Originally posted by newf: Not sure why you are getting so upset that he doesn't work for NASA anyways you don't believe anything they say when it pertains to evidence of Climate Change being man made.
You sure seem to be trying to paint him a certain way, AND doing the very kind of deflection you accuse others of doing. Interesting.
As far as NASA goes, it is not that I don't believe *anything*, I'm saying they have been a "mixed bag". I wouldn't trust anything that James Hansen or Gavin Schmitt have to say about warming.
You sure seem to be trying to paint him a certain way, AND doing the very kind of deflection you accuse others of doing. Interesting.
As far as NASA goes, it is not that I don't believe *anything*, I'm saying they have been a "mixed bag". I wouldn't trust anything that James Hansen or Gavin Schmitt have to say about warming.
Yes... I am painting him as a former NASA scientist and his paper as not representing a NASA study as was asserted by the OP title.
Deflecting? Nope not at all, I'm still on point even if you have tried to change it many times. Keep trying!!
IP: Logged
11:12 AM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Playing games? Not really, just trying to keep you on point and show that it is you that is deflecting.
Again all I'm saying is that the study inb the title is not from NASA but from a former NASA scientist and member of the Heartland Institute, was also first published in Forbes by a Heartland institute member.
But continue on with whatever you wish to talk about.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-30-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:11 PM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
says the man stomping around in a thread which proves the greenhouse effect is in fact happening.....
If there's one thing I've found it's that good science tries to remain pretty consistant and never "settled".... it's the scare mongers and deniers that like to trump up everything they can get to support their claims even when it contradicts what they have said previously.
Many bloggeshperes like to grab a sensational headline and throw it out as "proof" but if you actually read further or listen to the real science they rarely talk in definites and are usually the first to acknowledge there is always more to learn and refine, however those same scientists (most of them ) are in agreement as to what is happening IMO.
how misleading is this? so - NASA is in fact saying that heat is being trapped - just not as much as previously assumed. so, NASA is in fact saying the "greenhouse" effect is happening - just not as much as some had previously thought.
the glaciers ARE still melting. just as they were last year & the year before, & 10 years before. I have seen land, first hand, finally exposed from glacier retreat that no one from previous generations has. and - this has happened before - it is completely natural. there is nothing you or any other puny human can hope to do for or against the reality. global warming is a real thing. it happens. just as ice ages. in fact - ice ages follow the global warming. so - thats what you get to look forward to next. should you live to be 300......
it will be some ugly times ahead......but - not for us - we can party like its 1999
If you have one molecule of water vapor...you have a greenhouse effect...just a very small one! The glaciers have been meltting for 18,000 years....get over it!
"A central lesson of science is that to understand complex issues (or even simple ones), we must try to free our minds of dogma and to guarantee the freedom to publish, to contradict, and to experiment. Arguments from authority are unacceptable. " - Carl Sagan
[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 08-30-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:45 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43224 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Why don't we just call this climate thing a draw, say ok you can believe whichever way you want, and do whatever you want personally to correct it...your own solar powered house, stop using plastic or paper.. etc. But we Won't force everyone to. How about that?
The glaciers have been meltting for 18,000 years....get over it!
...yes, and man is to blame...
Actually I agree, manmade global warming (or any kind for that matter) has been, and always will be a money generating scheme made up by certain people in order to increase their wealth.
Those that disagree, you will notice that none of the so called ‘alarmists’ are so worried about this 'warming' that they have given up all their worldly possessions in order to dedicate their life to solving this 'crisis'. I still see Al Gore travelling around the world in a private jet and in private limos – oh, but I guess it is ok, since he is paying into that carbon credit Ponzi scheme (I am pretty sure this money is not being used on some mega huge filters attached to the back of the jet to clean the air of any exhaust fumes).
Actually I agree, manmade global warming (or any kind for that matter) has been, and always will be a money generating scheme made up by certain people in order to increase their wealth.
