Irony of ironies, Gore's hometown Nashville Breaks 1877 Cold Temp Record...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, saying the word "97%" is misleading. It doesn't say anything substantial.

It was as sucessful and accurate as a scientific survey can be.

"climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role"

"..the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments."

See? 97 percent of the finest scientists you can find.
 
It was as sucessful and accurate as a scientific survey can be.

"climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role"

"..the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments."

See? 97 percent of the finest scientists you can find.

Again, still meaningless and misleading. And you're exercising gross intellectual dishonesty here to try and make it sound like the 97% consensus result came from those 10,200 experts. Not so. This result came from an online poll to those who were interested in participating (IP addy were checked to prevent repeating voting). Invitations were sent out to 10,200 experts in the effort to seek their opinions through their votes and to determine their views on the subject of global warming. Only 3,146 responded. You see that? Only 3,146 experts responded. Not 10,200 that you tried to mislead us here. Yes, I've read it before. Yet the results do perhaps suggest a self-bias reporting taking an interest in wanting to do a global warming poll. It's interesting that over 7,000 chose not to respond. Why? Perhaps we'll never know.

The questions in the poll do have a potential problem, too. One question asks whether human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. In the world of science the word "significant" could mean anything from something that is measurable to something that is shown to be a primary or major driver in global warming. The word "significant" has also been debated over in courts (this is a word that involves directly with any NEPA work, something that I do in my line of work, on the use of such a word like "significant" because that invites questions and even litigation if one isn't careful). How "significant" is signifant anyway? It is broadly defined. Is there a secret agreement on what is or is not significant? It's a qualitative word that's rather subjective. And considering that scientists in the global warming field are more apt to say "yes" because fundings are their livelihoods and is presently a gold mine in the eyes of publically funded climate scientists and other experts. Who wouldn't say no if they are trying to promote their own research and get funding by helping push the global warming agenda?


Read here on the word "significant" - Environmental law and enforcement - Google Books
 
In the cases of Magellan, Copernicus and Galileo, the percentage of scientists who belived them, increased over time. We see the exactly same thing with climate science. The numbers of scientists who agree that global warming is caused by man, is according to surveys, increasing, not decreasing. Koko - again, misleading. See my previous post.

More like decreasing with the way things are going if you carefully look around.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon.

The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com

Just as I have been saying for the past several years on this subject.
 
Again, still meaningless and misleading. And you're exercising gross intellectual dishonesty here to try and make it sound like the 97% consensus result came from those 10,200 experts. Not so. This result came from an online poll to those who were interested in participating (IP addy were checked to prevent repeating voting). Invitations were sent out to 10,200 experts in the effort to seek their opinions through their votes and to determine their views on the subject of global warming. Only 3,146 responded. You see that? Only 3,146 experts responded. Not 10,200 that you tried to mislead us here. Yes, I've read it before. Yet the results do perhaps suggest a self-bias reporting taking an interest in wanting to do a global warming poll. It's interesting that over 7,000 chose not to respond. Why? Perhaps we'll never know.

The questions in the poll do have a potential problem, too. One question asks whether human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. In the world of science the word "significant" could mean anything from something that is measurable to something that is shown to be a primary or major driver in global warming. The word "significant" has also been debated over in courts (this is a word that involves directly with any NEPA work, something that I do in my line of work, on the use of such a word like "significant" because that invites questions and even litigation if one isn't careful). How "significant" is signifant anyway? It is broadly defined. Is there a secret agreement on what is or is not significant? It's a qualitative word that's rather subjective. And considering that scientists in the global warming field are more apt to say "yes" because fundings are their livelihoods and is presently a gold mine in the eyes of publically funded climate scientists and other experts. Who wouldn't say no if they are trying to promote their own research and get funding by helping push the global warming agenda?

This is a standard scientifical run survey, and 1/3 replying is quite normal. You claim I am "exercising gross intellectual dishonesty here to try and make it sound like the 97% consensus result came from those 10,200 experts.", while I never tried to impy that 10.000 replied. Is it something wrong with your cognitive skills? A feedback from 1/3 is considered a success in scientifical surveys and quite normal. It's common knowledge.

Yes, how significant is the question that's interesting, not if man have influenced at all or not, glad you have discovered it. It did sure take some time for you to gasp, but you are welcome. So, now, how significant do you think the man made global warming is?
 
