From: .p.jm. on 9 Dec 2009 20:18 On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:13:48 GMT, "don (Calgary)" <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: >On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:13:53 -0800 (PST), "TOG(a)Toil" ><totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > >>On 9 Dec, 13:37, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: >>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:15:30 +0000, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The >>> >>> Older Gentleman) wrote: >>> >don (Calgary) <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: >>> >>> >> Not much new in that article. >>> >>> >> What we have seen in the past decade is a plateau in the rising >>> >> temperature and in fact very slight cooling. >>> >>> >Not what it says in the article, mind. >>> >>> >"The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since >>> >instrumental records began" >>> >>> But what it doesn't say is since 1998 the rise in temperatures stopped >>> and in fact dropped slightly. This is not inconsistent with also >>> saying the last decade is the warmest since instrumental records >>> began. >>> >>> It is warm, but against all of the models, temperatures plateaued and >>> dropped slightly from 98 to 2008. >> >>So? The trend has been for steady warming for a long time. You're >>going to get a downward blip every so often. Like we said, a time >>period of a lustrum or a decade isn't enough to draw any long-term >>conclusions. A century is more like it, but in geological times, it's >>an eye-blink. > >The problem I have is the models of the 1990's predicted the planet >would continue to warm. And further, CO2 is supposedly at ~ 400 PPM right now ( rounded up ) I say 'supposedly', because even that is in question http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html It seems the modern CO2 data is hugely suspect, too ! But, skip that - 400 PPM = 0.04 %. A 'natural' level might be supposed to half of that, or 200 PPM, or 0.02 % of the atmosphere, thus leaving man possibly responsible for a 0.02 % change in the gaseous mixture. >Then adding insult to the entire process, the focus of Copenhagen is >to charge developed countries a climate deficit levy. A levy said to >equal hundreds of billions of dollars. Dollars to be transferred to >developing countries. PER YEAR ! To be continued for no less than 20 years, easily 40. >It doesn't take a suspicious mind to ask for a time out, before >allowing the GW advocates to pick our pockets. >> >>See above. > >See above. See above. -- Click here every day to feed an animal that needs you today !!! www.theanimalrescuesite.com/ Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me 'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints.' 'With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine.' HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's Free demo online at www.pmilligan.net/palm/ Free 'People finder' program now at www.pmilligan.net/finder.htm
From: don (Calgary) on 9 Dec 2009 20:54 On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 17:14:46 -0800 (PST), Twibil <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Sigh. Creationists say the same thing about evil-lution because they >don't want it to be true, and they will *always* say that; no matter >*how* much evidence is "in". But just saying so doesn't make it true, >no matter how much they'd like it to be so. Not relevant to the current discussion. > >In fact, a huge majority of the world's climatologists and >geophysicists agree that man-caused global warming is absolutely real, >and that it's happening even faster than they'd predicted. The >glaciers and polar ice caps are melting at an accelerating rate right >this very moment, and no amount of mealey-mouthed excuses will cause >that to become less real. In fact more and more of the world's scientists are questioning the validity of the science. The US Senate Minority report of 2007 listed 450 prominent scientists, many of the them current and former IPCC scientists, who are questioning the basic science behind the global warming theories. The report was updated in 2009 and I believe over 700 scientists are now expressing similar concerns. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12 That tired old song about the huge majority of scientists supporting the global warming theory just doesn't apply any more. With the revelations flowing from the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia, I suspect that list will grow even longer.
From: J. Clarke on 9 Dec 2009 20:45 ..p.jm.(a)see_my_sig_for_address.com wrote: > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 00:13:48 GMT, "don (Calgary)" <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> > wrote: > >> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:13:53 -0800 (PST), "TOG(a)Toil" >> <totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 9 Dec, 13:37, "don (Calgary)" <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: >>>> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 07:15:30 +0000, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk >>>> (The >>>> >>>> Older Gentleman) wrote: >>>>> don (Calgary) <hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Not much new in that article. >>>> >>>>>> What we have seen in the past decade is a plateau in the rising >>>>>> temperature and in fact very slight cooling. >>>> >>>>> Not what it says in the article, mind. >>>> >>>>> "The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since >>>>> instrumental records began" >>>> >>>> But what it doesn't say is since 1998 the rise in temperatures >>>> stopped and in fact dropped slightly. This is not inconsistent >>>> with also saying the last decade is the warmest since instrumental >>>> records began. >>>> >>>> It is warm, but against all of the models, temperatures plateaued >>>> and dropped slightly from 98 to 2008. >>> >>> So? The trend has been for steady warming for a long time. You're >>> going to get a downward blip every so often. Like we said, a time >>> period of a lustrum or a decade isn't enough to draw any long-term >>> conclusions. A century is more like it, but in geological times, >>> it's an eye-blink. >> >> The problem I have is the models of the 1990's predicted the planet >> would continue to warm. > > And further, CO2 is supposedly at ~ 400 PPM right now ( > rounded up ) > > I say 'supposedly', because even that is in question > > http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/greenhouse_gas_observatories_d.html > > It seems the modern CO2 data is hugely suspect, too ! > > But, skip that - > > 400 PPM = 0.04 %. A 'natural' level might be supposed to half of > that, or 200 PPM, or 0.02 % of the atmosphere, thus leaving man > possibly responsible for a 0.02 % change in the gaseous mixture. > > >> Then adding insult to the entire process, the focus of Copenhagen is >> to charge developed countries a climate deficit levy. A levy said to >> equal hundreds of billions of dollars. Dollars to be transferred to >> developing countries. > > PER YEAR ! To be continued for no less than 20 years, easily > 40. So is China a "developed" country or a "developing" country under Copenhagen? >> It doesn't take a suspicious mind to ask for a time out, before >> allowing the GW advocates to pick our pockets.
From: Bob Myers on 9 Dec 2009 21:27
don (Calgary) wrote: > In fact more and more of the world's scientists are questioning the > validity of the science. The US Senate Minority report of 2007 listed > 450 prominent scientists, many of the them current and former IPCC > scientists, who are questioning the basic science behind the global > warming theories. The report was updated in 2009 and I believe over > 700 scientists are now expressing similar concerns. Let' see - just what fraction of that population that call themselves "scientists" do you think the number "700" represents? Secondly, and as I believe Pete was pointing out in the first place - the "basic science behind the global warming theories" is not really the primary concern here (since those basically have to do with the ever-popular "is mankind to blame?" question). Regardless of the theories which attempt to explain it, the observed fact is - as was correctly pointed out - that the Earth IS warming, and Bad Things (such as the ice caps and glaciers receding, etc.) are in fact happening. Ya see, that's what we in the science end of things note as the difference between "hypotheses" and "theories" on the one hand, and "observed facts" on the other. The theories that attempt to explain these particular observations have nothing at all to do with the fact that the observations themselves are real, and in a very practical sense are important only so far as they help to answer the question, "is there anything we can do about this?" Bob M. |