Those that disagree, you will notice that none of the so called ‘alarmists’ are so worried about this 'warming' that they have given up all their worldly possessions in order to dedicate their life to solving this 'crisis'. I still see Al Gore travelling around the world in a private jet and in private limos – oh, but I guess it is ok, since he is paying into that carbon credit Ponzi scheme (I am pretty sure this money is not being used on some mega huge filters attached to the back of the jet to clean the air of any exhaust fumes).
Well that seals it, if people don't give up everything they posess they can't be worried about Climate Change.
We'll soon be back to "who has the most to gain"....those darn uber rich researchers and scientists...it's so easy to see where the money is.
IP: Logged
02:19 PM
2.5 Member
Posts: 43224 From: Southern MN Registered: May 2007
Just imagine if Al Gore was trying to push this whole climate change thing back before TV, internet, phone or radio. None of us would even know about it, did it wait until now for some reason? Or is it just alot easier to get large groups of people on board a made up idea these days?
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
So in 2007 the list was growing, whos list of scientists is who talking about?
Yes, Newf still thinks that the "majority" of scientists back up Gore. T'ain't true at all. The jig is up. The legitimate science community is calling foul. Indeed the handful of men who concocted the doctored data, and attempted to scam the various Governments for mo' money, mo' money are being shown for what they are. Scam artists.
The truth is that while some glaciers melt down due to varying winds and Al Nino etc. others are growing. Check it out.
[QUOTE]The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
[/QUOTE]
Geologists have been arguing this all along. Look at known history. There was the ice age, then it melted, there was the midevil warm period. Romans grew grapes for wine in England. There is ice core samples showing up and down cycles for a long time. Then you have the 1970's global cooling scare. then it turned into global warming. When I was a kid, they kept saying we ere heading for an ice age. Same BS chicken little message, different disaster blamed. cooling, warming, now its "change". ....whatever.
guess what, mars is getting hotter too, think they have an SUV problem?
There you go again, claiming science is done by vote. It could be 99.99999% All it would take is 0.00001% to be right, and the other 99.99999% would be WRONG, which is something that you evidently do not comprehend or refuse to accept.
at one time all the scientific community thought and thought the universe was round, later we found out its oval.
Things change people, including the climate. if not, then why are there more then 900 ancient cities sunk in the ocean that at one time were coastal? Did they have cars? ..nope. Why is there an ancient map showing the antarctic circle accurately with no ice, bu logs the land? someone in ancient times was there logging info before masses of ice.
"The Piri Reis map shows the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, and the northern coast of Antarctica. The northern coastline of Antarctica is perfectly detailed. The most puzzling however is not so much how Piri Reis managed to draw such an accurate map of the Antarctic region 300 years before it was discovered, but that the map shows the coastline under the ice. Geological evidence confirms that the latest date Queen Maud Land could have been charted in an ice-free state is 4000 BC.
The official science has been saying all along that the ice-cap which covers the Antarctic is million years old. The Piri Reis map shows that the northern part of that continent has been mapped before the ice did cover it. That should make think it has been mapped million years ago, but that's impossible since mankind did not exist at that time.
Further and more accurate studies have proven that the last period of ice-free condition in the Antarctic ended about 6000 years ago. There are still doubts about the beginning of this ice-free period, which has been put by different researchers everything between year 13000 and 9000 BC. The question is: Who mapped the Queen Maud Land of Antarctic 6000 years ago? Which unknown civilization had the technology or the need to do that?
It is well-known that the first civilization, according to the traditional history, developed in the mid-east around year 3000 BC, soon to be followed within a millennium by the Indus valley and the Chinese ones. So, accordingly, none of the known civilizations could have done such a job. Who was here 4000 years BC, being able to do things that NOW are possible with the modern technologies?"
What this tells me is its normal that the weather changes, and our cars have NOTHING to do with it. We think we know our history, but its apparent we don't really know **** .
