Global Warming?

[CreativeRandom]

I would like to hear "The Other Side" of the argument on Greenhouse gases and global warming. I've heard the normal liberal rant, and have taken a few classes on the subject as well.

So, do greenhouse gases exist because of humans? I have heard faintly that animals and bonfires cause more gas, but I'm unknowledgeable on the exacts. Also, I would appreciate numeric info on US contribution to global warming / greenhouse gas compared to other countries - France, Former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, third world countries like Zimbabwe....

And of global warming. Is it caused by industrialization? Should we be worried? Is it a risk? Is the artic circle going to be gone by 2070 like the UK newspaper stated?

All input appreciated.

[Hunble]

Notice how the chart shows temperatures between 1861 and 2003, but used only the averages between 1961 and 1990 as their baseline reference. Why?

Notice how the temperature scale is focused down to a detailed range of +/- 0.8 degrees C. Why?

What is the global average temperature for today?

Can you locate this vitally important information, or must you rely upon the honesty of the people who created these charts?

How do you know that they were being honest and could you verify today's average global temperature?

[cogitator]

What are global warmers going to argue when sunspot activity goes down in the next decade and we start to cool?

Ask me when it happens. Have you seen this page in previous postings?

The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change

[cogitator]

The temperature observations since 1979 are in dispute. On the one hand, surface observations with conventional thermometers show a rise of about 0.1°C per decade, less than half that predicted by most GCMs. On the other hand, satellite data, as well as independent data from balloon-borne radiosondes, show no warming trend between 1979 and 1997 in the lower troposphere, and could even indicate a slight cooling [Christy and Spencer, 1999]. Direct temperature measurements on Greenland ice cores show a cooling trend between 1940 and 1995 [Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998]. It is likely therefore that the surface data are contaminated by the warming effects of "urban heat islands." Some data support this hypothesis [Goodridge, 1996], others do not [Peterson et al., 1999].

This is way, way, outdated. Christy and Spencer have been forced -- sometimes willingly, sometimes not so willingly -- to revise the analysis of lower tropospheric temperature data. The trend they have now is about +0.13 C per decade. Other analysis of the same data set finds higher trends. And because the lower troposphere is conclusively warming, this validates the surface temperature record and weighs strongly against any UHI. Possible UHI effects are corrected for in the surface warming data sets, and subsequent studies have found little or even a negative effect. In essence, there is now no significant contradiction between the surface and lower troposphere warming trends.

The following links provide good summaries of the current state of the science on these topics.

Et tu LT?

The Surface Temperature Record and the Urban Heat Island

[cogitator]

The eruption of Mount St. Helens alone, an extremely modest geophysical event, put ten times more "greenhouse gases" into the high atmosphere than humans have in all our history.

I think you're the third person in this thread who posted this totally erroneous claim (but to your credit, I think you got this from another source -- if so, where'd you get it?)

Repeat as often as necessary until it sinks in: Volcanoes Are Not a Significant Source of Greenhouse Gases.

[cogitator]

but used only the averages between 1961 and 1990 as their baseline reference. Why?

Because it was a good baseline to use. It was colder earlier in the period and warmer after. FYI, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies uses the period 1951-1980 as their baseline.

Notice how the temperature scale is focused down to a detailed range of +/- 0.8 degrees C. Why?

Because that covers the range of variability over the time period plotted.

What is the global average temperature for today?

I haven't found 2005. For 2004, it was 14.6 C (58.28 F). Source: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2004.htm

2005 was apparently a little warmer, globally.

[Publius6961]

Welcome to Free republic.
You neglected to tell us how old you are, and the level of your education. For example, have you ever read Cultural Literacy? When you see facts, do you feel comfortable that you are competent to challenge them based on certain knowlege to the contrary?

Have you taken college courses in chemistry and physics? Math?
Are you able to read a simple graph and interpret its contents?

If you can confidently answer all those questions positively, then jump into the web. It's a treasure trove on information, if you are selective and discriminating.
In addition to Chrichton's novel, which relies on many facts, try reading The Skeptical Environmentalist, by Bjørn Lomborg.

The only certain fact about climate is its certain variability for the last 400,000 years!
There has never been a debate about global warming, it's a foregone conclusion, and has happened many times in the past.
The only contention is as to the cause; which seems rather foolish, since industrial man and the US (the usual suspects) did not exist for the last 20 or so cycles...

