HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Because most Co2 graphs I have seen, not all but most, show something like the Vostok core, then another one, then finally air measurements. They use this as an example of how high CO2 levels are.

However, using a composite graph is crap. Why? Because nobody knows what the base level of the other graphs are throughout time.

For example, if the Vostok core showed a range of 1-100 with an average of 50, another core my have a range of 50-150 with an average of 100, and an air measurement may have 100-200 with an average of 150. You can't just slap them together consecutively, because they have different ranges, different compositions, and are taken in different places.

For example, one of the graphs posted frequently shows Vostok, another dome (forgot which) and Mauna Loa air samples. How can these be tied together completely? Air measurements in one area can't be totally compared to another. Consider the different environments. The Vostok cores are far away from vegitation or volcanos, whereas Mauna Loa is near vegitation and also volcanos. Furthermore, one is a direct air sample while the other isn't.

You can keep going, showing how the total sample utilized and the conclusions made from the consecutive time-slicing/splicing/combining of these samples can lead to a corrupt conclusion.

Please provide a link to the graph you are talking about.

As for the location of the sampling. CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of 100-200 years or so. Because of this very long residence time the CO2 has time to diffuse evenly in the atmosphere, so one can take a measurement of CO2 at different parts of the globe and obtain similar concentrations. It isn't like smog which is a localized pollutant. This is why one can actually measure the seasonal change in CO2 in the atmosphere (due to vegetation changes throughout the seasons) from the top of a Volcano in Hawaii (which does not experience much seasonality with its vegetation growth). This is why the Keeling curve undulates during the course of every year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_curve

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ok, read this headline and tell me if it is not funny.

"HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM"

I know all this cold weather is not some sign that there is NO global warming, but it is ironic that a hearing on warming of the planet is canceled because of cold weather.

EDIT: even more great headlines

"Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area cancelling screening of Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' because of a snowstorm..."

http://photo.accuweather.com/photogalle...ils.aspx?pid=18235&partner=accuweather

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Science has been politicized to a point that's reminiscent of the McCarthy era. 'Science' is no longer science when scientists can't openly discuss legitimate issues without fear of retribution and being ostracized from the community.

 

[bfdd]

edit

 

[wetech]

Originally posted by: shrumpage

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: JD50


Oh, you mean kind of like a government official firing a scientist that doesn't parrot his views on global warming?

im not sure if your being sarcastic or agreeing with me, but read the article, its from an extremely reputable source and hopefully youl learn something new.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn


You might say we cooked the books when it comes to global warming. So much time, money and effort is spent on trying to prove man is the cause that anyone who tried to oppose that idea is branded a heretic. Hence the ?global warming deniers are similar to holocaust deniers? statement we saw recently. This has stifled open and honest debate on the topic, as seen in this thread.

for the love of GOD ALMIGHTY! you people infuriate me, you just refuse to listen to any and all reason! who do you believe is stifling debate and what is there to gain by saying we need to be cleaner, more efficient with our resource usage, less commercial. THINK!

the independent panel on climate change (IPCC) states categorically that this debate is over, there is no debate. WE AS HUMANS are causing most of the warming and pushing temperature increases far beyond norms and far faster than ever before. IPCC = 907 scientists from over 100 country's headed by an independent rotating panel of scientists. hardly "cooking the books" to achieve a desired outcome.

The IPCC is a great example of what is wrong with debate about climate change.

They haven't released a report yet, they only released a summary that was writen by small number of people. They are waiting another three months before release the actual report. And according to there website - reviewers have been give instructions to make sure the report lines up the summary.

little backwards, eh?


Here is a link: here!

you beat me to it. I was floored when I heard this story for the first time. I've never heard of anything like this. Releasing a "summary" of data, and then saying, "Well, we can't give you the actual data yet, we're not done rigging it."

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: bfdd

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: sao123
im far more concerned about the invisible asteroid about to hit earth at some unknown random time in the near future, rather than the regular periodic cyclical global climate change.

Well the vast majority of climate scientists think this is not a "regular periodic global climate change."

But hey, you'd rather trust a politician right? Next time you're sick, go seek help from your local representative instead of seeing a doctor.

how about historians who can tell you the climates and poles have changed numerous times in the past without any human hand to push it along?

Historians? More like geologists and other climate scientists. The same people who are saying that this warming is more rapid due to the added forcing of greenhouse gases contributed by man.

 

[B00ne]

Originally posted by: locutus12

Originally posted by: Genx87


At one point scientists also believed the universe circled around the earth and the earth was flat.

Scientists can let their ego get the better of them. Considering they have yet to explain why we have had periods of warmer climates than now without the fossil fuel burning, I'll take a lot of their predictions with a large grain of salt and chalk a lot of it upto fear mongering.

Thats ridiculous, your talking about scientists in the medieval period, i very much doubt they had access to super computers, its not even a comparable argument.

Actually this is ridiculous because scientists were imprisoned/killed for believing/prooving the opposite. The Church was afraid of the (perceived) implications of earth not being the center of the universe - not the other way around.

 

[Shortass]

I thought it was funny 🙂

Since it turned, obviously, once again, into a global warming debate, I'll just say this cause the internet's still free (for now, huzzah), and people in different states will read it and that's hella cool. Counties, even. Oh the possibilities. Madagascar? <3

So we'll debate endlessly about the possibility of global warming, but why should we not go and try to fix it regardless of if we're correct or not? We should clean up the planet, I mean, we really only have 1. Maybe 2 if we colonize the moon soon enough, which is sick, but still, 2's not a lot of choice. Let's redirect our economies into producing a cleaner earth! It will create jobs! And it'll be fun! And we'll all feel so happy.🙂

Change costs, yeah, but so does war and everyone seems so eager to go do that thing. Alternative, cleaner energies that reduce our dependency on foreign oil? A huge plus. Cleaner air, water, soil? Good all around. Maybe stop global warming, be it true or false (I believe truthfully, but nobody cares), and we really win.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Mardeth
It is 🙂.