More like decreasing with the way things are going if you carefully look around.


The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com

Just as I have been saying for the past several years on this subject.

Looking around... All surveys points toward an increase in agreement that global warming is for real. What was your point really?

Temperature is rising. 97 percent of climate scientists see no signs that we are cooling down, but that we go a bit down, then soar up, a bit down and then soar up. Let me suggest some real stats from real scientists, not some .org or .com sites.

"Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

ar4-fig-3-6.gif


hadcru-8yr.jpg
 
PS. If one want to see how serious the science are about global warming, do a search on Google Scholar or go to this link "global warming" - Google Scholar

A whopping 432 000 peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts and articles, from academic publishers, professional societies, preprint repositories, universities and other scholarly organizations. dealing with global warming.

And still, someone think it's not for real. Peer-reviewed articles that try to debunk is in the hundreds? I can't even see them among the other papers that confirm global warming...
 
In the cases of Magellan, Copernicus and Galileo, the percentage of scientists who belived them, increased over time. We see the exactly same thing with climate science. The numbers of scientists who agree that global warming is caused by man, is according to surveys, increasing, not decreasing.

right.... like in past - they will be wrong about global warming being caused by man. Pretty much takes 1 man to prove them wrong.
 
PS. If one want to see how serious the science are about global warming, do a search on Google Scholar or go to this link "global warming" - Google Scholar

A whopping 432 000 peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts and articles, from academic publishers, professional societies, preprint repositories, universities and other scholarly organizations. dealing with global warming.

And still, someone think it's not for real. Peer-reviewed articles that try to debunk is in the hundreds? I can't even see them among the other papers that confirm global warming...

it's called global warming paradox.

Global Warming Paradox?
GLOBAL warming is a fearsome proposition, dredging up visions of rising tides engulfing shoreline cities, and other cataclysms. For winemakers, especially those in historically cool grape-growing regions, the changing climate has already markedly affected their lives and wines.

''This has been great, no doubt,'' said Johannes Selbach, speaking by telephone last week from Zeltingen, Germany, where his family has grown grapes along the Mosel River since the 17th century. ''Just look at the row of fine vintages we've had. From 1988 through this year it has been strikingly warmer than any time I can remember. Everybody talks about it here.''

Wherever winemakers have historically struggled against the elements, hoping to coax just enough warmth from the cosmos to release the sugar inside the grapes and achieve ripeness, the last decade seems to have brought little but blue skies.

In Germany, the run of good and great vintages since 1988 has been, as Mr. Selbach said, unprecedented. Piedmont in northwest Italy had a great vintage every year from 1995 to 2001. In Oregon, the run of excellent vintages began in 1998. In Champagne, where single-vintage bottlings were once the exception, done only in the best years, vintages were declared nine times in the decade from 1990 to 1999, as against six in the 1980's and four in the 1970's. That increase may in part be because of the higher prices the Champagne producers can demand for vintage bottles; greed may have been inflamed by the bigger, riper grape harvests.

While scientists and politicians debate the reasons for global warming, the gradual heating of the atmosphere is well established. Temperatures around the world have on average increased about one degree Fahrenheit since 1900, said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. While that doesn't sound like much, it also doesn't tell the entire story.

''The real issue is, there are increases that are much above that in different parts of the world,'' Mr. Lawrimore said. ''In Alaska, it's been about five to eight degrees higher. It's higher in higher latitude areas. The real concern is, not what's happened already, but what's going to happen in the future.''

For winemakers, though, what's happened already has bordered on the miraculous. In the hilly vineyards of Piedmont, Barolo and Barbaresco, producers reserve their best south-facing slopes -- the ones where the snow melts first -- for nebbiolo vines, so that the grapes can absorb every last bit of sunshine in their annual battle to ripen. Each year, historically, was a roll of the dice. Maybe, just maybe, the weather would warm enough and the rains would hold off. But after a few below-average years in the early 90's, 1995 was very good, and '96 was great. So were '97 and '98, all the way through 2001. Nobody in Piedmont could recall anything like it.

