Another New Theory On Global Warming

[Montrose1100]

It doesn't exsist.

I don't believe it does. Honestly, Its just something Green Peace made up to gain more members. The earth's climate is always changing, and it always has.

Thoughts?

[wendyps]

Agree. It is crazy to think that we can look at 100 years of climate data and determine the cause of a planet that is millions of years old. This planet has gone through innumerabe changes without human intervention.

However, it is also crazy to think that the billions of little "bugs" crawling around this planet are not altering it from what it would be like were we not here.

Case in point, the vegetation of east texas. It is changing from mostly pine, to lots of oak. Reason? Fires. We are preventing them because of the "devastation" to our homes and communities. However, for the pine trees to grow, they need the fire to germinate the seeds and kill off other competition (oak) to have enough sunlight for the seeds to grow into trees. By preventing the fires, the seeds are not sprouting, and when they do, there is not enough light for the seedings to grow, they are crowded out by the oaks that were not burned off by the fires.

[dbigtex56]

Agree. It is crazy to think that we can look at 100 years of climate data and determine the cause of a planet that is millions of years old.

Climate data is available through sources other than those collected by humans.

Two examples: tree rings (dendrochronology and polar ice samples.

[RedScare]

It doesn't exsist.

I don't believe it does. Honestly, Its just something Green Peace made up to gain more members. The earth's climate is always changing, and it always has.

Thoughts?

That's great. Now you can go about your merry way without a care in the world, content that nothing you do harms the earth or others.

Guilt is such a niggling little delicate flower, isn't it? I wonder how Greenpeace coerced all of those scientists to go along...vast left-wing conspiracy, perhaps?

[nmainguy]

It doesn't exsist.

I don't believe it does. Honestly, Its just something Green Peace made up to gain more members. The earth's climate is always changing, and it always has.

Thoughts?

Clearly you have the inside dope on GreenPeace.

Myself-on the other hand tend to go along with the science...but hey! Go for it, I say. That's just as stupid a statement as anything else I've heard you say.

[Heights2Bastrop]

The History Channel had a great show on The Little Ice Age that lasted from around 1550 to about 1850. It should be proof of climatic changes that Man had nothing to do with. I

[RedScare]

The History Channel. Now, THERE's an unbiased source of information.

[Highway6]

Global warming might exist... but thats not the issue.

The issue is whether or not humans are causing it vs. how much is natural. And if humans are causing it, what of our actions are, and what of our actions aren't but people believe are... etc etc.

I personally believe there *could* be global warming, but that science hasn't proved anything conclusively and sure as heck hasn't convinced me that humans are the cause... as opposed to natural cycles of the planet.

Here are two great articles.... especially if you think most liberals are full of poopoo like moi.

Aliens Cause Global Warming

Environmentalism as Religion

[RedScare]

...especially if you think most liberals are full of poopoo like moi.

Yes, we are. Not only do we believe in global warming, but we also believe that evolution is a proven scientific fact, instead of just a "theory".

We also believe that stem cell research is morally acceptable, Congress should allow doctors to consult with spouses as to when a spouse is brain dead, and that sexual preference is a genetic pre-disposition as opposed to a "lifestyle choice".

We are so full of it, aren't we? We crack ourselves up.

[Highway6]

Yes, we are. Not only do we believe in global warming, but we also believe that evolution is a proven scientific fact, instead of just a "theory".

We also believe that stem cell research is morally acceptable, Congress should allow doctors to consult with spouses as to when a spouse is brain dead, and that sexual preference is a genetic pre-disposition as opposed to a "lifestyle choice".

We are so full of it, aren't we? We crack ourselves up.

This is just a global warming debate...

Lemme rephrase... Liberals are full of poopoo when it comes to global warming.

[RedScare]

This is just a global warming debate...

Lemme rephrase... Liberals are full of poopoo when it comes to global warming.

Then what would you call these guys?

Christian Environmentalism

Global warming. It's not just for liberals anymore.

[west20th]

Then what would you call these guys?

Christian Environmentalism

Global warming. It's not just for liberals anymore.

Another good link.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0214/p03s03-sten.html

[Highway6]

Then what would you call these guys?

