Statement on Global Warming Petition Signed by 31,478 Scientists

[dagwood55]

Andy0X1 wrote... babble.

Some of us understood the analogy perfectly.

Maybe you should think it through again, because you are missing something. In fact, you're missing quite a bit.

[Andy0x1]

Originally Posted by dagwood55

Andy0X1 wrote... babble.

Some of us understood the analogy perfectly.

Maybe you should think it through again, because you are missing something. In fact, you're missing quite a bit.

Someone could display a blank canvas, and make reference of our planet; you would somehow come up with a reason as to how amazing this blank canvas was; all of the wonderful things it symbolizes and how it only goes to prove what Al Gore has been saying all along. Go watch some movies with plot twists... I'm sure they get you every time. Your too impressionable, and those impressions construct obstacles in your ability to reason.

[dagwood55]

Andy0X1: "Someone could display a blank canvas, and make reference of our planet; you would somehow come up with a reason as to how amazing this blank canvas was"

Pitiful.

[OPEC SUCKS]

Science Magazine

October 2, 2009

What Happened to Global Warming ? Scientists Say Just Wait A Bit

We received a free introductory copy. I read with much anticipation. The cover story is further discovery of Hominids in East Africa. Some good science.

Then this snip. Global warming. It has been level the last ten years.

But !!!

It's coming back !!

So, I'll translate.

From Science Magazine, from the Latin Scion, to know. Future climate is estimated based on models. Now, the oracle, the source says that despite all the warming evidence, it really hasn't warmed after all.

So, logically - THE MODELS ARE WRONG !!

But no !!

"scientists say just wait a bit"

That would hold up for about 15 seconds in a 7th grade science class before a chorus of "BULLSHIAT".

You guys can all see through EESCAM, but what about this ??

Here's the link, but you have to pay to get the whole 7 paragraph article.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../326/5949/28-a

[Altazi]

Originally Posted by OPEC SUCKS

Science Magazine

October 2, 2009

What Happened to Global Warming ? Scientists Say Just Wait A Bit

We received a free introductory copy. I read with much anticipation. The cover story is further discovery of Hominids in East Africa. Some good science.

Then this snip. Global warming. It has been level the last ten years.

But !!!

It's coming back !!

So, I'll translate.

From Science Magazine, from the Latin Scion, to know. Future climate is estimated based on models. Now, the oracle, the source says that despite all the warming evidence, it really hasn't warmed after all.

So, logically - THE MODELS ARE WRONG !!

But no !!

"scientists say just wait a bit"

That would hold up for about 15 seconds in a 7th grade science class before a chorus of "BULLSHIAT".

You guys can all see through EESCAM, but what about this ??

Here's the link, but you have to pay to get the whole 7 paragraph article.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../326/5949/28-a

Global warming is virtually a fact, based on widely-known theoretical models. They are just off a bit on the timescale. When our sun exhausts its hydrogen fuel, it will begin to fuse the helium "ash" that has accumulated in its core. At this time the photosphere (surface of the sun) will expand and engulf the space wherein resides our Earth's orbit.

The sun will then be a red giant star, and the Earth will be a dry, crisp cinder orbiting INSIDE the star - for a while, anyway - until the orbit decays . . . If that's not "global warming," I don't know what is.

[dagwood55]

I knew I would want this link (link)

[OPEC SUCKS]

Dagwood, the source of my post was Science magazine. They have been at the forefront of reporting global warming. Now, even they report there has been no global warming. And in spite of them acknowledging their own data, they still manage to say, "well, just wait, and then we'll be right". Amazing.

The article you linked states that the AP gave data to statisticians. That means the AP got to pick the data. Whose data ? What data ? And then they say the global warming deniers are "cherry picking" the data. Ding !! Ding !!!

[dagwood55]

OPEC SUCKS: "The article you linked states that the AP gave data to statisticians. That means the AP got to pick the data. Whose data ? What data ? And then they say the global warming deniers are "cherry picking" the data. Ding !! Ding !!! "

You're very funny... and you don't even know it. Let's go back to the original Science article, shall we?

"The blogosphere has been having a field day with global warming's apparent decade-long stagnation. Negotiators are working toward an international global warming agreement to be signed in Copenhagen in December, yet there hasn't been any warming for a decade. What's the point, bloggers ask? "

In other words, the Rightard blogosphere has been cherry-picking the data. The AP asked the question, OK, even if we do let the Rightard blogospher cherry-pick the data, what's the result? So, the AP sent the Rightard's cherry-picked data out, blind, to be analyzed. It turns out that the Rightard blogosphere never does any stats at all, as their cherry-picked data, the last decade, still shows a warming trend.

Science, real science, just never gives those Rightards a break, does it?

[pdt]

But there has been and still is warming.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

The earth is not in balance now and is heating. Measuring air temperature is not the same thing as measuring the heat content of the earth. Oceans contain a great deal of heat and also have a big influence on the temperature of the air. People who are saying that global warming has stopped are cherry picking.

[Geronimo]

Climate prediction models are used for longterm climate predictions. 50 years, 100 years - it is an early warning system for very serious, global scale problems coming down the pike.

But since laymen don't think in terms of 50 to 100 years, or in terms of noisy signals superimposed on underlying trends ("Global warming ? How come it was warmer that year that had the warmest El Nino in the 20th century ? How come the models didn't predict that ? And how come 2008 was colder than 2005 ?") the Hadley Center researchers have worked on a climate model used for short term predictions, with starting conditions supplied by the now wide array of ocean sensors that they didn't have a few years ago.

This Decadal Climate Prediction System (DePreSys) is based on the well established climate model already used by Hadley Centre scientists, but they will look more closely at short term ocean currents and other short term events.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6939347.stm
On a 10-year timescale, both natural internal variability and the global warming signal (human induced climate change) are important; whereas looking out to 2100, only the global warming signal will dominate."

"It is the same model as used in the latest IPCC report's predictions for the coming century, but the difference is that it starts from the real observed status of the ocean and the atmosphere," Dr Smith, the paper's lead author, explained.

"Greenhouse gases and aerosols are also included, but it is really trying to predict any [natural] variability on top of that."

"We start with the present state of the ocean, and we try to predict how it is going to evolve," he told BBC News.

This allows the researchers to predict how natural shifts, such as the El Nino phenomenon in the eastern Pacific and the North Atlantic Oscillation, will affect the global climate system.

They hope this data, when combined with projections of greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions from fossil fuels and volcanic eruptions, will present one of the most detailed outlooks to date.

"One reason why the 10-year projection has not been done before is because the ocean has traditionally had very poor observational coverage," Dr Smith said.

So, what does this decade-long look into the Climate future show ?

http://climateprogress.org/2007/08/1...then-very-hot/
Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years. However, climate will continue to warm, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.

They further predict the year 2014 will “be 0.30° ± 0.2°C warmer than the observed value for 2004,” which means there is a 50% chance that the warming from 2004 to 2014 will be 3/8 that of the warming of the previous century!

In short, if these projections are right (and if there are no major volcanoes to dampen temperatures), then the Denyers have a couple more years to spin their misinformation, but, after that, the accelerating nature of climate change should become painfully clear to all. And I would not be surprised if this epic multi-year heatwave drives the Arctic over the edge, leading to a drastic — if not total — reduction in summer ice by 2020.

By 2015, expect to see political careers destroyed because of previous denials of, and delay of solutions to, this huge problem. Senator Inhofe comes to mind...
The clueless TV and radio pundits will just backpedal and change their tune, declaring that they knew all along it was going to get much warmer, they were just worrying about "cost effective" approaches and how to best yada yada yada pundits never have to say I was wrong...