Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[licker]

Originally Posted by Tifone

...CO2 is just the principal greenhouse gas in the earth atmosphere...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

And as already tried to explain (but with little success I think) greenhouse effect *does* cool down the temperatures when year after year cold fresh air melting on the poles go to interfere and slow down important currents like the the north atlantic one (for diminished salinity of the ocean and counter-currents).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream

PS. Also, some temporary cool down is scientifically irrelevant and not contrary to the theory: - http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/182921/777

CO2 is NOT the principle GHG, I'm not even quite sure what you mean by that, but Methane and Water vapor dominate it either in concentration or green house activity.

Further the slow down to the gulf stream is not a global effect, and would have little to no effect on the SH where some of the largest cooldowns have been reported. However, I assume you will counter with antarctic melt.

However, if we look at heat as energy rather than temperature (since that is infact the correct way to look at it) if the atmosphere has been trapping more energy we should be able to find that energy somewhere, and lately, we cannot account for it melt or ocean temp increases (remember this is a global phenomena right?) or air temp increases, since the latter is clearly falling.

So we are probably left to agree with the scientist who are showing that the sun is by far the most important player in our climate (not that most people deny this, but some tend to downplay it), and there's really not a hell of a lot we can do to control the sun.

While individual scientists have voiced disagreement with these findings, (and here is your link!) the overwhelming majority of scientists working on climate change agree with the IPCC's main conclusions.(two links here showing the majority, and many others here: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and here http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49)

Ehh? I wasn't on the wiki at all for that. But you do realize science is not conducted by majority right? The point of that letter was quite clear in stating that the IPCC policy report is a highly flawed and totally politicized report. If you actually read the entire IPCC report you will likely get a different feel for the issue than if you just read the policy summary.

Further the commonly used IPCC report is now 4 years out of date, and the science reviewed in it even further out of date.

[Tifone]

Originally Posted by licker

...we cannot account for it melt or ocean temp increases (remember this is a global phenomena right?) or air temp increases, since the latter is clearly falling.

Clearly wrong:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

Originally Posted by licker

But you do realize science is not conducted by majority right?

Noo! Not by the vast majority of academic scientists for sure! ( http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 ; http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 )
The real science is only done by the few who uncovered THE CUNSPIRACYY!

[Tifone]

Ahah, Edi's totally a: - http://www.flamewarriors.com/warrior...ngfumaster.htm

[Edi]

Originally Posted by Tifone

Ahah, Edi's totally a: - http://www.flamewarriors.com/warrior...ngfumaster.htm

Hardly. Big cat mostly, perhaps big dog sometimes. In my usual haunts the regulars are just as likely as not to wipe the floor with me unless I stick to topics I really know about. And sometimes even then.

Energy balance is indeed the correct way to look at it.

The claim that the increase in temperature and overall energy is nowhere to be seen is incorrect. The average temperature of oceans has been rising. Coral die-offs are the primary evidence for this but not the only things. The northern ice caps melting is more. That we are seeing such apparently small increases in the ocean temperatures may seem no cause for concern, but this is a deceptive and dangerous notion.

The mass of the planet's oceans is several hundred orders of magnitude more than the mass of the atmosphere. The atmosphere has been warming up by a few degrees. The first ten feet of water in the oceans weighs the same as the atmosphere. There are roughly 300 times 10 feet in one kilometer, and most oceans are several kilometers deep. The fact that we are seeing measurable increase in their temperature should be a pretty damned scary statistic. There's a lot of mass, so it can absorb a lot of energy, but it also means that restoring the energy balance to the previous norms will also be slower and far more difficult.

I'd love to continue this further, but I have to go get some sleep. Night...

[licker]

Clearly wrong about what?

That we cannot account for the loss of energy in the ice melt and decreasing temps?

I think you may have misunderstood me. I am not saying that the ice isn't melting, indeed, that is one place for the energy to go.

[Tifone]

@ chris - Or even better, energies which don't produce nuclear wastes!

