Summer hasn't even started, and I'm already sick of it. It is so humid and hazy out here. Eeek! 83 degrees is nothing really, but sure does seem hot. I wished I was a meteorologist, though. I love looking at weather, and patterns, etc.
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
You should frame this quote and save it for your grandchildren so they can know what a good person you were...
why?? cause I look at science as a sum of its parts and realize that its all interelated?? And because of this I don't discount the ability of a species to adapt to its ever changing environment???
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
i love how people will dismiss 99% of the scientific community when it comes to the enviroment.
ALL of the experts are on board with this, perhaps they know what they are talking about? and i am usually the first one to question what i read, but when so many trained, educated, and highly talented people are saying the same thing after extensive research, i might have to start considering their conclusions.
or i can compare them to my local weather guy? give me a fucking break :rolleyes:
actually, i find weather reports to be very accurate. i think that is a myth.
You live in the Philadelphia area. How many times did John Bolaris call for the storm of the century when he was on the air here. Glenn "Hurricane" Schwartz is almost as bad.
The funny thing is no one called that April snow storm we got, but they called many other snow storms that never happened this year.
Open your eyes. Weather forecasting and baseball are the only professions you can be right 30% of the time and make a ton of money.
You live in the Philadelphia area. How many times did John Bolaris call for the storm of the century when he was on the air here. Glenn "Hurricane" Schwartz is almost as bad.
The funny thing is no one called that April snow storm we got, but they called many other snow storms that never happened this year.
Open your eyes. Weather forecasting and baseball are the only professions you can be right 30% of the time and make a ton of money.
i dont watch the bow tie guy, i go to the weather channel for my reports, and i find them to be impressivley accurate. seriously.
the shit is so accurate i can get an hour by hour weather report, that seems to always be correct.
i dont watch the bow tie guy, i go to the weather channel for my reports, and i find them to be impressivley accurate. seriously.
the shit is so accurate i can get an hour by hour weather report, that seems to always be correct.
so you have scattered thunderstorms right now??? ohh wait that's what I'm supposed to be getting but its nice and sunny for miles..... and the radar is clear.
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
the vertical wind shear last season offset the warmer temperatures - having said that - the pacific typhoon season was one of the hardest in recent memories ...
i have no idea what forecasters predicted for your area ... again - micro-climates can fluctuate a lot ... and again - this is not a forecast for a day or a week in 70+ years ... we are discussing overall changes ... so, your typical summer will be warmer and drier ...
Well then, the East Coast will be safe. 57% of variance in surface temperature and precipitation of the East Coast comes from Pacific sea surface temperature. So a stormy Pacific makes a rainy East Coast and a cooler East Coast accoring to this study.
so you have scattered thunderstorms right now??? ohh wait that's what I'm supposed to be getting but its nice and sunny for miles..... and the radar is clear.
perhaps you missed the "30% chance" part of that. or maybe the "scattered" part
Did you actually read the journal article? Or did you just post the first thing that popped on the screen when you opened yahoo this morning.
Here's a fun fact, the exterior of the building where this research was conducted is the exterior for the restaurant Jerry and the gang go to on Seinfeld.
you guys say what you will and do what you want. i choose to keep an open mind.
and there is NO DOUBT in my mind that the past 200 years of the industrial revolution and the hundreds of million of cars just introduced to the planet and enviroment within the last 2 centuries is having a negative impact on this planet. i really dont see how you cannot agree with that.
Weather and Climate are two different things. I love how idiots argue against climate change due to the fact meteorology is imperfect. You may as well just say you don't care about future generations because you're going to die too soon to care. Bravo.
why?? cause I look at science as a sum of its parts and realize that its all interelated?? And because of this I don't discount the ability of a species to adapt to its ever changing environment???
There is ample evidence that adaptation for many of the creatures we now enjoy will be impossible due to the stress global warming will impose upon them. Don't take my word for it.... take a look at the IPCC report I cited since the IPCC is the most authoratative scientific body in the history of modern science.
You can choose to have blind faith that people and wildlife will "evolve" or you can look at the overwhelming amoung of science that says we need to A) curb global warming pollution drastically and take agressive measures to mitigate the impacts of global warming.
