GasBuddy Blog

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: Science news > Topics	Add to favorite topics Post New Topic

Author	Topic: World scientists to report that fossil fuels causing world temperature hikes	Post a Reply Back to Topics

CruisinLinda Champion Author Tallahassee Posts:7,947 Points:1,621,420 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Feb 1, 2007 12:19:26 AM Ignore CruisinLinda Report Abuse [Excerpt] Fossil fuels are to blame, world scientists conclude Updated 1/31/2007 12:28 PM ET Rising sea levels could threaten low-lying Pacific islands, coasts from Bangladesh to Florida and cities from Shanghai to Buenos Aires A LOOK AHEAD: THE USA IN 2100 LOSING LAND TO THE SEA By Patrick O'Driscoll and Dan Vergano, USA TODAY A major international analysis of climate change due Friday will conclude that humankind's reliance on fossil fuels — coal, fuel oil and natural gas — is to blame for global warming, according to three scientists familiar with the research on which it is based. The gold-standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report represents "a real convergence happening here, a consensus that this is a total global no-brainer," says U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, former director of the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey. "The big message that will come out is the strength of the attribution of the warming to human activities," says researcher Claudia Tebaldi of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. Mahlman, who crafted the IPCC language used to define levels of scientific certainty, says the new report will lay the blame at the feet of fossil fuels with "virtual certainty," meaning 99% sure. That's a significant jump from "likely," or 66% sure, in the group's last report in 2001, Mahlman says. His role in this year's effort involved spending two months reviewing the more than 1,600 pages of research that went into the new assessment. Among the findings, Tebaldi says, is that even if people stopped burning the fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas blamed most for the warm-up, the effects of higher temperatures, including deadlier heat waves, coastal floods, longer droughts, worse wildfires and higher energy bills, would not go away in our lifetime. "Most of the carbon dioxide still would just be sitting there, staring at us for the next century," Mahlman says. "The projections also make clear how much we are already committed" to climate change, Tebaldi says, echoing the comments of more than a dozen IPCC scientists contacted by USA TODAY. Even if every smokestack and tailpipe stops emissions right now, the remaining heat makes further warming inevitable, she says. The report will resonate worldwide because the current debate over global warming has been more about what is responsible — people or nature? — than about whether it is happening. President Bush only recently has acknowledged the link, mentioning global warming in last week's State of the Union address. It was the first time he has included climate change in the annual speech before Congress. Bush called for developing renewable and alternative fuels. The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. This will be its fourth climate assessment since 1990. The last one, in 2001, predicted average global temperatures would rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by the end of this century. The rise from 1901 to 2005 was just 1.2 degrees. The report is the work of more than 2,000 scientists, whose drafts were reviewed by scores of governments, industry and environmental groups. The document is based on research published in the six years since the last report. The analysis comes at a time when awareness of global warming in the USA and efforts to combat it are more intense than ever. Former vice president Al Gore's climate-change documentary An Inconvenient Truth scored two Oscar nominations last week. Meanwhile, some states and hundreds of American cities are taking steps to curb emissions that intensify the heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. Leaks about droughts, floods Officially, the panel's 2007 findings are still under wraps, but details have been leaking out for a year, particularly in recent weeks. News accounts have featured projections of more droughts, floods, shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels. There is so much media attention now, "I almost think there won't be any surprises compared to six years ago," says Steve Running, a University of Montana ecologist. "When the report came out (in 2001) it was all 'new' news. This time, I think everybody will say, 'Well, yeah, that's already what we've been hearing about.' "Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for the Climate Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, says the studies underlying the report make the broad conclusions clear anyway. A 2005 Nature magazine study, for example, narrowed the 2001 estimate of warmer temperatures to an increase from 2.7 to 8.1 degrees by the year 2100. Similarly, two Science magazine studies in 2005 of satellite and balloon measurements of temperature confirmed the Earth's atmosphere is warming exactly as predicted from human-caused increases in carbon dioxide...

