Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, February 10, 2006 11:42
VIEWED: 22755
PAGE 20 of 21
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Umm,
Don't give a damn about what?
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Exactly... you got it.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
email his holiness at benedictxvi@vatican.va
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aahhhh, I see.
Why worry about nothing.
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did'nt realize that FINN MAC CUMHAL had already
posted some info on the McKitrick report back on
his Feb 4 2005 post.
He did'nt mention the Monte Carlo test on the
Man algorithm though. That might have come out
later.
Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.
BarnStormer
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
The scientists (yes, science is real!) have been agreeing on Global Warming for years, it's the White House and thier cronies who have failed to give a rat's tiny pink arse.
Its April 24, and I again call upon the international scientific community to journey to Cleveland to help me shovel the 10 inches of snow that has gathered on my driveway since Saturday afternoon.
Or maybe their too busy applying for research grants to look out the window. Here's a study I conducted. Sometimes its cold, sometimes its warm. Sometimes it rains, sometimes it don't. Sometimes the wind blows, sometimes it don't. Sometimes its cludy, sometimes its sunny, sometimes its dark, sometimes its light, sometimes ice falls from the heavens, and sometimes water evaporates back up. This happens everywhere, all the time, to some degree or another. There, now were's my grant?
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero, in all seriousness fuck off.
You have had nothing to offer this discussion at the beginning and you still don't now.
So, stop acting like a troll and go away until you have something to add that's relevant.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I have one simple response here:
Better safe than sorry.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/28/ AR2005042801586.html?sub=AR
Quote:
washingtonpost.com
Data From Space, Oceans Validate Global Warming Timeline
Associated Press
Friday, April 29, 2005; A13
NEW YORK, April 28 -- Climate scientists armed with new data from the ocean depths and from space satellites have found that Earth is absorbing much more heat than it is giving off, which they say validates computer projections of global warming.
Lead scientist James E. Hansen, a prominent NASA climatologist, described the findings on the out-of-balance energy exchange as a "smoking gun" that should dispel doubts about forecasts of climate change.
Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.
If carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions instead continue to grow, as expected, things could spin "out of our control," especially as ocean levels rise from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the researchers said. International experts predict a 10-degree leap in such a worst-case scenario.
The NASA-led researchers were able to measure Earth's energy imbalance because of more precise ocean readings collected by 1,800 technology-packed floats deployed in seas worldwide beginning in 2000, in an international monitoring effort called Argo. Their measurements are supplemented by better satellite gauging of ocean levels, which rise both from meltwater and as the sea warms and expands.
With this data, the scientists calculated the oceans' heat content and the global energy imbalance. They found that for every square meter of surface area, the planet is absorbing almost one watt more of the sun's energy than it is radiating back to space as heat -- a historically large imbalance. Such absorbed energy will steadily warm the atmosphere.
The 0.85-watt figure corresponds well with the energy imbalance predicted by the researchers' supercomputer simulations of climate change, the report said.
Those computer models factor in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane and other gases -- produced by automobiles and more esoteric sources, such as pig farms. Those gases keep heat from escaping into space. Significantly, greenhouse emissions have increased at a rate consistent with the detected energy imbalance, the researchers said.
"There can no longer be genuine doubt that human-made gases are the dominant cause of observed warming," said Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies at Columbia University's Earth Institute. "This energy imbalance is the 'smoking gun' that we have been looking for."
Fourteen other specialists from NASA, Columbia and the Energy Department co-authored the study.
Klaus Hasselmann, a leading German climatologist, praised the Hansen report for its innovative work. "This is valuable additional supporting evidence" of man-made climate change, he said.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
'"The argument that it costs too much to protect people does not sell," said Thomas O. McGarity, a professor at the University of Texas Law School in Austin "But what does sell is this idea that the science is not good."
Science is ever evolving and often hobbled by uncertainty, but policymakers have long recognized this and relied on weight-of-evidence arguments in making regulations.'
(Until these words were adopted into Federal law:) "ensuring and maximizing the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information . . . disseminated by Federal agencies."
Emerson (a lobbyist) slipped the sentences into the 712-page Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, which became the coming year's omnibus spending bill 2000. It is not clear whether anyone in Congress other than Emerson and Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) knew about the buried language.
(Many specific examples were cited where poorly done corporate studies could not reproduce research findings - for example, one study where the animals dehydrated to death - as well as the court cases and Congressional debates where these studies were used by corporate lawyers and lobbyists to place good research in doubt.)
David Michaels, a professor of occupational and environmental health at George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services, said even a good study will appear "not reproducible" if enough bad studies are thrown into the mix.
"I call this 'manufacturing uncertainty,' and there is a whole industry to do this," said Michaels, who was the Energy Department's assistant secretary for environment, safety and health under Clinton. "They reanalyze the data to make [previously firm] conclusions disappear -- poof. Then they say one study says yes and the other says no, so we're nowhere."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME