Wow!...there seems to be alot of negativity in this thread... sad. Well....while I am currently studying global warming as part of my science degree maybe I can throw in my euro's worth! (inflation)... While researching GW., it is important to keep a close eye on the GMST (Global Mean Surface Temperature). This will clearly indicate a rise or fall of temperature on a global scale and rule out anomalies and rogue years etc. From the years 1961-1990 there has been an increase of GMST of 0.8%. This may not seem alot, but when you look more closely, you soon realise that the GMST has increased unusually with parallels in human activity, from the Industrial Revolution era to today. In the Arctic and Antarctic regions, the temp rise has been around 1.5% per century. What can be difficult to determine is whether the recent trend of GMST increase is the beginning of a real long term increase in temp., or just a feature in a series of erratic temperature changes. It is therefore important to look at temperature history. The fossil record, along with the pollen record can aid scientists in determining the long term trend. Still living in an ice age, we are going through a warming period...contradictory as that may seem to many. Now although there have been trends in GW through earth's temp. history going back hundreds of millions of years, a close study of the aforementioned methods have determined that from 300mn years ago to now, there has been increase in temperature, but none as much as during our modern times. There has been a fluctuation in Temperature of 10 degrees C or more, over the past 20,000 years, and the increase took about 10,000 years to occur. This works out at a rate of 0.001 degree Celcius/year, or 0.1 degree C per century. So?? Well, the Current increase in temp., is Five times greater than in the past. Globally, the warming rate is greatest at the poles (1.5 degrees C) and 0.5 D/C at the equator. AS we are living in an interglacial period, the weather will be warmer, but NOT to the degree it is now. Human activity has increased this so much, and although there would be lots more to write, such as the causes of GMST, I hope maybe i have not bored anyone too much and that some may look into it more thoroughly, as it is a facinating subject..
No global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted
by MegaDude 47 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
beksbks
I claim no scientific knowledge, but I have a question about manipulation and presentation of information. If you notice the title of this thread, along with the way the op is worded, and the admission that the source has "led the way in exposing flaws in the arguments supporting global warming", do you not sense a bit of an agenda? Particularly since they left out the rest of this line from the other article
"He admitted that there has been no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995, but said this was a blip in a general trend of rising temperatures."
The opening article makes it sound like the guy broke down and came clean, that there's been no warming. When the rest of his comment is added, it takes on a completely different meaning.
Also, I'm wondering if anyone has any information on sunspot activity, and how it might correlate to the years since 1995. I seem to remember reading somewhere that we have had an unusually low amount of activity in recent years.
-
JWoods
First - we all know who this guy is, right? He was the head of the Anglia University global warming group and initially denied the exposure of their e-mail scam. Looks like he is changing his story now.
Second - yes, sunspot activity has a part. Actually, the theory is about solar magnetic field and its affect on the cosmic ray activity on earth. (which is affected by the presence or absense of sunspots and general solar magnetic fields) A book by Henrick Svensmark "The Chilling Stars" discusses this idea - which is that cosmic rays influence cloud formation, which in turn influences global temperature. He was initially hated by the warming community, but with all the revelations this past winter may deserve a second look. Svensmark is the leader of the Sun-Climate Research Center of Denmark.
-
beksbks
First - we all know who this guy is, right? He was the head of the Anglia University global warming group and initially denied the exposure of their e-mail scam. Looks like he is changing his story now.
See I think this is loaded language, and not exactly accurate in the impression it gives.
-
SixofNine
The headline is a lie. The scientist said no such thing. -
MegaDude
I wouldn't expect a holy roller Democrat to concede anything more than I would a holy roller JW.
-
SixofNine
would you concede that the headline you quoted is a total misrepresentation of the scientist they purport to quote?
-
MegaDude
Would you conceed AGW is not settled science?
-
SacrificialLoon
Would you conceed AGW is not settled science?
Cadbon Dioxide and methane are greenhouse gasses
Human activity is adding more co2 and ch4 to the atmosphere
Human activity is cuasing the Earth to be warmer than it would be without
How much so is the question. AGW exists, just not extent to which it does
-
SixofNine
Sure I'll concede that. But the bulk of the evidence sure is pointing that way. And why wouldn't it be? The greenhouse gas effect is certainly settled science. Maybe there is something that mitigates that effect. We'd all love to find that; Gawd knows everyone is looking. It just doesn't seem likely at this point.
And I guess that's what mystifies me about your approach to the issue; I've never gotten a sense that you've made yourself aware of exactly what the greenhouse gas effect is and why it was hypothesized (over 100 years ago) to increase with modernity. Maybe I'm wrong about that.
In fact, out of all the deniers on this board, and it galls me to have to acknowledge it, BTS is the ONLY one that gives a sense he has a clue what it is he's actually arguing against. He's not consistent on this, as he'll post anything from the denier camp too. But he's the only "denier" on the board ever to have posted anything, that I'm aware of, in the way of scientific evidence that purported to mitigate the physics of ghg warming (settled science) which rules the earth's temperature.