"Winter storm" causes Dobbs to ask: "What's that global warming deal?"
SUMMARY: Lou Dobbs said during the introduction of his CNN show: "And tonight, unusual winter storms are dumping snow in unusual places across Western states, and a huge snowstorm is headed toward the Northeast. This is global warming?" During his segment on the issue, Dobbs hosted Heartland Institute senior fellow and science director Jay Lehr without disclosing that Heartland receives funding from the energy industry and without challenging Lehr's assertions that "[t]he last 10 years have been quite cool" and that "the sun" -- rather than humans -- is responsible for recent climate change.
Despite overwhelming evidence of human-caused global warming and warnings by experts that short-term weather conditions are not evidence for or against its existence, Lou Dobbs said during the introduction of his December 18 CNN show: "And tonight, unusual winter storms are dumping snow in unusual places across Western states, and a huge snowstorm is headed toward the Northeast. This is global warming?" During his segment on the issue, moreover, Dobbs hosted Heartland Institute senior fellow and science director Jay Lehr without disclosing that Heartland receives funding from the energy industry and without challenging Lehr's assertions that "[t]he last 10 years have been quite cool" and that "the sun" -- rather than humans -- is responsible for recent climate change.
Throughout the show, Dobbs teased the segment by falsely suggesting that current weather conditions have some bearing on the issue -- about which there is overwhelming scientific consensus -- of whether global warming is occurring. Dobbs said the following:
Still ahead here: winter storm sweeping the country. Is this what you call global warming?
[...]
Coming up next, snow falls in the desert? So what are -- what are those folks talking about, global warming? We'll find out.
[...]
We'll tell you about that and a big freeze across the country. What's that global warming deal? We'll be talking with two meteorological experts -- a special report on it next.
Dobbs then introduced his "special report" on what current weather "means for a discussion of global warming" by discussing substantial snowfall in parts of the United States and adding, "Perhaps [former Vice President] Al Gore now is considering global warming isn't such a problem, because it is unusually warm in his home state of Tennessee. The forecast there calls for a high of 64 degrees in Nashville. Mr. Vice President, be careful."
However, as The New York Times reported on March 2, climate scientists -- including at least one who has disputed aspects of the scientific consensus on global warming -- completely reject the notion that short-term changes in weather, let alone individual storms, bear any relevance to the global warming debate:
Many scientists also say that the cool spell in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted weather patterns, less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to accumulate in the air.
''The current downturn is not very unusual,'' said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a private research group in Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose findings have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. He pointed to similar drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.
[...]
Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said that any focus on the last few months or years as evidence undermining the established theory that accumulating greenhouse gases are making the world warmer was, at best, a waste of time and, at worst, a harmful distraction.
Discerning a human influence on climate, he said, ''involves finding a signal in a noisy background.'' He added, ''The only way to do this within our noisy climate system is to average over a sufficient number of years that the noise is greatly diminished, thereby revealing the signal. This means that one cannot look at any single year and know whether what one is seeing is the signal or the noise or both the signal and the noise.''
[...]
Some scientists who strongly disagree with each other on the extent of warming coming in this century, and on what to do about it, agreed that it was important not to be tempted to overinterpret short-term swings in climate, either hot or cold.
Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and commentator with the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, has long chided environmentalists and the media for overstating connections between extreme weather and human-caused warming. (He is on the program at the skeptics' conference.)
But Dr. Michaels said that those now trumpeting global cooling should beware of doing the same thing, saying that the ''predictable distortion'' of extreme weather ''goes in both directions.''
Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan who has spoken out about the need to reduce greenhouse gases, disagrees with Dr. Michaels on many issues, but concurred on this point.
''When I get called by CNN to comment on a big summer storm or a drought or something, I give the same answer I give a guy who asks about a blizzard,'' Dr. Schmidt said. ''It's all in the long-term trends. Weather isn't going to go away because of climate change. There is this desire to explain everything that we see in terms of something you think you understand, whether that's the next ice age coming or global warming.''
Indeed, during the segment, both of Dobbs' guests -- Lehr and CNN meteorologist Chad Myers -- appeared to dismiss the idea that current weather conditions constitute evidence when discussing global warming.
Additionally, neither Dobbs nor Myers challenged Lehr's assertion that "[t]he last 10 years have been quite cool." In fact, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the 2008 meteorological year (December 2007 through November 2008) "was the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880. The nine warmest years all occur within the eleven-year period 1998-2008." (GISS further states that "given our estimated error ... we can only say that 2008 probably ranks as somewhere between the 7th and 12th warmest year.)
Lehr also suggested that the sun, and not humans, is solely responsible for climate change:
DOBBS: Yeah, I mean, Jay, we've been around just a little over four -- by scientific estimates, about four and a half billion years. What is --what is your thought about the dominant influence on weather?
LEHR: Well, clearly -- clearly Lou, it is the sun. But if we go back in really recorded human history, in the 13th century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now. And it was a very prosperous time for mankind. If we go back to the Revolutionary War, 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We've been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period, and now we're back into a cooling cycle. The last 10 years have been quite cool. And right now I think we're going in to cooling rather than warming, and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.
Neither Dobbs nor Myers pointed out that the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2007 "Synthesis Report" concluded that "[w]arming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level" and that "[m]ost of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely [defined in the report as a ">90%" chance] due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [human-caused] GHG [greenhouse gas] concentrations." The IPCC report specifically rebuts the suggestion that the sun, rather than humans, is responsible for climate change:
The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely [<5% chance] that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of solar and volcanic forcings would likely [>66% chance] have produced cooling, not warming.
In comparing human-caused and natural "radiative forcing," (which is defined as "an index of the importance of [a] factor as a potential climate change mechanism"), the IPCC's February 2007 Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" concluded that since 1750, "it is extremely likely [>95% chance] that humans have exerted a substantial warming influence on climate. This RF estimate is likely to be at least five times greater than that due to solar irradiance changes. For the period 1950 to 2005, it is exceptionally unlikely [<1% chance] that the combined natural RF (solar irradiance plus volcanic aerosol) has had a warming influence comparable to that of the combined anthropogenic RF."
Further, Dobbs described Lehr as a "meteorological expert" and a "senior fellow and science director of the Heartland Institute" but failed to disclose that the Heartland Institute receives funding from the energy industry. For example, ExxonMobil reports that Exxon, its divisions and affiliates, and its foundation contributed $115,000 to Heartland in 2006, including $90,000 specifically for "General Operating Support -- Climate Change." Heartland's website states:
Heartland reported income and spending of $5.2 million and a full-time staff of 25 in 2007. Funding comes from approximately 2,700 individuals, foundations, and corporations.
Heartland's donor base has always been diverse. All energy companies combined -- oil, coal, natural gas, and utilities -- gave less than 5 percent of its budget in 2007 and probably will in 2008. About 16 percent of its budget comes from corporations, with the rest from foundations and individuals.
From the December 18 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
DOBBS: And tonight, unusual winter storms are dumping snow in unusual places across Western states, and a huge snowstorm is headed toward the Northeast. This is global warming? We'll be talking with meteorological experts. We'll have a special report for you on that. All the day's news and a great deal more from an independent perspective here next.
