Thanks for being honest . Don't you think that this is fundamental to even understanding the mechanism behind climate change? Sorta like disagreeing with evolution without understanding natural selection.
I have yet to find a scientist (climate change skeptics included) who have disputed that the greenhouse effect does exists. What I don't understand is how you can accept the greenhouse effect AND the fact that the carbon composition of teh atmosphere has increased greatly since industrialization (records of atmospheric carbon records have been traced as far back as 650000 years ago through ice core samples) and still not make the obvious connection that there is a positive correlation. Compounding the effect is that much of the tropical rainforests have been deforested which keep carbon levels in balance.
You have no way of knowing whether other factors have a more significant influence than CO2. In the past when the greenhouse effect has been in full force like during the age of the dinosaurs the climate was much more uniform and less variable than today. Based on historical evidence warming the atmosphere will not produce the super storms all the media loves to flog.
first of all,anyone who knows anything about the U.N. knows they are not to be trusted.if you have this image of a peace keeping,pro human rights organization you are dead wrong.this global warming scam is about $.they want a global tax and thats how they are going to dupe you into it.also strict environmental laws will be established merely as a land grabbing tool,not to "save the planet".and just as many if not more world scientists oppose the global warming theory.
also...
Eight Reasons to End the Scam
Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to http://www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
Time for Common Sense
The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.
It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
first of all,anyone who knows anything about the U.N. knows they are not to be trusted.if you have this image of a peace keeping,pro human rights organization you are dead wrong.this global warming scam is about $.they want a global tax and thats how they are going to dupe you into it.also strict environmental laws will be established merely as a land grabbing tool,not to "save the planet".and just as many if not more world scientists oppose the global warming theory.
also...
Eight Reasons to End the Scam
And what biased website did you get this from?
Boy, just as we're making way to non-politicize the issue comes another political angle from right field. What I find so funny about your 8 Reasons, is the part the American gov't spends so much money on it. Bush is absolutely not in favor of any global warming studies, let alone, ANYthing to do with the environment. There's no issue to this...if you care about our children's world, you'll take care of it.
Boy, just as we're making way to non-politicize the issue comes another political angle from right field. What I find so funny about your 8 Reasons, is the part the American gov't spends so much money on it. Bush is absolutely not in favor of any global warming studies, let alone, ANYthing to do with the environment. There's no issue to this...if you care about our children's world, you'll take care of it.
it's funny how the uninformed love being stuck in a political para dime.when will you learn this shit is like wrestling! fake opposition but sharing the same intentions! and you stuck in the middle completely controlled.
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to http://www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
Can you find a single peer reviewed paper from a credible scientific journal that discredits climate change? Where are all these skeptics and their proof? I have only seen people post websites and new/media articles, but there is an absense of authentic and legitimate scientific literature which denies its existance and relationship with human activity. Find me a peer reviewed article or one in a scientific journal and this would have credibility
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
And tree ring analysis, and pollen samples and ice core samples which date back as far as 650 000 years ago and contain oxygen isotopes which can tell us almost the precise tempertare and also the CO2 content in the atmosphere. Tree rings in ancient trees give us very accurate ideas of temperture due to the size of rings indicating longer/shorter growing seasons all correlated with temperature and pollen samples which have shown us what has grown where and when which sheds much insight on what land temperature has shown.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
You are right. There is not one clear concensus which is why climatologists have offered a range of different scenarios but all of them include warming. Its like saying that we can't predict that if you smoke you'll die from cancer at 75 but we know that you are doing your body damage.
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
Again, regional warming trends, not global temperature increase. During that time the global temperatures had a very modest spike, not anywhere nearly as severe as what we are seeing now. What we are experiencing now has been determined that it is too fast and to severe for natural causes to cause it. I concede some places will benefit from a warmer climate, but other places would be much worse off. Ie. incrased drought in Africa, mass flooding in Bangladesh and SE Asia, increased extreme weather events...
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
What is the cost of not doing anything? How much would more extreme weather cost us? How many more deaths in Africa due to increased drought? how about flooded towns and cities. This is very short sighted. We have resonded to crisis' before and made the proper adjustments. Yes it is grim. If we did not put out anymore GHG tomorrow, we still would see climate change for another 60 years or so before the atmosphere could fall back into balance, but that does not absolve us from resonsibility for fixing our mistakes.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
Care to describe the program? Its hard to analyze anything by just saying a program didn't work. What program? What was its design? I don't have a lot to go by...
