Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We're All Global Warmers Now
Reason ^ | August 11, 2005 | Ronald Bailey

Posted on 08/12/2005 5:14:24 PM PDT by neverdem

Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place

Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. All data sets--satellite, surface, and balloon--have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact, they all have had upward pointing arrows for nearly a decade, but now all of the data sets are in closer agreement due to some adjustments being published in three new articles in Science today.

People who have doubted predictions of catastrophic global warming (and that includes me) have long cited the satellite data series derived by climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). That data set showed a positive trend of 0.088 degrees centigrade per decade until recently. On a straight line extrapolation that trend implied warming of less than 1.0 degree centigrade by 2100.

A new article in Science by researchers Carl Mears and Frank Wentz from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) identified a problem with how the satellites drifted over time, so that a slight but spurious cooling trend was introduced into the data. When this drift is taken into account, the temperature trend increases by an additional 0.035 degrees per decade, raising the UAH per-decade increase to 0.123 degrees centigrade. Christy points out that this adjustment is still within his and Spencer's +/- 0.5 margin of error. What's the upshot? Although reluctant to make straight-line extrapolations, Christy notes in an e-mail, "The previous linear extrapolation indicated a temperature of +0.9 C +/- 0.5 C in 2100, the new data indicate a temperature of +1.2 +/- 0.5 C."

However, the Remote Sensing Systems team has made some additional adjustments, such that their global trend is 0.193 degrees per decade. Christy and Spencer disagree with those additional RSS adjustments, but acknowledge that it's an open scientific question which team is correct. If RSS is right, a straight-line extrapolation of future temperature trends implies that global average temperatures in 2100 will be about 2.0 degrees centigrade (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than they are today—more than double the original Christy and Spencer trend. The RSS trend is more in accord with the higher projections of future temperature increases generated by climate computer models.

Is there a way to tell which data set is more accurate? Long term weather balloon data provide an independent measure of temperature trends; however, they also have some problems. Another of the Science articles looks at daytime biases in the radiosonde balloon data sets. A team led by Yale University climate researcher Steven Sherwood, suggests that researchers overcorrected for temperature increases caused by daytime solar heating of the instruments, and thus projected a spurious cooling trend. The researchers acknowledge that there are also nighttime biases, but do not correct for those in this article, coming to the not very robust conclusion that "the uncertainty in the late 20th century radiosonde trends is large enough to accommodate the reported surface warming."

The UAH temperature data set differs from a set of six different recent analyses of weather balloon radiosonde data by range from a low of 0.002 degrees centigrade to a high of 0.023 degrees centigrade. All are well within the +/-0.5 degree margin of error for the adjusted UAH data and lower than the adjusted RSS temperature trend. In other words, the balloon data suggest the global temperature trends are closer to the UAH number than they are to the RSS number. In its article, the RSS team agrees, "Trends from temporally homogenized radiosonde data sets show less warming than our results and are in better agreement with the Christy et al. results."

But what about the future? As the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration notes, "taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] projects a global temperature increase of anywhere from 1.4 - 5.8°C" by 2100.

So what's the bottom line? The UAH team finds warming of 0.123 degrees per decade. The balloon data tend to support the UAH team's findings. The RSS team finds warming of 0.193 degrees per decade. And the surface measurements show a warming trend of 0.15 degrees per decade.

Christy notes, "If you want to say model trends are bolstered, you must remember model trends are all over the map. Which trend is bolstered? Perhaps you want to say those model trends less than 0.2 C per decade are bolstered." Right now the available data sets appear to strengthen the case for arguing that the lower-end model projections for future temperature increases are more likely ones. Christy concludes, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."


Ronald Bailey is Reason's science correspondent.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Technical; US: Alabama; US: California; US: Connecticut; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: globalwarming; science
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

1 posted on 08/12/2005 5:14:25 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Can I be the first??? WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!

Red

2 posted on 08/12/2005 5:16:12 PM PDT by Conservative4Ever (God bless America...land that I love...stand beside her and guide her...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Happens EVERY summer with these people.


3 posted on 08/12/2005 5:16:22 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We did not lose in Vietnam. We left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Big deal, move a few miles north, same weather.