CruisinLinda

Champion Author
Tallahassee

Posts:7,947
Points:1,621,420
Joined:Sep 2005

Message Posted: Feb 1, 2007 12:19:26 AM

Ignore CruisinLinda Report Abuse

[Excerpt]

Fossil fuels are to blame, world scientists conclude

Updated 1/31/2007 12:28 PM ET

Rising sea levels could threaten low-lying Pacific islands, coasts from Bangladesh to Florida and cities from Shanghai to Buenos Aires

A LOOK AHEAD: THE USA IN 2100

LOSING LAND TO THE SEA

By Patrick O'Driscoll and Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

A major international analysis of climate change due Friday will conclude that humankind's reliance on fossil fuels — coal, fuel oil and natural gas — is to blame for global warming, according to three scientists familiar with the research on which it is based.

The gold-standard Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report represents "a real convergence happening here, a consensus that this is a total global no-brainer," says U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, former director of the federal government's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey.

"The big message that will come out is the strength of the attribution of the warming to human activities," says researcher Claudia Tebaldi of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo.

Mahlman, who crafted the IPCC language used to define levels of scientific certainty, says the new report will lay the blame at the feet of fossil fuels with "virtual certainty," meaning 99% sure. That's a significant jump from "likely," or 66% sure, in the group's last report in 2001, Mahlman says. His role in this year's effort involved spending two months reviewing the more than 1,600 pages of research that went into the new assessment.

Among the findings, Tebaldi says, is that even if people stopped burning the fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas blamed most for the warm-up, the effects of higher temperatures, including deadlier heat waves, coastal floods, longer droughts, worse wildfires and higher energy bills, would not go away in our lifetime.

"Most of the carbon dioxide still would just be sitting there, staring at us for the next century," Mahlman says.

"The projections also make clear how much we are already committed" to climate change, Tebaldi says, echoing the comments of more than a dozen IPCC scientists contacted by USA TODAY. Even if every smokestack and tailpipe stops emissions right now, the remaining heat makes further warming inevitable, she says.

The report will resonate worldwide because the current debate over global warming has been more about what is responsible — people or nature? — than about whether it is happening.

President Bush only recently has acknowledged the link, mentioning global warming in last week's State of the Union address. It was the first time he has included climate change in the annual speech before Congress. Bush called for developing renewable and alternative fuels.

The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. This will be its fourth climate assessment since 1990. The last one, in 2001, predicted average global temperatures would rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees by the end of this century. The rise from 1901 to 2005 was just 1.2 degrees.

The report is the work of more than 2,000 scientists, whose drafts were reviewed by scores of governments, industry and environmental groups. The document is based on research published in the six years since the last report.

The analysis comes at a time when awareness of global warming in the USA and efforts to combat it are more intense than ever. Former vice president Al Gore's climate-change documentary An Inconvenient Truth scored two Oscar nominations last week. Meanwhile, some states and hundreds of American cities are taking steps to curb emissions that intensify the heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere.

Leaks about droughts, floods

Officially, the panel's 2007 findings are still under wraps, but details have been leaking out for a year, particularly in recent weeks.

News accounts have featured projections of more droughts, floods, shrinking glaciers and rising sea levels.

There is so much media attention now, "I almost think there won't be any surprises compared to six years ago," says Steve Running, a University of Montana ecologist. "When the report came out (in 2001) it was all 'new' news. This time, I think everybody will say, 'Well, yeah, that's already what we've been hearing about.'

"Michael MacCracken, chief scientist for the Climate Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank, says the studies underlying the report make the broad conclusions clear anyway. A 2005 Nature magazine study, for example, narrowed the 2001 estimate of warmer temperatures to an increase from 2.7 to 8.1 degrees by the year 2100.

Similarly, two Science magazine studies in 2005 of satellite and balloon measurements of temperature confirmed the Earth's atmosphere is warming exactly as predicted from human-caused increases in carbon dioxide...