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
No regrets??? Oops we've fucked something up but oh well. no regrets? How much stronger does the science need to get? Over 90% of the top climatologists have made it clear that humans are responsible. There is tons of scientific literature out there yet none that disputes human induced climate change. The signs are all around us!
zack de la rocha "fear is ya,fear is ya,fear is your only god"
you wanna know what is really killing the planet and is going to get worse?DEPLETED URANIUM MUNITIONS!!! they have been using them since gulf war one and have used them much more in Iraq!! it takes 5 billion years to break down in the environment!!!!!!!meaning Iraq is fucked for eternity!!!!death by a host of nasty ways results from d.u. poisoning.not to mention the bizarre birth defects like kids being born with no legs & arms.plus our soldiers are breathing it in and bringing it home on their gear to their families(gulf war syndrome anyone?)and finally the winds of the planet blow it all around for everyone to enjoy!
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
zack de la rocha "fear is ya,fear is ya,fear is your only god"
you wanna know what is really killing the planet and is going to get worse?DEPLETED URANIUM MUNITIONS!!! they have been using them since gulf war one and have used them much more in Iraq!! it takes 5 billion years to break down in the environment!!!!!!!meaning Iraq is fucked for eternity!!!!death by a host of nasty ways results from d.u. poisoning.not to mention the bizarre birth defects like kids being born with no legs & arms.plus our soldiers are breathing it in and bringing it home on their gear to their families(gulf war syndrome anyone?)and finally the winds of the planet blow it all around for everyone to enjoy!
No I'm not scared. AHHH THE SUN IS OUT!!!! but there is a time when we can recognize a problem and then work towards a solution. If you find fault in anything I've said then we can discuss it. Do you understand the science or did you just cut and paste?
No I'm not scared. AHHH THE SUN IS OUT!!!! but there is a time when we can recognize a problem and then work towards a solution. If you find fault in anything I've said then we can discuss it. Do you understand the science or did you just cut and paste?
both.
Albert Einstein : "the true genius is the man who realizes he knows nothing"
is it getting hotter?yes
is it man or natural cycle? no one knows 100%
study the science and it leans toward natural cycle.
who controls the world that controls the media that controls your point of view?
"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot". Mark Twain
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
Albert Einstein : "the true genius is the man who realizes he knows nothing"
is it getting hotter?yes
is it man or natural cycle? no one knows 100%
study the science and it leans toward natural cycle.
who controls the world that controls the media that controls your point of view?
No, study the science, and you won't find a natural cycle that has been this abrupt nor this severe.
Do you accept the science behind the greenhouse effect? I am always asking this question, but it seems that many do not really understand it which is fundamental to understanding the problem.
I don't give two shits about media. I don't even have a tv, but I am someone who has studied climate at the university level. My degree is in environmental geography and I'm married to an ecologist so its not like I'm just following a bandwagon of celebrities and newspaper clippings.
If you want to hold a position on climate change, that is fantastic. But is it informed? Where have you found fault in any of my counter-arguments?
first of all,anyone who knows anything about the U.N. knows they are not to be trusted.if you have this image of a peace keeping,pro human rights organization you are dead wrong.this global warming scam is about $.they want a global tax and thats how they are going to dupe you into it.also strict environmental laws will be established merely as a land grabbing tool,not to "save the planet".and just as many if not more world scientists oppose the global warming theory.
To whom will it profit? Why? And what about other instances of the UN such as UNHCR (for refugees), UNICEF (for children), UNAIDS (against aids), FAO (for food)?
it's funny how the uninformed love being stuck in a political para dime.when will you learn this shit is like wrestling! fake opposition but sharing the same intentions! and you stuck in the middle completely controlled.
That's a nice analogy, but a wrong one. While in wrestling people are just watchers, in the real life both sides actually act on our lives. And sometimes do good things for us.
I concede some places will benefit from a warmer climate, but other places would be much worse off. Ie. incrased drought in Africa, mass flooding in Bangladesh and SE Asia, increased extreme weather events...
Yes, I think it's the worse argument against global warming : "well I enjoy warmer weather". I'm sure you do but people trying to have crops in Ethiopia don't.
anybody know why greenland is called what it is? the earth has been heating up and cooling off since long before we came around, and it will continue to do so long after we are gone.
anybody know why greenland is called what it is? the earth has been heating up and cooling off since long before we came around, and it will continue to do so long after we are gone.