[Publius6961]

Basically, you need to go and look at the science. Go and read the IPCC reports (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), see what the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, etc have to say.

Pseudoscience indeed!
Give me a break.
The IPCC report was the most embarrassing piece of propaganda of the last 10 years. Embarrassingly so.

You mean this one?

In the early 1990s Lindzen was asked to contribute to the IPCC's 1995 report. At the time, he held (and still does) that untangling human influences from the natural variation of the global climate is next to impossible. When the report's summary came out, he was dismayed to read its conclusion: "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." "That struck me as bizarre," he says. "Because without saying how much the effect was, the statement had no meaning. If it was discernible and very small, for instance, it would be no problem." Environmentalist Bill McKibbon referred to this phrase in an article in The Atlantic in May 1998: "The panel's 2,000 scientists, from every corner of the globe, summed up their findings in this dry but historic bit of understatement." In an angry letter, Lindzen wrote that the full report "takes great pains to point out that the statement has no implications for the magnitude of the effect, is dependent on the [dubious] assumption that natural variability obtained from [computer] models is the same as that in nature, and, even with these caveats, is largely a subjective matter."
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT

Prof. Richard S. Lindzen is a recipient of the AMS's Meisinger, and Charney Awards, and AGU's Macelwane Medal. He is a corresponding member of the NAS Committee on Human Rights, a member of the NRC Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, and a Fellow of the AAAS1. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

[okie01]

People defend most violently not those things they know to be true, but rather those they fear may be false. Says a lot about Islam as well.

Not to mention an even more pernicious religion: Liberalism.

[LiteKeeper]

mega-dittoes

[Old Professer]

It all began when the Ozone Crisis was averted and a slew of atmospheric researchers were facing the unemployment line.

With all of the computer models already in place and a bit of funding left over after DuPont did a soul-searching, role reversal, a couple of clever modelers happened to notice that a parallel trend could be found in the data linking CO2 increases with tropospheric heating signals; a few E-mails later, a new term was invented, a crisis was announced, and the rest is history.

[Varmint Al]

Absolute proof of Global Warming! Q.E.D.

Good Hunting... from Varmint Al

[VOA]

I would like to hear "The Other Side" of the argument on Greenhouse gases and global warming.

All I really need to know is this:
Two of my friends work for the EPA.
They both own one car per family member over the age of 16.
They both also own large motorcycles.
They both fly around the world often on jetliners.

And in the university science departments I've worked in,
the enviro-conscious types are just about the same in terms
of being polluters.

IF they truly believe that man-made pollution was going to destroy
the planet and the often MORE than 2.3 average children they
produce...would they act this way?

It's clear that a LOT (not all) of the environmental crisis is
just a job security plan for a lot of academics and guvmint employees.

[CreativeRandom]

Thank you guys so much for everything.

My opinion is that global warming is crock, but I do not have the numbers and studies to prove it.

So, I read the junkscience article. I need some time to go through all the resources (thanks so much!) but from what I've read, temperatures are going up, though not drastically, and this temperature can be welcomed.

Then why are the artic caps increasing?


I read the junkscience article and crichton's wonderful speech on environmentalism.

[Hunble]

Remember, the country that has the most complete and accurate historical weather database is the United States. Even Benjamin Franklin was recording the daily changes in the weather.

For the United States, with the most accurate weather information around the world, the temperatures has been declining.

DECLINING!

[CreativeRandom]

I swore I replied...

My opinion is that humans destroying the earth is crap, and greenhouse gases and global warming is not a disastrous issue. I just need the facts and studies to back myself up - just for personal interest (at the moment).

Anyways, thanks for all the replies and resources! Great stuff!

I haven't gone through it all yet, but two questions:

1. How *exactly* do envirowhackos make money on this global warming scheme. It is easy to beat around the bush, but can you guys give some exact examples of corruption?

2. As Crichton pointed out, the ice caps are expanding and the desert is shrinking. How is this the case if the temperature is still rising?

[CreativeRandom]

Oh my, there is a second page! That is where my replies went.

I'll post in reply to the second page and 1st page resources later...

Jeez... thanks!

[CreativeRandom]

Bump

SOmeone mentioned that anti-business and anti-american groups (nations, agencies, KGB, et cetera) spread propaganda that business is destroying the environment, capitalism is destroying the environment, America is destroying the environment. Good stuff.

I'd like very specific examples too though!