REPLIES (newest first)Ignore Short Messages

First

Next Last

gougedQC Champion Author Montreal Posts:5,130 Points:69,885 Joined:Apr 2008	Message Posted: Mar 5, 2010 5:59:19 PM Ignore gougedQC Report Abuse yes that~s true the coldest nights in winter here are almost always under a completely clear sky. the clouds do keep warmth in
catspaw Champion Author Toronto Posts:29,929 Points:3,149,735 Joined:Apr 2004	Message Posted: Feb 26, 2010 8:47:35 AM Ignore catspaw Report Abuse Absolutely correct gouged. Being from Atlanta, it might not be so noticeable to JSHIFT, but in this latitude, the coldest days in winter are often when the sun is shining brightly and there's not a cloud in the sky. It's usually warmer when it's cloudy. There's other factors at work as well of course, but clouds often DO act as a blanket.
gougedQC Champion Author Montreal Posts:5,130 Points:69,885 Joined:Apr 2008	Message Posted: Feb 26, 2010 7:07:24 AM Ignore gougedQC Report Abuse JSHIFT- well not really, for example, have you never been out on a hot muggy day when the humidity is extremely high, but not a cloud in sight? High humidity, or increased water vapour capacity in the air, does not necessarily mean nice clouds to reflect sunlight, and in fact they also present a nice sort of blanket to keep heat in. However, when clouds and various other conditions come together, the higher energy levels in the warmer air creates more storms and more violent storms.
catspaw Champion Author Toronto Posts:29,929 Points:3,149,735 Joined:Apr 2004	Message Posted: Feb 25, 2010 8:03:41 AM Ignore catspaw Report Abuse OulHo's comment is exactly the sort of reason why I've said that GW denial is often based on greed and selfishness. They think they can have more money now if they just pass on all their problems to the next generation.
gougedQC Champion Author Montreal Posts:5,130 Points:69,885 Joined:Apr 2008	Message Posted: Feb 25, 2010 7:32:04 AM Ignore gougedQC Report Abuse OILHO- myabe you wont be around in 2100 to fight over diminishing resources and for space to live as more people migrate from increasingly non-viable regions... but your children will. so you should be concerned.
jshlfts32 Champion Author Atlanta Posts:1,902 Points:52,115 Joined:Sep 2008	Message Posted: Sep 5, 2009 4:54:08 PM Ignore jshlfts32 Report Abuse .. Water vapor in the atmosphere also comes together to form clouds which reflects sunlight back out to space.
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,123 Points:2,186,135 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Sep 5, 2009 11:46:18 AM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse The difference between water vapor and CO2 is that the average amount of water vapor contained in the atmosphere is relatively constant. CO2 percentages have been steadily rising since the beginning of the industrial age...
OilHo Champion Author Ontario Posts:10,774 Points:2,103,370 Joined:Jul 2006	Message Posted: May 3, 2009 2:41:31 AM Ignore OilHo Report Abuse Won't be around in 2100.
wilcorp1 Champion Author Edmonton Posts:2,116 Points:42,010 Joined:Feb 2003	Message Posted: May 14, 2007 10:35:17 AM Ignore wilcorp1 Report Abuse we need CO2...Carbon dioxide content in fresh air varies and is between 0.03% (300 ppm) and 0.06% (600 ppm), depending on location (see graphical map of CO2 in real-time) and in exhaled air approximately 4.5%. When inhaled in high concentrations (greater than 5% by volume), it is immediately dangerous to the life and health of humans and other animals. The current threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum level that is considered safe for healthy adults for an 8-hour work day is 0.5% (5000 ppm). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues would be significantly less. CO2 is carried in blood. Despite its small concentration, CO2 is a very important component of Earth's atmosphere, because it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode) and enhances the greenhouse effect. The Earth's oceans contain a huge amount of carbon dioxide in the form of bicarbonate and carbonate ions — much more than the amount in the atmosphere. ...I think we should focus on the heavy metals and chemicxals that poolute our environment, not something that should be in the air.
whatthecrap Rookie Author Manitoba Posts:17 Points:241,220 Joined:Apr 2007	Message Posted: May 13, 2007 5:57:54 PM Ignore whatthecrap Report Abuse this is all a bunch of hoopla
wilcorp1 Champion Author Edmonton Posts:2,116 Points:42,010 Joined:Feb 2003	Message Posted: May 1, 2007 10:39:16 AM Ignore wilcorp1 Report Abuse ... I had an epiphany last weekend and thought about all this push for the environment. Well, don't we use CO2? It's in the atmosphere naturally? Isn't the real problem pollution in the environment and we are just dealing with a minute transverse effects caused by CO2. Shouldn't we be dealing with chemicals, lead, mercury, etc. Also we have a problem with the exponential expansion of the oilsands in Alberta, my problem isn't the carbon emmissions here; it's the ecological damage as a result from digging up an area larger than the size of Florida in order to extract this oil, that's like having a big scar on your face. Also the Athabasca River which used to be huge and allthe wetlands around it has dried up because the oilsands needs the water to extract the oil away from the dirt. This water is also used for the communities around it and also the flora ans fauna that thrive on it. Well, that's my two cents worth on this whole global warming issue.
