Arctic resists warming
Quote:et the researchers also found new patterns of cooling ocean currents and prevailing winds that suggested the Arctic, long considered a bellwether of global warming, may be reverting in some ways to more normal conditions not seen since the 1970s.
Wow. That's pretty selective quoting GB!
I was thinking the same thing.
Brookes Owl Wrote:Wow. That's pretty selective quoting GB!
Of course it is!
;-)
Ah, the art of the quote mine.
So if there are some cooling currents, could that not mean that the "Warming Cycle" may be coming to an end and a "cooling cycle" could be beginning? How else could you explain these new currents?
Also, wasn't it during the '70's that the scientists were warning us about global cooling and the coming ice age? I don't believe that there is enough data to prove exactly what is going on with the climate.
Global Warming is nothing more than a ploy to get more funds and grants out of our government.
fsquid Wrote:Global Warming is nothing more than a ploy to get more funds and grants out of our government.
I wouldn't go that far to the conspiracy side of things, but that is an interesting thought.
I cannot believe more people aren't talking about this........
Historically, temperatures have closely paralleled to the amount of solar activity. Right now the sun is in a huge upswing in activity. Higher than normal amounts of solar flares, radiation, etc. While I agree there are all-time record amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I think the sun can easily exert more influence than those gases.
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I cannot believe more people aren't talking about this........
Historically, temperatures have closely paralleled to the amount of solar activity. Right now the sun is in a huge upswing in activity. Higher than normal amounts of solar flares, radiation, etc. While I agree there are all-time record amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, I think the sun can easily exert more influence than those gases.
That kind of reasoning does not assist the liberal left (we got to fix the world by being green) so they will not champion the data.
If (humans) are the cause of global warming, then how are we (USA) going to stop it? Within 20 years China/India will polute more than what the entire world does now!
We cannot stop this, whatever restrictions placed on the US and Europe will be like pissing in the wind storm and will also force "dirty" industries (steel, paper, plasic) overseas faster than they already are.
Its very egotistical to think that we have that much influence over Mother earth!
GrayBeard Wrote:fsquid Wrote:Global Warming is nothing more than a ploy to get more funds and grants out of our government.
I wouldn't go that far to the conspiracy side of things, but that is an interesting thought.
It's a VERY plausible outcome. "Fear mongers" using a naturally-occurring event to get more money to fund their studies.....because they can't make a living anywhere else.
bobb Wrote:Its very egotistical to think that we have that much influence over Mother earth!
I don't buy into the "Humans are causing global warming" BS, but without the proper measures in place we can alter Mother Nature, at least on a local level. Do you not think pollution is a problem? I think Lake Erie would disagree. Now we're cleaning it up, but before, it was a cesspool.
"Arctic temperatures were above their average -- at least 1 degree centigrade above average over the entire Arctic over the entire year. This is a unique situation," said co-author James Overland at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle.
There's not much water in the Arctic air, but that's still alot of energy. The world is warming. Glaciers aren't growing; they're shrinking fast. I don't think we should be in panic mode, but any way to slow it down is probably a good thing. Denial of it happening is the foolish thing to do. Its too bad we can't control China's factories, even if we own them.
Fanatical Wrote:I don't think we should be in panic mode, but any way to slow it down is probably a good thing. Denial of it happening is the foolish thing to do. Its too bad we can't control China's factories, even if we own them.
Damn right. We should always be concerned about the first instance of global warming in this world's 6 billion year history. We probably need to send some space shuttles to Mars and get those pesky aliens to stop using fossil fuels as well. From what I hear, their polar ice caps are melting as well. We gotta stop the people....and aliens.
Fanatical Wrote:Denial of it happening is the foolish thing to do.
Asking for for open debate among qualified scientists is not the smae thing as denial. You statement assumes it as a proven fact. Yet we keep getting these containdications such as the one that started this thread.
When alternative theories and research are forbidden, you might end up with incorrect theories - see phlogiston and geocentrism. Galileo was a denier, I guess.
The foolish thing to do is to accept the unproven as proven.
In any case, I see no problem with taking steps based on the possibility of global warming, as long as open debate is allowed.
As a measure of media bias, maybe we could get someone to count the mentions of this report in the mainstream media.
OptimisticOwl Wrote:When alternative theories and research are forbidden, you might end up with incorrect theories - see phlogiston and geocentrism. Galileo was a denier, I guess.
How can you say that alt theories and research are forbidden? Climate scientists are doing research every day. They publish their data and conclusions are drawn from it. If the global warming skeptics also are doing research and collecting data, then it is not forbidden. If they aren't doing those things then I don't think they can really be part of the debate. Sitting around second guessing others people's work without doing the work to prove your end of the argument is cheap science.
Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:OptimisticOwl Wrote:When alternative theories and research are forbidden, you might end up with incorrect theories - see phlogiston and geocentrism. Galileo was a denier, I guess.
How can you say that alt theories and research are forbidden? Climate scientists are doing research every day. They publish their data and conclusions are drawn from it. If the global warming skeptics also are doing research and collecting data, then it is not forbidden. If they aren't doing those things then I don't think they can really be part of the debate. Sitting around second guessing others people's work without doing the work to prove your end of the argument is cheap science.
I guess forbidden was too strong a word. Discouraged would be better. Research that comes up with results at odds with commonly accepted theories, like global warming, are not generally the fast track to tenure and more grants. If I were a scientist, I think I might decide there are safer things to study. If I studied it and came up with results that didn't fit the prevaiing wisdom, I might decide not to publish, to avoid adverse effects on my career, like being labeled a "denier".
georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I cannot believe more people aren't talking about this........
I'm telling ya, one guy who published data demonstrating more output from the sun was called "irresponsible" in the scientific literature.
His results were not questioned.
Since when is publishing factual results "irresponsible" in science?
DrTorch Wrote:georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:I cannot believe more people aren't talking about this........
I'm telling ya, one guy who published data demonstrating more output from the sun was called "irresponsible" in the scientific literature.
His results were not questioned.
Since when is publishing factual results "irresponsible" in science?
This is what I am talking about when I used the words "forbidden" and "discouraged".
What article on solar output are you referring to?