Like some others, I choose not to "hope for the best" but instead take it upon myself to do what I can to make a difference... http://www.nwf.org/globalwarmingathome/
"Goddamn Romans. Sure know how to make a ... drum room." --Matt Cameron
There is ample evidence that adaptation for many of the creatures we now enjoy will be impossible due to the stress global warming will impose upon them. Don't take my word for it.... take a look at the IPCC report I cited since the IPCC is the most authoratative scientific body in the history of modern science.
You can choose to have blind faith that people and wildlife will "evolve" or you can look at the overwhelming amoung of science that says we need to A) curb global warming pollution drastically and take agressive measures to mitigate the impacts of global warming.
Like some others, I choose not to "hope for the best" but instead take it upon myself to do what I can to make a difference... http://www.nwf.org/globalwarmingathome/
Global Warming - Signed, Sealed and Delivered
By Naomi Oreskes
The Los Angeles Times
Monday 24 July 2006
Scientists agree: The Earth is warming, and human activities are the principal cause.
An Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal - the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!)
My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause.
Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
Since the 1950s, scientists have understood that greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels could have serious effects on Earth's climate. When the 1980s proved to be the hottest decade on record, and as predictions of climate models started to come true, scientists increasingly saw global warming as cause for concern.
In 1988, the World Meteorological Assn. and the United Nations Environment Program joined forces to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. The panel has issued three assessments (1990, 1995, 2001), representing the combined expertise of 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries, and a fourth report is due out shortly. Its conclusions - global warming is occurring, humans have a major role in it - have been ratified by scientists around the world in published scientific papers, in statements issued by professional scientific societies and in reports of the National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and many other national and royal academies of science worldwide. Even the Bush administration accepts the fundamental findings. As President Bush's science advisor, John Marburger III, said last year in a speech: "The climate is changing; the Earth is warming."
To be sure, there are a handful of scientists, including MIT professor Richard Lindzen, the author of the Wall Street Journal editorial, who disagree with the rest of the scientific community. To a historian of science like me, this is not surprising. In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs and values.
Earth scientists long believed that humans were insignificant in comparison with the vastness of geological time and the power of geophysical forces. For this reason, many were reluctant to accept that humans had become a force of nature, and it took decades for the present understanding to be achieved. Those few who refuse to accept it are not ignorant, but they are stubborn. They are not unintelligent, but they are stuck on details that cloud the larger issue. Scientific communities include tortoises and hares, mavericks and mules.
A historical example will help to make the point. In the 1920s, the distinguished Cambridge geophysicist Harold Jeffreys rejected the idea of continental drift on the grounds of physical impossibility. In the 1950s, geologists and geophysicists began to accumulate overwhelming evidence of the reality of continental motion, even though the physics of it was poorly understood. By the late 1960s, the theory of plate tectonics was on the road to near-universal acceptance.
Yet Jeffreys, by then Sir Harold, stubbornly refused to accept the new evidence, repeating his old arguments about the impossibility of the thing. He was a great man, but he had become a scientific mule. For a while, journals continued to publish Jeffreys' arguments, but after a while he had nothing new to say. He died denying plate tectonics. The scientific debate was over.
So it is with climate change today. As American geologist Harry Hess said in the 1960s about plate tectonics, one can quibble about the details, but the overall picture is clear.
Yet some climate-change deniers insist that the observed changes might be natural, perhaps caused by variations in solar irradiance or other forces we don't yet understand. Perhaps there are other explanations for the receding glaciers. But "perhaps" is not evidence.
The greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, warned against this tendency more than three centuries ago. Writing in "Principia Mathematica" in 1687, he noted that once scientists had successfully drawn conclusions by "general induction from phenomena," then those conclusions had to be held as "accurately or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined...."
Climate-change deniers can imagine all the hypotheses they like, but it will not change the facts nor "the general induction from the phenomena."
None of this is to say that there are no uncertainties left - there are always uncertainties in any live science. Agreeing about the reality and causes of current global warming is not the same as agreeing about what will happen in the future. There is continuing debate in the scientific community over the likely rate of future change: not "whether" but "how much" and "how soon." And this is precisely why we need to act today: because the longer we wait, the worse the problem will become, and the harder it will be to solve.
Naomi Oreskes is a history of science professor at UC San Diego.
