COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

How Global Warming Really Works

Now to our topic: What about the science of global warming? Is it more like the science of healing cows or the "science" of ghost hunting?

For starters, let me make it clear that the leaders of the AGW movement claim that there is a global warming science. Al Gore's official web site is called: "An Inconvenient Truth Official Site: Global Warming Science, Climate Change Science, Facts and Evidence." [Emphasis added.][iii]

Got that? "Global Warming Science." Let's ask ourselves: What could global warming science possibly be?[iv] Remember, when we needed a scientist to tell us whether or not a cow was sick -- we asked a vet. But what scientist do we ask to tell us that the world is "sick" because it is getting warmer? And aren't there two huge assumptions in the questions to begin with? Namely, (1) that the world is actually getting warmer? And (2) that warmer means sick. ("Can you prove to me the world is getting warmer and is sick?" is much more like asking, "Can you prove to me the noise I hear is a ghost and is scary?" than it is "Can you show me why this cow is sick and what is the specific disease?"[v])

When we talk to a global warming "scientist" are we talking to the equivalent of a veterinarian or a ghost hunter? And with whom, exactly, are we talking?

I, for one, have never heard anyone actually make this claim: "I am a global warming scientist." So I did a little research.

With a special thanks to Robert Carter, Professor at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia, here are some candidates for the title of "Global Warming Scientist":

(1) ENABLING DISCIPLINES:

(a) Mathematics

(b) Statistics

(c) Computer modeling


(2) ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES:

(d) Atmospheric physics

(e) Atmospheric chemistry

(f) Cosmochemistry

(g) Meteorology

(h) Climatology (partim)


(3) GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES:

(i) Climatology (partim)

(j) Geochemistry

(k) Geophysics

(l) Geology

(m) Palaeolimnology

(n) Palaeoclimatology

(o) Palaeoecology

(p) Palaeontology (up to and including - i.e. subsuming - biological studies)

(q) Stratigraphy

(r) Quaternary geology

(s) Palaeooceanography

(t) Ice core studies

(u) Ocean Drilling Program

(v) Cosmogenic and radiometric dating

Professor Carter in a personal email to me also estimates:

[T]hat there are more than 100 expert sub disciplines involved in climate change studies; my personal filing system recognizes more than 80 alone, and I am sure there are many topics not included.

In other words, I have given AT readers a short list of possible global warming scientist candidates.

So what is a global warming "scientist?" The answer could be one of two things:

One: there is no such thing as a global warming scientist. There is, instead, a consensus among a number of scientists in differing fields that the planet is warming at an alarming rate. This is the usual explanation that we hear.

There are a couple rational criticisms of this position that need to be understood. Science is not in the business of consensus. It is (usually) in the business of collecting specific facts and then creating abstract principles and general conclusions from those specific facts.[vi] Now this does not mean that these facts cannot be collected and shared by different scientists from different disciplines -- in fact, science is becoming so complex that such cross-disciplinary accumulation and exchange of data is now the norm, rather than the exception.

Here is the problem with this approach as summarized by Professor Carter:

Nobody, including Jim Hansen, is truly expert across more than one or two of these topics. It follows that no scientist "understands" climate change; rather, tens of thousands of scientists each understand, to a greater or lesser degree, those small parts of the climate change miasma that they have personally studied.

Sharing on this level of minutia would be okay but for (as Carter so masterfully puts it) the "climate change miasma." The fact is that the specific facts are not leading in a highly probable way to any general conclusions about global warming, CO2, and our (human) part in it. Induction just isn't working to prove the catastrophic theory of man made global warming ... and most scientists know it.[vii]

This is why those of us who have carefully studied the IPCC reports detect the numerous discrepancies between the logic of the scientists' articles in the body of the reports (and in any outside peer reviewed materials that disagree with the IPCC findings and are therefore spurned) and the rhetoric of doom and gloom in the political summaries of the reports. Scientists that complain about the polarization and the politicizing of the scientific process at the IPCC are routinely ignored, demoted, fired, or quit. Here are 50 (that's right FIFTY) articles that prove this internal dissension within the IPCC and between the leaders of the IPCC and the rest of the scientific community.

All of the talk about "healing the planet" shouldn't be fooling anyone. Global warming science is mostly about grant money, about keeping the myth alive, about buying fancy new equipment to prove that there really are ghosts ... er ... global warming. All of this talk of global warming isn't about healing anything. It is about stretching out the process of proving the unprovable and getting paid for it -- as long as the public can be suckered into coughing up the money for the ongoing studies.
Click to expand...