Christian Environmentalism

Global warming. It's not just for liberals anymore.

Two wrongs don't make a right. They're just as wacky as the liberals.

I'm no neo-con religious fundamentalist wack-job. I'm not about to defend their beliefs anymore than I would yours.

Nice rebuttal though... Way to redirect with fingerpointing instead of trying to use facts to debate those articles in order to sway my beliefs.

[RedScare]

What's to rebut? When the Republican led Congress holds a hearing to rebut Global Warming, and calls as it's lead witness a SCIENCE FICTION writer, I believe that pretty much speaks for itself. And when said science fiction writer is told that his book is one of the only ones the president has ever read, and the president agrees with him on everything in it, well, I know how much substance the president's policies on Global Warming will have. And when 24 year old college journalism dropouts are given authority to muzzle NASA scientists, because research suggests a human cause to Global Warming, then I know that the Administration's position is not to learn more about Global Warming, but to shut up anyone who wants to speak about it.

So, basically, my point is that I do not care to rebut your thoughts on Global Warming, because there is a wealth of information out there to convince you of the very real probability that human activity contributes to it. Your choice to dismiss it with a wave of your hand speaks more to your political beliefs than a studied opinion on the matter...and I don't choose to debate your political beliefs.

[bachanon]

i had a non-christian, non-environmentalist wacko geology professor a few years back who pointed out that the "ozone damaging gases" that spewed from the eruption of mount pinatubo (sp?) released more "ozone damaging" chemicals in the atmosphere than the entire industrial revolution. the earth was consequently cooled because of this. one cannot assume that global warming is a fact.

the following is an article that supports this idea:

Polar ice cap studies refute global warming

Written By: James M. Taylor

Published In: Environment News

Publication Date: October 1, 2001

Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A series of recent studies shows that the polar ice caps, which should be shrinking if dire global warming theories are correct, are maintaining their mass and in fact growing slightly. The studies suggest satellite temperature readings, which indicate no global warming of the lower atmosphere, are more reliable than surface temperature readings, taken by humans under varying conditions, that had indicated a slow, gradual warming.

A study published in the December 3, 1999 issue of Science magazine, authored by Ola Johannessen, Elena Shalena, and Martin Miles, reported Arctic sea ice had declined by 14 percent from 1978 through 1998. In a related story, columnist Richard Kerr pondered "Will the Arctic Ocean lose all its ice?" The mainstream press ran with the story, giving dire warnings that global warming was upon us.

However, CO2 Science Magazine later noted that in the Johannessen study, "essentially all of the drop . . . occurs rather abruptly over a single period of not more than three years (87/88-90/91) and possibly only one year (89/90-90/91). Furthermore, it could be argued from their data that from 1990/91 onward, sea ice area in the Arctic may have actually increased."

More recent studies of the polar ice caps verify CO2 Science Magazine's skepticism, and show the polar ice caps are holding their own and actually growing slightly.

Antarctic sea ice edge expanding

A study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate (Yuan, X. and Martinson, D.G., "Antarctic sea ice extent variability and its global connectivity," Volume 13: 1697-1717 (2000)) demonstrated the Antarctic polar ice cap has been expanding. According to the study, 18 years of satellite data indicate the mean Antarctic sea ice edge has expanded by 0.011 degrees of latitude toward the equator each year.

A later study, also published in Journal of Climate (Watkins, A.B. and Simmonds, I., "Current trends in Antarctic sea ice: The 1990s impact on a short climatology," Volume 13: 4441-4451 (2000)) reached a similar conclusion. The study reported significant increases in Antarctic sea ice between 1987 and 1996. The study further indicated the 1990s exhibited increases in the length of the sea-ice season.

Arctic ice thickening, expanding

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.

Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.

Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.

Surface vs. satellite readings

Surface temperature readings taken by humans indicate the Earth has warmed by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 100 years. This warming is certainly not much, but it is often cited as evidence that global warming is occurring, even if it is merely in its initial stages.

However, precise satellite readings of the lower atmosphere (a region that is supposed to immediately reflect any global warming) have shown no warming since readings were begun more than 20 years ago.

"We have seen no sign of man-induced global warming at all. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the 'greenhouse gas effect' should be the lower atmosphere, known as the troposphere. Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no warming," explained Tom Randall of the National Center for Public Policy Research.