Nobody is disuputing that climate has fluctuated in the past and will in the future due to natural causes. That is not what this debate is about.
Nobody is disuputing that climate has fluctuated in the past and will in the future due to natural causes. That is not what this debate is about.
But when you realise that climate has fluctuated often rapidly in the past it becomes difficult to understand why people expect it to always be the same into the future.
Too me it makes sense to say that we are to blame for the melting but my father in law who is a really intellingent guy makes some good points about how people forget that the last Ice Age ended about ten thousand years ago which is not that long ago when you are talking about the earths life span.
The earth goes thru changes, some more drastic then others.
With that said i do believe we need to start to really make some serious changes in how we live our life.
He sounds like an inteligent man, and it's true, the earth has cycles in climate, but there is a trend of heating that is not supposed to happen YET if we look at the bigger picture. The last ice age is not like in the cartoon movie, it was a mild change. Fanch provided a good link for that.
scientists can't even predict if we're going to have a dry winter, or a snowy one. but we are supposed to put our economy on hold because they think in 90 years the ocean may be 7 inches deeper? the bigger question is, what will the alarmists hang onto next? the population explosion didn't wipe us out. the ice age didn't get us. the hole in the ozone layer caused by hair spray didn't kill us off. AIDS didn't wipe out large portions of our country like they told us. acid rain didn't get us...........
the same people that tell us not to worry about islamic terrorism, tell us to worry about everything else. its almost enough to make you think they may have an agenda.
They same people? Islamic terrorism is something the whole of the western world is alarmed about, yet I don't let it control my peace of mind or social and political point of view.
And comparing the weather forecast to climate change makes no sense. Time for the bigger picture so start reading a bit more.
And there is no reason to put the economy on hold to find solutions to fight global warming.
The whole nature of science is to continually question and test theories. It's quality control. The UN report stated that it was 'very likely' that humans are responsible for much of global climate change but even then it remains a correlation and open to criticism because there are many other variables which affect climate. Simply because most scientist in a field support it does not change its ability to be falsified or altered.
No but it does mean the mayority of scientists agree on it. Just like the mayority agrees dinosaurs lived on the earth, some try to dispute it with very dumb excuses, yet I think we can agree they existed. Same now goes for our impact on the greenhouse effect and thus climate chage.
the earth has been heating up and cooling off since long before we came around, and it will continue to do so long after we are gone.
Sure it will, but don't underestimate the melting of the ice in Greenland and the rise of water or the discontinuation of the (warm) North Atlantic Current.
again ... those who dispute climate change have either ...
1. not bothered to read about it and are likely googling "climate change is a fraud" to get their info ..
or
2. too stubborn to jump off that conservative bandwagon ... one in which even the conservatives here and bush have leaped off ...
**************
we need wide-scale changes ... let's not get distracted with people who aren't even willing to provide a legitimate source to their info ...
And that is exactly what I'm trying to achieve, hopefully by informing these people with some SCIENTIFICAL FACTS instead of the politically shaped nonsense they've heard and read they might actually learn something. I'm not interested in doom scenarios, but in solutions. And even if I am completely wrong tempering the rise in temperature will only do good.
And that is exactly what I'm trying to achieve, hopefully by informing these people with some SCIENTIFICAL FACTS instead of the politically shaped nonsense they've heard and read they might actually learn something. I'm not interested in doom scenarios, but in solutions. And even if I am completely wrong tempering the rise in temperature will only do good.
340,000 displaced in indonesia due to flooding ... how many will die? ... time to forget the "skeptics" ...
But when you realise that climate has fluctuated often rapidly in the past it becomes difficult to understand why people expect it to always be the same into the future.
I don't think anyone is saying that it will not change again under natural conditions, but clearly the science is showing that this is NOT just a natural fluctation. With the amount of greenhouse gasses that we are putting into the atmosphere along with the abrupt and severe spike (which has not occurred before naturally) there is reason for concern. If we can attribute the changes as human caused damage, then we must re-asses our attitudes and actions.
340,000 displaced in indonesia due to flooding ... how many will die? ... time to forget the "skeptics" ...