Newsweek Hides Global Warming Denier's Financial Ties to Big Oil
By Joshua Holland
AlterNet.org
Thursday 12 April 2007
A recent Newsweek op-ed by global warming denier Richard Lindzen claims the meteorologist has no industry ties, but his bio is as misleading as his writing.
So Newsweek is running an opinion piece about global warming titled: "Why So Gloomy?" The piece is authored by Richard Lindzen, a well-known meteorologist, and his thesis about the potential melt-down of our climate can be boiled down to this: Don't worry, be happy!
At the bottom of the article, is this brief biographical sketch of the author:
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Sounds like he's on the up-and-up, no? After all, the guy's not one of those scientists who denies global warming and then cashes nice checks from a bunch of big energy firms, right? Maybe those wing-nuts are right when they deny that there's a scientific consensus about human activities contributing to global warming. Hmmm.
Oh, but wait. That name ... Lindzen ... sure does sound familiar.
Yes! From that excellent investigative piece in Harper's on the funding behind the climate skepticism "industry" ...
In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate change ...
For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics - Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others - who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.
His research may be funded entirely by the government, but Lindzen himself - his kids' college tuition, his mortgage payments - have at least in part been funded by Big Oil and Big Coal, including OPEC for crying out loud!
But wait, it gets worse. The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek - he's also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal - appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he's writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.
Specifically, Lindzen co-authored the 2001 National Academy of Science's report on climate change. It concluded that despite some scientific "uncertainties," there is "agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years."
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.
The report predicts: "increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought."
Global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century, especially if globally-averaged temperature increases approach the upper end of the IPCC projections. Even in the more conservative scenarios, the models project temperatures and sea levels that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century, suggesting that assessments that examine only the next 100 years may well underestimate the magnitude of the eventual impacts.
The NAS study endorsed "The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," saying it "accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."
Here's some highlights of what the IPCC report Lindzen endorsed considered to be "virtually certain" outcomes of global warming (they list other potential outcomes that were only "very likely," but I'm not including them here):
The troposphere warms, stratosphere cools, and near surface temperature warms.
As the climate warms, Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea-ice extent decrease.
The globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation increase.
Most tropical areas have increased mean precipitation, most of the sub-tropical areas have decreased mean precipitation, and in the high latitudes the mean precipitation increases.
Intensity of rainfall events increases.
There is a general drying of the mid-continental areas during summer (decreases in soil moisture). This is ascribed to a combination of increased temperature and potential evaporation that is not balanced by increases in precipitation.
A majority of models show a mean El Niño-like response in the tropical Pacific, with the central and eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures warming more than the western equatorial Pacific, with a corresponding mean eastward shift of precipitation.
Available studies indicate enhanced interannual variability of northern summer monsoon precipitation.
Most models show weakening of the Northern Hemisphere thermohaline circulation (THC), which contributes to a reduction in the surface warming in the northern North Atlantic. Even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe due to increased greenhouse gases.
In other words, Richard Lindzen the meteorologist is part of the very scientific consensus on global warming that Richard Lindzen the opinion writer has called into question.
Whether Newsweek's editors were duped by Lindzen's admittedly impressive credentials or not is irrelevant - this info took me about 18 seconds on Google to unearth. There's no excuse for that stuff about how his research is all government-funded in that bio - it simply buries the rather clear appearance of a conflict-of-interest.
That's common, and really bad for democracy. I, for one, am sick of it. If you are too then tell Newsweek that if they're going to run opinion pieces by industry-funded shills, they need to disclose those shills' financial interests.
If I don't care....do I still get to sit on my fat SUV driving ass... eat bigmacs.. and pick my nose at science?
fucking eh...I can do that one...no prob!
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
call me crazy but I could swear there was a period of time on earth when it mus much hotter than it is now. Who and what was causing the warming then? Dino dung? Then for some strange reason it got COLDER than normal and all the hairless animals grew hair.....AMAZING! Some might even say, "it's (christians close your ears) ..............evolution baby!"
call me crazy but I could swear there was a period of time on earth when it mus much hotter than it is now. Who and what was causing the warming then? Dino dung? Then for some strange reason it got COLDER than normal and all the hairless animals grew hair.....AMAZING! Some might even say, "it's (christians close your ears) ..............evolution baby!"
