Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Global Warming Consensus Narrows – Still Misleading
MensNewsDaily.com ^ | January 22, 2009 | Roger F. Gay

Posted on 01/22/2009 7:24:13 AM PST by RogerFGay

Earth and Environmental Scientist Peter Doran recently surveyed 3,146 scientists in an effort to clarify the “scientific consensus” on global warming. Professor Doran has previously complained that his study revealing cooling in the Antarctic had been misinterpreted, causing confusion in the global warming debate. Here we go again.

(Excerpt) Read more at mensnewsdaily.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: air; aircomposition; carbondioxide; globalwarming; nitrogen; ozone

1 posted on 01/22/2009 7:24:13 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JimKalb; Free the USA; EdReform; realwoman; Orangedog; Lorianne; Outlaw76; balrog666; DNA Rules; ...

ping


2 posted on 01/22/2009 7:25:17 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
"But let’s look at the question again. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? “Significant” means anything from barely measurable to important to perhaps the primary cause. It is my impression that many scientists believe human activity has an effect on climate or think there might be – although most often that effect is thought to be very, very small."

There are NO scientists who believe that mankind's emission of CO2 has NOT contributed to the global climate cycle. The only valid question is "how much, compared to other factors". And right now, the correct answer is "not very damned much".

3 posted on 01/22/2009 7:35:17 AM PST by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

The globe has been cooling since 1998. The real question is, how thick does the ice have to be over New York City before they admit they were wrong, and reverse all the Global Warming policies?


4 posted on 01/22/2009 7:44:41 AM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
The globe has been cooling since 1998.

Cold is the new warm. Recession is the new boom. Down is the new up.

We've always been at war with Eurasia...

5 posted on 01/22/2009 7:48:51 AM PST by meyer (We are all John Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
There are NO scientists who believe that mankind's emission of CO2 has NOT contributed to the global climate cycle. The only valid question is "how much, compared to other factors". And right now, the correct answer is "not very damned much".

If you pee in the ocean, do you contribute to it being wet? Yes. Is it significant? No.

6 posted on 01/22/2009 8:20:25 AM PST by JaguarXKE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay
For more confusion on this article go to http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm.
This article states that 10,200 “experts” around the world were contacted, 3,146 agree with MMGW.
7 posted on 01/22/2009 8:26:05 AM PST by pappyone (New to Freep, still working a tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Global warming, for whatever reason, is NOT tied to the amount of CO2, or even heat, formed by anthropogenic sources. The only rationalization for this insistence on making CO2 the culprit, is the basis for a new trading scheme and a taxation on wealth formation. This is similar to the selling of indulgences by various hucksters posing as representatives of the church back in the latter part of the Middle Ages, and is equally as unworthy.


8 posted on 01/22/2009 8:38:42 AM PST by alloysteel (The nascent obama regime - the dawn of a new error, compounding all the previous ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pappyone

Is C02 output by man THE dominative force?

And if so, what is the natural dominative force supposed to be?

Would not swift climate change occur naturally anyways as it has in the past?

Are we not headed for another ice age in the next few thousand years?

And if so, could human activity actually delay that?

I bet you would get far less willing to stick their necks out on those.


9 posted on 01/22/2009 8:39:55 AM PST by Names Ash Housewares (Refusing to kneel before the socialist messiah. 1-20-13 Freedom Day.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pappyone

It may be that they contacted over 10K, inviting participation in the survey, but only a bit over 3K responded / i.e. participated.


10 posted on 01/22/2009 8:41:38 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pappyone

But even that might be telling. Less than one third of the scientists invited to participate in the survey thought it important enough to participate.


11 posted on 01/22/2009 8:43:02 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/05/24/global-warming-debate-has-anyone-noticed-that-its-over/

Another really GOOD ONE! I heard that there was a new Rasmussen poll about glowbull warming and less than half of those polled think human caused global warming exists, most said it is a natural climate cycle.


12 posted on 01/22/2009 8:46:12 AM PST by buffyt (Would take the ave US household 57598 years to produce a carbon footprint equal to inauguration FP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

Hy daughter is a geoscientist/hydrogeologist and she LAUGHS at human caused glowbull warming!


13 posted on 01/22/2009 8:48:36 AM PST by buffyt ("Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel
"Global warming, for whatever reason, is NOT tied to the amount of CO2, or even heat, formed by anthropogenic sources."

Sorry, but that is simply wrong. Like it or not, mankind does release CO2 into the atmosphere, so it "does" contribute some small additional fraction of the global energy balance. The science for that effect is incontrovertible. What "is" in question, as I pointed out, is how much is that small contribution with respect to the total climatological energy balance. The best science says, not much.

And that SAME "best science" is also starting to tell us that we may be heading into another Ice Age, which would be infinitely worse in it's impact than any POSSIBLE effect due to the worst case global warming.

14 posted on 01/22/2009 8:49:38 AM PST by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pappyone

200 years of warming due to human activity? SUVs and ACs in 1809?


