Global warming to last for 1,000 years: report

CTV.ca ^ | Wed. Jan. 31 2007

[Halgr]

Thanks for the science lesson.

I think the sun is less understood than we think....I've read recently that Mars and Jupiter are warming too....Hello Socialists?

I still haven't figured out the motives of the Left for pushing this man caused "Global Warming" thing....must be something to do with raising taxes huh?

[Publius6961]

It says human influence on the atmosphere during the 21st century alone will propel global warming for another 1,000 years, based on estimates of how long it will take nature to clean the air of gases that contribute to climate change.

I am always astounded how presumed serious "scientists" always couch their darkest "facts' in uknowable and unprovable future events.

I might take even a slanted "report" (summary?) more seriously, if they could unequivocally link present conditions to the past 100 years of human activity ...

I stress the word "unequivocally". Therein lies science, and the crux of the present political problem.

[musicman]

"But in his movie, Al Gore says there will be MORE hurricanes."

[Spok]

'Global warming' has become so politicized that there is no limit to the degree of catastrophe that the left will embrace. Like our casualties in the war, the worse the news is, the more they like it.

[Publius6961]

Among the other findings, the report states that the last half-century was probably the hottest in at least the past 1,300 years. And in 11 of the past 12 years, temperatures were among the highest since the 1850s, when accurate temperature measurements were first set down.

Am I the only one who clearly sees a profound and crucial contradiction in just this short paragraph?
How can they call this "science"? How can these be our best and brightest? I quote: "... early version of the climate change study being prepared by the world's leading scientists"

[Waco]

Bin Laddie taking over in 10 yrs or less. So he'll have 990 yrs. to fix it. Or will it need fixin after he's in charge? Get yer sh-t togather fags.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

WE. ARE. DOOMED.

[A. Pole]

Unless we do what?

Sign the Kyoto treaty and criminalize disbelief in global warming .

[Redcloak]

Global warming: So easy, a caveman could do it.

[3niner]

I hope it lasts through my lifetime, anyway. I'd rather live where the climate is more like that in Hawaii, than like northern Alaska.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Just in time to nullify global cooling.

[Frohickey]

Could we take punitive actions against the author's descendants if they are wrong with this prediction?

[cogitator]

WE. ARE. DOOMED.

Heh heh. I think I'll have to avoid the fate of subsequent generations and just plan on peacefully passing away by 2060. If the Lord grants me an audience (provided I get there and not someplace a lot warmer), I'll respectfully request that he turn down the Sun's rheostat a notch for the sake of my kids, and their kids, and their kids, and their kids, and so on, and so on, and so on...

[Publius6961]

Among the other findings, the report states that the last half-century was probably the hottest in at least the past 1,300 years. And in 11 of the past 12 years, temperatures were among the highest since the 1850s, when accurate temperature measurements were first set down.

Well, then, let's test this "science" making no assumptions that can't be founded on facts.

All future predictions of doom are based on computer models.
The accurate record, as stated in the "report" (summary?) consists of 150 years, which makes 7+ increments of 20 year periods available for a reality test.

Take the data from 1857 through 1877 and plug it without any tweaking or editing (it is either accurate, or it isn't!) into the best computer model that they have, and predict the climate and weather for 1877 through 1897. Compare it to what was actually observed. Do the same with each successive 20-year period up to the present.

We could take book from these "scientists" as to whether they are able to get any one period right!

Why hasn't this been done?
If they did it successfuly, 7 times out of 7, I would instantly become an anthropogenic-global-warming believer!

If they can't do it successfuly, how can these "scientists", with a straight face, expect us to accept their 100-years into the future prediction?

Again, I repeat, current predictions of doom are based on flawed computer models, not on facts; or science.

[cogitator]

The thing I don't get, is that why wasn't global warming so much more pronounced in the early Industrial Age, when pollutants were so much worse than they are now?

CO2 emissions were not nearly as high as now.

[mmichaels1970]

Earth didn't warm appreciably until about 2,000 years ago.

Shhhh! You are opening the door to the possibility of blaming Jesus Christ for global warming!

[3niner]

For example, in what is now the arid core of the Sahara desert, hippopotamuses and crocodiles thrived in lakes and swamps.

You illustrate one of the points that alarmists like to ignore. A warmer Earth is a wetter Earth. It also includes a comfortable temperature range (for most plants and animals) over a much larger percentage of the Earth's surface.

Whether the current warming will increase, or even last much longer, before the next ice age, is a question that nobody can answer, but it is certain that a 10 degree (F) increase in the Earth's average temperature would greatly increase the amount of life.

[Publius6961]

The first report was issued in 1990. Since then, the panel's stance on global warming -- and the notion that it is being brought on in large part by deforestation, large scale agriculture and burning of fossil fuels -- has become more established.

Does it really need to be said?
A notion, no matter how old, becoming "established", is not science!

Dammit!

[A. Pole]

The Pirate theory sounds logical except when I look way back to the Ice Age and think wait a minute there were no Pirates then.

Why? The Ice Age took place precisely because Pirates were not there. Makes sense.

[cogitator]

The IPPC ignores water vapor in their models.

That is totally, 100%, wrong. And it's IPCC. Water vapor must be a part of any model predicting a temperature rise over 1 C by 2100 (or when atmospheric CO2 doubles in concentration). The positive feedback effect of water vapor (increasing relative humidity) is the main thing pushing estimates into the 2-5 degree C range.

Cloud feedback effects could moderate or accentuate this effect. (Note added for esteemed FReeper "palmer")