Global Warming

[oldfriend]

Has this already been discussed?

I've been, up until very recently, on the "scam" side of the isle with this debate.......

A few folks have been trying to educate me in the other direction. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

It seems to me that, laying aside the politics ( I know, admin/mods - politics a no no) the science is compelling in favor of the idea.

Really has me wondering what kind of world we will be living in within the next 100 years, if the hardcore theories surrounding this are true.

[baylee]

Here is a website where people volunteer their computer downtime for different projects. There are many different projects and one of them is for global warming. I have one old computer running several projects for different colleges (projects) around the clock. One of them is for global warming. One must choose what, how many, and download software (Bonic) for these projects. Some are kind of fun.

Link:

Choosing BOINC projects (http://boinc.berkeley.edu/projects.php)

[Beacon]

Ironically the anti Global warming guys have a good case. But part of the reason for this is that climate change is over hundreds of years at best maybe a millennium and weather changes every day or from year to year.

So if you take the last century or decades in the last 100 years there ARE periods when the temperature went down and there was cooling. In the 1970 we were worried about an ice age. Ironically, global increases can cause localised cooling e.g. a shift of the Gulfstream north might cause Ireolnd and scotland to freeze. similarly global cooling might cause then to generate a Mediterrinean climate. For most of the last century ther was not huge change in overall temperature but ther is a slight trend upward . This trend is most pronounced over the last 20 years.

The whole thing is a bit like argument about evolution without having discovered microbiology , bio informatics or genetics at the DNA level as opposed to the phenotype level.
Then there is the problem of whether this is natural and caused by the sun for example or "man made"

But the name neoconservative mindset promoting this
"we don't know about global warming being true and should do nothing because others expect it is true and a threat to the world"

at the same time said " we have no evidence of WMD but should act even though we have no evidence in case it MIGHT BE TRUE"?

Clearly there is a (non scientific) political agenda driving this mindset.

The UN inspecors said "NO EVIDENCE OF WMD" but the neocons told the congress that that was a lie and that
Saddam was lying and that they KNEW there were
1. WMD
2. Training camps supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq which Saddam supported


One person quoted a lot is Latif


6 Oct 2009
Recently some new information has become available which seriously
questions the whole UN's basis on climate change and its computer
modelling work of future changes.
The week before the latest UN's world leaders' conference there was
another UN climate conference in Geneva where one of the UN's own leading
climate scientists and computer modellers, Professor Mojib Latif from
Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Keil University, stated
that from recent research he has conducted he has had to conclude that
global warning has ceased


Here is my response to that

http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/01/interview-with-dr-mojib-latif-global-cooling-revkin-morano-george-will/comment-page-1/

October 1, 2009

he Nature study is consistent with the following statements:

a.. The "coming decade" (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on
record, globally.
b.. The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any
decade since the authors' calculations began in 1960.
c.. The fast warming would likely begin early in the next decade - similar
to the 2007 prediction by the Hadley Center in Science (see "Climate
Forecast: Hot - and then Very Hot").
d.. The mean North American temperature for the decade from 2005 to 2015
is projected to be slightly warmer than the actual average temperature of
the decade from 1993 to 2003.


In his published research, rapid warming is all-but-inevitable over the
next two decades. He told me, "you can't miss the long-term warming trend"
in the temperature record, which is "driven by the evolution of greenhouse
gases." Finally, he pointed out "Our work does not allow one to make any
inferences about global warming."

He added that the planet is currently cooling and will likely continue to
do so for another 20 years.


No he didn't!

Here is his paper:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html
[quote]
Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over
the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and
tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.
[end quote]

What that means is that global temperature WILL FLATTEN (NOT Decrease) and
the reason will be because of factors which work against the WARMING caused
by human beings.

Global warming (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/course/view.php?id=1526)
Time: 5 hours
Level: Introductory

Section 1


Natural climate change?


To understand what the chart shows, it is necessary to take the 'long view',
looking back through the whole history of the Earth.


a.. How can we know the temperature of the planet over time-scales of
billions of years?
b.. Is this current warming part of the Earth's natural temperature
variation?
c.. What factors affect and force changes to the global temperature, and
to what extent are these being affected by human activity?
d.. What are the best predictions for change over the next 100 years?


3. Recorded temperatures
Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and
historical records) show that the 1990s was the warmest decade of the
millennium and the 20th century the warmest century. The warmest year of the
millennium was 1998, and the coldest was probably 1601. (Climatic Research
Unit, 2003)


Throughout historical times, fluctuations in the Earth's mean temperature
have been recorded. During the seventeenth century, the Thames periodically
froze over during winter and mini-glaciers were present in the North West
Highlands of Scotland. More recently, the 1990s included some of the hottest
years ever recorded in the British Isles, and 10 August 2003 was the hottest
day ever on record. An annual temperature record for central England has
been constructed, beginning in 1659.


Open Learning - OpenLearn - Open University (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/1526/sci_sk1_08i.pdf)


http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/bigpicture.pdf

In fact for the last 150 years the data has been
recorded and the average is rising!