IP: Logged
08:12 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by newf: Again all I'm saying is that the study inb the title is not from NASA but from a former NASA scientist and member of the Heartland Institute, was also first published in Forbes by a Heartland institute member.
The first ARTICLE about the paper that I saw was in Forbes, written by someone from the Heartland Institute. That has nothing to do with the actual paper, the scientific journal it was published in, or the author(s) of the paper.
IP: Logged
08:23 PM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
If there's one thing I've found it's that good science tries to remain pretty consistant and never "settled".... it's the scare mongers and deniers that like to trump up everything they can get to support their claims even when it contradicts what they have said previously.
Many bloggeshperes like to grab a sensational headline and throw it out as "proof" but if you actually read further or listen to the real science they rarely talk in definites and are usually the first to acknowledge there is always more to learn and refine, however those same scientists (most of them ) are in agreement as to what is happening IMO.
So, it's not Global Warming any more--it's Ckimate Change. It's not Settled Science any more, it's Real Science.
That's the problem with these things--as they're debunked and challenged, those who propogate such theories have to regroup and change what they so loudly proclaimed previously to avoid looking like asses.
Let me guess. Real Science tends to prove GW/CC while all other science is pseudo-scince?
So, it's not Global Warming any more--it's Ckimate Change. It's not Settled Science any more, it's Real Science.
That's the problem with these things--as they're debunked and challenged, those who propogate such theories have to regroup and change what they so loudly proclaimed previously to avoid looking like asses.
Let me guess. Real Science tends to prove GW/CC while all other science is pseudo-scince?
Thought so.
Why ask if you are going to answer your own questions?
BTW I've always said that good science is never settled ans should always be open to new discoveries and information.
As far as I can understand the term Global Warming is still used by some but others have decided to use Climate Change due to the fact that many people can't seem to understand that Global Warming effects all sorts of weather including things like cold winters. It's still due to the earths temperature rising as it has been all along it's more a PR thing so people don't automatically dismiss Global Warming when it's cold (often evidenced on here)
IMO it's easy to mix up what the media or certain mouthpieces say and what the scientists as a group are saying.
As for the debunking and challenging I think that the science has handled most all of it very well and it's the deniers that seem to try a new theme every other week, some on here can't even agree if the temps are rising or falling, if it's natural or happening at all. I suppose as long as it's not in agreement with what the science says it's valid to some.
The thought that humans can impact their environment (the planet) to a major degree seems like common sense to me, just look around.
IP: Logged
09:07 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27075 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Originally posted by NickD3.4: Geologists have been arguing this all along. Look at known history. There was the ice age, then it melted, there was the midevil warm period. Romans grew grapes for wine in England. There is ice core samples showing up and down cycles for a long time. Then you have the 1970's global cooling scare. then it turned into global warming. When I was a kid, they kept saying we ere heading for an ice age. Same BS chicken little message, different disaster blamed. cooling, warming, now its "change". ....whatever.
I did some research into the 1970's "global cooling scare". It wasn't just "BS". There was some global cooling during the period of the 1940s to the 1970s. Some of it may have been an effect of specific air pollutants (particulates and aerosols) that declined after the 1970s due to stricter environmental regulations and abatement technologies.
There's a lot more climate science going on now than there was in the 1970s and much better data. It sounds like you are not taking that into consideration when you go back over the history.
I think that this article (link; below) has a useful analysis of what was going on with climate science in the 1970s--and why that shouldn't be discarded as the "same BS chicken little message.." :
Originally posted by NickD3.4: guess what, mars is getting hotter too, think they have an SUV problem?
That's pretty "flip". Can you source it--about "it's getting hotter on Mars"..? Any credible ideas about WHY it is getting warmer on Mars (if indeed it is)..? I tried with Google, but I didn't turn up anything. Whatever is going on there (Mars) and whatever the reason(s) behind it, it may very well have everything to do with conditions that are peculiar to Mars and that have no bearing whatsoever on Earth's climate.
