World may not be warming, say scientists

[Paul98]

A single event is one hot day, one hailstorm.

When you get to an entire season of odd temps, or a year of mild weather, AND combine it with things like receding ice coverage, then you start to get a bit more collusion in your supporting evidence.

Again, I am not selling the home and moving to Canada....yet. But that does not mean I am not practicing my French, eh?

We have always had these changes in temperature a cold, mild, or hot season. Receding or increasing ice coverage year to year. These are nothing new, so to point something changing doesn't support man made or not man made. The climate has always been changing. It's the speed of the change that we need to worry about, and what effect humans are having that may cause a disaster.

This is why you need to look at long term trends and the cause of these trends and do analysis to see if it's significant.

Really you could say all weather we have is due to climate change, if we didn't have those changes the weather would be different than it is right now. But I don't really feel that says much as it's the obvious.


Edit: we are most likely saying the same thing just in different ways.

 

[monovillage]

What does consensus views have to do with science? Why don't you just have a vote to change gravity?

The ipcc link

The IPCC explains... Human & Natural Causes of Climate Change

and the noaa link

to top 10. Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

both agree with me and not you and John Cook. It's a combination of natural and some anthropogenic causes. Now give me the amounts for each.

 

[NeoV]

ah yes, Mono and his 'high school science teacher' remarks...

let's compare John Cook's education and background to that of Anthony Watts...shall we?

How many times have you linked his site in these types of discussions?

Come to think of it - how about we compare the, literally, hundreds of CLIMATE scientists who generally agree with each other about man's contribution to the changes in our climate - to the 2 scientists on your side of the discussion...

 

[boomerang]

‘It Is Clear the Science Is Not Settled’: 49 Employees Call Out NASA for Unsubstantiated Climate Science

Just as Jim Hansen, the head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has recently likened man-made global warming to “a great moral issue” like “slavery,” a group of 49 former NASA scientists issued a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolton asking for the administration refrain from including “unproven and unsupported remarks” about climate science in its communications.

The letter, sent at the end of March, includes former scientists, astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center who believe climate science is “not settled” and wish for NASA to look at all available scientific data before making claims of carbon dioxide’s “catastrophic impact”.

The letter is contained in the article and there is a link for the signatures of those that signed it along with numerous other links.

When are we ever going to put this to rest? I for one, am sick of crybaby, anxiety ridden control freaks that want the world to pay up to help assuage their fears. This November is an opportunity to put an enormous cork in their mouths. Let's quit being pushed around by these folks and stand up for what we believe. It's way past time of humoring them. We used to ignore and humor them as an attempt to get along and all it's gotten us is more and more insanity spewing from them seemingly daily. We can stop this.

 

[cybrsage]

There is no PROOF yet that "we" are the cause of this, but enough evidence and solid conjecture to fear that it might be true. It is certainly plausible, and doing nothing about it is just plain irresponsible.

Doing a little something early sometimes saves a lot of something later, whether you believed it early or not.

I would normally agree, but here we cannot just do a little, we have to go big or do nothing (at least that is what the Al Gores say). We know so little about the climate still. Yes, MUCH more than we did just 10 years ago, but in 15 more years we may very well fully understand it.

Until we actually understand what is happening, we might do the exact WRONG thing. We would both make things worse and destroy an already fragile economy. We should wait until we actually understand how things work before trying to change things.

 

[shira]

‘It Is Clear the Science Is Not Settled’: 49 Employees Call Out NASA for Unsubstantiated Climate Science



The letter is contained in the article and there is a link for the signatures of those that signed it along with numerous other links.

When are we ever going to put this to rest? I for one, am sick of crybaby, anxiety ridden control freaks that want the world to pay up to help assuage their fears. This November is an opportunity to put an enormous cork in their mouths. Let's quit being pushed around by these folks and stand up for what we believe. It's way past time of humoring them. We used to ignore and humor them as an attempt to get along and all it's gotten us is more and more insanity spewing from them seemingly daily. We can stop this.

And here's the list of signatories:

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

Anita Gale

Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

Thomas J. Harmon

David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

Alex (Skip) Larsen

Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

Tom Ohesorge

James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

Just look at all those climatologists. Oh, wait . . . .

 

[monovillage]

ah yes, Mono and his 'high school science teacher' remarks...

let's compare John Cook's education and background to that of Anthony Watts...shall we?

How many times have you linked his site in these types of discussions?

Come to think of it - how about we compare the, literally, hundreds of CLIMATE scientists who generally agree with each other about man's contribution to the changes in our climate - to the 2 scientists on your side of the discussion...

I think i've linked Watts site about 3 times in the last 2 years. How many has it been?

