It is a known scientific fact that CO2 absorbs infrared light and has been proven in experiments. I don't know when the first experiment was that was proven this but later experiments have mapped out the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v41/i3/p291_1 "The infrared absorption spectrum of Carbon Dioxide" P.E. Martin and E.F. Barker University of Michigan 1932 The way this works is that CO2 molecules when exposed to light it is shown that some of the light in the infrared range (which we perceive as heat) doesn't pass through. What is shown is that the molecular bonds of CO2 capture that energy, expand and then is reradiated. This experiment has been duplicated many times. What matters in regard to the greenhouse effect is where that is reradiated in this case the infrared energy isn't reradiated out to space, cooling the Earth, but retained in the atmosphere as heat. There is still debate regarding where it is reradiated but mechanism is understood and further other planets with CO2 in their atmosphere, particularly Venus, show an extreme greenhouse effect. While yes there was a warming period during the Middle ages but you have to consider that CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas and in fact others are more potent than CO2. http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0287406 INFRARED ABSORPTION BY CARBON DIOXIDE, WATER VAPOR, AND MINOR ATMOSPHERIC CONSTITUENTS Burch, Darrell E. ; Gryvnak, David ; Singleton, Edgar B. ; France, Wilbur L. ; Williams, Dudley OHIO STATE UNIV RESEARCH FOUNDATION COLUMBUS 1962 I don't know what the science is regarding the Medieval warming period but there is evidence that in previous warming periods methane, a very potent greenhouse gas, was more prevalent in the atmosphere. As stated the climate is very complex but the basic principal of the greenhouse effect is very well understood.
actually he isnt that far off? the heat wave in 98 in southern california due to El Nino was all over the news as a sign of global warming. Politicians along with their scientists/climotogists were all over the news here talking about global warming and how this was the sign of the start. Another example Hurricane Katrina. Well it wasn't just hurricane Katrina but it was all the hurricanes that year. So the Gulf experience more hurricanes than normal. Well guess what did you hear on the news??? and it was not just politicians but scientists who wants to get on TV touting that all these hurricanes were due to Global Warming. Well now what? THere hasn't been any hurricanes lately.. is the Globe cooling now?
Show me even one claim by a single climatologist who cited El Nino as a sign of AGW. You won't find it because it doesn't exist, liars like MojoMan have repeated the claim over and over again until otherwise reasonable people began to believe it. Please, prove me wrong, find one climatologist in 1998 who made the claim. No, it was activists, not climatologists. While I lament the fact that the uninformed among us might make such claims, it doesn't change the fact that the story from the climatologists has never incorporated weather trends into their AGW models.
Except that the theory of anthropogenic global warming isn't bad science at all. The problem is that there is a profound misunderstanding of the nature of science. As I said earlier science isn't about absolute certainty but about probabilities. Its should be no surprise that there are a lot of uncertainties in regard to global warming but at the sametime the mechanism is well understood. At the sametime the type of controversies we are seeing regarding data that has to be retracted occurs all the time in science. Again remember the example of Pons and Fleischman who claimed to have discovered Cold Fusion. In the case of global warming while yes controversies have arisen it still hasn't gotten to the point that the theory is undermined. It still stands as showing likelyhoods. When we come to the policy debate though you have to consider the likelyhoods. Consider it like throwing a dice. We don't know for certain what number the dice will land on. In the case of something like global warming we are looking at probabilites that the dice will land on 1 to 4. In that case is it wise to presume that any given roll it will land on 5 and 6? In regard to global warming we are basically rolling craps in regard to the future. Global Warming might be bunk and as a scientific theory that doubt is inherent in it but at the sametime do you wwant to gamble on that.. Anyway even without global warming at all the measures to combat it justify themselves so why continue to take a gamble when there is a likeyhood of disaster and the status quo is causing problems in a lot of other ways. Appreciate it.
Grizzled thank you also for your thoughtful response. Yes I think we actually agree on quite a few things. Some of my responses my have been more skewed towards one view simply because I was trying to make a point to some people on here who are so closed minded and believe in something which is not even certain. Just trying to play devils advocate in some cases. You make a good point on Risk Mitigation and alternative sources of energy. However one of the things you address in Risk Management is the cost, impact, and the likely hood of the risk to the project. Some of the things that are being proposed by the IPCC, our Govt, or in Copenhagen will severly impact our economy and production with Cap and Trade. You have to weigh these factors, take in how likely the risk is going to occur (in global warming sense not very likely or in such insignificant temperatures) that it might not be worth addressing. And even if we do try to address it will it even work or even have a impact on reducing the risk??? None of this has been proven and from what I read limiting our CO2 emissions is not going to do anything but decrease production. Also I 100% agree with you on alternative sources of energy. I have been saying that since the beginning. This is very important research that needs to be done and I am glad we are making great progress in terms of Solar Energy. However as it stands today it is still not an efficient source of energy. I am glad however that Obama wants to expand the use of Nuclear Power. It is about time someone proposed that. Nuclear Power is actually one of the most safest, low cost and efficient power supplies. Bravo Obama. Not even Bush supported this (probably due to his families ties with the Oil Industry).
