|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 19:40
|Dr. John, I concentrated on the last 50 years because it has only been since 1958 that Keeling started continuously recording the concentration of
CO2, and the CO2-forcing necessary for the false anthropogenic global warming theories is the point of contention.
There was, indeed, a cooling period in the last century during which some extrapolated a coming ice age. And there has been a period during which
submitted temperatures rose. And, there has been a period of six years in the last 50 during which the observed temperatures have remained the
Looking at the last 50 years, a period of six consecutive years without an increase is not a small period. The Keeling graph in John
Coleman's article does not extend to these last few no-temp-increase years, but it surely would continue to go up, since the Chinese are continuing
to build fuel-burning power plants as fast as they can to power their growing industrialization. They are burning fuel at an ever-increasing rate.
When you referenced the sun cycle in another post, you are acknowledging what the those who reject the GH models assert--the climate does get warmer
or colder (or even stay the same) from year to year, but man burning fuel has no measurable effect. It has to do with the sun and other natural
forces. (Volcanic activity and large meteor strikes could block enough sunlight to have an effect.)
To be absolutely thorough, I could add I am thinking only of the fuel-burning issue in saying man does not measurably influence the climate. I am not
considering full-scale nuclear war.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 18:08
No, the data in that graph clearly shows that for about 1000yrs the temperature varied by +/- 0.2 degrees, then from about 1900 onwards the
temperature increased, to currently be about 0.8 degrees above the norm for the last 1000 years.
It shows, quite clearly to most people (but not apparently, to you) that small variations occur at times and so a period of a few years is not good
enough evidence to say global warming has stopped (as one of your other posts claimed). We can expect a few ups and downs, as happened around the
1940 - 80 period, but the general trend is upwards.
It shows that if a best fit line is drawn through the 1900 - 2000 data, there was a slightly higher rise towards the end of the data set. And as such
rises appear to be followed by a small drop or levelling out for a few years, looking at just six years of data and saying "look, it's stopped" or
"look, it shows the theory is wrong" is just ridiculous.
Don't let the base line fool you, that's just the average readings from 1960 - 1990. If they'd used 1860 - 1890, the rise would look even more
distinct. The base line makes some people look only at the data from about 1960 onwards and see a smaller rise than has actually occurred.
This is a long term trend, not a short term one. As the data set is extended, predictions will be come more accurate. At present, anyone looking at
that graph will recognise that for the last 100 years the world has been warming up slowly. It's a big world, and the changes take time. They are
changes that worry most people, except those selling oil and coal and running campaigns to discredit good science, to safeguard their profits.
Unfortunately we can't afford to wait another 100 years to confirm the trend before deciding to do something.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 17:07
|The point for most of us is fairly simple - whether or not the dire predictions about global warming are true, I don't remember ever seeing any
research proving that the increased level of carbon emissions are good for the environment.
We can choose to do things with our lifestyles that benefit others or we can sit back and say,"I'm alright, jack".
It's a point I've made before and will probably tiresomely make again- but the system - whatever system it is - will not get better on its own and
assuming that everyone else should be doing something for it is the way to ruin.
I drive more than I should but I'm attempting to cut down. I take public transport whenever I can, and have changed other bits about my lifestyle.
My car gets between 50 - 60 mpg.
Even as an American, I find it irritating that the US is so often the source for denials that there is any need to conserve energy, given the general
statistics about energy use world wide.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 16:05
| That comparison would apply to former Vice-President Al Gore, who tells everyone else not to burn fuel. quoted in newsbusters
I don't say one thing and do another. I disbelieve man-made global warming, and I don't govern my life by it. I drive older cars because my
expenses are more than my income, and a new car would cost 25 times as much. I think it is good to burn enough fuel for sufficient electricity for a
comfortable life, and to use enough gas for safe and efficient transportation.
Cassanova promoting chastity would be saying one thing and doing another. My words and actions agree, both in fuel use and in chastity.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 15:39
Yes, I did. It's a graph which portrays what Coleman describes--a period of cooling, in which alarmists warned of a coming ice age; a period of
warming, in which alarmists warned of increasing warming at an increasing rate, resulting in rising seas and other catastrophes (as they flew around
the globe in private jets, attending conferences and telling people not to burn fuel), and a period of six years in which the warming which the GH
models predict did not happen.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 15:37
|You drive very old cars don't you scholar? They tend to be less friendly to the envrionment don't they?
How much walking do you do?
People who work have no choice other than to drive if there is no public transport that takes the route they need but many other journeys aren't
When I lived in the States I was amazed by the number of people who moved the car when moving between stores in the same shopping centre.
Being lectured by gaz guzzling Americans on pollution or global warming is akin to Casanova promoting chastity.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 14:50
Good grief! Pseudo-science at its worst! Let's count hands: how many favor this theory? How many favor that theory? OK, the one that more people
(excuse me, more "SCIENTISTS") voted for, wins.
What a load of crap that would be.
If ONE scientist represents the truth accurately, and a million write papers which are in error, the one is right and the million are wrong. Good
science does not conform to what scientists think; good scientists conform their thinking to good science.
