Is Global Warming a Myth?

[WinePusher]

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html

A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn’t we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wat ... p-growing/

1) Does this new information show that Anthropogenic Global Warming is false?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

not really.

just like an inconvenient truth exaggerated claims these articles are doing the same. Even if we go into a period of cooling for 15 years this doesn't prevent global warming from occurring.

Carbon is still building up and exasperating the weather. When you have huge and sudden global ice melts it can shift the weather cooler. This is not sustainable though.

Also wait for peer review, lots of these stories get picked up to early and unless you're a climate scientist they hold really very little value in terms of applicable knowledge.

just be patient and let the science sort itself out.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

not really.

just like an inconvenient truth exaggerated claims these articles are doing the same. Even if we go into a period of cooling for 15 years this doesn't prevent global warming from occurring.

Carbon is still building up and exasperating the weather. When you have huge and sudden global ice melts it can shift the weather cooler. This is not sustainable though.

Also wait for peer review, lots of these stories get picked up to early and unless you're a climate scientist they hold really very little value in terms of applicable knowledge.

just be patient and let the science sort itself out.

It is also a piece of misinformation that we have been 'cooling' for the last 15 years. The accurate statement is 'We are not warming up as fast as we were expected to have'. One model explains this as the temperature difference between the upper ocean and the lower ocean is getting into more equalibrium, so that a lot of the 'excess heat' that is being collected is being shoved into the ocean deeps.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/temp ... eans-16280


So, there is a HUGE difference between 'global warming is slowing down' and 'global cooling'. .. and there are reasons that the slowdown in the warming of the atmosphere is not all that good either.


ANd when it come to the 'sea ice' increasing.. .. that i s in comparison to the previous year, where it was the most extreme on record. It would be really bad if there wasn't any kind of rebound effect from the most extreme conditions we ever saw. So, you know, you have to take that into consideration, which neither of those two articles, who tend to publish articles from climate change deniers

[keithprosser3]

Unfortunately lay people (ie you and me) don't have access to the actual data and don't have the skills required to interpret it if we did. So we are at the mercy of the experts and pundits of both sides trying to whip up popular support for their cause.

All that is certain is that we are being lied to by one side or the other. I have my own idea about who is telling the truth and who is lying, but I haven't measured the thickness of the ice-pack or tracked rainfall trends myself, so what is my opinion worth? Not much, so I won't even write it.

[100%atheist]

[Replying to WinePusher]

Eventually, our planet will become too hot to support life in a couple billions years or so. In principle, the planet is fine, the people are ... screwed.

In a short run, anthropogenic or not, the climate is changing. This is the fact. Let's say, we are heading into a global cooling in a short run. So, what are we going to do about it. Is this a strong enough case to subsidize extra carbon emissions? If yes, so be it. So far, we could see a majority of climatologist agreed on a warming trend. Historically, scientists were more reliable and more opened for self-correction than any politburo of any particular church.

Who would you trust more to predict weather, your pastor or a weatherman on your local TV channel? Sure, you'll find a range of opinions on different channels, but if the majority of channels tell you that tomorrow will be a hot dry day, you should be a paranoic to head to your local store for a snow shovel.

[nursebenjamin]

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... tions.html

A report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado finds that Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. But didn’t we hear from the same Center that the North Pole was set to disappear by now? We all deserve apologies from the global warming fanatics who wanted to reshape the world in their image and called those who objected to their wild theories ignorant deniers.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/wat ... p-growing/

1) Does this new information show that Anthropogenic Global Warming is false?

Absolutely not. All these two articles "show" is that some opinion bloggers will go out of their way to spread misinformation on anthropogenic climate change, and that other people know so little about science that they fall for the bits of misinformation.

A better title for the David Rose article would be, “Arctic sea ice recovers to its 6th-lowest extent in millennia�:
[center]



[youtube][/youtube][/center]

[nursebenjamin]

[center]
[/center]

[Philbert]

So we are at the mercy of the experts and pundits of both sides trying to whip up popular support for their cause.

This is solved by polling all the experts, and determining their opinion as a group. The consensus of the overwhelming majority of experts is that we are experiencing global warming caused by human activity.

What is less clear is the key concept of "tipping point". This is the point when global warming may begin to feed upon itself in a spiraling feedback loop. The experts appear to be unclear if or when we may reach a tipping point.

The tipping point concept is important as it has the potential to transform global warming from an incremental to exponential process.

Here's a video which goes in to more detail:

[keithprosser3]

This is solved by polling all the experts,

But I can't actually do that, can I? I can't very well e-mail my own questionnaire to all the experts in the field - I don't even know how many such experts there are, certainly not who they all are. So even an apparent consensus is only something else we are being told about, not something we can truly judge for ourselves.

But I strongly suspect AGW is a fact. I think if most people are honest, opinion about AGW is not a question of figures and graphs. It comes down to who you trust, or even more super-cynically, who you want to trust.

[keithprosser3]

This is solved by polling all the experts,

But I can't actually do that, can I? I can't very well e-mail my own questionnaire to all the experts in the field - I don't even know how many such experts there are, certainly not who they all are. So even an apparent consensus is only something else we are being told about, not something we can truly judge for ourselves.

But I strongly suspect AGW is a fact. I think if most people are honest, opinion about AGW is not a question of figures and graphs. It comes down to who you trust, or even more super-cynically, who you want to trust.