4 posted on 08/12/2005 5:18:57 PM PDT by thoughtomator (Free Michael Graham!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
but now all of the data sets are in closer agreement due to some adjustments being published in three new articles in Science today.

Yup, adjustments always do the trick.

5 posted on 08/12/2005 5:19:28 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I feel so guilty.

I'll have to buy a Prius.


6 posted on 08/12/2005 5:22:45 PM PDT by Only1choice____Freedom (I alone, am the chosen one. Because I alone, did the choosing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

While there may be rock hard science that the globe is warming - that is not the same as PROVING that it is caused by CO2 emissions. There have been long cycles of heating and cooling before man ever left his cave.


7 posted on 08/12/2005 5:23:09 PM PDT by MassRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
As always kudos to ancient_geezer for the info.

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle

Figure 1-1 Global warming source NOAA

 

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years, source "GISP2"

 

 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years, source "GISP2"

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years, source Greenland ice data

 

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice data

 

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.252.html#1

INTERPLANETARY DUST PARTICLES (IDPs) are deposited on the Earth at the rate of about 10,000 tons per year. Does this have any effect on climate? Scientists at Caltech have found that ancient samples of helium-3 (coming mostly from IDPs) in oceanic sediments exhibit a 100,000-year periodicity. The researchers assert that their data, taken along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, support a recently enunciated idea that Earth's orbital inclination varies with a 100-kyr period; this notion in turn had been broached as an explanation for a similar periodicity in the succession of ice ages. (K.A. Farley and D.B. Patterson, Nature, 7 December 1995.)
Farley & Patterson 1998, http://www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/20/36/33/37/32/abstract.html
Farley http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~farley/
Farley http://www.elsevier.nl/gej-ng/10/18/23/54/21/49/abstract.html

 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr96/dec96/noaa96-78.html

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE DURING LAST GLACIAL PERIOD COULD BE TIED TO DUST-INDUCED REGIONAL WARMING

Preliminary new evidence suggests that periodic increases in atmospheric dust concentrations during the glacial periods of the last 100,000 years may have resulted in significant regional warming, and that this warming may have triggered the abrupt climatic changes observed in paleoclimate records, according to a scientist at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Current scientific thinking is that the dust concentrations contributed to global cooling.

 

Here Comes the Sun

"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."

***

"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."



8 posted on 08/12/2005 5:23:22 PM PDT by Straight Vermonter (John 6: 51-58)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
So what's the bottom line? The UAH team finds warming of 0.123 degrees per decade. The balloon data tend to support the UAH team's findings. The RSS team finds warming of 0.193 degrees per decade. And the surface measurements show a warming trend of 0.15 degrees per decade.

Against what real-world event were these model results validated?

(..............crickets..................)

9 posted on 08/12/2005 5:23:51 PM PDT by patton ("Hard Drive Cemetary" - forthcoming best seller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis

Science is always much easier when you start with the results, and then go looking for the data.


10 posted on 08/12/2005 5:28:10 PM PDT by Fresh Wind (It is Watergate yet? Is it Watergate yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
All data sets--satellite, surface, and balloon--have been pointing to rising global temperatures.

SO WHAT? Are they going to put a shield on the sun? Who really gives a rip that nature takes care of itself? Just don't go blaming people for causing it. It is a fact of nature. Live with it.

11 posted on 08/12/2005 5:28:32 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Anyone and anything that farts is a global warmer.


12 posted on 08/12/2005 5:28:47 PM PDT by mtbopfuyn (Legality does not dictate morality... Lavin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative4Ever

"Christy notes, "If you want to say model trends are bolstered, you must remember model trends are all over the map. Which trend is bolstered? Perhaps you want to say those model trends less than 0.2 C per decade are bolstered." Right now the available data sets appear to strengthen the case for arguing that the lower-end model projections for future temperature increases are more likely ones. Christy concludes, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming." "
According to this guy the lower end projections are more likely, but then again that won't fit into the socialist's plans for re-engineering western society. Better to run around like Chicken Little.


13 posted on 08/12/2005 5:29:27 PM PDT by antceecee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Well, duh ... it's AUGUST!


14 posted on 08/12/2005 5:30:08 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Liberals: Too stupid to realize Dick Cheney is the real Dark Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublican; Only1choice____Freedom

Tell that to Only1choice____Freedom who thinks a Prius must now be bought. The article didn't say diddly about greenhouse gases.