So the main measure to combat global warming is seeking alternative sources of energy. Well yes I agree with that 100%. We can not depend on fossil fuels and burning coal as a source of energy forever. However it can not be forced on by big Government. The things that are being proposed are Solar and Wind power. It is clear that these are not efficient sources of energy. It is expensive and just doesn't product enough power!! So while I agree we should research other forms of power it can not be forced upon by Govt. we will make the transition when it makes sense to and we realize all the benefits of an alternative source of power. Like I said in a previous post I think we are taking the right step with Obama's support of expanding nuclear power plants.
they may have very well been activists but they were all over NBC with the title Climatologists, Researcher, etc etc ..
Why must references to these kinds of statements be limited to those made by climatologists? The head of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, is an economist, for crying out loud. Al Gore is an American politician who appears to have once claimed to have been instrumental in inventing the internet. What sort of credentials does Michael Moore have? In fact, many of the the most outspoken voices promoting the AGW alarmism agenda are either politicians or journalists. These people have been the ones who have been out in front promoting this agenda the loudest, and they have been vociferously supported by an army of bloggers and message board posters, such as yourself. You can try to spin this however you like, of course, but the message and the tactics that have been used by the AGW alarmism crowd are out in the open, and have been broadcast far and wide for all to see. Nothing you say can change or repair any of that. It is time for you to stand down on this issue, GR.
wow that was one horrible article with no scientific facts in there at all. It is all speculation and one big opinion piece. When ever a article written by a journalist says something like "There is SOME evidence....." umm okay there is some evidence for a lot of things and you can make quite a stretch. That is the kind of garbage you see on NBC, the same garbage that Katrina was caused by Global Warming. Also look who they referenced in the Article. The Weather Underground???? You gotta be kidding.. They are a radical left organization who BOMBED OUR OWN PENTAGON!!! okay wont go there. I appreciate reading scientific papers and reading how the data was gathered and forming my own opinion. But I don't need to read article by a journalist who probably doesn't even know how to read a graph. Sorry that was a garbage article and I will agree they come from both sides.
lol funny quote mc mark. Don't you think that quote can be applied to the global warming theory? "It is getting warmer outside... we can only assume it is caused by man and nothing else" -SunsRocketsFan
It is not hypocrisy to answer the AGW Alarmists, tit-for-tat. What is hypocrisy is the insistence by AGW Alarmists that no one should make any observations of this type other than them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_(weather_service) The blog post the article was based on: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1427 He has links to scientific papers that I'm sure you will read.
There has also been unusually cold weather and heavy snow across the South, including Dallas, Texas: [RQUOTER]Dallas May Receive 6 Inches of Snow as Cold Sweeps U.S. South Dallas and Fort Worth may receive 6 inches (15 centimeters) of snow today as a storm ties up air traffic and keeps temperatures down in the U.S. South. At least 2 inches of snow had fallen in Fort Worth by 8 a.m. local time and more was on the way, said Vick Corbelli, a weather service meteorologist in Fort Worth. The most recent measurable snowfall was Dec. 24, when 3 inches fell, he said. The snow is part of a continuing weather pattern that has brought cooler-than-normal temperatures to most of the U.S. South, raising heating demands, said Matt Rogers, president of Commodity Weather Group LLC in Bethesda, Maryland. “From Texas to the Southeast we are not breaking records with this cold but we are seeing it persist,” Rogers said in a telephone interview. “To me, the more impressive aspect is the durability of this cold. It is a pattern that is really stuck.” .... The Dallas-Fort Worth region is now into its third month of below-normal temperatures, Corbelli said in a telephone interview. Temperatures in the cities will be in the low 30s Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius) today with overnight lows in the 20s, he said. Cold Across South Snow is also expected in Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Alabama, according to the National Weather Service. The pattern will continue from Texas to Atlanta, Rogers said. Temperatures throughout the region will be 4 to 8 degrees below normal, he said. [/RQUOTER]
And we also had record highs and droughts this summer. What's the constant so far? EXTREME RECORD BREAKING WEATHER.
haha yes I saw the other weather underground link. They should seriously consider changing their name. You dont want to have the same name as a terrorist group. I will take a look at the scientific papers on the site. Still doesnt take away that the article was crap and is in the same line as some of the Katrina = Global warming articles we have seen. It's basically now stating Unusual COld Weather = Global Warming. These journallist just like to stretch the truth so they can get some readers and cause some controversy. Same goes on both sides so I am not just discrediting this source.
huh??? so are people going around saying the quote you quoted on? "It is dark outside? so we can only assume the sun has been destroyed" Who is going around saying that?