Those fucking dinosaurs driving all those SUV's, pumping out mega tonnes of CO2 with their damn factories...
frickn tyrannosaurus bitches...
good thing were slowing the process down with our shit...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Some might even say, "it's (christians close your ears) ..............evolution baby!"
it's funny how many times that song has been taken out of context in this thread. it seems people have forgotten that that song is dripping with sarcasm and is a condemnation of evolution not a celebration of it. I am not saying I am anti-technology/development or anything, but it seems like people use the "evolution" excuse as a way to shirk responsibility.
if you won't take it from an average Joe that we need to act, then maybe you'll believe BP whose position on climate change is this: " [BP] take precautionary action to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and work to combat climate change ... We support urgent but informed action to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations by achieving sustainable long-term emission reductions."
If one believes that the human animal is not a part of the earths warming trend, they're simply kidding themselves.
The human animal is adversly effecting this planet...many species of plants and animals are going extinct on a daily basis due to our overpopulation.
Will the earth cease to exist? No.
The human animal is a parasite on this planet..and it will suck it dry......but we're so special, we're so special....look at us, look at us.........multiply and be fruitful........woo hoo...
Weather and Climate are two different things. I love how idiots argue against climate change due to the fact meteorology is imperfect. You may as well just say you don't care about future generations because you're going to die too soon to care. Bravo.
Climatology has been very wrong in their predictions in the past. The sciences are related. Their accuracy records are related. Both rely on models which may or may not be accurate. You've certainly elevated yourself in your own mind by calling people idiots, but some of us idiots see you as one of us.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
armchair scientists telling scientists they are wrong make me laugh.
Yeah....there's more than a few of them on this board....
Some serious arm chair reality type folks as well...
They must use the remote controls for their TV's to create some kind of parallel reality...I imagine they go through a serious shit load of batteries no doubt...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Once again, scientists can't accurately predict the weather 2 or 3 days in advance, why should I believe that they can predict it over 70 years into the future????
sorry but ignorance is key here. weather forecasts are incredibly accurate. i'm not sure what world you're living in.
armchair scientists telling scientists they are wrong make me laugh.
Where was that done? People posted that even the article pointed out opposition from the scientific community. So it is scientists telling other scientists they're wrong. And apparently that makes you uncomfortable.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
why?? cause I look at science as a sum of its parts and realize that its all interelated?? And because of this I don't discount the ability of a species to adapt to its ever changing environment???
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Perhaps where you live the weather is always near the same?
Weather forecasts being "off" more often than not isnt a myth, at least not for most.
Btw, the sky is blue.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
ALL of the experts are on board with this, perhaps they know what they are talking about? and i am usually the first one to question what i read, but when so many trained, educated, and highly talented people are saying the same thing after extensive research, i might have to start considering their conclusions.
or i can compare them to my local weather guy? give me a fucking break :rolleyes:
You live in the Philadelphia area. How many times did John Bolaris call for the storm of the century when he was on the air here. Glenn "Hurricane" Schwartz is almost as bad.
The funny thing is no one called that April snow storm we got, but they called many other snow storms that never happened this year.
Open your eyes. Weather forecasting and baseball are the only professions you can be right 30% of the time and make a ton of money.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
they told me today would be in the 80's and humid. and today it is in the 80's and humid. imagine that :rolleyes:
i dont watch the bow tie guy, i go to the weather channel for my reports, and i find them to be impressivley accurate. seriously.
the shit is so accurate i can get an hour by hour weather report, that seems to always be correct.
Cool beans for you, you have the one accurate weatherman in history.
Now let me know the percentage of days he remains accurate over the next 9 months.
Hour by hour report? Thats about as simple as looking outside.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
so you have scattered thunderstorms right now??? ohh wait that's what I'm supposed to be getting but its nice and sunny for miles..... and the radar is clear.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Well then, the East Coast will be safe. 57% of variance in surface temperature and precipitation of the East Coast comes from Pacific sea surface temperature. So a stormy Pacific makes a rainy East Coast and a cooler East Coast accoring to this study.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
perhaps you missed the "30% chance" part of that. or maybe the "scattered" part
http://www.weather.com/outlook/driving/interstate/weekend/19808?from=yest_topnav_driving
Did you actually read the journal article? Or did you just post the first thing that popped on the screen when you opened yahoo this morning.