That's "good stuff"--but it doesn't make me say "I am NOT or NO LONGER open to the possibility of Anthropogenic Global Warming".
I'm in favor of looking for ways to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions that can be carried forward without drastically reducing our global (or national) standard of living. Because I don't think that the science on AGW will be settled anytime soon. I don't think that there is any demonstrable upside to human greenhouse gas emissions--per se.
Well that seals it, if people don't give up everything they posess they can't be worried about Climate Change.
We'll soon be back to "who has the most to gain"....those darn uber rich researchers and scientists...it's so easy to see where the money is.
...well it sure hasn't hurt Al Gore's nor David Suzuki's pocket books...
I work in a research enviroment and all the PHD's here know that if you want government funding for your research all you have to do is somehow link to gas and oil production (especially here in Alberta) or global warming, and you WILL get you funding.
And besides that, what is wrong with these people leading by example? Mr. Gore and Mr. Suzuki still get around in those evil power gas vehicles instead of using an enviromentally friendly mode of transport. They just say that they pay for carbon credits. So then what you are saying is that it is ok for them to give off emisions because they are paying extra for this privledge? Again, it's do as I say and not as I do...
IP: Logged
01:55 PM
Toddster Member
Posts: 20871 From: Roswell, Georgia Registered: May 2001
...well it sure hasn't hurt Al Gore's nor David Suzuki's pocket books...
I work in a research enviroment and all the PHD's here know that if you want government funding for your research all you have to do is somehow link to gas and oil production (especially here in Alberta) or global warming, and you WILL get you funding.
And besides that, what is wrong with these people leading by example? Mr. Gore and Mr. Suzuki still get around in those evil power gas vehicles instead of using an enviromentally friendly mode of transport. They just say that they pay for carbon credits. So then what you are saying is that it is ok for them to give off emisions because they are paying extra for this privledge? Again, it's do as I say and not as I do...
So who is giving all this huge funding for global warming research in Alberta?
IP: Logged
04:33 PM
Mickey_Moose Member
Posts: 7497 From: Edmonton, AB, Canada Registered: May 2001
That's pretty "flip". Can you source it--about "it's getting hotter on Mars"..? Any credible ideas about WHY it is getting warmer on Mars (if indeed it is)..? I tried with Google, but I didn't turn up anything. Whatever is going on there (Mars) and whatever the reason(s) behind it, it may very well have everything to do with conditions that are peculiar to Mars and that have no bearing whatsoever on Earth's climate.
or it was just part of cyclic cooling. why is it you try to make up a reason related to human pollution when it appears to be following a cooling and warming cycle. back then it was cooling, then it was warming, now they say it going to start cooling again. There is a pattern there, but people keep wanting ignore that and focus on the present.
provincial and feds - nevermind Suncor/others if they tie it into the tailing ponds as well.
So do you think the Alberta and Canadian Government would like to fund science that proves the connection between the tar sands (fossil fuels) and Climate Change? Do you think they are going out of their way to fund studies that may have an impact on one of the biggest sources of revenue and employment in the country?
or it was just part of cyclic cooling. why is it you try to make up a reason related to human pollution when it appears to be following a cooling and warming cycle. back then it was cooling, then it was warming, now they say it going to start cooling again. There is a pattern there, but people keep wanting ignore that and focus on the present.
Don't ya hate it when the people that spend their lives work studying such things miss such obvious patterns when internet experts clearly can see the truth?
That's pretty "flip". Can you source it--about "it's getting hotter on Mars"..? Any credible ideas about WHY it is getting warmer on Mars (if indeed it is)..? I tried with Google, but I didn't turn up anything. Whatever is going on there (Mars) and whatever the reason(s) behind it, it may very well have everything to do with conditions that are peculiar to Mars and that have no bearing whatsoever on Earth's climate.
Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.
Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)
Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.
In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.
"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.
Solar Cycles
Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.
Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.
"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.
By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.
Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.
Keep trying!!