owt Champion Author Tennessee Posts:10,290 Points:1,591,530 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Mar 9, 2007 7:02:42 AM Ignore owt Report Abuse "World Scientist" how many is that, 2, 5, 1000??? There are probably as many "World Scientist" saying right the opposite.
Ernman Champion Author Orlando Posts:3,494 Points:981,940 Joined:Sep 2006	Message Posted: Mar 5, 2007 1:37:05 AM Ignore Ernman Report Abuse do not know what to believe...I am reading my 3rd book on global warming and climate change. But I certainly do not subscribe to Gore's movie...
BossaRin Champion Author Manitoba Posts:11,430 Points:1,886,100 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Mar 3, 2007 10:59:54 AM Ignore BossaRin Report Abuse Why don't we see the medieval warm period on the global warmer charts anymore?
wxdude64 Champion Author Virginia Posts:8,286 Points:2,022,185 Joined:May 2006	Message Posted: Feb 13, 2007 10:04:23 AM Ignore wxdude64 Report Abuse CL do you actually study or just read Al Gore's press releases and movies?(2-12-2007 02:07:19 AM) How are we supposed to take anything you post seriously if All you are doing is being a talking head for Mr. Gore? archerdave's two posts on 2-12-2007 say all that needs to be said in my opinion. With even the small amount of time in classroom that I've had, I can rule out 60-70 percent of what spews from his mouth. [Edited by: wxdude64 at 2/13/2007 10:06:37 AM EST]
majorfall Champion Author New York Posts:15,746 Points:3,111,065 Joined:May 2004	Message Posted: Feb 12, 2007 10:37:22 PM Ignore majorfall Report Abuse maybe its really due to overpopulation?
Reiuxcat Champion Author Atlanta Posts:12,082 Points:2,657,380 Joined:Oct 2005	Message Posted: Feb 12, 2007 7:01:28 PM Ignore Reiuxcat Report Abuse Cosmic rays blamed for global warming By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph Last Updated: 1:08am GMT 11/02/2007 Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research. Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought. In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet. Continued at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
joelimo Champion Author New York Posts:72,009 Points:2,390,025 Joined:Aug 2006	Message Posted: Feb 12, 2007 2:43:14 PM Ignore joelimo Report Abuse A.D. scientificly,historicly absolutely what I tried to say on 2/1/07 when this "historic" meeting took place. in the late 60s when the problem first came up I did as much research as I could at the time and never really found anything different than I see today. was then and still am doing what I can to save resources whenever and wherever possible. I totally agree with everything you'v posted to date. I think more should be done with hydro power also like,they said on the six million dollar man "we have the technology we can rebuild it". thank you your intelligence is appriciated....J.L. [Edited by: joelimo at 2/12/2007 2:44:09 PM EST]
cymivka Champion Author Los Angeles Posts:9,703 Points:2,125,805 Joined:Apr 2004	Message Posted: Feb 12, 2007 10:32:12 AM Ignore cymivka Report Abuse not surprised.
cptdenny Champion Author Florida Posts:2,350 Points:1,333,000 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Feb 12, 2007 2:18:18 AM Ignore cptdenny Report Abuse The movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is a fairy tale for greenies. Too bad in ten years it will be considered an expensive joke which was thrown on the public.
CruisinLinda Champion Author Tallahassee Posts:7,947 Points:1,621,420 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Feb 12, 2007 2:07:19 AM Ignore CruisinLinda Report Abuse ArcherDave: <<25.08.2006 17:47 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 22:33 MSK MosNews--Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian Academy of Sciences’ astronomical observatory’s report says, the RIA Novosti news agency reported Friday. <<Environmentalists and scientists warn not about the dangers of global warming provoked by man’s detrimental effect on the planet’s climate, but global cooling. Though never widely supported, it is a theory postulating an overwhelming cooling of the Earth which could involve glaciation.>> If you bothered to learn a little more about climate change like seeing the movie An Inconvenient Truth, you woulde know that reglaciation and global cooling is expected to follow the melting of the Arctic, Greenland and Anarctic ice masses from increased sea and land temperatures. Without a difference in temperatures in the north and south, the natural convection ocean currents will stop, scientists predict. Then the noncirculating water in higher latitudes (north and south)will freeze over in the winter as they did in the Ice Age and cause global cooling.