To Angelo Gaja, the superstar winemaker, the climate was clearly the reason for the great vintages and the great wines. ''Since 1996, the spring has started maybe 20 days earlier,'' he said in an interview earlier this year. ''We started the harvest in the end of September and not in the end of October as we did in the 70's and 80's. The influence of climate and light was different, and that's why you have the impression of a complete taste that in the past we didn't have.''

Even in such seemingly charmed times, no farmer can take the weather for granted. Sun today is no insurance against disaster tomorrow. In 2002, a late summer hail devastated grapes in the Barolo region.

''Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get,'' said Robert Pincus, a scientist at the Climate Diagnostics Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder. ''It's a statistical issue. Winemakers are used to weather changing. Nobody's used to climate change.'' Dr. Pincus, who is also a wine lover, wrote an essay this spring on wine and the changing climate for Gastronomica, a journal of food and culture published by the University of California. While he acknowledged that winemaking was flourishing in cooler areas warmed by the changing climate, he foresaw danger in areas where wine production is closely tied to the current climate. He predicted that German ice wine and Austrian grüner veltliner, both of which depend on a chilly climate, may become much more difficult to make.

In an interview, Dr. Pincus speculated that winemakers all over may have to discard time-honored techniques for new methods. ''I think with climate change the wines from, say, Côte Rôtie, may be beautiful, but they may be different,'' he said. ''What the winemakers know about making Côte Rôtie for seven generations, may not tell them everything they need to know in the future.''

While the climate change has not yet been so radical, winemakers are already tailoring their methods to the new, warmer reality. Odilon de Varine, winemaker for the Henriot Champagne house in Reims, said the problem in the vineyards is no longer praying for the grapes to ripen but preventing them from ripening too much. Good Champagne requires high acidity, which contributes liveliness and verve. As the sugar increases in ripening grapes, the acidity drops. ''If the grapes get too ripe, it is not Champagne,'' Mr. de Varine said.

Partly because of the weather and partly because of changing public tastes, Mr. de Varine said, Champagnes of today differ from Champagnes of the past. ''If we had Champagne like it was 20 or 25 years ago, nobody would understand what it was,'' he said. ''It was more acidic. Now it is more fruity, with more body.''

Though it's tempting to cite climate alone, other factors have led to improved wines. In Champagne, better vineyard techniques saved Veuve Clicquot's 1995 vintage from mildew, said Frédéric Panaïotis, a winemaker there. Thirty years before, he said, the harvest would have been lost.

Along the Mosel in Germany, the wines have only changed for the better. For years, the best grapes were classified according to ripeness at the time of picking. Those with the least amount of sugar were called kabinett, while grapes with more sugar were called spätlese, auslese and on up the scale. From the late 1980's until last year, when the sugar standards were raised, no true kabinetts were made, said Ernst Loosen, whose family has been making wines along the Mosel for 200 years. The grapes were ripe enough to be called spätlese, he said, but were declassified and used to make kabinett.

The great benefit of the warmer weather, he said, is that consumers are learning what to expect from German wines. ''It's one of the reasons we do so well now, because we can consistently make great wine,'' Mr. Loosen said. ''This used to be possible only once every decade.''

Still, as Dr. Pincus warned, German ice wines, in which grapes are left on the vines until they freeze, are becoming more difficult to make. If the frost doesn't come early enough, the grapes can rot. ''We still get frost,'' Mr. Loosen said, ''but it is only one or two or three days maximum, and on that day we have to hit it.''

Not all wine-producing regions have been affected by global warming. In the Napa Valley, which has almost always been warm enough that ripening grapes has rarely been a problem, winemakers have detected little evidence of climate change.

''I don't think we're getting global warming here, at least not that we've noticed,'' said Bob Steinhauer, vineyard manager for Beringer Blass Wine Estates. ''We wouldn't want it to be any hotter, I'll tell you that.''

Nor has global warming affected the Finger Lakes region in New York, said Willy Frank of Dr. Konstantin Frank's Vinifera Wine Cellars in Hammondsport. Mr. Frank attributes the stable climate there to the moderating effect of the deep Finger Lakes, which tend to cool warm air and warm cool air. And in Australia, where drought has been a concern for several years, winemakers have yet to see a pattern of climate change, said Peter Hayes, a senior viticulturalist with Southcorp Wines.