15 posted on 08/12/2005 5:30:39 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I ain't worried. I remember back when I was in high school in the late 70s, the world was going to end because of a looming Ice Age.

I'm starting to think all this climate stuff is cyclical.

16 posted on 08/12/2005 5:32:08 PM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
Preliminary new evidence suggests that periodic increases in atmospheric dust concentrations during the glacial periods of the last 100,000 years may have resulted in significant regional warming, and that this warming may have triggered the abrupt climatic changes observed in paleoclimate records, according to a scientist at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Current scientific thinking is that the dust concentrations contributed to global cooling.

These people are insane.

17 posted on 08/12/2005 5:34:22 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: patton

bookmark


18 posted on 08/12/2005 5:34:54 PM PDT by Big Giant Head (I should change my tagline to "Big Giant Pancake on my Head")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Straight Vermonter
This one says it all for me...

Got any charts that show fundraising for environmental groups and grants for researchers in times of environmental scares?

19 posted on 08/12/2005 5:35:41 PM PDT by atomicpossum (Replies should be as pedantic as possible. I love that so much.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
We're All Global Warmers Now

Lights a match, lets it burn to his fingers, looks around with evil eyes, lets out a mentally unstable laugh and runs away into the darkness whispering Global Warming is coming, Global warming is here!!! Boo hoo ha ha ha ha! you're all doomed!


lol
20 posted on 08/12/2005 5:36:15 PM PDT by TheForceOfOne (The alternative media is our Enigma machine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Wake me when the world ends....(snore)


21 posted on 08/12/2005 5:36:26 PM PDT by Braak (The US Military, the real arms inspectors!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: patton
Against what real-world event were these model results validated?

Melting and shrinking glaciers as well as various temperature records from the earth's surface, weather ballons and satellites, IIRC.

22 posted on 08/12/2005 5:38:18 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

And if the Yellowstone basin erupts, or there is an asteroid impact on the earth, or if there is a nuclear war, the warming rate will be –110 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

So what’s their point? If everything goes really, really well we will have only a 0.15-degree increase per decade??


23 posted on 08/12/2005 5:39:00 PM PDT by Herakles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up.

Some should certainly hang it up, but not the ones identified.

No technically informed person I know has denied global warming; just the cause of it.

No one with an IQ over refrigerator temperature can conclude that this rise in unique and not natural.
A casual glance at the temperature record for the last 400,000 years clearly shows the futility of being able to separate the confounding effect of man-made activities on the hundreds of recorded naturally occuring wide temperature fluctuations.

End of non-story.

24 posted on 08/12/2005 5:39:57 PM PDT by Publius6961 (Liberal level playing field: If the Islamics win we are their slaves..if we win they are our equals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim_Curtis
Yup, adjustments always do the trick.

That's what global warming fanatics have always depended on. Remember though, 83% of all statistics are lies.

25 posted on 08/12/2005 5:40:02 PM PDT by irv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

> "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of
> dramatic or catastrophic warming."

And slow enough to allow ample time to take steps, if
any steps are indeed indicated - irrespective of the
cause of the warming.

So what is the correlation between Earth temps and
Solar insolation?

Do we want to loft a giant sunshade?


26 posted on 08/12/2005 5:40:30 PM PDT by Boundless (Imagine if Fox had a news channel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mtbopfuyn
Anyone and anything that farts is a global warmer.

I have this great idea! I'm going to put in a cork distributorship.

My new slogan: Corks to stop global warming!

Cow size corks extra. Hippopotamus size corks extra extra!

27 posted on 08/12/2005 5:41:05 PM PDT by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

To: neverdem

Predicting long time scale climatic trends using the data they cite is like extrapolating the entire contents of the Los Angeles Yellow Pages by the contents of the first page. Ice cores which still only record the geologically recent indicate that large climate swings both up and down are commonplace. Just another attempt to justify the removal of certain refrigerants from the market and the continued existence of the industry hampering nanny state.


29 posted on 08/12/2005 5:45:57 PM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up.

Remember the global cooling scare in the mid 70's?

Just think how bad off we'd be if we reacted to those scientists warnings and had spent $Trillions over the last 30 years trying to warm the planet.