15 posted on 01/22/2009 8:49:41 AM PST by buffyt ("Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

My sister in Iowa and my friend in Michigan would agree with you! They have had enough snow this winter!


16 posted on 01/22/2009 8:50:41 AM PST by buffyt ("Enjoy life, it's ungrateful not to." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: pappyone

Thanks for the link. I added reference to it in the article.


17 posted on 01/22/2009 8:58:10 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JaguarXKE
"If you pee in the ocean, do you contribute to it being wet? Yes. Is it significant? No."

VERY good analogy, and precisely my point.

18 posted on 01/22/2009 8:58:22 AM PST by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: buffyt

Thanks.


19 posted on 01/22/2009 8:58:53 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay

Global warming is being undermined by real science. Theories in science are not based on consensus, but on being able to demonstrate with further experiments that the theory is indeed correct. The CO2 driven man caused global warming theory is failing because more and more actual experiments and data analysis do not support the hypothesis. Al Gore’s charge that no further research was needed as there was a consensus of scientists who blindly accepted the theory was the antithesis of true science.


20 posted on 01/22/2009 9:11:14 AM PST by The Great RJ ("Mir we bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: buffyt

Rasmussen: 44% Say Global Warming Due To Planetary Trends, Not People

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/44_say_global_warming_due_to_planetary_trends_not_people

Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.


21 posted on 01/22/2009 9:12:17 AM PST by RogerFGay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

Air Composition;

The sea-level composition of air (in percent by volume at the temperature of 15°C and the pressure of 101325 Pa) is given below.

Name -Symbol -Percent by Volume
Nitrogen -N2 -78.084 %
Oxygen -O2 -20.9476 %
Argon -Ar -0.934 %
Carbon
Dioxide -CO2 -0.0314 %
Neon -Ne -0.001818 %
Methane -CH4 -0.0002 %
Helium -He -0.000524 %
Krypton -Kr -0.000114 %
Hydrogen -H2 -0.00005 %
Xenon -Xe -0.0000087 %

Water vapor is a highly variable component of the atmosphere, ranging from less than 1% to more than 4% of the volume of a given amount of air, and is expressed as “relative humidity”.

Source:

CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics
by David R. Lide, Editor-in-Chief

1997 Edition

As is clearly obvious from the above, CO2 is a VERY small but highly important part of our atmosphere. Without it, plant life dies.

And of that very small part of the atmosphere that IS carbon dioxide, only a very tiny fraction of THAT is from anthropogenic sources. Easily absorbed by the growing green plants under sunshine, which are very close to starvation levels with some 300 parts per million CO2 levels.

Why is there a tree line on mountains? Not because there is no oxygen, but because the heavier CO2 molecule cannot rise in sufficient quantites to that altitude, to provide for adequate growth for trees to survive. In fact, most of the CO2 in the world is dissolved in that other substance that covers some 70% of the world’s surface, water. And much of that ends up as sedimentary rock, known as limestone.


22 posted on 01/22/2009 9:44:52 AM PST by alloysteel (The nascent obama regime - the dawn of a new error, compounding all the previous ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JaguarXKE
If you pee in the ocean, do you contribute to it being wet? Yes. Is it significant? No.

And if you try to raise your voice to counteract the howling chorus of Greenies that are determined to shut down all civilization, does it have any more effect than a whiz by the seaside?

No.

23 posted on 01/22/2009 10:00:35 AM PST by thulldud (All your rumor are mong to us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog

>>And right now, the correct answer is “not very damned much”.<<

I think of it as the effect a mouse who is huddled in the corner of a high school gym has on the rooms temperature and CO2 content.

And the door is open.


24 posted on 01/22/2009 11:28:50 AM PST by RobRoy (Islam is a greater threat to the world today than Nazism was in the 1930's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

Yup. As a chemist, I’m well aware of all of these facts.


25 posted on 01/22/2009 12:47:56 PM PST by Wonder Warthog ( The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RogerFGay; According2RecentPollsAirIsGood; Fiddlstix; TenthAmendmentChampion; Horusra; CygnusXI; ...
 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

26 posted on 01/22/2009 4:30:36 PM PST by steelyourfaith (It's high time for the B.O. Impeachment proceedings to begin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
And that SAME "best science" is also starting to tell us that we may be heading into another Ice Age, which would be infinitely worse in it's impact than any POSSIBLE effect due to the worst case global warming.

Looks like I picked the wrong millenium to move from Arizona to Minneosota...

Cheers!

27 posted on 01/31/2009 5:12:13 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
That 1st 'o' in "Minneosota" is short for "oh, I am so cold!" -- we will thaw today. If we didn't it would have been the first January in 30 years that we didn't reach freezing.

Suck on that, Al Gore.

Cheers!

28 posted on 01/31/2009 5:14:24 AM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

Very good reply. Mind if I use it to educate some Enviro-Luddites?


29 posted on 01/31/2009 5:28:05 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson