Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

WTF?!

 

LOL!

 

It's true. Mr. Bungle taught me this.

 

Global Warming is another hoax; just a cover up for "Project 2025" testing.

 

[YOUTUBE]ctRvtxnNqU8[/YOUTUBE]
I would appreciate it if some of the more informed people on this issue can offer some commentary on this video.

 

It's well-made (and "Don't Panic" is always good advice. That and don't forget your towel), but I think the guy makes a lot of assumptions of his own to make his analysis work. (Remember, I am not an SME on this stuff, tho I am an engineer with a career in scientific research.)

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/samson/feedback_mechanisms/

 

I'll give it a shot.

Most of that video is based on two points of criticism, it seems.

The first point is that computer modeling is notoriously inaccurate. This is of course, true. Models are only as good as their assumptions. However, the climate models that are used today to predict ambient air temperature response to increases in GHGs have all been hind-casted, basically run from a point in history to today to see if they predict current conditions. Unfortunately for all of us, the latest models have been extremely accurate in that regard. Furthermore, while the 1990 predictions of the IPCC were slightly high regarding air temperature compared to actual temps (as pointed out in the video), predictions of polar ice loss were unfortunately far FAR too conservative (i.e. the problem is actually much worse that predicted.) So its a bit unfair to cherry pick one models result from 18 years ago and ignore another.

The second and main point is about positive feedbacks. That video was a good graphical illustration of how small changes in feedback can have drastic impacts on your output. But the author (I didn't bother seeing who wrote it) ignores a very important point made by almost all of the current climate modelers, namely that the critical positive feedback is predicted to occur at +3º C level. It is at this point that the reduction in albedo (from polar ice loss), release of carbon from arctic soils, and the dessication of the Amazon forests would begin to release "game over" levels of GHGs and push the planet into the +6º C (and beyond) realm.

And, I have to say, the point made in the video that urban development has skewed the ambient air data is kind of amusing. Ocean temperatures have increased in line with air temp (although with a lag time), and the accompanying thermal expansion of the oceans has driven all of the sea level rise we have experienced....none of which is of course related to data pulled from urban air monitors.

I'm NOT a scientist, FWIW, but I'm surrounded by the science almost daily so......there you go.

 

Actually, I've seen it suggested that you unplug all electronics not in use: TVs, VCRs, DVD players, DVRs, game consoles, PCs, etc.

 

Unfortunately for us, we are a very $hitty dominant species, at least from a physical standpoint. Also, we are much greater in number than any other dominant species in the past, and the pressure we therefore put on natural resources gives us a much smaller margin of error.

 

The easiest thing to do is put everything on a power strip, and then just turn off the power strip when you aren't using that bunch of devices. Most electronics continue to draw power in order to do various things, including remain responsive to remote controls (or else you'd never be able to turn them back on). This means that the transformer has to be active to step down the 110AC to 5 or 12 VDC, and then a very small amount of DC current is consumed to keep the core systems running.

It's not a lot of power for most devices. It might be instructive to pick up a Kill-A-Watt meter to find out what your energy hogs are, both on and off. My laptop, for example, draws almost the same amount of power when plugged in regardless of what I'm doing. The transformer brick draws 40 watts regardless. I could be off, or idling, and still drawing in the 40 watt range. If I'm really hitting things hard - burning a disc or maxing out the processor - I can spike to over 100 watts. But a 40 watt baseline, even when I'm turned off, means that if my battery is charged and I'm not using the laptop, the transformer will be unplugged.

Not all of 'em are like that - when we got our new cell phones I checked the charging transformers, and they draw zero current unless actively charging a phone. So I'm not obsessive about ensuring that's unplugged.

But it's the big appliances that are the big current draws. Fridge, AC, oven/range (if they are electric), etc. Dryer - that's a huge one. In my case, my web server draws a lot of power because of it's 8 hard drives. I'm planning on rotating that out of service for a much "greener" model (with a storage layout that allows the drives to be shut off when they aren't being used) at some point in the future.

 

Just saw this article from Fortune magazine. Although it is four years old, the message is still scary.

 

Not surprisingly, Texas Governor Rick Parry has read the writing on the wall and is gearing up to fight GHG regulations under the CAA.

 

I don't get his issues, the story doesn't tell me the problems.
a) I never, ever believe any "industry" or business that says regulations will kill it, I believe it even less when they say it will force companies to go overseas.
b) how can energy companies move overseas? Isn't it raw materials in Tx they need/use, aren't all their customers in the US - where would they go and who would they sell what to?

I'm apparently too dumb to understand this as anything but grandstanding.

 

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Interesting. It seems this report is a little more substantial than the previous claims that have been refuted.

 

More scientists than that have signed their names to papers supporting creationism.

 

The number is not important to me.

 

What is? That someone* doesn't agree with a scientific finding? That's the scientific community in a nutshell.






*Numbers aren't important, remember.

 

Supposing for just a second it is true that man did not directly cause it. So what? Are there still not steps man can take to slow it down? Shouldn't we try?

There is definitely some dangers when mixing politics and science - just like politics and anti-science (religion, usually) - where scientific nuances can be lost among political absolutes.

 

A few things about this are substantial in their significance to me.

1) The simple fact that a group like this has organized itself shows how strong their feelings are. Getting 650 world class scientists organized in this manner is a feat by itself.
2) The fact that there is significant opposition to "consensus" findings shows that the consensus finding are more group-think than consensus, which is quite dangerous.
3) The quality of the scientists involved in this report shows that this is not just your R&D Lab Technician for General Mills contesting these claims. In fact, some of the scientists have worked explicitly with the IPCC.

 

I don't know. There is significant scientific proof that the rotation of the earth is slowing, which is affecting electromagnetic fields. Should we try to speed it back up?

I think that because climate science is still a developing science, that it would be prudent to wait for a while before deciding that we can fix natural variations in climate.

 

Don't read this and think that I'm not giving it due consideration, because I am. But again, this is how the scientific community operates - there are always dissenters and sometimes a lot of them. The politicized nature of the topic and the advanced nature of worldwide communications makes this accomplishment less impressive than it might seem.

I would like to see them publish something that actively supports their skepticism. That would go a long way in my opinion.

 

Based on the historical trends of rotation and electromagnetic fields, we are probably tens of thousands of years away from seeing a truly negative impact. I'm quite confident man will have killed off the planet or ourselves by then.

When it comes to active efforts, I agree. But defensive ones are worth taking steps towards in the near future.