Larrey Anderson
American Thinker

[I agree 100%, it's about socialized science and government teats/udders]
 
vetteman said:
You've tweaked Bozo's nose again. :D
Click to expand...

I love his squirting flower...

Damn, I gotta go get everything prepped for the floor installers.



Lit's kinda slow anymore anyway these days, seems BDS has a downside, since everything Bush did was bad and evil, now everything Obama does is good'n light...

;) ;)
 
Last edited:
trysail said:

So, what exactly is it that you trying to tell us?

Are you saying the U.S. ought to send the Marine Corps into Brazil to impose your will?

Fact: There are more trees in the United States today than there were in 1800.
Click to expand...

Be careful, the libs might report you to the Obama thought police web page for these comments.
 
August 27, 2009
Source: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=7545&tid=282&cid=59106&ct=162


A new 2,000-year-long reconstruction of sea surface temperatures (SST) from the Indo-Pacific warm pool (IPWP) suggests that temperatures in the region may have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today.

The IPWP is the largest body of warm water in the world, and, as a result, it is the largest source of heat and moisture to the global atmosphere, and an important component of the planet’s climate. Climate models suggest that global mean temperatures are particularly sensitive to sea surface temperatures in the IPWP. Understanding the past history of the region is of great importance for placing current warming trends in a global context.

The study is published in the journal Nature.

In a joint project with the Indonesian Ministry of Science and Technology (BPPT), the study’s authors, Delia Oppo, a paleo–oceanographer with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, and her colleagues Yair Rosenthal of Rutgers State University and Braddock K. Linsley of the University at Albany-State University of New York, collected sediment cores along the continental margin of the Indonesian Seas and used chemical analyses to estimate water past temperatures and date the sediment. The cruise included 13 US and 14 Indonesian scientists.

“This is the first record from the region that has really modern sediments and a record of the last two millennia, allowing us to place recent trends in a larger framework,” notes Oppo.

Global temperature records are predominantly reconstructed from tree rings and ice cores. Very little ocean data are used to generate temperature reconstructions, and very little data from the tropics. “As palaeoclimatologists, we work to generate information from multiple sources to improve confidence in the global temperature reconstructions, and our study contributes to scientists’ efforts towards that goal,” adds Oppo.

Temperature reconstructions suggest that the Northern Hemisphere may have been slightly cooler (by about 0.5 degrees Celsius) during the 'Medieval Warm Period' (~AD 800-1300) than during the late-20th century. However, these temperature reconstructions are based on, in large part, data compiled from high latitude or high altitude terrestrial proxy records, such as tree rings and ice cores, from the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Little pre-historical temperature data from tropical regions like the IPWP has been incorporated into these analyses, and the global extent of warm temperatures during this interval is unclear. As a result, conclusions regarding past global temperatures still have some uncertainties.

Oppo comments, “Although there are significant uncertainties with our own reconstruction, our work raises the idea that perhaps even the Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions need to be looked at more closely.”

Comparisons

The marine-based IPWP temperature reconstruction is in many ways similar to land temperature reconstructions from the Northern Hemisphere (NH). Major trends observed in NH temperature reconstructions, including the cooling during the Little Ice Age (~1500-1850 AD) and the marked warming during the late twentieth century, are also observed in the IPWP.

“The more interesting and potentially controversial result is that our data indicate surface water temperatures during a part of the Medieval Warm Period that are similar to today’s,” says Oppo. NH temperature reconstructions also suggest that temperatures warmed during this time period between A.D. 1000 and A.D. 1250, but they were not as warm as modern temperatures. Oppo emphasizes, “Our results for this time period are really in stark contrast to the Northern Hemisphere reconstructions.”

Reconstructing Historical Temperatures

Records of water temperature from instruments like thermometers are only available back to the 1850s. In order to reconstruct temperatures over the last 2,000 years, Oppo and her colleagues used a proxy for temperature collected from the skeletons of marine plankton in sediments in the Indo-Pacific Ocean. The ratio of magnesium to calcium in the hard outer shells of the planktonic foraminifera Globigerinoides ruber varies depending on the surface temperature of the water in which it grows. When the phytoplankton dies, it falls to the bottom of the ocean and accumulates in sediments, recording the sea surface temperature in which it lived.

“Marine sediments accumulate slowly in general -- approximately 3 cm/yr -- which makes it hard to overlap sediment record with instrumental record and compare that record to modern temperature records," says Oppo. "That’s what is different about this study. The sediment accumulates fast enough in this region to give us enough material to sample and date to modern times.”