There are other data but here is GISS:


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A3.lrg.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A4.lrg.gif
for the US:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif

Here is a source for the US climate history
CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES Climate Summary (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html)

The upward trend is apparent

[mark.k]

I read somewhere that a global warming is a lie made up (needlessly) by governments to make some legislative changes and of course earn on it. In the Earth history was so many global temperature periods, it is totally a normal phenomenon! I do not believe in global warming, in my opinion it is just a natural process.

[consolidation]

Sarcasm alert......so because you were told something by someone ....You have decided you do not believe well over 97% of all true Scientific Experts and the Scientific community and all scientific evidence and scientific global trend predictions ...that global warming is real.
Ps:the remaining 3% of so called scientist will tell you things like ...nicotine is not addictive or that coal is good for the sky because they get well paid to do so.....they have a degree but not a conscience or any respect.

Ps.. All the hype in the post above was one interpretation and please note 150 years ago the industrial revolution began.


Wow I think you are in need of some serious judicious reading on this subject. Please look into it further. Try only to look at data and studies that are Peer reviewed otherwise they are just opinion pieces dressed up as studies....even the above Govt data is just that?... data! .......and the conclusions drawn from it are interpretations not justifications or facts.


Who is the bigger fool?

1) The fool
2) or the fool who argues with the fool? (me)

[EagleOne]

Scinece predicted an eclipse. Technology revealed an approaching storm, but Climate Science didn't predict 12 years without a major hurricane. - Twitter Satirist Hale_Razor

[nomaxim]

Umm, there have been 18 major hurricanes in the North Atlantic and 5 in the Eastern Pacific between 2006 and 2015. At least based on the number of retired names, most notable were Ike in 2008 and Sandy in 2012. The total number of named hurricanes between 2006-2015 are 53 for the North Atlantic and 87 for the Eastern Pacific.

https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp?region=at
https://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/hurrarchive.asp?region=ep

Ten hurricanes have hit the US since 2007, none in 2006, and four in 2005.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/08/24/all-hurricanes-hit-u-s-since-2005/598113001/






Might I also suggest looking up dictionary.com/technology (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/technology);
technology
[tek-nol-uh-jee]
noun, plural
1.
the branch of knowledge that deals with the creation and use of technical means and their interrelation with life, society, and the environment, drawing upon such subjects as industrial arts, engineering, applied science, and pure science.
2.
the application of this knowledge for practical ends.
3.
the terminology of an art, science, etc.; technical nomenclature.
4.
a scientific or industrial process, invention, method, or the like.
5.
the sum of the ways in which social groups provide themselves with the material objects of their civilization.

[EagleOne]

Sorry, thought you would know it was a joke not reality. My bad for not clarifying it as I thought the name indicated it.

[nomaxim]

- Twitter Satirist Hale_Razor
Sorry, thought you would know it was a joke not reality. My bad for not clarifying it as I thought the name indicated it.ROTFLMAO

https://twitter.com/hale_razor?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp% 7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Your 'Satirist' appears to be nothing more then an idiotic political pundit.
I don't think that is in any way funny, just sad.

It was funny to me because it could be debunked so quickly with hardly no effort, as you clearly proved. Just a difference in what one thinks is funny and others don't. And yes, it is sad too.

[nomaxim]

Wow, never thought that I would have to backup my posts here at RS.

SBM posted somewhere that this forum (RS) was different from Scam.com, and that I could back-up files here at RS.

This is apparently not the case as we now have evidence that a 'MOD' here at RS will randomly access and edit posts.


ROTFLMAO

https://twitter.com/hale_razor?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp% 7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Your 'Satirist' appears to be nothing more then an idiotic political pundit.
I don't think that is in any way funny, just sad.

It was funny to me because it could be debunked so quickly with hardly no effort, as you clearly proved. Just a difference in what one thinks is funny and others don't. And yes, it is sad too.

The following was added to my post without my consent and without my knowledge. I have not been contacted in any way in regards to this 'MOD' edit.

It was funny to me because it could be debunked so quickly with hardly no effort, as you clearly proved. Just a difference in what one thinks is funny and others don't. And yes, it is sad too.
Also, not only has said 'MOD' not contacted me about this 'edit'. I have not been given any reason for said 'edit'.
My post does not appear to be in violation of the rules or T&C's here at RS.

A screenshot of this post has been taken. And honestly, this is only the 3rd screenshot I have ever needed to take of the operation of RS.

[consolidation]

Scinece predicted an eclipse. Technology revealed an approaching storm, but Climate Science didn't predict 12 years without a major hurricane. - Twitter Satirist Hale_Razor

Quite apart from the above quote from Twitter Satirist ( hmmmm....no doubt a self appointed title) Hale-Razor being an opinion.
It is easily proven as rubbish and untrue by anyone with Internet access and a primary school education... , the above quotation must seem particularly foolish about now.....

[consolidation]

My thoughts are with those affected or afflicted by the three current hurricanes in the Atlantic basin and my prayer that the two massive storms off Africa do not develop into further Hurricanes as predicted currently.

Non Nobis