[...]
DOBBS: Still ahead here: winter storm sweeping the country. Is this what you call global warming?
[...]
DOBBS: Coming up next, snow falls in the desert? So what are -- what are those folks talking about, global warming? We'll find out.
[...]
DOBBS: Also, some politicians say polar bears can jump-start our economy, and they're serious. But they want you to pay for it. We'll tell you about that and a big freeze across the country. What's that global warming deal? We'll be talking with two meteorological experts -- a special report on it next. Stay with us.
[...]
DOBBS: Welcome back. And let's talk about what is happening across this country. The weather is just unbelievable. And let's also talk about what it all means for a discussion of global warming. Unusual storms and a deep freeze across much of the country tonight. An overnight storm dumped about three and a half inches of snow on Las Vegas, which broke the previous December record of two inches of snow back in 1967. The normal snowfall for Las Vegas is just about a half an inch for the entire year.
Snow even falling on the beachfront community of Malibu, California. The normally sunny and balmy city hit with half an inch of snow. And snow plows cleaning up roads in Payson, Arizona, there, after a winter storm dropped several inches of snow. Snow also falling in the state's higher elevations -- 10 inches of snow falling in Flagstaff, Arizona. And it was snow, not the usual rain, that ensnarled traffic on Seattle roads this morning. There could be more snow, we're told, over the weekend, in the Northwest.
Perhaps Al Gore now is considering global warming isn't such a problem, because it is unusually warm in his home state of Tennessee. The forecast there calls for a high of 64 degrees in Nashville. Mr. Vice President, be careful. Joining me now to talk about this bizarre weather are, from the CNN Weather Center in Atlanta, meteorologist Chad Myer [sic]. Chad, great to have you with us. And in Columbus, Ohio, Jay Lehr. He's senior fellow and science director of the Heartland Institute. Good to have you with us, Jay.
Let me -- let me start, if I may, Chad, this is really a peculiar sort of circumstance. Or is this one of those things where it just appears to be peculiar and we see this every winter?
MYERS: Yeah, you know, we really do. I mean this --
DOBBS: Oh, for crying out loud, I shouldn't have asked you that.
MYERS: -- the chance --
MYERS: No, listen to this. The chance of getting snow in Vegas on a day like yesterday, about one in 500. Now that's the same chance of you getting a flush on a five-card stud. Well, it happens. I mean, five cards -- people do get flushes, right? So, snow does happen. The odds are the same, and so --
DOBBS: But it's --
MYERS: -- it's just not all that un -- it's not all that weird. We have [inaudible] in this newsroom.
DOBBS: We got record snowfall. Wait a minute, Chad. We got record snowfall in Las Vegas.
MYERS: For one day.
DOBBS: Well, come on, it's -- that's all we got is one day.
MYERS: I guess. But, you know, you can't blame global warming or global cooling on one event. It's just too short. It's gotta be longer than that. We're talking about climate. Not a day.
DOBBS: All right, well speaking of climates, let's turn to the science director and -- at the Heartland Institute. And you -- what correlation, if any, do you find, Jay, between all of these cooling trends that we've seen over this year and part of last year, in terms of so-called global warming? Any relationship?
LEHR: Absolutely not, Lou. I agree with Chad. I used to teach at the University of Arizona in the 1960s. And I can't remember a winter where we didn't have snow, and people don't think it snows in the desert. I grew up near a farming community, and I started reading the Farmer's Almanac when I was a small child.
DOBBS: Right.
LEHR: And they've been tracking the weather since 1792. And I've gone back through my almanacs, and if there's one thing constant about the weather, it's change. And I also -- I know I share a hobby that you used to have, skydiving.
DOBBS: Yup.
LEHR: I have jumped out of a plane in Ohio every month for 31 years, and I track the weather constantly to find out if I can make it out of a plane. And I can tell you --
DOBBS: It's a good thing to do.
LEHR: Right. And the weather the last 10 years hasn't been significantly different than the 10 years before that or the 10 years before that. It has been -- it's always change is what the weather about. And to say that it has to do with global warming is really more of a joke than anything else. Why people are so alarmed about it, I have no clue.
DOBBS: Well, you know, that's fascinating. Chad, we're seeing, you know, weather that at least is unusual for this one day, as you point out. But let me ask you for your viewpoint. I mean, is -- in your career, are you seeing anything here that directly is tied to something called global warming, fossil fuels, man-made? Which is the dominant influence overall on weather? Is it cycles? Solar sunspots? Solar flares? The 11-year cycle? Is that dominant? What is dominant in terms of influencing weather?
MYERS: You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant. Mother Nature is so big. The world is so big. The oceans are so big. I think we're gonna die from a lack of fresh water or we're gonna die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure. But this is like, you know, you said, in your career -- my career has been 22 years long.
That's a good career in TV. But in talking about climate, it's like having a car for three days and saying this is a great car. Well, yeah, it was for three days, but maybe in day five, six, and seven it won't be so good. And that's what we're doing here. We have a hundred years' worth of data, not millions of years that the world's been around.
DOBBS: Yeah, I mean, Jay, we've been around just a little over four -- by scientific estimates, about four and a half billion years. What is --what is your thought about the dominant influence on weather?
LEHR: Well, clearly -- clearly Lou, it is the sun. But if we go back in really recorded human history, in the 13th century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now. And it was a very prosperous time for mankind. If we go back to the Revolutionary War, 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We've been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period, and now we're back into a cooling cycle. The last 10 years have been quite cool. And right now I think we're going in to cooling rather than warming, and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.
DOBBS: Jay Lehr, thank you very much. Chad Myers, thank you very much. We appreciate it. Find some more unusual weather for us, Chad. We'll be back tomorrow, another day.
Why is it that every time I see a global warning denial I get the impression I'm watching an infomercial?
Oddly enough, on Friday I posted something at my place about this because on Thursday, Neil Cavuto made the same lamebrain comparison. So I thought I'd just cross-post a bit of that here with the appropriate substitution of names:
"The piece is, in short, more blah blah bs that equates weather with climate and even more, local weather with global climate. I'm reminded of a study from nine years ago about competence and self-awareness which revealed, among other things, that the most incompetent at a task actually tended to think more highly of their own abilities than those who did it well - because the latter tended to recognize their imitations while the former were so incompetent that they couldn't even recognize their shortcomings.
"That is Lou Dobbs: so ignorant that he is incapable of recognizing how ignorant he is."
I'll add the note here that the original had "bs" spelled out to its proper form but apparently that was too harsh for the delicate sensibilities of MMFA, thus the abbreviation.
Thanks, LarryE. I sent the SFC article to some friends. Nice description of Fox News.
George Carlin would have had a great time with the "words you can't use at MMFA".
Indeed, I was just thinking that all the signs of self-critical awareness that we find in scientific writing (for example, the emphasis on assessing likelihood seen in the climate reports quoted here) set off the 'stupid reflex' in people like Lou Dobbs. These people are waiting around for the case for warming to be as certain as a sale on wrapping paper after Christmas.