The team generated a composite 2000-year record by combining published data from a piston core in the area with the data they collected using a gravity corer and a multi-corer. Tubes on the bottom of the multi-corer collected the most recently deposited sediment, therefore enabling the comparison of sea surface temperature information recorded in the plankton shells to direct measurements from thermometers.

Oppo cautions that the reconstruction contains some uncertainties. Information from three different cores was compiled in order to reconstruct a 2,000-year-long record. In addition sediment data have an inherent uncertainty associated with accurately dating samples. The SST variations they have reconstructed are very small, near the limit of the Mg/Ca dating method. Even in light of these issues, the results from the reconstruction are of fundamental importance to the scientific community.

More Questions to Answer

The overall similarity in trend between the Northern Hemisphere and the IPWP reconstructions suggests that that Indonesian SST is well correlated to global SST and air temperature. On the other hand, the finding that IPWP SSTs seem to have been approximately the same as today in the past, at a time when average Northern Hemisphere temperature appear to have been cooler than today, suggests changes in the coupling between IPWP and Northern Hemisphere or global temperatures have occurred in the past, for reasons that are not yet understood. “This work points in the direction of questions that we have to ask,” Oppo says. “This is only the first word, not the last word.”

The US National Science Foundation and the WHOI Ocean and Climate Change Institute provided funding for this work.



__________________
The Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is a private, independent organization in Falmouth, Mass., dedicated to marine research, engineering, and higher education. Established in 1930 on a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences, its primary mission is to understand the oceans and their interaction with the Earth as a whole, and to communicate a basic understanding of the oceans’ role in the changing global environment.

Last updated: September 2, 2009
 
Last edited:
Well it's 8 posts into page 2, I wonder how long until some ass-hat stretches the screen.
 
vetteman said:
I just put tile floors throughout the house...big pain in the ass.

Lit's loons are slow coming to Jesus when it involves their dummy.
Click to expand...

The loons are never having a coming to Jesus moment.

It's the silence of those whom considered themselves thinking Democrats that tells the tale...
 
vetteman said:
ella-diaper-edited-1.jpg



Trou, have mom change your diapers it appears there are a couple of baseballs in residence.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Once again, Vetteman continues his unhealthy fascination with scat....
 
http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/documents/fullText/ACC0233.pdf

Active Climate
Stabilization: Practical
Physics-Based
Approaches to Prevention
of Climate Change


Edward Teller, Roderick Hyde and Lowell Wood

ABSTRACT
We offer a case for active technical management of the radiative forcing of the
temperatures of the Earth’s fluid envelopes, rather than administrative management of
atmospheric greenhouse gas inputs, in order to stabilize both the global- and timeaveraged
climate and its mesoscale features. We suggest that active management of
radiative forcing entails negligible – indeed, likely strongly negative – economic costs
and environmental impacts, and thus best complies with the pertinent mandate of the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. We propose that such approaches be
swiftly evaluated in sub-scale in the course of an intensive international program.
Introduction. It’s not generally realized that the Earth’s seasonally-averaged climate is colder now that
it’s been 99% of the time since complex life on Earth got seriously underway with the Cambrian
Explosion, 545 million years ago. Similarly, it’s not widely appreciated that atmospheric concentrations
of carbon dioxide – CO2 – are only very loosely correlated with average climatic conditions over this
extended interval of geologic time, in that it’s been much colder with substantially higher air
concentrations of CO2 and also much warmer with substantially lower atmospheric levels of CO2 than at
present; indeed, the CO2 level in the air is observed in the geologic record to be one of the weaker
determinants of globally- and season-averaged temperature.
If, all of this thoughtfully considered, one wishes to maintain global climate at its current temperaturelevel
– or at the somewhat higher value characterizing the Holocene Optimum several thousand years
ago, or at that lower value of the Little Ice Age of three centuries ago, or at any other reasonable level –
then purposeful modification of the basic radiative properties of the Earth – active management of the
radiative forcing of the temperature profiles of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans by the Sun – is an
obvious gambit. Indeed, it’s likely the most overall practical approach to this particular issue.

:cool:
 
This will be warmest decade on record

Some of your correspondents have suggested that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been increasing steadily for several thousand years but average world temperatures have been falling.

The reality is that the exponential increase in carbon dioxide in the past 150 years has been faster than at any time in history and global temperatures have not been falling.