wxdude64 Champion Author Virginia Posts:8,286 Points:2,022,185 Joined:May 2006	Message Posted: Feb 10, 2007 10:59:15 PM Ignore wxdude64 Report Abuse Appears U.N. ran out of money before getting to the Russian scientists.
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,123 Points:2,186,135 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Feb 10, 2007 5:27:11 PM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse I'm sure those Russian's don't believe there is a link between smoking and lung cancer too. Just more noise thrown into the pool to try and confuse things.
mus302 Champion Author Knoxville Posts:1,594 Points:122,685 Joined:Jan 2007	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2007 11:08:37 PM Ignore mus302 Report Abuse archerdave "From other threads, you know that I am a strong supporter of wind and geothermal energy as well as most energy renewables. I have a very low opinion of the U.N., however, and am very suspect of anything associated with it. In its track record, it has proven itself to be a corrupt and abysmal failure in almost all but limited humanitarian relief and disproportionately large amounts of that originate with the U.S. Continually guilty of fraud and back-door dealings, I think it has become as useless and self serving as the League of Nations became before it." Trust me you probably couldn't have a lower opinion of the UN than me. I think that the UN is a paper tiger that is all talk and no action. They leave the heavy lifting to us and sit back and criticize every move. And I totally agree about the claim of fraud and back door dealings. As for whether their study is above board, I don't know. I just chimed in here because cptdenny threw out a quote and basically said 'here's the proof'. You know before I believe anything I am going to turn that rock over first and see what is under it. But beyond that I really only have a passing interest in this subject.
Shockjock1961 Champion Author Illinois Posts:20,123 Points:2,186,135 Joined:Apr 2006	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2007 9:10:26 PM Ignore Shockjock1961 Report Abuse "If the Russian Academy of Sciences, The British Academy of Sciences and others are now attributing the "global warming" scare to the atmospheric heating by the sun." I would like to see the peer reviewed publications that state this. Can you post a link, because so far my search on the web for these have turned up nothing of consequence.
#12#_fregan Rookie Author Detroit Posts:46 Points:780 Joined:Feb 2007	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2007 6:38:52 PM Ignore #12#_fregan Report Abuse If the Russian Academy of Sciences, The British Academy of Sciences and others are now attributing the "global warming" scare to the atmospheric heating by the sun. Yes the sun! Geez what a radical idea. Check out some other scientific sites of merit and see that real scientists are skeptical that it's all the America's fault. Even those "experts" that authored the UN report on global warming aren't sure that increased greenhouse gases are in fact to blame. What about China? They didn't sign the Kyoto Agreement on greenhouse gases. It's just another attempt to make American's feel guilty about driving our cars, using energy and living a lifestyle that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily agree with or is jealous.
threadbare Champion Author Rio Grande Valley Posts:1,571 Points:762,475 Joined:Nov 2005	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2007 11:11:09 AM Ignore threadbare Report Abuse actually, Linda I don't deny the theory of evolution and accept that there is some global warming. However, I remain skeptical of how much humans have caused global warming and must say that consensus has nothing to do with science.
lambster1 Champion Author New York Posts:11,675 Points:2,289,620 Joined:Sep 2006	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2007 5:04:31 AM Ignore lambster1 Report Abuse The US Govt is protesting the portion of this study that indicates what percentage the USA is responsible for... Now wonder we have so many enemies....who doesn't despise 1 country that uses 25% of the world's resources...
mus302 Champion Author Knoxville Posts:1,594 Points:122,685 Joined:Jan 2007	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2007 4:41:12 AM Ignore mus302 Report Abuse archerdave "Did the scientists that produced the IPCC survey for the U.N. work for nothing? Who paid them? With this line of reasoning, if both are accepting payment is not their science equally tainted by it?" I would say that if both accepted payment then yes both would be in question. Do you have any proof that the IPCC people were getting paid?