Here's a fun fact, the exterior of the building where this research was conducted is the exterior for the restaurant Jerry and the gang go to on Seinfeld.
- 8/28/98
- 9/2/00
- 4/28/03, 5/3/03, 7/3/03, 7/5/03, 7/6/03, 7/9/03, 7/11/03, 7/12/03, 7/14/03
- 9/28/04, 9/29/04, 10/1/04, 10/2/04
- 9/11/05, 9/12/05, 9/13/05, 9/30/05, 10/1/05, 10/3/05
- 5/12/06, 5/13/06, 5/27/06, 5/28/06, 5/30/06, 6/1/06, 6/3/06, 6/23/06, 7/22/06, 7/23/06, 12/2/06, 12/9/06
- 8/2/07, 8/5/07
- 6/19/08, 6/20/08, 6/22/08, 6/24/08, 6/25/08, 6/27/08, 6/28/08, 6/30/08, 7/1/08
- 8/23/09, 8/24/09, 9/21/09, 9/22/09, 10/27/09, 10/28/09, 10/30/09, 10/31/09
- 5/15/10, 5/17/10, 5/18/10, 5/20/10, 5/21/10, 10/23/10, 10/24/10
- 9/11/11, 9/12/11
- 10/18/13, 10/21/13, 10/22/13, 11/30/13, 12/4/13
and there is NO DOUBT in my mind that the past 200 years of the industrial revolution and the hundreds of million of cars just introduced to the planet and enviroment within the last 2 centuries is having a negative impact on this planet. i really dont see how you cannot agree with that.
There is ample evidence that adaptation for many of the creatures we now enjoy will be impossible due to the stress global warming will impose upon them. Don't take my word for it.... take a look at the IPCC report I cited since the IPCC is the most authoratative scientific body in the history of modern science.
You can choose to have blind faith that people and wildlife will "evolve" or you can look at the overwhelming amoung of science that says we need to A) curb global warming pollution drastically and
Like some others, I choose not to "hope for the best" but instead take it upon myself to do what I can to make a difference...
http://www.nwf.org/globalwarmingathome/
yes i did read it, i read everything i post.
said it better than me, thank you.
By Naomi Oreskes
The Los Angeles Times
Monday 24 July 2006
Scientists agree: The Earth is warming, and human activities are the principal cause.
An Op-Ed article in the Wall Street Journal a month ago claimed that a published study affirming the existence of a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming had been refuted. This charge was repeated again last week, in a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
I am the author of that study, which appeared two years ago in the journal Science, and I'm here to tell you that the consensus stands. The argument put forward in the Wall Street Journal was based on an Internet posting; it has not appeared in a peer-reviewed journal - the normal way to challenge an academic finding. (The Wall Street Journal didn't even get my name right!)
My study demonstrated that there is no significant disagreement within the scientific community that the Earth is warming and that human activities are the principal cause.
Papers that continue to rehash arguments that have already been addressed and questions that have already been answered will, of course, be rejected by scientific journals, and this explains my findings. Not a single paper in a large sample of peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 refuted the consensus position, summarized by the National Academy of Sciences, that "most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
Since the 1950s, scientists have understood that greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels could have serious effects on Earth's climate. When the 1980s proved to be the hottest decade on record, and as predictions of climate models started to come true, scientists increasingly saw global warming as cause for concern.
In 1988, the World Meteorological Assn. and the United Nations Environment Program joined forces to create the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action. The panel has issued three assessments (1990, 1995, 2001), representing the combined expertise of 2,000 scientists from more than 100 countries, and a fourth report is due out shortly. Its conclusions - global warming is occurring, humans have a major role in it - have been ratified by scientists around the world in published scientific papers, in statements issued by professional scientific societies and in reports of the National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society and many other national and royal academies of science worldwide. Even the Bush administration accepts the fundamental findings. As President Bush's science advisor, John Marburger III, said last year in a speech: "The climate is changing; the Earth is warming."
To be sure, there are a handful of scientists, including MIT professor Richard Lindzen, the author of the Wall Street Journal editorial, who disagree with the rest of the scientific community. To a historian of science like me, this is not surprising. In any scientific community, there are always some individuals who simply refuse to accept new ideas and evidence. This is especially true when the new evidence strikes at their core beliefs and values.