Go ahead, you did know that Anthony Watts is a peer reviewed author didn't you?

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...erm-fluxnet-temperature-anomalies-and-trends/

Fall, S., A. Watts, J. Nielsen-Gammon, E. Jones, D. Niyogi, J. Christy, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2011: Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 116, D14120, doi:10.1029/2010JD015146.Copyright (2011) American Geophysical Union.

 

[cave_dweller]

It is time that they broaden the scope with kidnapping the scientists. Some people could lose billions if its proven a myth.

 

[Ninjahedge]

That makes no sense CD.

Again, hinting at evil conspiracy.

The thing that gets me is that the stuff that is being asked is not a MAJOR inconvenience. At this point, we may have time to stop the tub from overflowing before we have to start replacing the drywall downstairs afterward.

If this can be done now, in steps, it would have a positive environmental (long term) effect REGARDLESS OF GLOBAL WARMING. So whether you do something beneficial from common sense, or the fear of disaster, it is still something good.

The issue should not be If something is done, but How Much. But for a world of grey, it is amazing how we keep getting stuck on black and white.

Since when were humans digital beings?

 

[cave_dweller]

That makes no sense CD.

Again, hinting at evil conspiracy.

The thing that gets me is that the stuff that is being asked is not a MAJOR inconvenience. At this point, we may have time to stop the tub from overflowing before we have to start replacing the drywall downstairs afterward.

If this can be done now, in steps, it would have a positive environmental (long term) effect REGARDLESS OF GLOBAL WARMING. So whether you do something beneficial from common sense, or the fear of disaster, it is still something good.

The issue should not be If something is done, but How Much. But for a world of grey, it is amazing how we keep getting stuck on black and white.

Since when were humans digital beings?

I ain't hinting of anything nor stated that its a fact. I just posted a opinion with a bit of Irony thrown into it. You turned it into a conspiracy. Then you proceeded with stating your opinion which is a opinion and not a fact. But I do respect your opinion but it does not say I agree with it.

 

[BudAshes]

It is time that they broaden the scope with kidnapping the scientists. Some people could lose billions if its proven a myth.

That goes both ways. Not saying you are right or wrong but there is a lot more money on the anti-man made climate change side then there is in this "crazy conspiracy". I wouldn't doubt that most of the scientists speaking out against climate change are in an oil companies pockets.

 

[Ninjahedge]

CD, you are saying that "people could lose billions"

I am saying prove it.

 

[cave_dweller]

CD, you are saying that "people could lose billions"

I am saying prove it.

Take away Carbon tax.

 

[Ninjahedge]

Again, specifics.

Which people? Who would be hurt more and who less? You are throwing out blanket statements here.

You also side-stepped the inherent benefits to lowering emissions regardless of climate change. I can name one off the top of my head, acid rain. As an engineer I have seen the damages on buildings.

Our restriction on CFC's is probably the best example of where we can effect the environment, and how we can do something about it with little end cost. YES our Air Conditioners are less efficient now and our Aqua Net is not quite as forcefully propelled, but I do not see Armageddon resulting from it....

 

[cave_dweller]

Again, specifics.

Which people? Who would be hurt more and who less? You are throwing out blanket statements here.

You also side-stepped the inherent benefits to lowering emissions regardless of climate change. I can name one off the top of my head, acid rain. As an engineer I have seen the damages on buildings.

Our restriction on CFC's is probably the best example of where we can effect the environment, and how we can do something about it with little end cost. YES our Air Conditioners are less efficient now and our Aqua Net is not quite as forcefully propelled, but I do not see Armageddon resulting from it....

By poisoning it with radiation or mess up the eco systems with hydro plants? Ooh great thinking. Lets reduce a thing that makes up 3 percent of the atmosphere and mess up a thing that constitutes 70 percent of earth. You should have been a politician. What are you doing on here wasting your time?

 

[Ninjahedge]

You do not use a hammer to paint a picture.

Using geothermal is one way. Developing solar (yeah, the salt flats will no longer be available to test rocket cars. BIG loss there). Putting windmills off the coast (as opposed by the Hamptonite Politicians... hypocrites.).

I am not asking for us to do like the Chinese with their great-dam. But somehow saying that all alternate methods are glowing critters and flooded valleys is a bit of an overstatement.

 

[cybrsage]

I think we should invest heavily in alternative energy sources - it really is a smart thing to do. Not because of the lie that is man made global warming, but because of the reality that is oil cannot last forever and much of it is controlled by people who hate us.

Besides, we will need all the sources of energy we can find when the glaciers start to creep back across the northern hemisphere.

 

[cave_dweller]

You do not use a hammer to paint a picture.