Global warming skeptics have pointed out that most of the surface temperature readings indicating a warming have been taken in underdeveloped nations, where reliability and quality-control are questionable. In developed nations such as the United States, by contrast, the readings tend to show no warming. Moreover, skeptics note, surface temperature readings are influenced by artificial warming associated with growing urbanization, which creates artificial heat islands around temperature reading stations.

"While the greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have grown in the last 50 years, the correlation with a warming of the world's climate is weak and far from being generally accepted by the scientific community," James L. Johnston, a member of The Heartland Institute's Board of Directors, observed in the August 4 Chicago Tribune.

Global warming proponents, on the other hand, now counter that warming, despite prior consensus to the contrary, might occur in the lower atmosphere only after a general warming of the Earth's surface.

Models shown to be inaccurate . . . again

The recent polar ice studies, which measured surface rather than atmospheric temperature trends (and which were far removed from the effects of urban heat islands and questionable third-world temperature readings), lend weight to the argument that satellite readings, not surface monitoring stations, are correct.

"In considering all of the above results, it is likely that the global extent of sea ice is on the rise. Such observational evidence flies in the face of model predictions of global warming that say climate will change first and to the greatest extent in the Earth's polar regions," concludes CO2 Science Magazine.

CO2 Science suggests that self-regulating mechanisms, such as clouds, enable the Earth to keep a relatively steady climate despite the changes in CO2 concentration that have been a regular part of Earth's history.

Viewing the new data in conjunction with other studies that properly filter out the imperfections of human-collected temperature readings, CO2 Science concludes, "There has been no global warming for the past 75 years."

LINK

[nmainguy]

Global warming might exist... but thats not the issue.

.... especially if you think most liberals are full of poopoo like moi.

I understand the old "but they're LIBERAL so of course they're full of 'poopoo'" argument people like you throw out when you have nothing to offer.

Read a book.

Research the topic.

THINK before you speak up.

...but if you did all that, someone might call YOU a Liberal...

["poopoo"??? How old are you, anyway?]

[Highway6]

I understand the old "but they're LIBERAL so of course they're full of 'poopoo'" argument people like you throw out when you have nothing to offer.

Read a book.

Research the topic.

THINK before you speak up.

...but if you did all that, someone might call YOU a Liberal...

["poopoo"??? How old are you, anyway?]

What's to rebut? When the Republican led Congress holds a hearing to rebut Global Warming, and calls as it's lead witness a SCIENCE FICTION writer, I believe that pretty much speaks for itself.

How is this any different ?

"But they're REPUBLICAN... and they called a SCIENCE FICTION writer as a witness"

Nothing to offer so labeling / dismissing right back.

A) Crighton has written more than just science fiction.

B ) As with any author.. they have to research tremendous amounts to write and lecture on a topic.

If you've read any of is fiction books, you would know he still has to research the hell first. So I'm guessing he's probably done more reading and research on environmental matters then the rest of us in this forum combined.

C) Everyone is biased. Me You.. Everyone dismisses what goes against their faith.

Here's my gripe... Liberals think they have the patent on informed thought. Liberal equals enlightened, Conservative equals La-la land.

You're telling me to read a book and research a topic. You're claiming the enlightned upper-hand because you choose to believe and follow the liberal majority on what global warming is.

I would argue that your enlightned thought is flawed... and therefore just thought.

You're basically labeling yourself, assuming you have the upper-hand and BAAAaa.. follwing the liberal herd.

So I'll tell you the same thing right back..

Read a book.

Research the topic.

Don't be a liberal sheep.

You're basically living out the first article.

I'm not trying to debate global warming with you either.. its pointless for both of us.

You cant cite enough articles proving it exists.. I cant cite enough proving it doesn't.

Science is like Innocent until proven Guilty... It's not science until backed up with fact.. until then, its a belief.

[nmainguy]

How is this any different ?

"But they're REPUBLICAN... and they called a SCIENCE FICTION writer as a witness"

Nothing to offer so labeling / dismissing right back.

A) Crighton has written more than just science fiction.

B ) As with any author.. they have to research tremendous amounts to write and lecture on a topic.