Earth scientists long believed that humans were insignificant in comparison with the vastness of geological time and the power of geophysical forces. For this reason, many were reluctant to accept that humans had become a force of nature, and it took decades for the present understanding to be achieved. Those few who refuse to accept it are not ignorant, but they are stubborn. They are not unintelligent, but they are stuck on details that cloud the larger issue. Scientific communities include tortoises and hares, mavericks and mules.
A historical example will help to make the point. In the 1920s, the distinguished Cambridge geophysicist Harold Jeffreys rejected the idea of continental drift on the grounds of physical impossibility. In the 1950s, geologists and geophysicists began to accumulate overwhelming evidence of the reality of continental motion, even though the physics of it was poorly understood. By the late 1960s, the theory of plate tectonics was on the road to near-universal acceptance.
Yet Jeffreys, by then Sir Harold, stubbornly refused to accept the new evidence, repeating his old arguments about the impossibility of the thing. He was a great man, but he had become a scientific mule. For a while, journals continued to publish Jeffreys' arguments, but after a while he had nothing new to say. He died denying plate tectonics. The scientific debate was over.
So it is with climate change today. As American geologist Harry Hess said in the 1960s about plate tectonics, one can quibble about the details, but the overall picture is clear.
Yet some climate-change deniers insist that the observed changes might be natural, perhaps caused by variations in solar irradiance or other forces we don't yet understand. Perhaps there are other explanations for the receding glaciers. But "perhaps" is not evidence.
The greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, warned against this tendency more than three centuries ago. Writing in "Principia Mathematica" in 1687, he noted that once scientists had successfully drawn conclusions by "general induction from phenomena," then those conclusions had to be held as "accurately or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined...."
Climate-change deniers can imagine all the hypotheses they like, but it will not change the facts nor "the general induction from the phenomena."
None of this is to say that there are no uncertainties left - there are always uncertainties in any live science. Agreeing about the reality and causes of current global warming is not the same as agreeing about what will happen in the future. There is continuing debate in the scientific community over the likely rate of future change: not "whether" but "how much" and "how soon." And this is precisely why we need to act today: because the longer we wait, the worse the problem will become, and the harder it will be to solve.
Naomi Oreskes is a history of science professor at UC San Diego.
By Joshua Holland
AlterNet.org
Thursday 12 April 2007
A recent Newsweek op-ed by global warming denier Richard Lindzen claims the meteorologist has no industry ties, but his bio is as misleading as his writing.
So Newsweek is running an opinion piece about global warming titled: "Why So Gloomy?" The piece is authored by Richard Lindzen, a well-known meteorologist, and his thesis about the potential melt-down of our climate can be boiled down to this: Don't worry, be happy!
At the bottom of the article, is this brief biographical sketch of the author:
Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.
Sounds like he's on the up-and-up, no? After all, the guy's not one of those scientists who denies global warming and then cashes nice checks from a bunch of big energy firms, right? Maybe those wing-nuts are right when they deny that there's a scientific consensus about human activities contributing to global warming. Hmmm.
Oh, but wait. That name ... Lindzen ... sure does sound familiar.
Yes! From that excellent investigative piece in Harper's on the funding behind the climate skepticism "industry" ...
In the last year and a half, one of the leading oil industry public relations outlets, the Global Climate Coalition, has spent more than a million dollars to downplay the threat of climate change ...
For the most part the industry has relied on a small band of skeptics - Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Dr. Pat Michaels, Dr. Robert Balling, Dr. Sherwood Idso, and Dr. S. Fred Singer, among others - who have proven extraordinarily adept at draining the issue of all sense of crisis.
Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.
His research may be funded entirely by the government, but Lindzen himself - his kids' college tuition, his mortgage payments - have at least in part been funded by Big Oil and Big Coal, including OPEC for crying out loud!
But wait, it gets worse. The positions advocated by Richard Lindzen, the paid-by-OPEC opinion writer commenting in Newsweek - he's also written op-eds for a number of other publications including the Wall Street Journal - appear to be the diametric opposite of those held by Richard Lindzen, the serious meteorologist, when he's writing peer-reviewed scientific texts.