Gazing out the windows on an amount of snow that I have not seen accumulated in this area at one time since about 1968, I can appreciated Dobbs' words. As the temperature drops to about 5 deg F tonight, I would appreciate a little warming, but it looks like we could get another 5 - 8" over the weekend. The only good thing I can see about the situation here currently is that it has taken a lot of traffic off the roads (even more than $4.00 gas a few short months ago).
Gazing out the windows on an amount of snow that I have not seen accumulated in this area at one time since about 1968, I can appreciated Dobbs' words.
Oscar is confusing weather with climate.
Too bad you believers value politics more than science.
The tide is turning quickly on this aging 23 year old theory and as long as you glowbull whiners cling only to demonizing deniers and pointing to global warming sites that I doubt none of you have read, you will see history laughing at you and at this time in irresponsible environmentalism history.
Facts. You can use all kinds of facts to prove all kinds of things that are only half true. The CO2 theory isn’t even half true. They use scientific terms like: likely, most likely and maybe and potentially. The IPCC link says they are only 90% sure. Every GWing site says that the precautionary approach should be held to. So much for exact science.
It's been 23 years of the theory and 19 years of the IPCC's prediction of escalating warming. Time's up and you will see a quick turnabout throughout this coming winter. A winter that started a month ahead of time and winter that most GWing links themselves say will be of the old fashioned type: cold and colder. You will wish for global warming like a lot of use are now and did last winter.
What would have to happen to prove me right? Cooling. We got it almost a quarter of a century later when they said the effects of this silly theory would be affecting all of us. Has GWing affected any of you personally or is googling pictures of polar bears good enough for you believers?
We all know this fact: Global warming is another WMD, a lie, and a political agenda and designed to instill fear. Why can't liberals be good liberals and doubt, question and challenge authority like they used to? And stop scaring our children by denying them a future.
Global warming isn’t about morality as much as you arrogantly want it to be. And global warming is certainly not about pollution. It’s a theory that is quickly coming apart and I for one do not miss the smoggy 50’s, 60’s and 70’s when a river caught fire in Ohio. Hello, Rachel Carson ring a bell?
Can you GWrs put your personal and political and socialist agendas aside so we can work together to preserve our environment instead of trying to save the poor little 5 billion year old helpless planet with fear and misery from a crisis that clearly does not exist?
Remember I said this: Climate goes in cycles. It’s not like the inside of an indoor shopping mall and therefore the alternative, a natural cold trend is goint to be very painfull. A cold climate that will leave us all wishing for global warming.
The tide is turning quickly
Just like with evolution, where "scientists are turning against" this "collapsing" theory. How are things on that front?
They use scientific terms like: likely, most likely and maybe and potentially. The IPCC link says they are only 90% sure.
"Only" 90%? The term there is "highly likely" and that's the highest level of probability any reputable researcher would put on any prediction not verified by controlled laboratory study. It is as confident as science gets. In fact, in the social sciences, which are not as subject to rigid controls as the "hard" sciences, even in laboratory conditions the goal is 95% probability, not 100%. Your own words undermine your entire argument. (And by the way, how did "90% sure" become "not even half right?")
this coming winter
And yet again we have the Dobbs/Cavuto argument that a cold winter refutes global warming. A baseline prediction of global warming is more extreme weather. Harder, colder winters do not refute global warming, indeed they are enitrely consistent with it. (And again I have to add the observation that no one event either confirms or denies global warming; one cold winter no more refutes it than one hot summer confirms it. However, the fact that the 11 warmest years on record worldwide have occurred in the last 13 years certainly does, in the cautious words of a good scientist, "tend to confirm" the idea.)
I do not miss the smoggy 50’s, 60’s and 70’s
Maybe you will. The kind of particulate air pollution to which you refer is a cooling forcing; in fact it's what lead to the temporary cooling period around then which generated the notion among a handful of scientists that "if trends continue" we could see a new ice age - and why, when we started cleaning up the environment, that short-term cooling trend vanished.
socialist agendas
I knew that had to be in there somewhere. The ill-informed denialists like you seem to always imagine the boogeyman of a hidden "socialist agenda" is behind everything you don't like.
Remember I said this: Climate goes in cycles.
Really? Wow, we never knew that before. I bet not a single climatologist has taken that into account in considering global warming. Jeez, this changes everything!
And global warming is certainly not about pollution. It’s a theory that is quickly coming apart and I for one do not miss the smoggy 50’s, 60’s and 70’s when a river caught fire in Ohio. Hello, Rachel Carson ring a bell?
What in the name of Christ are you talking about, Mr. Diarrhea-of-the-mind? First of all, the Cuyahoga River caught on fire because of an oil slick. This is completely irrelevant to the rest of your comment. And Rachel Carson's Silent Spring was published in 1962, many years before that episode. I'm not sure what you're trying to link here, but pollution was dismissed (and continues to be dismissed) by many politically entrenched far-right ideologues; the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act (and many others) were passed despite their opposition, not with their support.
These same ideologues continue to deny scientific theories while providing no alternative explanations for the data available. Current snowfall does not reverse overall warming trends, nor does it somehow conflict with theories that place anthropogenic sources of carbon as the primary causes for climate change.
Remember I said this: Climate goes in cycles. It’s not like the inside of an indoor shopping mall and therefore the alternative, a natural cold trend is goint to be very painfull. A cold climate that will leave us all wishing for global warming.
Well, I suggest you wait for spring, when the cycles will miraculously re-appear (provided you have sacrificed the necessary ram at the altar). I will be so thankful for the "re-emergence" of global warming at that time. You are a scientific genius, sir, and I will follow you to the ends of this flat planet.
As a person who is paid to be right (something, frankly, I generally do for free anyway) it intrigues me to come across people who are paid to be wrong.
Thank the spaghetti monster that bloviates like Dobbs are no longer part of civilisation's discourse.
But never forget that, like their kin the psycho islamic fundamentalists, their desperate dream of plunging humanity into eternal, profitable war remains, as strong as ever.
Ha! Global Warming is a total joke.
With facts like that you should be on Lou Dobbs!
The sun, indeed, has a dramatic effect on the earth's climate. I believe in global warming, but not caused by human intervention. Human's can cause some local climate changes but the global warming at this point is cyclical. People who latch on to the man-made global warming chant haven't looked at history. In the '70's, Time's cover read "ice Age Coming"---the 30 year cycle was at an ebb and shortly thereafter, say 8-10 years, we began a warming period. These fluctuations are documented throughout history.
You should look up late 1800's england history and find out about how coal significantly changed the climate there.
And Krakatua provided for some temporary global cooling. Damm the industrial revolution for bringing this upon us, if we all had only been allowed to continue to be hunter/gatherers instead of most of us becoming consumers, we wouldn't be facing death by our own hand, rather than living lifespans reaching the mid thirties/forties. Ah, well, such is life. All will be well in the next eight years.
lifespans reaching the mid thirties/forties
A correction/quibble on this.
First, we - that is, Western society - stopped being "hunter/gatherers" long before the industrial revolution.
And the "lifespan" numbers - which are actually life expectancy numbers - can be misleading. In the 1500s and 1600s, which is the period I know something about, the average life expectancy was indeed in the mid-30s. But we have to remember that the figure is life expectancy at birth.
