Global Warming?

[Guest avid]

Reported yesterday by Brit Hume, Washington D.C. Managing Editor of Fox News. His column is a regular feature, "Special Report w/ Brit Hume".

So where's the link?  

[Guest avid]

The problem with global warming "facts" is that there are so many seemingly factual pieces of information that directly contradict others.

Sorta reminds ya of the "debate" over whether or not smoking causes cancer.

The tobacco companies managed to obfuscate the truth for over 50 years.   How many millions died due to their dis-information?

How many millions continue to die because nicotine addicts will "fight for the right" to kill themselves and the others they expose to their toxic substance.

it's a shame to burn pertroleum.  It is used in the manufacture of plastics, and many other useful products.

I really don't know to what extent humans contribute to global warming.  but only a fool can deny that it is happening,

only a fool can deny the dire consequences, and only a fool would think that we don't have to do anything about it.

[Catt]

Only a fool would think humans are causing global warming; those same fools screamed a new ice age years ago. Only a fool would buy into such nonsense perpetrated for the love of money; think about these fools want you to buy carbon credits and all will be well. How does giving them money make it all go away?

Just like Al Gore little video show the poor little polar bears when the truth as stated by the actual photographer is the polar bears were actually playing on the icebergs with is quite common. What about all the computer animations showing the ice caps melting and flooding coastline cities but yet it is a proven fact that if you put ice if a full glass of water and let the ice melt the glass will not over flow; why?

[HUNTER19]

Only a fool would think humans are causing global warming; those same fools screamed a new ice age years ago. Only a fool would buy into such nonsense perpetrated for the love of money; think about these fools want you to buy carbon credits and all will be well. How does giving them money make it all go away?

Just like Al Gore little video show the poor little polar bears when the truth as stated by the actual photographer is the polar bears were actually playing on the icebergs with is quite common. What about all the computer animations showing the ice caps melting and flooding coastline cities but yet it is a proven fact that if you put ice if a full glass of water and let the ice melt the glass will not over flow; why?

I agree i dont think its humans causing it!!! But the the oceans would rise if greenland melts only because the ice that they are refering to is on land if it melts the water will rise becuse that ice is not floating in the ocean!

[Catt]

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added.

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming."

[Tokyo Tony]

I really don't know to what extent humans contribute to global warming. but only a fool can deny that it is happening,only a fool can deny the dire consequences, and only a fool would think that we don't have to do anything about it.

Well, you say that, but I could say the opposite just as easily.  You don't have to be a fool to believe that there's nothing we can do to prevent or minimize "global warming".  It's pretty logical: if you can't prove that we caused "global warming" (and in fact it seems that we did not, IMO), then there's nothing we can do that is the reverse of what supposedly caused it that would have a reverse effect.

The recent rise in temperature is very easily within normal variance.  I don't have any particular references to show that, but I know they're out there.  Temperature is going up, yes.  But no more severely than other stretches of time in very recent history, so the whole notion of "global warming" seems to me to be a ridiculously exaggerated idea that probably started out as a non-serious suggestion by someone who was joking, and it somehow took grip and snowballed to the point where it is now.  

As for the quotes posted above by Republican candidates, whether or not they really believe what they said, we will never know.  It's politics.  "Global warming" is such a huge pseudo-issue that sparks heated debates on par with those regarding abortion that politicians have to play it safe.  Such is politics.

We can argue until the cows come home about whether or not we cause "global warming", or whether or not there's anything we can do to prevent or minimize it, but I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  We really can't say that "global warming" would be a bad thing overall, even assuming it's a real thing and that we cause it.

[PaparockArk]

Study: Part of Global-Warming Model May Be Wrong

Part of the scientific consensus on global warming may be flawed, a new study asserts.

The researchers compared predictions of 22 widely used climate "models" elaborate schematics that try to forecast how the global weather system will behave with actual readings gathered by surface stations, weather balloons and orbiting satellites over the past three decades.

The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere 1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

"Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no," said lead study author David H. Douglass, a physicist specializing in climate at the University of Rochester.

Douglass and his co-authors S. Fred Singer, a physicist at the University of Virginia, and John R. Christy, a climatologist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, are noted global-warming skeptics.