rjn5851 Champion Author Florida Posts:13,421 Points:2,742,145 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2007 2:45:22 AM Ignore rjn5851 Report Abuse some news.........
mus302 Champion Author Knoxville Posts:1,594 Points:122,685 Joined:Jan 2007	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2007 2:44:00 AM Ignore mus302 Report Abuse cptdenny Funny that you should quote the American Enterprise Institute, considering that they have received large sums of money from ExxonMobile. And they recently have been paying for people to come forward to challenge the IPCC survey. "Several environmental activists and climate scientists questioned why AEI would offer a $10,000 honorarium to scientists to critique the IPCC survey." AEI Critiques Questioned
cptdenny Champion Author Florida Posts:2,350 Points:1,333,000 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2007 1:17:01 AM Ignore cptdenny Report Abuse "Unfortunately, the green warriors substitute propaganda for persuasion, insist that there is no debate about the science of climate change, and demonize any scientist who dares dissent from their views. They advocate putting the United States and the world on an energy starvation diet, to the exclusion of a wider and more moderate range of precautions that might be taken against global warming." by: Steven F. Hayward is the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at AEI.
poleman2947 Champion Author Georgia Posts:7,976 Points:1,645,560 Joined:Oct 2005	Message Posted: Feb 6, 2007 12:39:38 AM Ignore poleman2947 Report Abuse Nothing to it.
wxdude64 Champion Author Virginia Posts:8,286 Points:2,022,185 Joined:May 2006	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 10:18:55 PM Ignore wxdude64 Report Abuse Archerdave; thanks for last post. I'm thru with CL myself. Funny, I haven't seen much about gobal warming on news this week even with the report out, must be the record warmth we are having this week. Amazing how fickle the newsgroups are, if its warm in March the global warming push will be back. [Edited by: wxdude64 at 2/5/2007 10:26:04 PM EST]
rayw45 Champion Author New Jersey Posts:7,777 Points:393,800 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 6:45:54 PM Ignore rayw45 Report Abuse As long as many people refuse to except the scientific community's report, then we will continue on the same, self destructive path. Examples: Who are the "World Scientists"? - Unless you have totally avoided all the latest news, you know that a recent conference of something like 250 leading climate scientists released a report on global warming. It's all inference? -Of course it is, that's the only way it could be done. It's a correlational research study because it is not possible to set up a "control planet". Amazing how so many refuse to accept any responsibility for their actions. Even if you only think that these acts MAY be causing future problems, let alone disasters, shouldn't you try to change course? What if you are wrong???? Do you really want to leave an environmental disaster for the future generations? They will lay the blame at your feet but it would be too late.
CruisinLinda Champion Author Tallahassee Posts:7,947 Points:1,621,420 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 6:21:15 PM Ignore CruisinLinda Report Abuse ArcherDave, the temperature in Helsinski purported at that crude web site has no relevance to overage global earth and sea temperatures, like the price of tea in China. EmmettG, read the article or any reputable article on the IPCC study. It was done by a panel of 2,500 prominent climatologists from around the world. That's what the term "world scientists" means in the USAToday headline. It's not an "exaggerated term." It is a term of description, and accurate, not of flattery. It is really worrisome to see such weird comments. [Edited by: CruisinLinda at 2/5/2007 6:27:45 PM EST]
CruisinLinda Champion Author Tallahassee Posts:7,947 Points:1,621,420 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 6:07:09 PM Ignore CruisinLinda Report Abuse Help me with a survey here. I'm betting that those of you deny the existence of the latest and most complete study of the connection between human activity, carbon diozide emissions and global warming by the international panels of scientists at IPCC also deny the Theory of Evolution. Am I right?
OilerFan Champion Author Tulsa Posts:14,050 Points:2,447,800 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 8:12:34 AM Ignore OilerFan Report Abuse It's pure inference. It's not proof. That said, I believe that the warming is happening. However, I don't believe that all of the warming is man-made. Consider that the sun itself, has been giving off larger bursts of radiation in recent years, increased sun spots, etc. this has to have contributed to the warming on earth. So it's not all man-made. These world scientists are inferring the cause. There is no proof. At some point, people will have to decide what they believe, because there's no proof. Once they decide what they believe, they've got to do something about it. You can't just say there's global warming, and then sit and do nothing.