Only about half of children survived to age 10. Measles, mumps, diphtheria, whooping cough, the list goes on, claimed many, If you survived those, if you survived to be an adult, then living to 60 or 70 was not unusual.
Today, life expectancy in the US is about 74. But if you're 60, it's 80, because everybody who died younger than 60 is no longer counted.
In fact, as recently as 1920 the life expectancy in the US was about 54. Do most people now live to be a lot older than they did then? Not really: The biggest cause of the increase has been a drop in infant and child mortality.
That's correct, but not globally.
That's correct, and if you get the same thing happening in several different countries, then it does become global, doesn't it?
No, just several different places.
Oh lord, please help us be strong when dealing with those who refuse to see.
ANd you obviously missed the historical correlary that the "Little Ice Age" (which could NOT have been caused by man, since it started abruptly in the 13th to 14th century) was ending at the same time globally - abruptly, without reason, the cold period ended in the mid nineteenth century, for reasons that were purely a matter of climactic cycles. But you would of course, liken the use of coal in England to the global change, rather than look at the bigger picture. There's no argument that we should reduce Greenhouse gasses, but Global Warming Fanatics take things to extremes in a panic mode. You can't chang ethe natural inclinations of the earth's climate and you spin your wheels on sole causes for a far more complex set of phoenomena that result in the climate of the moment. .
Panic mongers and ideological fantaics do more harm to the cause than the skeptics by a large measure. And dumb ideas like "carbon offsets" (translations, I give you money so I can waste more, Mr. Gore:) while you idly let the real polluters of the planet like China and the third world go about making abigger mess, and instead make comittees to study bovine flatulence. it's really a joke. If you all are serious about what you think, then do something about it instead oexpelling even more hot air.
Are you kidding me? You seem to be saying that the National Acdemies of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the Royal Society "haven't looked at history"? What, pray tell, does looking at history have to do with the radiative properties of CO2?
Ah, yes, the recovery from the ice ages cannot be explained without the warming effect of CO2. Now who needs to look at history?
And what was the great source of CO2 12,000 years ago????
what was the great source of CO2
Oh, please. It was the same as it is now: the environment. Natural processes.
The issue at the present is not that human activities are creating CO2, it's that by means such as burning fossil fuels we are releasing stored carbon into the environment faster than the environment can deal with it by those natural processes. That excess of carbon leads to a buildup of CO2 in the environment, which leads to a greater retention of heat (the greenhouse effect) which leads to global warming.
That's easy...
You don't seem to understand "cause and effect"---excess co2 is absorbed by plantlife, especially plankton, at enormous rates---plants multiply and in turn provide oxygen and so on and so forth---it's a dynamic, complex cycle that if one justs scratches the surface, you could come up with thousands of different scenerios---the man made claim is just political in my view---too many arguments against it.
Huh? Of course excess CO2 is absorbed at higher rates when more is available. But perhaps you need to actually look into the science. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by 35%--and will increase faster this century. PLankton aren't the answer.
As for "too many arguments against it," well, none that scientists are buying. Every scientific organization that studies the claimte agrees with this theory. Only political, huh?
I agree with you except the "the man made claim is just political in my view---too many arguments against it." part, which is just your opinion with nothing to back it up one way or the other.
I refuse to get into another long-winded exchange with a GWD, but I will go this one round.
Of course there are natural cycles of warming and cooling. That is old stuff, long established and well known. Coming on like this is some dramatic insight that groups like the IPCC and other researchers have failed to take into account is simply silly. The issue, bluntly, is not the presence of natural cycles but our addition to those cycles.
There is no model of solar activity that can account for more than about half the warming seen over the past several decades. That is, even theoretically the sun can account for, at most, half of the global warming we've experienced since the 1940s, likely less, possibly a great deal less. That is simply an undisputed fact.
Which means that saying the warming we've seen is "not caused by human intervention" is flat-out wrong - and the sun's affect, again at most, is on how fast that warming is occurring and will occur, not on if.
And do we really have to go through the "we used to talk about an ice age" business again? There never was a scientific consensus about global cooling. In the '70s there were some who said an ice age could come "if current trends continue" while many others insisted - accurately - that this was just a temporary dip in an overall warming trend. Now, however, there is a consensus about global warming by any rational understanding of the word "consensus" rather than the denialist one which would require every single scientist in every single scientific discipline to agree. (It took over 15 years for most physicists to accept relativity; indeed some never did. So I guess there was no "consensus" on that, either.)
Human-caused global warming is a fact. Period.
Don't compare the theories of relativity with global warming---it won't fly. And consensus is not scientific for that matter. There are so many variables in our solar system that can and do account for the warming and cooling trends through-out history that are far more dynamic than the injection of carbon dioxide or methane. And as for the man-made issue, termites can account for over 40% of the methane and bovines another 10%. Joe Biden says "100% man made" and Al Gore, well you know that story---these two are politicians, not scientists---that's like Charlie Rangle designing the spaceshuttle.
Don't compare the theories of relativity with global warming---it won't fly
The comparison that I made flies perfectly: The denialists insist that there is "no consensus" about global warming because not every single scientist agrees. The fact is that some physicists went to their deathbeds convinced relativity was wrong. So by the denialists' argument, there was never a "consensus" about relativity so we should doubt its reality.
(I"ll note in passing that the lists of dissenting voices the denialists produce invariably include physicians, engineers, and so on, in addition to any actual climatologists they can dig up, which is why I referred to a requirement of "every single scientist in every single scientific discipline.")
As for termites, the claim they account for 40% of the methane appears to be from a single source 26 years ago. The current accepted figure is no more than 5%. Other main sources are rice cultivation, domestic grazing animals, landfills, coal mining, and oil and gas extraction. All of which - including those bovines which for some odd reason you regard as unconnected to human activity - are human-caused sources.
(Parenthetically, this can serve an example one of those possible feed-back loops climatologists worry about: Termites do not like the cold. So human-caused warming allows termites to expand their natural range which allows them to multiply which leads to more termite-produced methane which leads to more warming which leads to an expanded range which and so on.)
And again, please skip both the "oh, my, it's so complex" business as if the factors to which you are referring (whatever they are, you specify none) have not been taken into account. As for the "cycles" business, already raised, already refuted in the very post to which you were supposedly replying.
As a final note because again I'm determined to avoid getting into another long argument refuting yet again the long-refuted blather of the denialists, I would have been more impressed with your scholarship if you had bothered to find out how to spell Charlie Rangel's name correctly.
I'll start with your last paragraph first and tell you that i did indeed juxtapose too ledders inn chux nam. Don't correct spelling, it's anti-climactic to your argument.
As for consensus in science, there can be no conclusion on any issue if consensus is the barometer(no pun intended).
We can go back and forth on the termite issue but bovines, although ranched intensely, do exist enmass outside of human development and the percentages of noxious gases emitted by them is staggering.
Your feed-back loop argument is self-defeating because it further illistrates my cause and effect argument that the earth, outside of extraterretrial bombardment, is capable of reversing diabolical trends and has done so for millenia.