However, Christy was a major contributor to the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and is one of the world's premier authorities on collection and analysis of satellite-derived temperature data, having been commended by both NASA and the American Meteorological Society for his efforts.

"We do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere," said Christy. "Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface."

The difference between the climate models and the satellite data has been known for several years.

Studies in 2005 found that improper compensation for temperature differences between day and night was the cause of most of the satellite-data discrepancy, a correction that Christy has accepted.

No explanation has been put forth for the weather-balloon discrepancy.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm

New Study Increases Concerns About Climate Model Reliability

ScienceDaily (Dec. 12, 2007) A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.

This research, published online in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology, raises new concerns about the reliability of models used to forecast global warming.

"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."

Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change "forecasts" from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did.

"Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere," said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. "The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics.

"When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast."

The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.

The atmospheric temperature data were from two versions of data collected by sensors aboard NOAA satellites since late 1979, plus several sets of temperature data gathered twice a day at dozens of points in the tropics by thermometers carried into the atmosphere by helium balloons. The surface data were from three datasets.

After years of rigorous analysis and testing, the high degree of agreement between the various atmospheric data sets gives an equally high level of confidence in the basic accuracy of the climate data.

"The last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations, and more realistic modeling efforts," said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia. "Nonetheless, the models are seen to disagree with the observations. We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution."

The findings of this study contrast strongly with those of a recent study that used 19 of the same climate models and similar climate datasets. That study concluded that any difference between model forecasts and atmospheric climate data is probably due to errors in the data.

"The question was, what would the models 'forecast' for upper air climate change over the past 25 years and how would that forecast compare to reality?" said Christy. "To answer that we needed climate model results that matched the actual surface temperature changes during that same time. If the models got the surface trend right but the tropospheric trend wrong, then we could pinpoint a potential problem in the models.

"As it turned out, the average of all of the climate models forecasts came out almost like the actual surface trend in the tropics. That meant we could do a very robust test of their reproduction of the lower atmosphere.

"Instead of averaging the model forecasts to get a result whose surface trends match reality, the earlier study looked at the widely scattered range of results from all of the model runs combined. Many of the models had surface trends that were quite different from the actual trend," Christy said. "Nonetheless, that study concluded that since both the surface and upper atmosphere trends were somewhere in that broad range of model results, any disagreement between the climate data and the models was probably due to faulty data.

"We think our experiment is more robust and provides more meaningful results."

Adapted from materials provided by Wiley-Blackwell.

[roadwarrior]

avid,

Here you go:

From: Show -Special [mailto:special@FOXNEWS.COM]

On the same day Al Gore received his share of the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change — one of his main arguments is being challenged by a scientific fact.

Gore has said that the northern polar ice cap could be completely gone in as little as seven years. But Brazil's MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away.

And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.

[farmpond1]

I am not saying we shouldn't conserve our fossil fuels.  We are likely to run out of coal, oil, and natural gas before we find/develop alternative sources of energy.  However, to say that green house gases (specifically, an increase in CO2) causes global warming is a farce.  Al Gore is a Maroon!  His supposed research suggests that increases in CO2 cause global warming when evidence (when looked at properly) suggests that global warming causes an increase in CO2.  He's got it backwards.  He's a spin doctor!  That he won the Nobel Peace Prize makes me nauseated.

I believe most of this global warming bunk is politically motivated.

[luckyinkentucky]

.........

I believe most of this global warming bunk is politically motivated.

I think you hit the nail on the head.  It's like the Democrats and Republicans.  Some believe the Theory and other's don't.  There are two sides to the debate.  As we sit now it's a 50/50 split.  Fifty percent believe in global warming, and 50% doesn't.  So, it would obviously pay off for some big named political figure to be able to revive his political backing by falling on the other side of the fence.  Before you know it he begins to believe his own bull, and he has sunk into a whirlpool of misinformation.  Although, he preaches it with conviction, so people think .... "He MUST be right!".  Of course the Nobel Peace Prize panels will give him an award.  They now have a name representing a topic they have been arguing for years that everyone knows. The Nobel Peace Prize has become as corrupt as the Miss America Pageant.  

Does that make sense?  

[Alpster]

I think all of this discussion (hot air) is definitely contributing to Global Warming. Keep up the good work.  

Ronnie, President NAAGW