Posted on 03/01/2007 8:43:13 AM PST by AT7Saluki
...Regardless, the earth-shattering piece began ...
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
The article marvelously continued:
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Rush has not said that. I would like to see transcripts of where he stated such. Rush's main thrust is to question those who are "certain" that GW is man-made; that it is "settled science." Rush like many, myself included, who are utterly exasperated at the insanity of those who believe the Earth's climate is at the "tipping point." I am an engineer who has been involved in circuit and systems modeling. Just dealing with how to determine valid initial conditions is difficult enough; handling non-linearities is another layer of complexity.
My intuition would tell me that any output from models of the Earth's climate should be not taken as "truth or settled science." Who knows what seemingly "simple" parameters yet to be accounted for in their models, will result in vastly different results. The Scientist on Rush's show yesterday was a breath of fresh air over this non-problem. I was astounded when he said that precipitation is not an integral part of many models. That alone should give anyone pause over the claim of the nuts like Gore. I choose to be happy and appreciate the beauty of nature, knowing man will NOT destroy the climate. I fear the freaks on the left who have found yet another pathway to try impose their totalitarian hell upon civilization.
...so you're complaining that the media is being too vigourous in pushing the anti global warming position...???
Anything's possible.
How do you infer that?
"Then why are you talking about seasonal hemispheric variability?"
Did you read my entire post? My point is the only 'global warming' is the seasonal and natural warming variances the earth has experienced throughout recorded history.
The socialist and anti-technology people have jumped on their version of global warming as a way to control people.
Not to appear to be a supporter of "Global Warming Theory" but the simple fact of the matter is that Mars was nailed by a global dust storm in 2001. It's entirely possible that the subsequent warmer years are an after-effect of that epic storm.
"Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added."
Don't ask me, ask the National Academy of Sciences, and note that this report cast considerable doubt on the original paleoclimate "Hockey Stick", particularly for quantitative comparisons before 1600.
I.e., regarding global temperatures ~1000 years ago, it cannot reliably be said that it was warmer then than now. It cannot be reliably said that it was cooler then than now. All that can reliably said is that it appears it was warmer for the period 900-1300/1400 and for the period 1850-present than the period in between (commonly known as the Little Ice Age).
Check the source of the quotes, and I think you'll find that Newsbusters is being sardonic.
"The position of the majority of climate scientists who aren't trying to preserve their skeptical bona fides is that the human contribution (atmospheric greenhouse gases) is the dominant factor currently affecting climate."
HUH?
The 'scientist' that support global warming almost always are getting money from it.
The earth probably is warming. If you look at the data you will see that the earths temperature has varied wildly throughout history.
But perhaps I'm wrong. As soon as one of those people pushing new taxes and massive govt control gives up their mansion and private jet I will consider listening.
"I.e., regarding global temperatures ~1000 years ago, it cannot reliably be said that it was warmer then than now. It cannot be reliably said that it was cooler then than now. All that can reliably said is that it appears it was warmer for the period 900-1300/1400 and for the period 1850-present than the period in between (commonly known as the Little Ice Age).'
So we can't say it was warmer or cooler BUT we can say man evolved based on the evidence of a couple bones found 4 miles apart. I guess it all depends on your agenda.
I know it was satire. It was lousy satire. My response was likewise satirical.
If Rush did say "Not our fault, therefore no global warming," it was more than likely said tongue in cheek and in order to illustrate a point. He likes to illustrate absurdity by being absurd.
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
But it still gets play in the media. Go figure.
...since you stated it directly in your post, is I guess why I infer that...
Absolutely.
The position of the majority of climate scientists who aren't trying to preserve their skeptical bona fides is that the human contribution (atmospheric greenhouse gases) is the dominant factor currently affecting climate.
Does the fact that Dr. Spencer has altered his viewpoint mean his bona fides are questionable? I wouldn't think so; only that his methodology may have been erroneous but now is being corrected. And does this mean that all those who are skeptical of GW use faulty models to promote their beliefs?
There is also much skepticism of the methodology used by those who promote man-made Global Warming. And Dr. Spencer addressed that issue in his discussion with Rush Limbaugh. In effect, the models used by virtually anyone, when collecting data on global temperature fluctuation, by nature, is likely inexact. So, I guess, the question is: "Do we really have the ability to correctly gauge what is causing this current warming"? And if the answer is 'no', then how do we know how to react?
Color me skeptical until I can feel confident all the facts are in.
"I know it was satire. It was lousy satire. My response was likewise satirical."
I don't think it was brilliant but it wasn't lousy.
The data for global warming is suspect and incomplete. The people pushing it also have an agenda.
They always point to America as being evil. That we produce 20-25% of the 'greenhouse gases'. That we make America nasty with pollution?
Have these folks ever been to a major city anywhere else? In Russia the snow is orange and yellow before it hits the ground. The air in mexico city is thick enough to cut with a knife. The water in china is so foul with pollution that you can strip paint of your furniture with it. In India the untreated human waste from millions of people flows directly into their main water source.
And yet the answer is to cripple America's economy? The answer is to tax my lawn mower and the flatulence of the cows in the field?
I'd recommend these 'scientists' cut down on the LSD before they make their next recommendation.
I did find it slightly amusing that a theory unsupported by theory or observations got picked up by National Geographic News -- particularly because there are conventional scientific explanations for the observations on Mars unrelated to solar variability.
Here's an interesting article that disputes that to some degree: http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article_ID=14224. At least it shows we are doing better toward conservation than others.
I'm not a scientist, climatologist, meteorologist, nor do I have any degree in related sciences. I will remain skeptical until I've seen sufficient factual data from one side or the other. And I've yet to see any that's been convincing. Nor am I convinced that anyone, on either side, has developed adequate modeling from which factual data can be generated.
That's my position in a nutshell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.