But in Oregon, a higher latitude than California, it's hard to find a winemaker who won't swear that the climate has warmed. ''In Oregon, the saying used to be you got two really good vintages in 10 years, and in the last 10 years we've probably had nine,'' said Lynn Penner-Ash, who specializes in pinot noir at Penner-Ash Wine Cellars in the Willamette Valley.

Riper grapes than she has seen in her 15 Oregon vintages have caused her to rethink her wines in the last few years. ''Wines from cooler vintages tend to have brighter, redder, more focused fruit,'' she said. ''These tend to have a darker, jammier fruit.''

While Ms. Penner-Ash is concerned that the reputation of Oregon for making lean, elegant pinots might change as the wines become more powerful, she says the benefits of a warmer climate are clear.

''Oh definitely, it's been fun and easy on all the winemaking and vineyards,'' she said. ''The last couple of vintages have been much easier to sleep through.''

Photo: NOT SO CHILLY -- A warmer climate in recent years in the historically cool Mosel River valley in Germany has made it easier for grapes to ripen. Left, a vineyard above the town of Bernkastel-Kues. (Photo by Jim Marshall/Envision)(pg. F2)
 
This is what you said earlier.


http://www.alldeaf.com/war-politica...eaks-1877-cold-temp-record-2.html#post1379723

Also, "adjusting" implies a direction to some normalcy or adaptation. Earth as a system does respond to inputs though it's a matter of scale, magnitude, and sensitivity, among other things.

yes. we have already established that it's a complex system. When a variable (man) is added to the system, the equation has to change. It's full of paradox and nuances.
 
Koko - Not making sense. Not making it clear. Nor concise. Period. That's what I'm trying to say here.

Re-read my final clarification.

Koko - you need to provide context on what is growing. How is Earth growing? From the constant bombardment of micrometeorites and meteorites? What? How is other planets growing? The slow accumulation of gases, carbon dioxide ice?

Relook at the picture of evolution of the Earth that I shared in this thread.

Koko - global warming and cooling is what Earth has been doing for hundreds of millions of years. The proof is in our natural records here on Earth..

It is getting warmer and warmer.
 
99.9% of scientists believed Earth was flat until Magellan proved them wrong.


:lol:


It's untrue. Most scientists believed earth was round.

"Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that with extraordinarily few exceptions "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth."

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
From the government site:

"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

Kokonut still denies. :)
 
It's untrue. Most scientists believed earth was round.

"Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that with extraordinarily few exceptions "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth."

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep. I read somewhere that many classic era philosophers had concluded the earth is a globe. I can even cite a source for this.
 
it's called global warming paradox.

Global Warming Paradox?

Farming is indeed getting easier in the northern hemisphere, in cold and rich soil areas. North of europe is benfiting from warmer temperatures right now, and the south of europe is complaining. If looking at the whole earth, it looks to me like it's more serious challenges than opportunities. Several places in africa are at the verge of famine thanks to drought.
 
yes. we have already established that it's a complex system. When a variable (man) is added to the system, the equation has to change. It's full of paradox and nuances.

That's what most scientist are concerned about, exploring and discussing right now.
 
Yep. I read somewhere that many classic era philosophers had concluded the earth is a globe. I can even cite a source for this.

True, it was the consensus that the world was round, and scientist explored that knowledge, like climatist do today with climate.
 
ah gotcha :lol: but as you know - car fume is mostly carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. so you would kill the plants in greenhouse if you do that :lol:

Oh.. Perhaps thats why the plants evolves into bonsais every year... :eek3:
 
Farming is indeed getting easier in the northern hemisphere, in cold and rich soil areas. North of europe is benfiting from warmer temperatures right now, and the south of europe is complaining. If looking at the whole earth, it looks to me like it's more serious challenges than opportunities. Several places in africa are at the verge of famine thanks to drought.

what dies comes a new life. nature's cruel like that.. yet it's magically beautiful :)
 
It's untrue. Most scientists believed earth was round.

"Recent scholarship, particularly since the 1990s,[3] has shown that with extraordinarily few exceptions "no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth."

Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep. I read somewhere that many classic era philosophers had concluded the earth is a globe. I can even cite a source for this.

hence 99.9% instead of 100%. I don't see many of them speaking out about Earth being round or Earth rotating around the Sun.... you know blasphemy was punishable by death at that time :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top