wachinggas Champion Author Toronto Posts:4,947 Points:1,321,855 Joined:Jan 2004	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 8:08:47 AM Ignore wachinggas Report Abuse we know
emmettgalloway Champion Author Louisiana Posts:1,905 Points:327,905 Joined:Jun 2005	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 8:06:58 AM Ignore emmettgalloway Report Abuse please give us a definition of 'world scientists' and tell us why such an exaggerated term is necessary to support what the users of the term must realize is not true. If it were not true no exaggeration would be necessary. get it?
dwwfaw Champion Author Indiana Posts:8,495 Points:1,780,335 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 7:59:57 AM Ignore dwwfaw Report Abuse ok
Reiuxcat Champion Author Atlanta Posts:12,082 Points:2,657,380 Joined:Oct 2005	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 7:45:06 AM Ignore Reiuxcat Report Abuse Not all scientists! - The real deal? Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists - http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=44510
mus302 Champion Author Knoxville Posts:1,594 Points:122,685 Joined:Jan 2007	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 2:04:19 AM Ignore mus302 Report Abuse "Some of you never learn, then again some of you aren't old enough to remember." Go look at the global average annual temperatures and you can see how the claim could be made during the 70s that the earth was cooling down. It will also show you why since then they say the earth is warming up.
cptdenny Champion Author Florida Posts:2,350 Points:1,333,000 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 12:44:30 AM Ignore cptdenny Report Abuse So you still want to believe the global alarmists? These are the same folks that brought you global cooling back in the mid 1970's Here you can read all about it here: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.htm Some of you never learn, then again some of you aren't old enough to remember.
EasyMPG Champion Author Ontario Posts:10,644 Points:1,445,370 Joined:Jun 2004	Message Posted: Feb 5, 2007 12:10:09 AM Ignore EasyMPG Report Abuse "I don't buy the argument that oil is abiotic, if it was oil wells should never run dry. They should refill from the oil in the mantle as it is being used." You're assuming the mantle never changes, but the mantle is in a constant flux, so over thousands of years, pockets of oil can be cut off from the oil from deeper in the Earth.
mus302 Champion Author Knoxville Posts:1,594 Points:122,685 Joined:Jan 2007	Message Posted: Feb 4, 2007 11:32:16 PM Ignore mus302 Report Abuse archerdave "Abiotic Oil..." I don't buy the argument that oil is abiotic, if it was oil wells should never run dry. They should refill from the oil in the mantle as it is being used.
wtb955 Champion Author California Posts:12,654 Points:2,647,385 Joined:Aug 2005	Message Posted: Feb 4, 2007 12:01:45 PM Ignore wtb955 Report Abuse Ok, let's go back to horses and then complain about all of the patties laying obout!
bluebird1 Champion Author Toronto Posts:15,735 Points:3,108,125 Joined:May 2004	Message Posted: Feb 4, 2007 11:33:28 AM Ignore bluebird1 Report Abuse Most of this is just confirming what has been postulated before....& CrusinLinda is right about the academic worlds process. As for their finding of 'warming exactly as predicted', I thought the latest findings was it was warming faster than prev. predicted.
CruisinLinda Champion Author Tallahassee Posts:7,947 Points:1,621,420 Joined:Sep 2005	Message Posted: Feb 4, 2007 10:57:13 AM Ignore CruisinLinda Report Abuse ArcherDave: <<Legimate scientists would publish without having their drafts or work reviewed first... Getting someone else to say it is OK.>> You seem to be out of your league here with no clue that this is the method that academic journals use. A scholar submits an article of research. Other scholars, peers, review that article for accuracy and proper methods of research. This is a good safeguard. In popular magazines there have been a flood of articles with junk science in the last generation that cigarette smoking is not dangerous to health. Now one survey found that about half of articles in popular magazines argue that carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere does not cause climate change. CptDenny and ArcherDave, our two crack climatologists on this page, also don't seem to understand that no one is saying that CO2 is pollution or doesn't provide food for plants to make oxygen through photosynthesis (but only when there is sunlight). The problem is when carbon dioxide accumulates in the upper atmosphere. Then it acts like an insulation blanket and holds in the Earth's heat. Got it, chumps?
wachinggas Champion Author Toronto Posts:4,947 Points:1,321,855 Joined:Jan 2004	Message Posted: Feb 4, 2007 10:31:01 AM Ignore wachinggas Report Abuse that is true