There you go again. You have absolutely no evidence to support this and as such it is blatant misinformation. Greenhouse periods reduce the variability of climatic events as the past testifies. Please read the bottom paragraph espescially:
Century of Data Shows Intensification of Water Cycle but No Increase in Storms or Floods
Released: 3/15/2006 12:13:21 PM
U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communication
Editors: Copies of the report "Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis," are available to reporters from the author.
A review of the findings from more than 100 peer-reviewed studies shows that although many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified, including precipitation and evaporation, this trend has not consistently resulted in an increase in the frequency or intensity of tropical storms or floods over the past century. The USGS findings, which have implications on the effect of global climate change, are published today in the Journal of Hydrology.
"A key question in the global climate debate is if the climate warms in the future, will the water cycle intensify and what will be the nature of that intensification," said USGS scientist Thomas Huntington, who authored the study. "This is important because intensification of the water cycle could change water availability and increase the frequency of tropical storms, floods, and droughts, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere could amplify climate warming."
For the report, Huntington reviewed data presented in more than 100 scientific studies. Although data are not complete, and sometimes contradictory, the weight of evidence from past studies shows on a global scale that precipitation, runoff, atmospheric water vapor, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, growing season length, and wintertime mountain glacier mass are all increasing. The key point with the glaciers is that there is more snowfall resulting in more wintertime mass accumulation – another indication of intensification.
"This intensification has been proposed and would logically seem to result in more flooding and more intense tropical storm seasons. But over the observational period, those effects are just not borne out by the data in a consistent way," said Huntington.
Huntington notes that the long term and global scale of this study could accommodate significant variability, for example, the last two Atlantic hurricane seasons.
"We are talking about two possible overall responses to global climate warming: first an intensification of the water cycle being manifested by more moisture in the air, more precipitation, more runoff, more evapotranspiration, which we do see in this study; and second, the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms which we don't see in this study," said Huntington.
There you go again. You have absolutely no evidence to support this and as such it is blatant misinformation. Greenhouse periods reduce the variability of climatic events as the past testifies. Please read the bottom paragraph espescially:
Century of Data Shows Intensification of Water Cycle but No Increase in Storms or Floods
Released: 3/15/2006 12:13:21 PM
U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communication
Editors: Copies of the report "Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis," are available to reporters from the author.
A review of the findings from more than 100 peer-reviewed studies shows that although many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified, including precipitation and evaporation, this trend has not consistently resulted in an increase in the frequency or intensity of tropical storms or floods over the past century. The USGS findings, which have implications on the effect of global climate change, are published today in the Journal of Hydrology.
"A key question in the global climate debate is if the climate warms in the future, will the water cycle intensify and what will be the nature of that intensification," said USGS scientist Thomas Huntington, who authored the study. "This is important because intensification of the water cycle could change water availability and increase the frequency of tropical storms, floods, and droughts, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere could amplify climate warming."
For the report, Huntington reviewed data presented in more than 100 scientific studies. Although data are not complete, and sometimes contradictory, the weight of evidence from past studies shows on a global scale that precipitation, runoff, atmospheric water vapor, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, growing season length, and wintertime mountain glacier mass are all increasing. The key point with the glaciers is that there is more snowfall resulting in more wintertime mass accumulation – another indication of intensification.
"This intensification has been proposed and would logically seem to result in more flooding and more intense tropical storm seasons. But over the observational period, those effects are just not borne out by the data in a consistent way," said Huntington.
Huntington notes that the long term and global scale of this study could accommodate significant variability, for example, the last two Atlantic hurricane seasons.
"We are talking about two possible overall responses to global climate warming: first an intensification of the water cycle being manifested by more moisture in the air, more precipitation, more runoff, more evapotranspiration, which we do see in this study; and second, the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms which we don't see in this study," said Huntington.
what do you mean again?? ... are you saying there is no flooding in indonesia right now where 29 are already dead??
what does this last paragraph mean to you when you add the previous statement?
"We are talking about two possible overall responses to global climate warming: first an intensification of the water cycle being manifested by more moisture in the air, more precipitation, more runoff, more evapotranspiration, which we do see in this study; and second, the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms which we don't see in this study," said Huntington.
"This intensification has been proposed and would logically seem to result in more flooding and more intense tropical storm seasons. But over the observational period, those effects are just not borne out by the data in a consistent way," said Huntington.
how can you say climate change reduces climate variability?? ... that contradicts everything in the IPCC report ... do you have any proof?? ... this report supports nothing of what you claim ... did you even read it?