As for specific examples of the complex nature of the solar system and its effect on climate: a) The 23 degree tilt of the earth's axis has changed throughout it's history. The wobble along with the moon's effects can cause dramatic temperature variations. b) Throughout the solar system are areas of pockets of debris which cause the yearly Plaesedies(?) showers. Their presence deflects solar rays. c) The sun itself varies in intensity and scientists (all of 'em) are telling us the sun's activity is lower right now. d) I can only speculate on passing, massive objects which can trail debris, blocking solar rays. e) "Stuff" enters our atmosphere constantly, most we don't detect, which can leave debris in our atmosphere and in turn alter temperatures. You do know that minor changes in the earths crust temperatures can cause long-term temperature changes. My fingees are pooped.
This is my last on this because I think my basic point that all we're seeing is retreads of long-refuted arguments is well enough established.
So in order:
- Revealingly, you tried to ridicule my reference to your spelling of Charlie Rangel's name as "Rangle" instead of just chalking it up to a typo. Which says to me it wasn't a typo, you actually didn't know how to spell his name. If we can't trust you with the small things - like knowing or finding out how to spell the name of a well-known person - how can we trust you with the big things?
- Of course you can reach an agreement in science by consensus because, contrary to common opinion, consensus means general or widespread agreement, not necessarily universal agreement, within a group. There is a consensus among climatologists about global warming: It is quite real and as one researcher put it just the other day, the data shows "a clear human fingerprint." He went on to say "We really can't claim anymore that it's natural variations that are driving these very large changes that we are seeing in our in the climate system."
- Bovines do exist outside human development, but their numbers are in the tens of millions while those that are domesticated - some of which couldn't survive without human attention, some of which would never have existed without human intervention - number something over 1.5 billion. You're correct that bovines are thought to account for about for about 10% of methane production - but since the vast majority of those animals are domesticated ones being used by and for humans, that would make human activity responsible for the vast majority of that 10%.
- Self-defeating? Don't be silly. It was an example of how our actions could result in generating a cycle that would worsen global warming over time even without any further human impact.
- To be more precise, the Earth's tilt is actually just under 23.5 degrees. Yes, that tilt does vary between 22.5 and 24 degrees - over a 40,000 year cycle. Yes, it's relevant to a discussion of natural changes in climate over time - but it's utterly irrelevant to a discussion of the impact of global warming over the next century or so, a period of time equal to one-quarter of one percent of that tilt cycle.
I assume you mean the Perseids, but yes, they along with the Leonids, the Lyrids, the Geminids, and the other major and minor meteor showers over the course of the year involve the Earth passing though clouds of debris - specifically, debris from old comets. There is a (disputed) contention that during such showers, surface temperature drops. But we need not be concerned with that here, nor with your mention of low solar activity or your "speculation" about other debris, because even if we give full creedence to the argument, they would tend to cause cooling, not heating, so the only conclusion that could be drawn is that human effect on the climate is even greater than was thought and is being tamped down by other factors.
- Finally and centrally, your last contention (about changes in the planet's crust) relates back to your earlier one that the Earth "is capable of reversing diabolical trends and has done so for millenia." Again, true enough except that millennia vastly understates the time frames involved. Yes, the Earth's climate has and surely could again make adjustments, come to a new equilibrium, take whatever we throw at it and survive - over near-geologic time scales. When we look back at the history of natural climate change, say from the beginning to the end of an ice age, we're talking changes and adjustments taking tens of thousands of years.
Suppose that adjustment, that new equilibrium between release and absorption of greenhouse gases, took just a thousand years. Do you think human society could survive a thousand years of climate disruption? A thousand years of inundated former coastlines? A thousand years of baked or salt-soaked former cropland? A thousand years of flood followed by drought followed by flood? A thousand years of resource wars and hundreds of millions of desperate ecological refugees?
The question is not can the Earth adapt, it can. The question is not can the climate find a new equlibrium, it can. The question is not will the planet survive, it will. The question is if we will. And if so, at what cost.
I just now noticed that the scientist I quoted in my 4th paragraph was quoted as saying "very large changes that we are seeing in our in the climate system." Sorry for the garbled ending; my defense is that it was written that way in the original article which I quoted (and linked to) in the post linked in my comment.
Well, why couldn't you just chalk it up to a typo, larry, I make tons of 'em. In response to the end of your epic monologue, it sounds a lot like a sandwich-board doomsday prophecy. I honostly haven't seen the massive destruction or even the impending massive destruction caused by global warming. 2005 was an exceptional year for weather patterns in the atlantic but hasn't been repeated, thankfully, which goes against logic if global warming persists. And yes, humans can survive those calamities you cited. The last iceage, approximately 90,000 years ago attests to that. Simple creatures unable to build structures to ward off the weather were our forefathers. I never referrenced my beliefs in any particular timescale, only the dynamics as such. Besides, being able to grow bumper-crops of vegetables across landscapes previously dominated by early frost and late springs 'aint such a bad prospect for a starving world. It might just be an evolving planet's gift to a overgrown population.
2005 was an exceptional year for hurricanes, but the years since have not been quiet, but in fact above average. cuba and haiti were hit by four storms this year and they are struggling to recover. it's true that storm seasons can be cyclical, but in general we have seen more and stronger storms. as for the crop situations, this link notes that australia is expecting above average rains from formation of a la nina current in the pacific, but it also notes crop reductions because of a long lasting extreme drought. and australia is one of the areas predicted to suffer drought under global warming. as the australian weather bureau is quoted, it will take: "many years of rainfall to catch up in our dams". i'm willing to look at the science, either way, but so far many of the predictions of global warming are coming true.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKSYD190770
humans can survive those calamities you cited
Just as a clarification: I thought it would have been clear from the context, but perhaps it wasn't. When I said "The question is if we will [survive]," I was referring, as I specifically had in the preceding paragraph, to human society, not the human species. (Yes, I know not all human societies are the same but the point stands as a generalized assertion. Leave the nit-picking to the real wackos.)
By the way, the last ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago and is generally held to have ended about 10,000 years ago. Since there is evidence of housing structures of bones and/or wood covered with animal hides some 44,000 years ago, the description of people of the last ice age as "simple creatures unable to build structures to ward off the weather" seems, let's call it, overdrawn.
sorry, extraterrestrial.
Oops... illustrates
Scientists know about cycles. They also know that permafrost is melting for the first time.
The first time, really? Don't think so.
The first time, really? Don't think so.
Oh it has happened several times before when the climate went to extremes. The rapid thawing of permafrost and release of methane is now thought to be the cause of one of the planet's greatest extinctions. But Hey, It's a natural process right so it's OK.
sigtek, you need to understand something about science. Time magazine is not a reputable journal of peer-reviewed scientific opinion. Neither is Science News or Newsweek, which are the other magazines right-wingers mention when propping up their stupid "in the 70's people thought there'd be global cooling" myth. Every reputable journal recognized the trend as short term.
If the solar theory is so dumb how did people use it predict this weather in 2006, years in advance while the entire force of the consensus completely failed to predict it?
What's really dumb is following the theory that fails to predict, and calling the theory with "predictive power" a "denial theory". That is truly dumb if you have half a clue what the scientific method implies.