I still am waiting for the environmentalists to use the same computer models to "predict" the past. We know a lot more about the past and it would give us great insight into how accurate their predictions for the future are.

30 posted on 08/12/2005 5:50:03 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJL; patton; Straight Vermonter; All
Global Warming on Mars?
31 posted on 08/12/2005 5:56:15 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Reconciling model trends by making adjustments in basic parameters is unimpressive. And it is surprising that the article would reference the IPCC original projections, given that the IPCC's data are known to have been cooked and have been decisively discredited years since. This whole area of "science" (loosely termed) has been compromised by political Lysenko-ization. I wouldn't trust a one of these so-called "researchers." Sadly we just know too much these days about how scientists will readily lie for money, prestige, tenure, what have you.


32 posted on 08/12/2005 5:57:17 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RJL

Back in the 70s, the envirokooks here in Arizona said that "global cooling" was happening because the Saquaro cactii were moving further south towards Phoenix. Now that we have settled on "global warning," I haven't seen any indications that they have started moving north. They are still in the same place I've known them to be for the past 50 years. Go figure.


33 posted on 08/12/2005 5:57:45 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We did not lose in Vietnam. We left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

but since we're at "Peak Oil" (barf alert) http://www.peakoil.net/ , CO2 emissions should be reaching a maximum right about now. Then using the CO2 logic, we're going to sink into another ICE AGE!!! Oh, THE HUMANITY!!!


34 posted on 08/12/2005 6:00:28 PM PDT by theymakemesick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MassRepublican

From 800 a.d to about 1200 a.d the climate of the earth had to be quite a bit warmer for Greenland to have been settled and crops grown by the Vikings. Why didn't this tremendous warming result in millions of deaths around the world from rising ocean levels? Surely some historian would have recorded changes in water levels. I guess the world didn't end from the effects of this warming (/sarcasm).


35 posted on 08/12/2005 6:00:53 PM PDT by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: patton

Oh my god, almost a whole degree increase per century. We're all gonna die!!!! (yuk,yuk)


36 posted on 08/12/2005 6:03:16 PM PDT by driftless ( For life-long happiness, learn how to play the accordion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
OK OK, Lets say that this is a proven fact that it will warm 2.0c by 2100.

We still have not determined, "How much of this is human caused vs. nature?"

And even if we answer this question:

The next two are even more difficult to answer, maybe we should just leave it alone:
What can we do without causing another equally bad result??
        --    We could do more damage than what would have happened if we had left it alone.
        --    We are talking about trying to manliplate the climate on a global scale.

And secondly, what is the cost benefit analysis say?
        ---    Are we trying to buy pennies for dollars???
        ---    It it going to cost more lives to stop it vs. just dealing with it?
37 posted on 08/12/2005 6:06:27 PM PDT by dila813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

It's all China's fault. And India's. And, of course, Bush's.


38 posted on 08/12/2005 6:09:34 PM PDT by Right Wing Assault ("..this administration is planning a 'Right Wing Assault' on values and ideals.." - John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Guess we better start building those nuke plants.


39 posted on 08/12/2005 6:10:47 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I don't mean to attack you, but you recall something that never happened.

NO climate model has ever been validated.

40 posted on 08/12/2005 6:12:03 PM PDT by patton ("Hard Drive Cemetary" - forthcoming best seller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
All this "global warming" stuff will be irrelevant if John Roberts is confirmed to the Supreme Court.

We're all doomed! Doomed!

Demologic/off

41 posted on 08/12/2005 6:14:24 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We did not lose in Vietnam. We left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Assault

Yeah right, the scientists controlling the satellites and keeping them in orbit don't know how to correct for some kind of systematic drift.

Double Duh!

Look, just record some long-term temperatures and show me where they are increasing.

And don't point to melting glaciers either. They have been melting for 18,000 years.

The actual evidence we do have shows there are ice ages every 115,000 years, (100,000 years of ice followed by 15,000 years of interglacial.) That is the climate history for the past 2.5 million years.

Maybe we need a little warming to stave off the next ice age. Show me a study that says that is not true.


42 posted on 08/12/2005 6:21:41 PM PDT by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
"The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."

Bottom line, literally.