"We are talking about two possible overall responses to global climate warming: first an intensification of the water cycle being manifested by more moisture in the air, more precipitation, more runoff, more evapotranspiration, which we do see in this study; and second, the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms which we don't see in this study," said Huntington.
"This intensification has been proposed and would logically seem to result in more flooding and more intense tropical storm seasons. But over the observational period, those effects are just not borne out by the data in a consistent way," said Huntington.
how can you say climate change reduces climate variability?? ... that contradicts everything in the IPCC report ... do you have any proof?? ... this report supports nothing of what you claim ... did you even read it?
Ah you evidently didn't read it
He states clearly that the intensfication of tropical storms would seem logical but is NOT supported- "not bourne out"- by the data. In other words tropical storm intensity has not increased in response to global warming.
I posted earlier about the uniformity of Mesozoic climate which during that period was a greenhouse system. Maybe you should read the posts?
He states clearly that the intensfication of tropical storms would seem logical but is NOT supported ("not bourne out") by the data. In other words tropical storm intensity has not increased in response to global warming.
I posted earlier about the uniformity of Mesozoic climate which during that period was a greenhouse system. Maybe you should read the posts?
how do you read "not bourne out in a consistent way"?? ... it doesn't mean that it is not happening ... also ... if you HAD read the report - you will also see the note that data was incomplete and often contradictory ... but, that doesn't fit your ideas ... so, feel free to ignore it ...
again ... your theory has no scientific backing ... feel free to read the latest ipcc report ...
how do you read "not bourne out in a consistent way"?? ... it doesn't mean that it is not happening ... also ... if you HAD read the report - you will also see the note that data was incomplete and often contradictory ... but, that doesn't fit your ideas ... so, feel free to ignore it ...
again ... your theory has no scientific backing ... feel free to read the latest ipcc report ...
Look it is pretty clear that there is no evidence from this reprort to support intensification of storm systems and the term "not bourne out in a consistent way" followed by the comment "that the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms [which] we don't see in this study" pretty clearly supports my assertion. For Gods sake how a bout you read the TITLE!
Now how you can manipulate this into supporting the intensification of storms I'll never know but good luck.
Look it is pretty clear that there is no evidence from this reprort to support intensification of storm systems and the term "not bourne out in a consistent way" followed by the comment "that the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms [which] we don't see in this study" pretty clearly supports my assertion. For Gods sake how a bout you read the TITLE!
Now how you can manipulate this into supporting the intensification of storms I'll never know but good luck.
first of all, your report shows evidence ... just not in a consistent way and with the disclaimer of incomplete data and contardictory information ... but apparently, this one report is definitive ... while all those other reports from the IPCC are not ...
so ... all these extreme weather events happening all over the world - are you saying its normal?
this study didn't even factor the most recent years where we have seen the most significant evidence of climate change ...
Comments
You have no way of knowing whether other factors have a more significant influence than CO2. In the past when the greenhouse effect has been in full force like during the age of the dinosaurs the climate was much more uniform and less variable than today. Based on historical evidence warming the atmosphere will not produce the super storms all the media loves to flog.
also...
Eight Reasons to End the Scam
Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to http://www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.
3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”
4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”
5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”
6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.
7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.
8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.
This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.
Time for Common Sense
The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.
It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
Boy, just as we're making way to non-politicize the issue comes another political angle from right field. What I find so funny about your 8 Reasons, is the part the American gov't spends so much money on it. Bush is absolutely not in favor of any global warming studies, let alone, ANYthing to do with the environment. There's no issue to this...if you care about our children's world, you'll take care of it.
it's funny how the uninformed love being stuck in a political para dime.when will you learn this shit is like wrestling! fake opposition but sharing the same intentions! and you stuck in the middle completely controlled.
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
Can you find a single peer reviewed paper from a credible scientific journal that discredits climate change? Where are all these skeptics and their proof? I have only seen people post websites and new/media articles, but there is an absense of authentic and legitimate scientific literature which denies its existance and relationship with human activity. Find me a peer reviewed article or one in a scientific journal and this would have credibility
And tree ring analysis, and pollen samples and ice core samples which date back as far as 650 000 years ago and contain oxygen isotopes which can tell us almost the precise tempertare and also the CO2 content in the atmosphere. Tree rings in ancient trees give us very accurate ideas of temperture due to the size of rings indicating longer/shorter growing seasons all correlated with temperature and pollen samples which have shown us what has grown where and when which sheds much insight on what land temperature has shown.