Using geothermal is one way. Developing solar (yeah, the salt flats will no longer be available to test rocket cars. BIG loss there). Putting windmills off the coast (as opposed by the Hamptonite Politicians... hypocrites.).

I am not asking for us to do like the Chinese with their great-dam. But somehow saying that all alternate methods are glowing critters and flooded valleys is a bit of an overstatement.

Do you think a nuclear plant has to blow up first to pollute the water. You are drinking some of it.

http://www.ccnr.org/index.html#gal

 

[dainthomas]

By poisoning it with radiation or mess up the eco systems with hydro plants? Ooh great thinking. Lets reduce a thing that makes up 3 percent of the atmosphere and mess up a thing that constitutes 70 percent of earth. You should have been a politician. What are you doing on here wasting your time?

More like 3 hundredths of one percent.

And what cybrsage said.

 

[actuarial]

I would normally agree, but here we cannot just do a little, we have to go big or do nothing (at least that is what the Al Gores say). We know so little about the climate still. Yes, MUCH more than we did just 10 years ago, but in 15 more years we may very well fully understand it.

Until we actually understand what is happening, we might do the exact WRONG thing. We would both make things worse and destroy an already fragile economy. We should wait until we actually understand how things work before trying to change things.

I partially agree and disagree. Based on the current theory and evidence I think we should encourage the reduction of the potential impact we have even if it's small steps. But I'm not sacrificing what I have for some potential, unmeasurable benefit.

 

[Ninjahedge]

CD, please show me where I said "Nuclear power plant".

Go on ahead, I will give you time.

 

[werepossum]

Again, specifics.

Which people? Who would be hurt more and who less? You are throwing out blanket statements here.

You also side-stepped the inherent benefits to lowering emissions regardless of climate change. I can name one off the top of my head, acid rain. As an engineer I have seen the damages on buildings.

Our restriction on CFC's is probably the best example of where we can effect the environment, and how we can do something about it with little end cost. YES our Air Conditioners are less efficient now and our Aqua Net is not quite as forcefully propelled, but I do not see Armageddon resulting from it....

Well said. Ocean acidification is another thing that worries me. Most life can cope quite well with slightly higher temperatures, more so than with slightly lower temperatures, but reef organisms are designed for very stable environments. We don't understand the food web nearly well enough to usefully predict what a reef die-off might do to marine systems already stressed by over-fishing, siltation, pollution from pesticides and herbicides, hormone-mimicking compounds, etc. So the more we can lower all forms of pollution without too badly harming our economy, the better.

 

[shira]

Post 911 (a very fitting number):

We should continue to study, to learn, for another 10 to 20 years. Actually get to understand what does what, more fully understand the interactions between the various items and forces.

Post 942:

I think we should invest heavily in alternative energy sources - it really is a smart thing to do. Not because of the lie that is man made global warming, but because of the reality that is oil cannot last forever and much of it is controlled by people who hate us.

Enjoy talking out of both sides of your mouth?

So on the one hand, you claim we have to wait "10 or 20 years" because we don't know "what does what." But on the other hand, you've already pronounced man made global warming a "lie." Amazing how in just 31 posts you figured out "what does what."

Can you point us to the mountain of peer-reviewed papers you've published in the past two days?

 

[cybrsage]

I partially agree and disagree. Based on the current theory and evidence I think we should encourage the reduction of the potential impact we have even if it's small steps. But I'm not sacrificing what I have for some potential, unmeasurable benefit.

Agreed. If we take small, incrimental, non-economy impacting steps, I have no problem with it. Pollution is bad, lets get rid of it.

We simply should not sacrifice our economy for something so unsettled and not fully understood.

 

[cybrsage]

Post 911 (a very fitting number):



Post 942:



Enjoy talking out of both sides of your mouth?

So on the one hand, you claim we have to wait "10 or 20 years" because we don't know "what does what." But on the other hand, you've already pronounced man made global warming a "lie." Amazing how in just 31 posts you figured out "what does what."

Can you point us to the mountain of peer-reviewed paper you published in the past two days?

I can show you quite a few peer reviewed papers if you agree to use the IPCC's definition of peer review.


As for your attempt to say I was talking out both sides of my mouth, I suspect you are smarter than that but are pretending to be stupid to try and make a point. I know you are smarter that what you showed in your post, but I will explain it anyway.

We do not understand enough about what is going on to say that man is the cause of the current warming. Those who say man is the cause of the current warming are lying, since we do not understand enough about how things work to actually make this claim. We should continue to study things and actually learn how the climate really works so that we can actually say man is doing the warming.

In the absense of actually understanding these things, the only honest thing to do is to say the natural cycle is still at work. It will take quite a few more years before we truely can say how things interact and can be honest.