New NASA Data Debunks Global Warming

[SpiritWarrior]

Inc JD vortex. Run, you fools.

[Cerek]

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Heh, baiting me into doing half the work for you is cheating. Are you really that against researching this by yourself? Think about it, you could answer all these specifics without my help. And let's be honest Cerek, let's say I caved and did the work for you, you'd forget it a few months later and hit your reset button. I think an active investigation on your part might ensure the longevity of information for you, is all. And please, don't get all huffy, you know you repeat stuff alot. Just for me personally it's a waste of time and text as covering the same ground every few months with you does not allow the conversation to evolve ever. Maybe someone else will be happy to indulge you, idk.

I'm not baiting you at all, nor asking you to do my work for me. I'm simply asking for clarification and specifics based on the research you've supposedly already done yourself.

As I said before, your constant assurance that "science is in full agreement on this issue" is too generic, since there are several sub-points to the issue. I listed a few such points in my previous post. The environmentalist alarms have changed dramatically over the last quarter century. First, we were headed towards a mini-ice age, then (just 25 years later), the planet was in serious danger of over-heating, now the scientists have adopted the more generic label of "global climate change" after data began countering some of their predictions about he effects of global "warming". Since you have already done the research (supposedly), it shouldn't be difficult to list some exact points on which science expresses this full agreement you claims exists. It's kinda like saying "All the experts agree the Yankee's are the best team in baseball". Ok, exactly what makes them the "best team"? Most wins so far this year? Most wins historically? Best pitching staff?, Best hitters and fielders? Exactly WHAT criteria is being used to determine them to be the "best"? Until the criteria is known, there is no way for someone else to productively investigate the claim, since they may use different criteria.

You've proclaimed for years that science IS in full agreement and that you have verified this for yourself. Fair enough. All I'm asking is a more detailed statement listing exactly what they are in full agreement on. That doesn't require any more research on your part, it is just asking you to share the results of the research you've already done.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Lol@ because the data was requested they disagree. C'mon dude. Let me tell you, if I was a British scientist and the USA came to these conclusions by themselves, i'd be the first one to request the data so I can take a look at it myself. Because I am a scientist. This is called communication...not disagreement. Data is being traded between scientific communities as we speak.

The fact the data was requested at least indicates other scientists wanted to test the data for themselves to see if they got the same results. That implies there is at least some questions about the results presented. And the fact the GCC refused to share their data shows that communication is not being traded as freely as you suggest.

Originally Posted by SpiritWarrior Why? I did the research and agree with it. You don't.

Since you've done the research, it should be very easy to provide links supporting your conclusions and names of the scientists you have questioned on the issue. I am not asking you to provide any more information than you are requesting from me and since you've done the research, you should have that data readily available. I'm just asking you to share that data so I can look it over myself. It's called communication.

[Azred]

I take off for a quiet weekend and look at what happens during that time.

I remember all the brouhaha from the 1987 "hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica" scare. The alarmists then were telling us that CFCs were dissolving ozone and that the rate of skin cancer would rise sharply in the near future.
Guess what? Not only did the rate of skin cancer not rise, but that hole in the layer repaired itself, reopened--despite our ban on CFCs, and then repaired itself again. So...clearly the scientists were wrong--they jumped to conclusions based on insufficient and incomplete research. Even though our politicians acted based on their conclusions the natural process kept marching along, ignoring our actions.

My point all along has been that the alarmists want to tell us that climatologists either have all the answers or know precisely the cause of certain phenomena (and what to do to fix it) when the reality of the situation is that they do not.

[SpiritWarrior]

I'm not baiting you at all, nor asking you to do my work for me. I'm simply asking for clarification and specifics based on the research you've supposedly already done yourself.

Well, I have already given that info. in earlier posts here and then even pointed to the answer for RTB. As a testament to your commitment, I was waiting for you to glean the answers to that very easy question. When you asked me after I previously said it more than once, it looked lazy is all. But maybe you didn't see. Between then and now, you could have looked up the answer thousands of times.