You are right. There is not one clear concensus which is why climatologists have offered a range of different scenarios but all of them include warming. Its like saying that we can't predict that if you smoke you'll die from cancer at 75 but we know that you are doing your body damage.
see above about ranges and outcomes...
Again, regional warming trends, not global temperature increase. During that time the global temperatures had a very modest spike, not anywhere nearly as severe as what we are seeing now. What we are experiencing now has been determined that it is too fast and to severe for natural causes to cause it. I concede some places will benefit from a warmer climate, but other places would be much worse off. Ie. incrased drought in Africa, mass flooding in Bangladesh and SE Asia, increased extreme weather events...
What is the cost of not doing anything? How much would more extreme weather cost us? How many more deaths in Africa due to increased drought? how about flooded towns and cities. This is very short sighted. We have resonded to crisis' before and made the proper adjustments. Yes it is grim. If we did not put out anymore GHG tomorrow, we still would see climate change for another 60 years or so before the atmosphere could fall back into balance, but that does not absolve us from resonsibility for fixing our mistakes.
Care to describe the program? Its hard to analyze anything by just saying a program didn't work. What program? What was its design? I don't have a lot to go by...
No regrets??? Oops we've fucked something up but oh well. no regrets? How much stronger does the science need to get? Over 90% of the top climatologists have made it clear that humans are responsible. There is tons of scientific literature out there yet none that disputes human induced climate change. The signs are all around us!
I'm afraid this one is no scam.
you wanna know what is really killing the planet and is going to get worse?DEPLETED URANIUM MUNITIONS!!! they have been using them since gulf war one and have used them much more in Iraq!! it takes 5 billion years to break down in the environment!!!!!!!meaning Iraq is fucked for eternity!!!!death by a host of nasty ways results from d.u. poisoning.not to mention the bizarre birth defects like kids being born with no legs & arms.plus our soldiers are breathing it in and bringing it home on their gear to their families(gulf war syndrome anyone?)and finally the winds of the planet blow it all around for everyone to enjoy!
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
both.
Albert Einstein : "the true genius is the man who realizes he knows nothing"
is it getting hotter?yes
is it man or natural cycle? no one knows 100%
study the science and it leans toward natural cycle.
who controls the world that controls the media that controls your point of view?
"I would rather die on my feet than to live on my knees."
Emiliano Zapata
Do you accept the science behind the greenhouse effect? I am always asking this question, but it seems that many do not really understand it which is fundamental to understanding the problem.
I don't give two shits about media. I don't even have a tv, but I am someone who has studied climate at the university level. My degree is in environmental geography and I'm married to an ecologist so its not like I'm just following a bandwagon of celebrities and newspaper clippings.
If you want to hold a position on climate change, that is fantastic. But is it informed? Where have you found fault in any of my counter-arguments?
To whom will it profit? Why? And what about other instances of the UN such as UNHCR (for refugees), UNICEF (for children), UNAIDS (against aids), FAO (for food)?
That's a nice analogy, but a wrong one. While in wrestling people are just watchers, in the real life both sides actually act on our lives. And sometimes do good things for us.
Yes, I think it's the worse argument against global warming : "well I enjoy warmer weather". I'm sure you do but people trying to have crops in Ethiopia don't.
But when you realise that climate has fluctuated often rapidly in the past it becomes difficult to understand why people expect it to always be the same into the future.
And comparing the weather forecast to climate change makes no sense. Time for the bigger picture so start reading a bit more.
And there is no reason to put the economy on hold to find solutions to fight global warming. No but it does mean the mayority of scientists agree on it. Just like the mayority agrees dinosaurs lived on the earth, some try to dispute it with very dumb excuses, yet I think we can agree they existed. Same now goes for our impact on the greenhouse effect and thus climate chage.
1. not bothered to read about it and are likely googling "climate change is a fraud" to get their info ..
or
2. too stubborn to jump off that conservative bandwagon ... one in which even the conservatives here and bush have leaped off ...
**************
we need wide-scale changes ... let's not get distracted with people who aren't even willing to provide a legitimate source to their info ...