@ licker - Clearly wrong about temperatures falling. Second link provided expecially => air temperatures

PS @ chris: could you please provide some link to the "more than 11,000" academic scientists which are skeptics about GW. Possibly something which shows their peer-rewied works on the matter. (Even better, if not payed for this by the Bush administration lol )

[chrispedersen]

Originally Posted by Tifone

@ chris - Or even better, energies which don't produce nuclear wastes!

@ licker - Clearly wrong about temperatures falling. Second link provided expecially => air temperatures

PS @ chris: could you please provide some link to the "more than 11,000" academic scientists which are skeptics about GW. Possibly something which shows their peer-rewied works on the matter. (Even better, if not payed for this by the Bush administration lol )

I cannot provide a link. However, a place to start would be Gore's movie. Many of the scientist quoted as supporting the theory of global warming have recanted.

The pedigree's of the people opposing global warming is significant. The director of NOAA atmospherics studies, Dr Gray of Colorado State, if I recall.

There have been several documentaries on both sides of the issue. One of these documentaries amassed a contrarian point of view to show that scientific opinion was hardly monolithic.

To say that it is categorical fact that CO2 emissions cause global warming, is frankly, ridiculous. To my knowledge, the theory hasn't even been tested; nor is it readily apparent how to test it.

But it doesn't matter, at least to me. Gravity is a theory. It fights the observable facts better than any other theory.

The theory of global warming gives suggests avenues to attack. Should these avenues not work, then the theory of warming caused by man made actions (notably co2 emissions) will be revisited. Or, if global temperatures start to fall.

However, people that propose CO2 warming like a religion scare me. We have thousands of years of history. I would bet that our present climate is WELL within statistical variance.

Hell, our planet has both been a hell hole - and ice covered - several times, in the not too distant (geologically speaking past).

But wouldn't be willing to take no action against global warming either.

[JimMorrison]

Can we shut up about 2007 and 2008 or "blah de blah, I want to look for an incrdibly short period of time, and say, THERE, it wasn't as warm right there!" .....

Originally Posted by Gristmill_article

You could choose to look at the last 1,000 years, because that is as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go. Then the conclusion is:

Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

So, by studying the crust of the Earth, we can estimate global weather conditions going back at least 1000 years. I would tend to think this is more evidence of a trend than 1, or 2, or even 10 years in any specific point.



And just to clarify, if the Earth's temperature rises very much at all, very quickly, we also know through fossil evidence that this can cause -mass extinctions-. That is to say, entire food webs can collapse, and this can very profoundly effect the prosperity of the human race. You don't have to give a damn about those other species - beyond the fact that your very existence, in some way is reliant on the great majority of them, and the content of their life-cycle.

[Omnirizon]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Can we shut up about 2007 and 2008 or "blah de blah, I want to look for an incrdibly short period of time, and say, THERE, it wasn't as warm right there!" .....

So, by studying the crust of the Earth, we can estimate global weather conditions going back at least 1000 years. I would tend to think this is more evidence of a trend than 1, or 2, or even 10 years in any specific point.



And just to clarify, if the Earth's temperature rises very much at all, very quickly, we also know through fossil evidence that this can cause -mass extinctions-. That is to say, entire food webs can collapse, and this can very profoundly effect the prosperity of the human race. You don't have to give a damn about those other species - beyond the fact that your very existence, in some way is reliant on the great majority of them, and the content of their life-cycle.

WHAT!?!?

Where's your data for the last 3 hours? It dropped a couple of degrees here at my house in tha time alone. that's HUGE relative to the magnitude of change those quack scientists blaber on about. GLOBAL WARMING IS A SHAM!!!

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by chrispedersen

The pedigree's of the people opposing global warming is significant. The director of NOAA atmospherics studies, Dr Gray of Colorado State, if I recall.

That would be interesting, since NOAA is expending great effort to document and study the current Warming Trend of our planet, so that we can better understand what is happening right now.