This kind of thing is actually why I became a denialist in the first place. The straight fact is that the solar theory, get this, actually predicts climate accurately, while the predictions of greenhouse gas theory only exist in Consensus and are not reflected by observations of the real world (and don't give me some drivel about ice, the ice cap is expanding dramatically this year to the 1970-2007 mean).
heartland offers fred singer as one of it's global warming experts, but ignores his longstanding affiliations with various industry funded groups.
http://www.heartland.org/full.html?articleid=24385
here is singer's "record".
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1478
Indeed, during the segment, both of Dobbs' guests -- Lehr and CNN meteorologist Chad Myers -- appeared to dismiss the idea that current weather conditions constitute evidence when discussing global warming.
DOBBS: And tonight, unusual winter storms are dumping snow in unusual places across Western states, and a huge snowstorm is headed toward the Northeast. This is global warming?
Enough said...about Lou Dobbs.
Dobbs (Oscar and sigtek for that matter) reminds me of the "donkey" weathervane I had as a kid. It was a picture of a donkey with a piece of rope coming out of its a**.
If the donkey's tail was wet, then it was raining, If it was moving, then it was windy, etc. etc.
I had cool toys as a kid.
....like Encyclopedia Brittanica.
Too bad you played with it instead of reading it.
Amazingly, every poster here (and MMFA) is a bit ignorant about the simple facts of global warming, and genearal climate and meteoraology science. The real response to deniers like Dobbs and Republicans et al is this:
Snow fall is often EVIDENCE OF WARMING. Surprising that anyone who lives in snow country wouldn't recognize this. When snow falls in the desert during winter it is almost always WARMER than when snow is not falling. In the arctic, where temperatures during winter are obviously extremely cold, snowfall is welcomed because it falls when temperatures are WARMER. If temperatures are normally 5 degrees in north dakota in winter, but they get an unusually large snowfall at 20 degrees, it's actually 15 degrees WARMER than normal - but it's easy for an ignoramus to point to a picture of deep snow (afterall, snow is cold!) but they forget to mention that this imagery is either meaningless, or actually EVIDENCE OF WARMING!
Amazingly, every poster here (and MMFA) is a bit ignorant about the simple facts of global warming, and genearal climate and meteoraology science.
That's why we're relying on you... ;>) Seriously, thanks for the explanation.
This is a fairly mild argument on the subject, compared to many that have occured here.
Unusual and/or extreme weather is evidence for global warming.
We're expecting near hurricane winds west of the mountains Oscar. Mind wind storms occur, but this is well within what I'd call extreme weather.
I aggree with Irony, its a science that statements of shurity are usually inversely related to actual knowledge and I welcome the explanation also.
And by the looks of the radar, the snow is headed our way due to those winds. I really dread seeing high winds with the dry fluffy snow that we have on the ground (in the amount of about 18"). It's nice to know from tlando that when I look at the thermometer (currently at 8 deg F) that I can take comfort in knowing that it isn't about 25 deg below the normal temp around here for this time of year. Ah well, time to bundle up and go move some of the "global warming" so the mail carrier can get to the mailbox this afternoon.
Oscar, I think I speak for some others here when I say I hope you're being sarcastic, I hope you're not agreeing that one unseasonably cold spell undermines the case for global warming.
If by chance you're serious, be aware that worldwide, 2008 will go down as the 10th warmest year on record since record-collection began in 1850.
Be aware, too, that the 11 warmest years on record have occurred over last 13 years.
Be aware that the warming trend over past 50 years is double that over the past 100 years - that is, not only is the world warming, the rate of warming is increasing.
And be aware, finally, that one of the baseline predictions of global warming is more extreme weather patterns. Hotter hots, colder colds, fewer but more severe storms.
So in fact it could be argued that your experience of early heavy snow with temperatures 25 below normal is a confirmation of global warming, not a refutation of it.
But in fact it's not: Global warming is about the trends, the patterns, and one event in isolation neither confirms nor denies it. Be aware of that, too.
There is a little bit of sarcasm, there is, as to most with a scientific background, a little bit of skepticism also, going back to a presentation made by a USDA researcher some 25 years ago. And besides, I'm grouchy enough sometimes just to throw something out there to get people worked up (have a lot of stock in BP meds and I don't want that investment to go South with the others). Ah well, have a great weekend (hopefully you are not having to shovel snow).
hopefully you are not having to shovel snow
Only about 12" or so. I've seen worse.
The argument gained steam.
every poster here (and MMFA) is a bit ignorant
Um, "every?" Really?
Well, by "every" he/she includes themself.
Give us the dynamics on why this is so. I will say that the driest continent on earth is the Antarctic but it doesn't make your argument et al(heehee).
It's more about weather than climate and I admit to being more confident on the second than the first, but this is my understanding (any meteorologists in the crowd can jump in to correct and instruct me):
Start with a cold, dry air mass sitting over an area. A (by comparison) warm front comes through, behind which the air, because it is warmer, can contain more moisture.
That relatively warmer air hits that cold air mass. Being less dense, it starts to rise up over it. As it does, its temperature drops, the rapidly chilled moisture crystalizes, and because the air is colder it can no longer contain as much moisture and that crystalized moisture falls as snow.
Meanwhile, at ground level, the warmer air has mixed with the colder air, raising the temperature. Presto: temperature goes up and snow comes down.
Oh, and by the way, Antarctica is the driest continent because it is the coldest: The air is so cold that moisture in the air reaching the continent has already been squeezed out.
I was yankin' tlando's chain in referrence to the anecdotal evidence of lottsa snow debunking global warming. Just another example of my long list of failed humor.
Is it possible to post an opposing opinion here? I keep getting censored.
You can post and keep it clean but don't expect congenial behaviour. Seems to be a lot of repressed anger that comes spilling out. I doubt most of them act that way in public. So easy to hide behind an anonymous screen name. No more for me.
It isn't repressed anger, it's a reaction to your expressed ignorance.
All I can say is that solar theory predicted this and consensus theory did not. Period. End of story.
See I believe in this thing called "scientific method" where instead of accepting facts because Authority tells me its true, I accept them because they accurately predict what happens in the real word.
Perish the though the Sacred Consensus of Eternal Truth of the Climate would be held accountable to mere "predictions" of "real data". Scoff, such things are below the Might Consensus which deigns not to deal with such tripe.
Jeez Larry - Read EVERY post before mine and find one person who acknowledged this undisputed fact. I didn't even comment on climate change - only that people who point to snow and say that it indicated the earth isn't warming are ignorant of some simple facts about snowfall...
You're is one of the most cogent posts regarding climate change, and you posted it quite a bit after me, so why would you get uptight thinking I was calling you ignorant?? "ignorant" is certainly the appropraite word to use here - because as I said, everyone who lives in snow country ought to know this - it's right in front of them every time they walk out the door! If you don't recognize it, like Dobbs, you're ignoring something that science and common sense (not "common sense" used casually like Dobbs would) confirms.
Equally finny is someone who one day claims that global warming is real, but caused by natural cycles and sunspots, and the next day says that snow outside their window is proof that there is no such thing as global warming.