As I said before, your constant assurance that "science is in full agreement on this issue" is too generic, since there are several sub-points to the issue. I listed a few such points in my previous post. The environmentalist alarms have changed dramatically over the last quarter century. First, we were headed towards a mini-ice age, then (just 25 years later), the planet was in serious danger of over-heating, now the scientists have adopted the more generic label of "global climate change" after data began countering some of their predictions about he effects of global "warming". Since you have already done the research (supposedly), it shouldn't be difficult to list some exact points on which science expresses this full agreement you claims exists. It's kinda like saying "All the experts agree the Yankee's are the best team in baseball". Ok, exactly what makes them the "best team"? Most wins so far this year? Most wins historically? Best pitching staff?, Best hitters and fielders? Exactly WHAT criteria is being used to determine them to be the "best"? Until the criteria is known, there is no way for someone else to productively investigate the claim, since they may use different criteria.

Both of these were already covered in this thread. In fact one of your questions was answered by me in one of my first posts here.
Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to have made the jump from denying science agrees, to demanding just what they agree upon. Why's that?

You've proclaimed for years that science IS in full agreement and that you have verified this for yourself. Fair enough. All I'm asking is a more detailed statement listing exactly what they are in full agreement on. That doesn't require any more research on your part, it is just asking you to share the results of the research you've already done.

Lol, I have? I may have mentioned how science is united on the issue but personal verification suggests (at least to me) going out and doing the actual experiments. Unless you mean I support the findings, which then I agree with.
While we're talking about research, have you watched that movie yet? You've had like three years to do so.

The fact the data was requested at least indicates other scientists wanted to test the data for themselves to see if they got the same results. That implies there is at least some questions about the results presented. And the fact the GCC refused to share their data shows that communication is not being traded as freely as you suggest.

Again....this is science. That statement belies an ignorance of the entire practice as a whole. You would do well to talk with at least one expert and and ask them to explain the premise of the whole thing to you.

Since you've done the research, it should be very easy to provide links supporting your conclusions and names of the scientists you have questioned on the issue. I am not asking you to provide any more information than you are requesting from me and since you've done the research, you should have that data readily available. I'm just asking you to share that data so I can look it over myself. It's called communication.

Man, you really don't like to work huh? You are asking me more than I ask of you, since you have done no research. Which is why I keep telling you to conduct some. But you'd rather sit here with no knowledge and ask that I join the dots for you. This would be acceptable if you had no way of gaining the info. yourself but we know this is not the case. You might even enjoy the process.

This is not communication, that's you asking me to do your homework for you, which is a disservice to you. The communication part was when I suggested avenues to pursue. I have already pointed you in the right direction, the rest falls on you.

Personally, I find it odd that you haven't jumped at the opportunity to prove us wrong - you could blow the lid off this whole thing! The scientific community is at your fingertips, why not go get 'em?

[Chewbacca]

Although the thread has dozens of posts which include science and discussion about scientists, scientific method ect. perhaps it'll help to add another one...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/glob...termediate.htm

Best if you click the link, but here is a topical excerpt:

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities": American Association for the Advancement of Science American Astronomical Society American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Institute of Physics American Meteorological Society American Physical Society Australian Coral Reef Society Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO British Antarctic Survey Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society Environmental Protection Agency European Federation of Geologists European Geosciences Union European Physical Society Federation of American Scientists Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies Geological Society of America Geological Society of Australia International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics National Center for Atmospheric Research National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Royal Meteorological Society Royal Society of the UK The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position: Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil) Royal Society of Canada Chinese Academy of Sciences Academie des Sciences (France) Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany) Indian National Science Academy Accademia dei Lincei (Italy) Science Council of Japan Russian Academy of Sciences Royal Society (United Kingdom) National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release) A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states: "Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science." The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies: African Academy of Sciences Cameroon Academy of Sciences Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences Kenya National Academy of Sciences Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences Nigerian Academy of Sciences l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal Uganda National Academy of Sciences Academy of Science of South Africa Tanzania Academy of Sciences Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences Zambia Academy of Sciences Sudan Academy of Sciences Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus: Royal Society of New Zealand Polish Academy of Sciences

[Azred]

Consensus proves nothing except that lots of people, scientists included, want to take graphs of data (some of which may not go back terribly far, perhaps 50 or 100 years) and then use a linear extrapolation to show where things "will" be in another 20 or 30 years.

