Global Warming

Climate change theories describe changes of a fraction of a degree per year. No local weather phenomenon is remotely applicable to the argument. We're having a very cold winter here in the NE USA. The summers of the late 90s were very hot. Neither of these impacts the arguments about global warming one way or another.

If there was an worldwide average temperature change of one degree per year, it would not be noticeable to ordinary people, yet this would be an absolutely monumental shift.

If there is global warming of significant extent, some regions would experience an average temperature decline. Prevailing ocean currents are responsible for much of the predominant climates around the world. If significant melting of the icecaps occurs, these currents will change. England, for example, is warmed considerably by the gulf stream. If there is global warming, England would probably experience cooler temperatures.

Irrational hype should not control the argument about global warming in either direction.

Njorl

 

These forums are remarkably devoid of hot Anthropogenic Global Warming debate. Or did I miss something?

It is with regret that I have observed the disease of one of the greatest AGW opponents, John Daly..

Now all or hopes are on http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html [Broken], the last brave but tired warrior against the global warming frenzy.

 

Despite what we might sometimes think, people on this forum usually try to argue from a position of knowledge. That is pretty hard to do with the global warming debate. The complexity of the issue, combined with the stakes involved, make it easy and profitable for those with an agenda to make fraudulent, but apparently sound arguements.

My degree is in Physics and Atmospheric Science. I worked on NASA's Earth-Radiation-Budget-Experiment (ERBE) among other climate monitoring programs (a long time ago). But I am reduced to looking at the arguements, discarding those with ulterior motives, and then seeing who has more experts on their side. I can't really make good arguements myself.

Njorl

 

I have been classified as "amateur explorer" by some authorities but I'm not a scientist. I have studied "quartenary geology", dedicated to explain ice ages. I have compared numerous field reports with academical models, theoretical assumptions and evidence from ice cores and sediment cores (Oceanic, lacutrine, etc).

The observation is that things do not add up at all. From the observations it is crystal clear that the common interpretations of certain phenomena are plain wrong. Yet, they form the "scientific basis" for IPCC, explaining ice ages and consequently explaining "global warming". But the reality is a totally different story, that we yet have to understand.

But if the AGW debate is degraded to who has the most experts on his side and the main argument being which oil copmpagny is paying how much to other experts for their attempts to refute AGW, then we never will understand anything at all.

 

Interesting, isn't it? Must be the Illuminati.

Actually, it has been discussed in the past (you'll have to dig through the archives), but I too wonder why it doesn't get batted around more often. These kind of topics usually come in waves. There'll be some news release and a bunch of related topics will show up. Then things will settle down for a while until new info is found.

Here's an ongoing topic related to Global Warming...(in the politics forum)
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12280

 

Phobos,

Remarkable observation. Perhaps the members of these forums are executing common sense and they may have their reservations about the methods of the global warmers.

Incidentely, that extinction article,

http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v427/n6970/abs/nature02121_fs.html

I nominate that as the worst "scientific" article of the century (which is not that old of course).

Now, isn't that provocing discussion?

 

I found it interesting that, any global warming topic that was brought up for discussion usually ended (rather quickly) with a lot of mud-slinging and name-calling by the opponents of GW. "Another conspiracy theory..." or "alarmists..." Blah, blah... I decided I'd be better served by looking elsewhere for intelligent discussion on this subject.

 

recently read in the Journal Science about some of the aerosol mixing in the atmosphere, the gasses we are adding are having effects, some more measurable then others...but concensus is growing (has grown) that it is a very real thing, and we are one of the causes....so....

 

It is interesting that I sat down by the eastern end of Lake Ontario this morning and could see, with my (tinted slightly green) sunglasses ON, the orangey brownish haze that is floating over the ice, that is covering this end, of the lake.

We can literally notice the effects that we are having upon the atmosphere and yet, we seem to want to pretend that it isn't really there, or worse, that it is there but it doesn't matter, at all...how sad, how truly sad....

It does matter.

 

here at PF?