If you've read any of is fiction books, you would know he still has to research the hell first. So I'm guessing he's probably done more reading and research on environmental matters then the rest of us in this forum combined.

C) Everyone is biased. Me You.. Everyone dismisses what goes against their faith.

Here's my gripe... Liberals think they have the patent on informed thought. Liberal equals enlightened, Conservative equals La-la land.

You're telling me to read a book and research a topic. You're claiming the enlightned upper-hand because you choose to believe and follow the liberal majority on what global warming is.

You're basically labeling yourself, assuming you have the upper-hand and BAAAaa.. follwing the liberal herd.

So I'll tell you the same thing right back..

Read a book.

Research the topic.

Don't be a liberal sheep.

You're basically living out the first article.

I'm not trying to debate global warming with you either.. its pointless for both of us.

You cant cite enough articles proving it exists.. I cant cite enough proving it doesn't.

Science is like Innocent until proven Guilty... It's not science until backed up with fact.. until then, its a belief.

It is a Republican controlled Congress and they did call a science fiction writer as a witness. That's just a fact.

Not labeling.

I read alot about many things. I don't claim to have the upper hand on anything.

I'm not a liberal sheep. I am a Liberal.

Science is not a "faith" as you put it. "Intellegent Design" is a faith.

Science is a gathering of facts along with theories and hypothosis to-hopefully-reach a conclusion that all can agree on. Not like-just agree on.

[westguy]

It doesn't exsist.

I don't believe it does. Honestly, Its just something Green Peace made up to gain more members. The earth's climate is always changing, and it always has.

Thoughts?

It does exist. But it doesn't bother me because I'm older and I'll be dead before you get washed away by a Category 6 hurricane (after we have to expand the Saffir-Simpson scale) or you starve due to some drought.

[RedScare]

Science is like Innocent until proven Guilty... It's not science until backed up with fact.. until then, its a belief.

You might start by researching what science is. It is the process of researching and discovering how things work or exist, not the result. The results are generally called theories. It is validated by replication and peer review, as opposed to science fiction, which only exists in the mind of the author.

And how it is comparable to a Constitutional Right is beyond me.

[Highway6]

You might start by researching what science is. It is the process of researching and discovering how things work or exist, not the result. The results are generally called theories. It is validated by replication and peer review, as opposed to science fiction, which only exists in the mind of the author.

And how it is comparable to a Constitutional Right is beyond me.

You're right..

Science is the act of researching. It is the process.

However, a scientific fact is *That* which is proven by that research. A scientific fact is the Result which can be achieved over and over again when tested.

"The results are generally called theories."

You're kidding right ? Theories don't produce results.

A theory is how one expresses what they observe, and an educated guess of what it means. A theory is something that tries to predict, and that is testable, and has not been disproven. One can not prove a theory to be true though, only disprove it.

A theory does not produce results. That which can not be proven true, can't be considered fact.

[TheNiche]

I will accept that Global Warming may exist -- however: tracing the sources of greenhouse gasses is not realistically possible for at least one reason: underwater volcanoes can release massive plumes of CO2 that bubble up to the surface in unpredictable non-cyclical episodes.

Given that scientists have 1) mapped only a very small portion of the sea floor, 2) even if they have mapped it, cannot continuously monitor it, and 3) would agree that at least in theory, disproportionately high rates of tectonic activity under the sea floor create more significantly greater sources of volcanic emissions than those that are observable on land, it seems to me that the impact of human activity is at the very least questionable.

As far as I am concerned, the concept of human-induced climate change on a global scale is questionable enough to not really worry about it very much...sure as hell not worth investing several trillion dollars for the globe to meet CO2 reduction guidelines.

There's also no rule that says "change is bad." If things warm up, we take a few extra feet of water over the course of many decades, we lose a few key buildings but scrap many others, and ADAPT. That's what humans have done for tens of thousands of years. In fact, it is not warmth that causes problems if you're inland, it's more about patterns of precipitation. A warmer wet environment would create more rainforest-like biomes, where a warmer dry environment would create more desert-like biomes. I have nothing against either, and if the temperate zones may move a little further north, so what? We'll just farm Siberia.

