Petraj Wrote:The IPCC is composed of around 2,000 scientists correct? Lets ignore the fact that some scientists on that list either no longer support the panel and even threatened to sue to remove their names or had their names added without their consent. Seems like a mighty number, but how does that compare to 31,000 scientists who reject the "'global warming' agena"?

Petraj Wrote:NASA: Clean-air regs, not CO2, are melting the ice cap

This also reminds me of America's love for the fad of the hybrid car. The sheeple prefer to gawk at the Toyota Prius [sic] giving 45 mpg. All the while ignoring the massive environmental impact the production of its batteries causes. Acid rain anyone?

Unfortunately, if only we could buy the highly fuel-efficient European cars. For example, both the Volkswagen Polo Bluemotion and Ford Fiesta ECOnetic diesel engines can do over 60 mpg. Heck, even a huge twin-turbo V6 diesel engine Jaguar XJ6 TDVi can achieve pretty good mpg. A tank-full of diesel was able to drive 750 miles, even though the fist half to two-thirds of the trip was done wastefully and at 75 mph (Top Gear season 12, episode 4).

The IPCC is composed of around 2,000 scientists correct? Lets ignore the fact that some scientists on that list either no longer support the panel and even threatened to sue to remove their names or had their names added without their consent. Seems like a mighty number, but how does that compare to 31,000 scientists who reject the "'global warming' agena"?

Indeed, go look at the numbers. The true numbers.

As to who we can blame for this outright lie that there's a "consensus" on the issue (even though that in itself holds no place in science), we can all point a finger on history professor Naomi Oreskes. Since science is all about peer review (i.e. another scientist performs experiments/research to confirm said claim) medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte repeated her query into the database. The fact of the matter is there doesn't exist this "consensus" that the zombie-like mass media and politicians fart out. (source)



So, with all this scare of the ocean rising by 20 feet or whatever in the future because of the melting ice caps and whatnot, does anyone want to guess what percent of Earth's water is actually ice? 2%? 10%? 20%? 40%? According to Wikipedia it's around 2%, though it provides both figures of 2.4% in the introductionary paragraph and 1.8% almost half-way down (link). Also, as water turns into ice its volume increases by 9%. With 70.9% of the Earth's surface being covered by water (citation taken from here) and about 0.145% of the global sea ice being lost (source), I believe you guys should know in which direction this is heading to.

As local meteorologist John Coleman once said, "Global warming is a choice." 8 hours until the first 2x exp session, so a sleepy toodles~

Stereo Wrote:This article has been widely trashed for being unscientific and inaccurate. They make some convenient assumptions (for example, that the Prius will be scrapped after 80,000 miles, while the Hummer will last over 300,000) that lead to their findings. If you build 4 Priuses and 1 Hummer, you'd tend to lose out on the fuel advantages of the Prius.

Stereo Wrote:When has number of scientists (or people with bachelor of science) who agree with a theory determine whether it's correct?

Stereo Wrote:Going by the numbers on Wikipedia, it's easy to work it out. 25 million cubic km of ice. The Earth's total surface area is 361 million square km of water.

If all of that melted, and distributed evenly, it would end up being a 70m rise (it'll end up being less, since it spreads over low lying areas, eg. Bangladesh, England, New York). So the 0.145% per year represents ~10cm(4 inches) per year. In 30 years that's a 10 foot rise... and that's only if we continue at current rates.

Morgana Wrote:Thank you, Stereo. Glad to see someone who actually bothered to debunk the misleading statistics being used in this thread.

Morgana Wrote:And all data suggests that we are, and will, because we cannot stop the chain reactions occuring right now from the CO2 we emitted yesterday, or 10 years ago, or 100 years ago.

Morgana Wrote:I've never seen Al Gore's movie. Don't treat one layman's-terms film as the basis of an entire debate, especially a debate that is so fundamentally scientific, and especially a film that is purposefully provocative.

Vathek Wrote:Sirrah,

I regret to inform you that you are an imbecile

This appears to be a genetic condition; it is implicit, and there is naught to be done about it

good day to you.

Cordially,
Vathek.

Petraj Wrote:Grow up. Your childish and ignorant antics do not change what reality actually is. One has to wonder if Al Gore is a better man than you.

Petraj Wrote:Sun Oddly Quiet -- Hints at Next "Little Ice Age"?
This year's number of sunspots is still at a low, even though the current 11-year cycle points 2008 as a minimum and 2009's numbers on the up. This lull in activity reminds some scientists of the Little Ice Age (around 1300-1850), with the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) being the coldest and having a deep dip in activity. With there having no statistical warming for the past 10 years (source) it does make one wonder of the two correlations, even with the pro-AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) National Geographic desperately wanting to strap us down and look the other way.

Quote:Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say
Incidentally, the Pacific Ocean has already experienced an extended La Nina. Another natural factor of the complex nature. Even the head of the IPCC has had to acknowledge (source) that Nature doesn't think much of AGW. That the natural cooling is having an effect on the IPCC's run-away, mega-catastrophic, ultra undeniable alleged fact of a warming world. Furthermore, the oceans may even make the northern hemisphere become colder. Not quite the news northern USA would want to hear, considering the heavy snow fall they received this winter that even crippled numerous areas (no clue about Canada, so sorry fellow Canadians if any suffered similar conditions). In the big view of things, I believe this may just be a sign of the north catching up with the cooling the southern hemisphere has already experienced.

Quote:Back to the Jennifer Marohasy interview. NASA's Aqua satellite data disprove the current model that as more CO2 is pumped to the atmosphere and a warming ensues, more water vapor is created and a positive feedback happens. Instead, a little bit of warming is compensated by weather processes, thereby limiting the greenhouse effect and having a negative feedback. As Michael Duffy surmised, "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?" And thus, all the models need to be overhauled to include this new finding. Pretty amazing stuff, as new technology further deepens our understanding of nature and move science one more step away from the Neanderthal rationale of the IPCC and to a certain extent the AGW religion.

Quote:Decay of the Greenland Ice Sheet due to surface-meltwater-induced acceleration of basal sliding
This simulation predicts that the melting ice sheets will contribute to sea levels a rise of 18 cm by 2100. Though if you look at Figure 1 in the paper (download the PDF file for a copy) they used scenario WRE1000 for their simulation. Which probably denotes Cubasch et al.'s worst case scenario of run-off CO2 emissions and a +3 degrees Celsius change of global mean temperature by 2100. Also, note that these scenarios show an exponential characteristic as time advances. Though, interesting for me at least, not before a semi-linear delta T is seen until about 2020-2030.

Thus another nail or two against the AGW coffin is nailed in. No rise of five meters per century as preached by the IPCC, or even 10 meters by that NASA reject Jim E. Hansen (link 1, link 2). Nothing catastrophic at all.

Stereo Wrote:This doesn't make sense, El Nina just shifts the temperatures (hotter Australia = cooler North America) it is entirely within the system and doesn't cause global temperature change.

Stereo Wrote:I guess that wasn't clear, local temperatures change (since a major ocean current shifts, warm water goes to different places) but the overall heat of the system is no different.