Is global warmig real?

Is global warming real?

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 12:45:41 -0800, "oðin" <oð[Only registered users see links. ]>
wrote:

It seems to be real. It has been progressing steady by jumps,
like a toad walking, during the past 12,000 years or so. Glaciers
no longer fill the Great Lakes depressions, and most of Southern
Canada is ice free during the summer, but we still don't have
palm trees in Pennsylvania, such as existed when the coal
formations of that area were being formed.

A related question is, when will this planet make another "skin
slip" rotational axis shift? If the ice mass at the poles
dissipates and the rotational dynamic balance of the earth's
crust becomes unstable, the crust might slip over the molten
core, with little change in the actual angular momentum vector's
orientation (gyroscopic precession), but we might find Central
Europe swished up to the north pole, or something of this order.
Such diastrophic movement could certainly cause some huge tidal
waves!

Tongue in cheek ;-]

>>Is global warming real?

How good are the math models of CO2 -> Warmth, as cited by the IPCC? How
chaotic is the weather, and can 100 years be predicted using those models?
Is CO2 self limiting, or buffered by the effect on plant life? Can an
increase in anthroprogenic CO2 output result in a reduction in atmospheric
CO2 content?

Dear opin:

"opin" <oð[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

Yes, but the Sun is also a variable source. It is unclear how much effect
is due to man, and how much due to Nature. I have some "talk" than Man
successfully averted the next Ice Age.

David A. Smith

"oðin" <oð[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

To paraphrase our former President, "That depends on what 'real' really is."

[Only registered users see links. ]

[Only registered users see links. ]

[Only registered users see links. ]

[Only registered users see links. ]

In the 1980's some scientists learned that they could tug the purse-strings
of the Congressmen who appropriate grant money, those politicos who make
policy, and the Federal funding agencies by ringing alarm bells loudly in
the popular press.

The bad science has proliferated ever since.

Much is said that we (meaning the developed countries, not the *real*
polluters in the third world) need to reduce CO2 emissions to save the
planet (coincidentally hamstringing our own economies). None of the
environmental alarmists is prepared to quantify the contribution to global
climate shifts made by the natural variation of the "solar constant" doe to
the Milankovic effect,
[Only registered users see links. ]
much less the as yet undetermined natural variability of the sun as a star.
As far as they are concerned, it all because of SUVs and such (gluttony for
energy from fossil fuels).

Look at these:
May 15, 2002
[Only registered users see links. ]
November 19, 2004
[Only registered users see links. ]
December 17, 2004
[Only registered users see links. ]

There is far from a consensus on 'global warming.' Some scientists are
embracing the Golden Calf as a source of nearly unlimited funding; some are
actively protesting that it just isn't right; some are quietly going along
with it, even though they have reservations, because they want to eat; some
are just hanging back and watching to see which god wins. We just may be in
this wilderness for a while...


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"oðin" <oð[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...


Yes, all reputable scientists now agree the evidence is overwhelming. I once
saw a plot superimposing CO2 levels with temperatures, and with no bias as
to what to read into the results, I would have immediately said they are
correlated.

[Only registered users see links. ]
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/images/modul...rbon1PICT2.gif
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/researc...al/HadCRUG.gif


Of course, a lot of people have a lot to loose so will vigorously argue that
it is a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory to put the oil barons out of
business? Is that more likely than a conspiracy to keep them in business?

Americans are particularly bad, since they emit the most (25% of CO2, 5% of
the worlds population). So they are the first to deny it. I can't believe
people are still denying it.

"Oliver Keating" <[Only registered users see links. ].ac.uk> wrote in message
news:41dcdba2$0$70606$[Only registered users see links. ].net...

<snip>


Translation: It has already been decided that 'global warming' is real, and
therefore all who agree are reputable and, by implication, all who disagree
are not.

My problem with the concept is that there are serious methodological
problems with the data (e.g. meta-analysis of disparate data sets with
undetermined uncertainties - it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the
whole barrel), with the analysis (e.g. low signal-to-noise ratios in those
few coherent data sets), with the controls (e.g. no accounting for
variability of the G2 star providing the energy to the system), and
selective use of data (e.g. hard data predating anthropogenic factors is
disregarded).

As an empiricist, I have to insist that the theory cannot be accepted until
the data and the analysis that support it are unquestionable.

Currently the holes in the data and the models used to support the
predictions are far greater and more blatant than simply omitting the "n"
from "warming."


Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

There's plenty of hard data: New material is flowing from Earth's
interior, Where's it coming from, if not within?

[Only registered users see links. ]
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA

"tadchem" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...

In a certain sense though, and I do understand your arguement, the only
solution would then be to wait a hundred years and then be able to say
conclusively that this is true (or not). However, global warming is not just
another acedemic experiment where only after much repetition can the results
be confidently published. This is real, we cannot afford to sit and wait to
verify the 95th percentile is accurate or whatever. Global warming is such a
serious issue that it requires immediate action. The fact of the matter is
that temperatures have been rising in line with CO2 from the atmosphere,
again which has a direct correspondence to human activity. Just taking a
step back and using "common sense" you can clearly see this is true. The
cost of ignoring it on the basis it has not been prooved beyond all
reasonable doubt is is the way with most scientific theories would be
unimaginable for future generations, quite possibly running into
quadrillions of dollars, if most of the world's cities have to be relocated.
Think about it, the destruction of the world trade center towers cost the
economy an estimated $60 billion - imagine how much it would be for the
whole of new york city.

And thats before we think about the human cost. But no one seems concerned
about that so I have started to talk money.