Environmentalists that really harp on this stuff strike me more as neo-romanitcists...classical conservatives, really. You gotta be careful about these types. I hate to make this kind of a reference, but Hitler was the exact same thing with an ethnic focus rather than environmental.

[bachanon]

Environmentalists that really harp on this stuff strike me more as neo-romanitcists...classical conservatives, really. You gotta be careful about these types. I hate to make this kind of a reference, but Hitler was the exact same thing with an ethnic focus rather than environmental.

ouCH! you may have opened a pandora's box with that last paragraph. environmental fascists....i kinda like that.

[editor]

The topic of Global Warming seems to come up from time to time on HAIF, so I thought I'd mention this.

There's a new article which presents an interesting theory on the cause of global warming. While the conventional wisdom is that global warming is caused by human activity, especially in the last 50 years, there is a growing number of alternate theories by some highly respected scientific circles. Whether you agree with it or not, it's an interesting read.

[nmainguy]

I hate to make this kind of a reference, but Hitler was the exact same thing with an ethnic focus rather than environmental.

..and hate it as you may you went ahead and made the statement anyway.

Facinating.

[TheNiche]

..and hate it as you may you went ahead and made the statement anyway.

Facinating.

Yeah, it is confusing that I'd do that. In fact, in a lot of peoples' eyes, that statement alone will discredit everything else that I'd said up to that point...but I've got this thing about me. An idea pops into my head and it must be spoken.

So **** me, I'm honest.

P.S. I went just went back and scanned through one of those Crighton articles--the one about "Environmentalism as a Religion". I'm amazed. He used variants of precisely the same verbage that I did and basically elaborated on the very points that I tried to make. I didn't see the use of the name "Hitler", though, so he clearly has better self-control...but then anyone familiar with Rousseau knows about the connection.

I also read through some of the earlier posts...RedScare, you disappoint me. I'd have expected that circumstantial ad hominems would be beneath you.

[Jeebus]

ABG.

Argentinian Bovine Gas. That's what I'm blaming.

[RedScare]

You shouldn't be disappointed. There are some arguments that cannot be won. When a poster states that there is no evidence to support a theory, even though virtually the entire scientific community has reached a consensus on the matter, you realize that the poster is being intellectually dishonest. A debate waged on 2 different levels is not a debate. I'd rather move on to something more productive.

BTW, Hitler hyperbole seldom helps your argument. I learned that when comparing George Bush's popular style to Hitler's. People recoil so hard that they don't hear the argument.

As to global warming, I would agree that there is some debate as to how much effect human activity has on the phenomenon. But, there is little rational debate that human activity does have some effect.

[Highway6]

When a poster states that there is no evidence to support a theory, even though virtually the entire scientific community has reached a consensus on the matter, you realize that the poster is being intellectually dishonest. A debate waged on 2 different levels is not a debate. I'd rather move on to something more productive.

This is his whole point though..global warming being just one of many examples... Politicized science can't be trusted.

And my point earlier was not that there is not evidence to support the theory of global warming. Of course there is evidence of global warming. And there is also evidence refuting that the globe is warming as much as the other evidence shows. There is evidence pointing to both sides.

The debate isnt whether global warming is happening... its how much is natural and how much is attributable to human activites.

The point was, it is just a theory (the cause, not the existence)... not fact... and what exactly is causing global warming, whether it's humans adding too much carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere, urban heat island effect, natural cycles of the earth coming out of a mini-ice age.. we don't know yet.

The matter isn't settled.... there are lots of theories or ideas about what may be happening out there, and we shouldn't act hastily with amazingly expensive policy "remedies" until we know how to act properly.

For those who havn't read the articles mentioned.... here are 2 excerpts.

"I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compellng evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therap6y

[Highway6]

The topic of Global Warming seems to come up from time to time on HAIF, so I thought I'd mention this.

There's a new article which presents an interesting theory on the cause of global warming. While the conventional wisdom is that global warming is caused by human activity, especially in the last 50 years, there is a growing number of alternate theories by some highly respected scientific circles. Whether you agree with it or not, it's an interesting read.

Editor... very interesting piece.. Thank you.

Since the other Global Warming forum is so much livelier, would you mind reposting your comment and link to there also.