Specifically, Lindzen co-authored the 2001 National Academy of Science's report on climate change. It concluded that despite some scientific "uncertainties," there is "agreement that the observed warming is real and particularly strong within the past 20 years."
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise.
The report predicts: "increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought."
Global warming could well have serious adverse societal and ecological impacts by the end of this century, especially if globally-averaged temperature increases approach the upper end of the IPCC projections. Even in the more conservative scenarios, the models project temperatures and sea levels that continue to increase well beyond the end of this century, suggesting that assessments that examine only the next 100 years may well underestimate the magnitude of the eventual impacts.
The NAS study endorsed "The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," saying it "accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue."
Here's some highlights of what the IPCC report Lindzen endorsed considered to be "virtually certain" outcomes of global warming (they list other potential outcomes that were only "very likely," but I'm not including them here):
The troposphere warms, stratosphere cools, and near surface temperature warms.
As the climate warms, Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea-ice extent decrease.
The globally averaged mean water vapour, evaporation and precipitation increase.
Most tropical areas have increased mean precipitation, most of the sub-tropical areas have decreased mean precipitation, and in the high latitudes the mean precipitation increases.
Intensity of rainfall events increases.
There is a general drying of the mid-continental areas during summer (decreases in soil moisture). This is ascribed to a combination of increased temperature and potential evaporation that is not balanced by increases in precipitation.
A majority of models show a mean El Niño-like response in the tropical Pacific, with the central and eastern equatorial Pacific sea surface temperatures warming more than the western equatorial Pacific, with a corresponding mean eastward shift of precipitation.
Available studies indicate enhanced interannual variability of northern summer monsoon precipitation.
Most models show weakening of the Northern Hemisphere thermohaline circulation (THC), which contributes to a reduction in the surface warming in the northern North Atlantic. Even in models where the THC weakens, there is still a warming over Europe due to increased greenhouse gases.
In other words, Richard Lindzen the meteorologist is part of the very scientific consensus on global warming that Richard Lindzen the opinion writer has called into question.
Whether Newsweek's editors were duped by Lindzen's admittedly impressive credentials or not is irrelevant - this info took me about 18 seconds on Google to unearth. There's no excuse for that stuff about how his research is all government-funded in that bio - it simply buries the rather clear appearance of a conflict-of-interest.
That's common, and really bad for democracy. I, for one, am sick of it. If you are too then tell Newsweek that if they're going to run opinion pieces by industry-funded shills, they need to disclose those shills' financial interests.
fucking eh...I can do that one...no prob!
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Those fucking dinosaurs driving all those SUV's, pumping out mega tonnes of CO2 with their damn factories...
frickn tyrannosaurus bitches...
good thing were slowing the process down with our shit...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
it's funny how many times that song has been taken out of context in this thread. it seems people have forgotten that that song is dripping with sarcasm and is a condemnation of evolution not a celebration of it. I am not saying I am anti-technology/development or anything, but it seems like people use the "evolution" excuse as a way to shirk responsibility.
if you won't take it from an average Joe that we need to act, then maybe you'll believe BP whose position on climate change is this: " [BP] take precautionary action to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and work to combat climate change ... We support urgent but informed action to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations by achieving sustainable long-term emission reductions."
http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9015582&contentId=7028604
The human animal is adversly effecting this planet...many species of plants and animals are going extinct on a daily basis due to our overpopulation.
Will the earth cease to exist? No.
The human animal is a parasite on this planet..and it will suck it dry......but we're so special, we're so special....look at us, look at us.........multiply and be fruitful........woo hoo...
Climatology has been very wrong in their predictions in the past. The sciences are related. Their accuracy records are related. Both rely on models which may or may not be accurate. You've certainly elevated yourself in your own mind by calling people idiots, but some of us idiots see you as one of us.
Yeah....there's more than a few of them on this board....
Some serious arm chair reality type folks as well...
They must use the remote controls for their TV's to create some kind of parallel reality...I imagine they go through a serious shit load of batteries no doubt...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Army food is actually better now, too.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Where was that done? People posted that even the article pointed out opposition from the scientific community. So it is scientists telling other scientists they're wrong. And apparently that makes you uncomfortable.