340,000 displaced in indonesia due to flooding ... how many will die? ... time to forget the "skeptics" ...
There you go again. You have absolutely no evidence to support this and as such it is blatant misinformation. Greenhouse periods reduce the variability of climatic events as the past testifies. Please read the bottom paragraph espescially:
Century of Data Shows Intensification of Water Cycle but No Increase in Storms or Floods
Released: 3/15/2006 12:13:21 PM
U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communication
Editors: Copies of the report "Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis," are available to reporters from the author.
A review of the findings from more than 100 peer-reviewed studies shows that although many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified, including precipitation and evaporation, this trend has not consistently resulted in an increase in the frequency or intensity of tropical storms or floods over the past century. The USGS findings, which have implications on the effect of global climate change, are published today in the Journal of Hydrology.
"A key question in the global climate debate is if the climate warms in the future, will the water cycle intensify and what will be the nature of that intensification," said USGS scientist Thomas Huntington, who authored the study. "This is important because intensification of the water cycle could change water availability and increase the frequency of tropical storms, floods, and droughts, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere could amplify climate warming."
For the report, Huntington reviewed data presented in more than 100 scientific studies. Although data are not complete, and sometimes contradictory, the weight of evidence from past studies shows on a global scale that precipitation, runoff, atmospheric water vapor, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, growing season length, and wintertime mountain glacier mass are all increasing. The key point with the glaciers is that there is more snowfall resulting in more wintertime mass accumulation – another indication of intensification.
"This intensification has been proposed and would logically seem to result in more flooding and more intense tropical storm seasons. But over the observational period, those effects are just not borne out by the data in a consistent way," said Huntington.
Huntington notes that the long term and global scale of this study could accommodate significant variability, for example, the last two Atlantic hurricane seasons.
"We are talking about two possible overall responses to global climate warming: first an intensification of the water cycle being manifested by more moisture in the air, more precipitation, more runoff, more evapotranspiration, which we do see in this study; and second, the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms which we don't see in this study," said Huntington.
Link to article- http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1475
Hooray to that!
what do you mean again?? ... are you saying there is no flooding in indonesia right now where 29 are already dead??
what does this last paragraph mean to you when you add the previous statement?
"We are talking about two possible overall responses to global climate warming: first an intensification of the water cycle being manifested by more moisture in the air, more precipitation, more runoff, more evapotranspiration, which we do see in this study; and second, the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms which we don't see in this study," said Huntington.
"This intensification has been proposed and would logically seem to result in more flooding and more intense tropical storm seasons. But over the observational period, those effects are just not borne out by the data in a consistent way," said Huntington.
how can you say climate change reduces climate variability?? ... that contradicts everything in the IPCC report ... do you have any proof?? ... this report supports nothing of what you claim ... did you even read it?
Ah you evidently didn't read it
He states clearly that the intensfication of tropical storms would seem logical but is NOT supported- "not bourne out"- by the data. In other words tropical storm intensity has not increased in response to global warming.
I posted earlier about the uniformity of Mesozoic climate which during that period was a greenhouse system. Maybe you should read the posts?
how do you read "not bourne out in a consistent way"?? ... it doesn't mean that it is not happening ... also ... if you HAD read the report - you will also see the note that data was incomplete and often contradictory ... but, that doesn't fit your ideas ... so, feel free to ignore it ...
again ... your theory has no scientific backing ... feel free to read the latest ipcc report ...
Look it is pretty clear that there is no evidence from this reprort to support intensification of storm systems and the term "not bourne out in a consistent way" followed by the comment "that the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms [which] we don't see in this study" pretty clearly supports my assertion. For Gods sake how a bout you read the TITLE!
Now how you can manipulate this into supporting the intensification of storms I'll never know but good luck.
first of all, your report shows evidence ... just not in a consistent way and with the disclaimer of incomplete data and contardictory information ... but apparently, this one report is definitive ... while all those other reports from the IPCC are not ...
so ... all these extreme weather events happening all over the world - are you saying its normal?
this study didn't even factor the most recent years where we have seen the most significant evidence of climate change ...
OMG!!! go breathe on some glass!
As cows produce more CO2 emissions than humans, maybe we'd be best off to continue to drive our cars and kill all the cows.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
lemme guess ... tim ball told you that ...