Okay, I was being a little touchy. I didn't check the time stamps on the posts and though my very first here actually came 12 hours before yours (12:26:53 AM v. 12:04:01 PM) I suppose since it didn't address the relevant question you did of local weather conditions that produce snow you can reasonably argue that no one "acknowledged this undisputed fact."
I guess it was the "ignorant about the simple facts" line that got my feathers ruffled.
Agreed - it was meant to ruffle feathers and get those of us who ought to know the facts to be able to express them to the flat-earthers like Dobbs, and the Republ;ican caucus... There are certainly quite a few here who understand the science behind it (if global warming isn't man caused, or is "just" a theory, then the internal combustion engine doesn't work, and neither did the atom bomb). All science is predicated on theories, and those were FAR less tested theories when they were proven than the current understanding of human caused climate change.
I'm just trying to get the simple answers oiut there so those of us who care can get the simple concepts to the simple minds on the other side of the aisle... Media matters should have the correct "talking points" in their quiver when these guys like Dobbs spout off, because we're going to hear a lot of it in the coming years now that there are scientists analyzing scientific issues in the White House!
The US is the only place in the world where global warming is debatable.
Read this. Global Warming: Fact or Fiction= Democrat or Republican
A great job in picking up on this one, MMFA. I would love to see and in-depth report from you on the Heartland Institute. These right-wing tanks have gone off the deep end and need to be taken down my the likes of MMFA.
Just have a look at some of their papers on global warming and combine that with the fact that they are right-wing conservative free-market wing-nut org:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute
Amen! I don't "believe" in global warming, I believe in the methodology of science. And 99.9% of scientist agree that global warming is caused by man. Denying this is really denying science, and quite frankly, if you so that, you're stupid.
You can let "scientists" think for you but I've spent my life(54) researching, reading, listening, experimenting and discovering the truth for myself. Every person on this thread that supports man-made global warming has done so by citing what other people say instead of thinking for themselves. I listen and study all sides of the argument before coming to any conclusions. "scientists say eggs are bad for you". "Scientists say eggs are good for you". I don't know how many u-turns science has made in my lifetime but it taught me to think for myself. For the Global Warming lemmings on this page, I am certain you won't be around to comment as we enter our next 30 year cycle.
What on earth are you thinking about when you put quotes around "scientist"?
Referring to Al Gore and Joe Biden---their outspoken-ness is the only reference many people have on the subject.
Really? Saying that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is caused by man is evidence that Appleboy must be getting his information only from Al Gore and Joe Biden?
I'd like to see you explain the reasoning behind that assumption.
Appleboy appears to be doing quite well defending himself unless you and appleboy are one in the same. I've never seen the both of you together. Just kidding, brab. Lighten up(or light up). Just trying to ease away from this subject with a bit of joviality.
this is your second post in which you have referred to yanking someone's chain or telling them to lighten up because you're trying to "ease away from this subject with a bit of joviality". translation, you're a clown whose posts aren't worth a damn. thanks for the heads up.
No translation necessary, mefirst. I'll give your opinion of me all due consideration.
So your assertion was baseless and wildly unfair. Got it.
Yes. The arrogant condescention from the MMFA ankle-grabbers on these threads takes some time to get used to but I'm gettin' the hang of it. I think it's time for me to give up trying to have fun and learn at the same time. I had said before this was the first chat room I had ever visited. Didn't realize it would be so catty and petty. Boy did I learn a lesson I can take with me. It's a one-way street with the playground bullies. If your typing or spelling comes in to question, you are immediatly pidgeon-holed(conservatives) to irrelavence. If you are a perennial liberal toeing the MMFA line, your mistakes are forgiven. Classic liberal elitism. Bye. Keep those minds closed, air-tight. It's so much easier.
I really don't think it's unfair to expect you to have some basis for what you say. At the very least you should make it clear you're joking, if that's what you were doing. You can't very well blame people for taking your posts at face value when you don't give them any reason to do otherwise.
Well, welcome to posting. Learn how to link to sites to support your position, proof-read your comments so you don't look like an idiot, and don't take it personally when your opinions are dismantled by other people.
You may have "researched" for 54 years, but I don't think that I'll take your opinion above the scientists' who actually do this research. You see, evidence of cyclical warming trends and other "facts" that deniers routinely bring up have been demonstrated by scientists. And when you "research" things (by reading?) I assuming that you are researching other scientists' work. Well and good. So since most scientific research supports global warming theory, then your "research" should bring you around to supporting anthropogenic global warming.
I think that you are free to disagree on this site, sigtek, but I also think that you should read others' posts more carefully and respond with meaningful arguments, especially when discussing something so complex as global warming. You have posted about a million little vignettes on here, and put them all together, you may have a coherent argument or two. But in pieces they are kind of meaningless and reactionary.
.....I believe that's where appleboy recieved his training. His copy of "An Inconvenient Truth" is overdue at a Delaware blockbuster.
It's a fact that an overwhelming number of scientist believe global warming is caused by man. Are you denying this? If you don't deny this fact, then you must have an issue with science. If you don't believe there is a consensus then we need to stop this conversation now, it would be pointless to continue.
And what the hell do you mean by my training? Do I need training to know the fact that there is a consensus out there regarding global warming? I will admit I'm no climatologist, but that's why I listen to the experts in this area. Kind of like when I go to the doctor when I'm not feeling well, I figure I have a better chance of them fixing me up than trying to do it myself. Same when my car needs a tune-up, I take it to a mechanic. Or when I have a tooth ache, I have enough brains to go to denist. You might want to say in such matters I let these people do my thinking for me.
What is the point of looking at both sides if you do not have the expertise to understand the arguments? I doubt you know the first thing about the radiative effects of CO2--or even the history of how it was discovered (Ever hear of Arhenius or Callendar or Plass?) Your posts on this thread have only convinced me that you've read a few op-eds and now you are ready to decide. Science isn't about who has the best argument--it's about evidence. Seriously, how can you know what the truth is in this case without taking an advanced course in atmospheric physics?
Then apparantly you have taken a course in (atmospheric physics?) and discovered the truth and if you haven't, how can you know? That's the criteria you set, otherwise your just spouting the views of others whom you choose to align yourself with.
So in order for me to believe global warming scientists I must become an expert in this field? And you believe GW scientists are just "spouting views"? When you say things like this you just show off your ignorance of the scientific method.
This whole discussion is border-line insane. An overwhelming number of scientist say GW is a result of human activity. In a ratioinal world, the discussion would end there. And no, I don't believe science should go unchallenged and that it is always 100% correct, but it needs to be challenged by logic, reason, observation...that is by science.
I understand the scientific method. The best science comes when you have a controlled situation and that we don't have. We have postulation which is assumption based on the best available data. To say that global warming is man made it sounds as though you are saying 100% man made and that is where I really get upset. I really don't think you meant that.
No, I did not mean that human activity is the only cause of global warming. There are other causes as well and these have been looked at by scientist. I apolgozize for not being more clear.
I don't know who those people are your'e naming and I do know about c02 radiation and its ability to deflect, absorb and re-direct specific frequencies of light energy, hence the greenhouse effect. I rarely read op-eds nowadays. The name says it all--- opinionated editorials from news organizations I have little respect for(darn prepositions).