As a counter to the above link, check out some of the information and graphs from Climate Skeptic. Amongs its gems are charts showing the following:

glaciers have been shrinking (compared to base year 1950) since 1750

sea levels have been rising since 1800

a discussion of the famous "hockey stick" graph, including the fact that some of the data lines are truncated--one in about 1950 (light blue, labelled BOS2001) and another in 1961 (dark green, for tree ring data); not coincidentally, both data lines show downward trends in later years

a comparison graph that shows two similar warming trends, one from 1957-2008 and another from 1895-1946

charts showing sunspot activity, which was unusually quiet from 1880-1940 and then active since then, with peaks around 1960 and 1990

charts showing the correlation of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and average global temperatures (when the ocean warms up, we all warm up; when it cools down, we all cool down)

*************

It is a known fact that the Earth warms up and cools down; this is nature at its cyclic finest. However, we human beings are simply NOT disrupting this cycle by any significant amount.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally Posted by Azred I remember all the brouhaha from the 1987 "hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica" scare. The alarmists then were telling us that CFCs were dissolving ozone and that the rate of skin cancer would rise sharply in the near future. Guess what? Not only did the rate of skin cancer not rise, but that hole in the layer repaired itself, reopened--despite our ban on CFCs, and then repaired itself again. So...clearly the scientists were wrong--

You got this one all wrong, and it's a bad comparison for you to try to latch onto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
First off, there were not 2 holes -- but rather a thinning and reoccurring holes. Both are related to ozone depleting chemicals, but both also have other factors that affect them as well, down to and including wind.

The differing events were in part related to CFCs and HCFCs and those chemicals would have destroyed the ozone eventually. Luckily, the USA had some prime-for-marked propellants ready to replace CFCs and HCFCs, so we had the $$$ incentive to lead a global charge on the topic. We were as selfish then in our push for change as we are now in our fight against it, but that time we just happened to have our economics line up on the side of doing what's right for the environment. The Montreal Protocol is one of the most easily verifiable successful environmental programs on the international level.

But if you come around here proclaiming to be a man of science or math and don't understand the chemistry of how one Cl molecule can interact with stratospheric ozone (in effect bouncing around up to 16 times losing valence electrons to destroy 16 molecules of O3, making them drop from the stratosphere), then you don't have much credibility.

More chin music. Lots of that these days. It must be about scoring points. Quick, where's JD with a baseball reference?

[Kakero]

Just wondering, if I chop down every trees on the planet and cemented every inch of the ground with concrete. Will my action makes the earth warm up?

[Azred]

Originally Posted by Timber Loftis But if you come around here proclaiming to be a man of science or math and don't understand the chemistry of how one Cl molecule can interact with stratospheric ozone (in effect bouncing around up to 16 times losing valence electrons to destroy 16 molecules of O3, making them drop from the stratosphere), then you don't have much credibility.

I was taking organic chemistry at the time and our professor would discuss the science of ozone depletion with us and actively encouraged us to read the articles that were being published at the time, so I suspect I know quite a bit more about it than the average person. Notice that I didn't say it wasn't happening--it was--but I said that all the research at that time was rushed because people would certain they already knew the cause and were looking to prove it.

The ones who have no credibility are the ones who continue to harp that the planet is being killed by human activity. If that is the case, then why don't these people lead by example and live completely sustainable lives up in the mountains somewhere where they aren't contributing to any supposed problems at all? However, they may not use any product that is produced by processed petroleum in any form and they have to produce their own electricity--they have to remove themselves from the part of the equation they are saying causes damage. If they want to preach it then they should live it.

[robertthebard]

Originally Posted by Kakero Just wondering, if I chop down every trees on the planet and cemented every inch of the ground with concrete. Will my action makes the earth warm up?

According to GCC scientists, parts of the world would have record setting hurricane/tornado years, while other parts of the world, in the same hemisphere, would have a catastrophic Ice Age. This is, after all, the reason they quit using Global Warming, and went to Global Climate Change. I think Kansas would get Ice Tornadoes, like in that ScyFy original movie.