The first decade of the 21st century will be the warmest decade on record, and by a wide margin. The argument that world temperatures have been dropping in the past two years represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between weather and climate.

http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article/?id=13663
 
Simple question Turd. What is the correct tempurature for the globe? The most ideal tempurature. What is that number?
 
TurdFergeson said:
This will be warmest decade on record
Click to expand...

Are you completely nuts? Even the most bent sources on the planet have FINALLY reported that there hasn't been any warming for the past decade.

Even the BBC ( for god's sake ) has reported that global temperatures have not risen for ten (10) straight years:
"...This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm


 
Last edited:
trysail said:

Are you completely nuts? Even the most bent sources on the planet have FINALLY reported that there hasn't been any warming for the past decade.

Even the BBC ( for god's sake ) has reported that global temperatures have not risen for ten (10) straight years:
"...This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998..."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
Click to expand...

Once Turd puts the stake into the ground, it's to the death...
 


The following was written by Jo Nova and can be read in its entirety at:
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/ok...-a-windfarm-greens-seem-to-be-fine-with-that/



OK to kill endangered birds? Yes if you are a windfarm. Greens seem to be fine with that.


It’s one rule for you, and another for their friends. If a coal plant was wiping out thousands of birds and bats you can be sure Greenpeace would be launching a campaign. But when an industrial turbine with blade-tips travelling at 180mph does the killing, who cares?


The law for normals makes it expensive to kill birds and bats:

“Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, BP was fined $100 million for the damage it caused to bird populations in the area, both migratory and resident. — AlaskaDispatch
​
“Exxon Mobil has agreed to pay $600,000 in penalties after approximately 85 migratory birds died of exposure to hydrocarbons at some of its natural gas facilities across the Midwest. — NY Times​

And it was going to get expensive for windfarms:

“Nov 22 2013 Duke Energy has agreed to pay a $1 million fine for killing 14 eagles and 149 other birds at two Wyoming wind farms. – audublog
​
That was the first time a windfarm got pinged. And it works out to be about $6000 a bird. Could get expensive, eh?

“The Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that 440,000 birds are killed by wind turbines every year in the U.S. However, that number is said to be a low-ball estimate by independent researchers. Each year 573,000 birds and 888,000 bats are killed by wind turbines in the U.S., according a study by K. Shawn Smallwood that was published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin. — dailycaller.com
​
Killing 400,000 birds at $6k each would make windpower in the US about $2 billion more expensive, and less viable, than it already is. But industrial wind turbines are special friends of big-government and they were given licenses to kill “accidentally” for up to five years. But I guess the five year licenses were expiring, so the Obama administration reassessed the rule and now says it’s OK to kill them for 30 years.


“The Interior Department on Friday unveiled a final rule extending the length of permits that allow facilities to unintentionally kill protected bald and golden eagles.The regulations are a major victory for the wind and solar industry, among others, which will now be able to obtain permits for as long as 30 years — a sixfold increase from the previous five-year limit.
​
I like the newspeak from the Department of Bird-Killing explaining why 30 years of carcasses is a good thing:


“This change will facilitate the responsible development of renewable energy and other projects designed to operate for decades, while continuing to protect eagles consistent with our statutory mandates,” the department said in its regulation. -- The Hill
​
Five years of bird deaths was not responsible, but 30 years of deaths is? Anyone would protect eagles like this, of course.

In the end it amounts to another $2 billion dollar subsidy for renewables (and a lot more dead birds). But it’s all for the sake of the planet.

But there is a bigger issue at stake here. When is a law not a law? When the government can issue licenses to break it. Selective enforcement anyone? Since Duke Energy may be one of the only wind operators to have to pay the bird-killing tithe, I have to ask, what did they do wrong? Perhaps they didn’t butter up the right people on the right day?

WWF would be outraged if coal fired plants got 30 year exemptions for busting bald eagles.

When is a dead bird a tragedy for an eco-green? Only when it scores a political point.

As usual, it’s not about the environment. It’s only power and politics.




 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

butters
looks like a busy hurricane season
Replies
11
Views
138
MidKnight1378
MidKnight1378
B
Dead or Inactive Authors - Grateful For Their Works
Replies
1
Views
98
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
N
Porn: Where has all the eroticism gone?
2 3
Replies
74
Views
4K
MorlockIam
M
J
Prayer for Peace
Replies
1
Views
45
Brains_N_Boobs
Brains_N_Boobs
Jim_Ross
Is Literotica just a massive sausage fest or am I doing something wrong?
2
Replies
28
Views
586
thør
thør
Back
Top