I'm not suggesting you really think that, Dr. John. In conversation, it's attractive to point either to large numbers of people or to
well-respected, intelligent writers on one's side and say, "Don't you think they're right?" But, ultimately, it's a method of persuasion, not a
tool of logic. You wouldn't yield to it in a situation where it went against you.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 11:05
I'm with you Q, call it what you will, man is ravaging his own home. We only have one world.
Regards the Bear
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 11:02
|Prevention is always better, and often easier, than cure. If evidence shows that certain things will affect our environment and that there is
something that we can do about it, why shouldn't we. It's much easier to shut the gate before the horse bolts, than catching it later.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 10:55
|Ah, sorted then
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 10:18
|re ozone layer
and from the last paragraph in section 111
is recent paper where this is reported.
So in summary. We took notice of what was wrong (use of CFCs), tried to sort it (stopped using them), and it is beginning to work (problem will
eventually go away).
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 10:10
|Surely pollution is not as bad these days...........especially in the UK.
Many years ago, there was high pollution with 'smog', with factories pumping out vast clouds of smoke etc..
The air is a darn sight cleaner now than it used to be.
Oh, and what has happened to the huge hole in the ozone layer that we were frightned with a while back.........that seems to have gone very quiet
Then earlier in 2007 one of our beloved Cabinet Ministers was pointing out that we should be buying hardy plants because of the heatwave and drought
we were going to experience during the summer........we had a couple of hot weeks early on, so the theory was that we were all going to fry last
summer..............didn't quite turn out that way did it ?
Then recently part of the coast was evacuated because the sea levels had risen and the powers that be reckoned that massive waves were going to
arrive and wipe the place out....not a lot happened.
Ah well, at least 'they' took a few precautions I suppose.
A few years ago we were warned that another 'ice age' was coming.........I do wish 'they' would make up their minds
The we had the mad cow disease and we were all going to die through eating burgers and beef.
The we were all going to die of bird flu.
'Aids' was rampant and we were all going to die from that......but I reckon that if you don't 'walk on the other side of the street' there is not
too much to worry about.
It just seems to me that there are so many warnings spouted that a lot of us just don't really take any notice.............the boy who cried wolf
comes to mind
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 09:27
|From the article referenced in Scholar's link
"Santer et al. (2005) recently investigated the altitude
dependence of temperature trends during the satellite era,
emphasizing the tropical zone, where the characteristics
are well-suited for model evaluation. They compared
available observations with 19 of the models and suggest
that any disparity between models and observations is due
to residual errors in the observational datasets.. In
this article, we consider the observational results in 22
of the models that were available. As did Santer et al.
(2005), we confine our study to the tropical zone – but
we reach a different conclusion."
So who's right? Why don't you believe the first group (Santer et al)? Why do you choose to believe the second group (Douglass et al)?
Basically you are posting links to papers with one view point, and ignoring any with an opposite view point. How many papers say global warming is
occurring, how many say it is not?
And did you look at the graph here?
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 06:32
|I see what you mean, I'm not extreme global warming activist either, and am not prepared to swich my car to a horse just yet
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 06:17
|Quaver, I do not mean to give you a hard time. I economize with respect to car fuel, furnace fuel, and electricity, too. It is useful for saving
money, as well as any pollution it saves. But, I weigh the usefulness of using the electricity or fuel , as compared to going without. If I must
mail a check to pay a bill on a certain day, the company will not accept my excuse if I say, "I could not walk to the post office before it closed,
so I left it for another day." Sometimes, I just want the comfort of warmth, or the pleasant brightness of several lights on at the same time. I
have even enjoyed the warmth of a fireplace in a previous home, or a campfire at church camp.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:56
But, nothing is the most less you can have.
Any amount you use, using none would be less.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:54
|Hi, Dot! Are you still enjoying your large car? It''s
big enough for all your needs--but it takes more fuel when you're riding alone without animals or cargo in fair weather, than a little tiny car
would use. But, you're always safer than a tiny car would make you, if you ever have a big collision. I'm glad you have the freedom to choose what suits your life best.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:53
|Yes I drive a car - but I do feel guilty for driving short distances.
I switch off lights/tv/pc when not needed as much as I can, and try to buy energy efficient models of everything even if it's a bit more
Every little counts
I said less pollution, less doesn't mean nothing.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:44
Surely you don't mean that, without qualification!
Walking means less pollution than driving a car--do you ever drive a car?
Using electricity from a fueled electric plant means more pollution than if you do not have your home hooked up to electricity. Do you use
electricity in your home?
I think a better formulation would be, less pollution for the same result is better than more pollution for the same result.
An efficient engine is a better value than a less efficient one--but a bigger vehicle that can carry more people, or that has more protection for
them, may be more worthwhile than a little high-mileage death trap. It may cost less resources to make one vehicle large enough for everything a
person needs to do, rather than for them to have to have a second, larger vehicle, because the little one they usually drive is not large enough for
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:27
|Global cooling/warming etc may not be correct, but pollution is real. Less pollution the better
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:15
Ah, that brings up a point worth making: CO2 emissions are NOT pollution. When any person or animal exhales,
he exhales some carbon dioxide. But carbon dioxide does not have the exaggerated heating effect that the Green House models which attribute the
late 20th century warming trend to human-produced CO2 predict.
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 05:00
|Global warming or not, pollution is bad
|| posted on 1-1-2008 at 04:31
|Green House Model false, predictions