So, because you did a lot of self learning/seeking, you are saying ALL the Scientists that say global warming is man made are not talking about facts that anyone can prove?
I believe too many scientists rely on government grants and try too hard to please the hand that feeds them, hence, the political aspect of this debate. Sounds a bit conspiratorial, I admit, but the old phrase "follow the money" still holds true.
What exactly is the governmental motivation to believe in global warming?
Will you be around to comment?
Whether(I shoulda said weather) I'm around or not 'aint what I meant. I meant will anyone be around to admit they were wrong or just shrug it off and say " I always thought that global warming stuff was just a crock".
So if a doctor tells you that you have a 60% chance of having some disease and that you need surgery to cure it, what do you do? The correct and rational course of action would be to have the surgery. If you find out later that you never had the disease, do you then conclude that your decision to have the surgery was wrong?
If global warming turns out not to be man made, I'll say the scientists got it wrong this time. But to say we were wrong in taking steps to prevent it would be asinine.
My first reaction would be to get a second opinion. That's the rational thing to do. And I am a conservationist, not because it supports an agenda but because it is the right thing to do.
The thing is there have been 1000's of second opinions, and a vast majority of them say you have a chance of having the disease. The question is what do you do about it.
Don't you think the same logic applies to your argument, without any proof that human activities are NOT contributing to global warming?
I am not refering to whether you or I can 'write' about it.
So you don't believe in science which is based on reason, logic, and human observation. Can there be a better defintion for stupid than that? It is certainly in the realm of possibility science can be wrong about global warming, but science is still man's best hope for explaining/understanding the world we live in.
And if you are so good about "discovering the true" about global warming why don't you write a paper about it and submit it to some journal? The whole world is waiting for your input! My guess is, like myself and 99.999% of everyone else, you know squat about this topic.
I rely on myself, the best I can. MMFA is here because they believe the media is dishonost otherwise this forum wouldn't be available. Is MMFA's skeptisism mis-placed? You support MMFA's premise for existence, skepticism, yet chastise me for mine. It's healthy to question authority but you seem to stop just short of that when it comes to MMFA. The debate I've seen on this thread should be illuminating instead of confounding. I've learned a ton, thanks to larry(no sarcasm), but am still convinced I'm correct in my thinking.
Skeptism is a good thing, but there comes a point in time where you need to act based on what the experts say.
I've learned a ton, thanks to larry(no sarcasm)
I'm glad you included the "no sarcasm." I'm not sure I would have known otherwise. :-)
The snow is proof of warming.
I hate to be picky but the denialists are good at nit-picking at details (in fact, it's all they have) so I like to be precise as I can.
The snow is not proof of global warming, it is for the reasons you cite consistent with global warming, i.e., it is no argument against it. It relates to the prediction of more intense storms and more intense weather, both hot and cold.
Still, it remains true that no one incident, standing alone, is either proof or refutation.
Mmmmm.... no.
Look, I'm in Canada here (Saskatoon, to be exact), so believe me when I say it does not actually need to be warm for it to snow. You Americans may think you know snow. You may think Montana and New England and all your northern states get a lot of it. Well they do get snow, I'll give yoyu that. But mister, you ain't seen nothing until you've been here.
Outside my front door right now It's -36 Celsius (that's about -30 Fahrenheit), and it's snowing. And not a little snow either, I'm talking big flakes and lots of them. Two inches of snow in the last hour. Been snowing like this for the past three days. Last night it went down to -45. Did the snow stop? Hell no. I've piled up so much snow this past three days that there's now a ten-foot-high a walll of the white seperating my driveway from my front lawn. (If you've got a better place that I can put it, I'd like to know. Seriously.)
Now, someone mind explaining to me how it's snowing if "it has to be warm (relatively speaking) for it to snow" while it's cold enough to freeze the nuts off a bridge out there at night?
By the way, here's today's forcast for my area:
Today..Sunny. Wind up to 15 km/h. High minus 27. Extreme wind chill minus 51 this morning.
Tonight..Clear. Low minus 34.
Monday..Sunny. High minus 27.
No more snow in the forcast. Thank you jebus.
As Larry E says -
And as I stated earlier, it's not that it can't be "cold" and snow... It's that it can be warmer than normal and STILL snow. We all know the arctic is "cold." Where you live it's REALLY cold right now, and I'll give you and the Inupiat kudos for knowing a lot more about cold than I do. That said, if -30 is cold, isn't -35 even colder? And therein lies the point. If man caused climate change raises the temperature in Saskatoon from -35 to -30 in the course of a century (instead of the 10,000-20,000 years it might take for a "natural" warming cycle) then we've got problems. It's still cold, but glaciers won't be as thick, snow will melt sooner, permafrost will be more susceptible to thawing during the summer, and on and on.
I know how you feel - I am Canadian also (grew up in Manitoba, currently in southwest Saskatchewan). This probably telling you how to suck eggs, but it might educate some of those in the warm south.
It's actually the clouds which are above the bitterly cold ground which are still warmer. You are getting Arctic air at ground level (and it never seems to be a gentle wind) which pulls moist air from the south at the higher altitudes. Where these two layers meet, the moisture freezes into snow (usually big fluffy flakes, too). This actually warms the lower layer, but this warming may never get to ground level, unfortunately.
Don't know how long you've been in S'toon, but I spent a weekend in a tent in Dundurn on a winter exercise about 20 years ago. Minus 36C, windchill -63C!!! No outside training, but we learned that Canadian kit is really good stuff.
My standard joke about Manitoba was that the weather was consistent at 30C, above zero in summer, below zero in winter.
Lou Dobbs is an idiot. Watch his show if you doubt it. (I quit wasting time on it about a year ago.) Nearly every sentence out of his mouth is disputable at best. He's in the Glenn Beck category for sheer cluelessness. However, even though an idiot, like Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hitler, he does possess that one quality that cable executives find irresistable. He can get "the folks" a-hatin' something or other and tuning back in to hate some more. It's a living, I guess.
Sam,
First, you call Dobbs "an idiot". THen you compare Beck, O'Reilly and Limbaugh to Hitler.
And you call them the "haters"?
Do you not see the irony in your statement?
It's a polar oposite opposting view. Get over it or is THAT the REAL issue. How dare they? Explain without demonizing please. Or have we "questioners"of the theory become evil in your eyes?
Lou Dobbs shouldn't be so quick to dismiss global warming.
I mean, after all, if Dobbs thinks hard enough, I'm sure he can find some way to blame the whole global warming problem on illegal immigrants.
Since MM goes out of its way to show how Lou Dobbs forgot to state that Jay Lehr receives money from the Energy Industry, shouldn't MM state that it receives money from Al Gore and other Global Warming Industries, just seems fair?
Al sends in money to this site? Why would he do that? Why would the site accept money from such a desperate character? What does Al get for his filthy lucre?
Golbal Warming Industries? Are they on the board at the Stock Market. What kind of a prospectus do they have? Do they exsist outside of wingnutworld? Are they(shudder, choke) unionized?