43 posted on 08/12/2005 6:25:50 PM PDT by avg_freeper (Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I check the weather three or four times a day on Yahoo, and it changes about three times a day. The US Meteorological Service can't even predict the weather throughout the course of one day.

Mr. Bailey, sie sind voll mit scheiss.

44 posted on 08/12/2005 6:33:42 PM PDT by Hardastarboard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Despite what global lukewarmers say, the issue has never been about whether or not the climate is changing. Given the physical evidence, the tree rings, the ice cores, the ocean sediment samples, it would be silly to deny the climate is always changing.

The record is very clear: the earth has been far warmer at times in the past than it is today. The mammoth tusks being harvested in Siberia prove that region was far warmer in a long ago era, long before SUVs roamed North America.

The real issue is: what will humanity do about climate change? Indeed, can we or should we do anything?

It is no surprise that the Global Lukewarmers insist on devising solutions that always reduce personal freedom, increase the power of big and bigger government, and increase costs and taxes.

Will it benefit or harm humanity that the growing season in some areas of the world get a few days longer, or that it warms up enough that once again Greenland can be settled by farmers and ranchers, like it was by Erik the Red almost 1000 years ago.

But wait! If Greenland was that warm once, and Global Lukewarmers don't care to discuss how that came about, or how that destroys their climate models, should we speculate their predictions about the future climate trends are solid enough to speculate hundreds of billions of dollars on?

It seems like a lot of Global Lukewarmers are in a big rush to impose their solution. But is there really a problem that we can solve? Prudence dictates that we not be in any big hurry. If global warming was global, then its effect should be seen, well, globally. Please consider the chart on John Daly's climate change web site. Here is the temp chart for three cities in Columbia, Bogota, Neiva and Las Gaviotas. Where is the warming trend? http://www.john-daly.com/stations/bogota.gif Here is a link to the charts for other cities and city pairs: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm Like this city pair in Finland and Sweden: http://www.john-daly.com/stations/jyvaskyl.gif Where is the "global warming"??
45 posted on 08/12/2005 6:48:12 PM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Not all Glaciers are melting and shrinking, some are growing. Global warming has been proven to be BS, several times. The alarmists however don't care about facts, they will make their own and scream and cry to the people so they can get funding. It is all about the money and control. If you can keep people scared you can control them, it is that simple.


46 posted on 08/12/2005 7:08:47 PM PDT by calex59 (If you have to take me apart to get me there, then I don't want to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Melting and shrinking glaciers as well as various temperature records from the earth's surface, weather balloons and satellites, IIRC.

In the last couple weeks I read a story lamenting the melting glaciers in Austria, and how they were covering parts of the glaciers with some material to help protect them from the heat.

It went on to say that in 2003 it was so bad they could see "a forest of tree stumps" under the ice.

This tells me that at one time the mountain was a lot warmer than it is now, and it was warmer for a long enough time to grow a forest.

47 posted on 08/12/2005 7:33:22 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Boundless
Do we want to loft a giant sunshade?

Yes, clouds. They turn the surface from a deep blue ocean color into a silvery white reflector. The even nicer thing is they can be made and managed locally, negating the involvment of a huge UN government.

48 posted on 08/12/2005 7:48:01 PM PDT by Reeses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways
Maybe we need a little warming to stave off the next ice age. Show me a study that says that is not true.

The predictions of the Genesis of Warmist Scripture would show that we are living in a fast approaching Ice Age but man's warming factor has kept it in check. They are constantly trying to "adjust" their way out of that prediction because the people would be begging for more human warming contributions if the fear is that the earth is freezing over.

Another problem they have is the "Book of Gore" in their Warmist Scripture. If Cold winters are a sign of global warming, as we are instructed to believe in the "Book of Gore", then average yearly temperatures mean nothing because cold winters, which is a sign of warming, drives down the average temp and would be seen as less warming. Just as a warm winter, which must be a sign of global cooling, would make the average temp warmer and thus be seen as global warming.

49 posted on 08/12/2005 8:48:15 PM PDT by Jim_Curtis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
SO WHAT? Are they going to put a shield on the sun?

yes, that's one proposed option...mylar screens in orbit around the earth.

50 posted on 08/12/2005 10:16:50 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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