Do you post anything that you yourself understand? Or are you just parroting someone else's nonsense? Take a look at this link: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.e...flections-of-a-climate-skeptic-henk-tennekes/ And note what Prof. Tennekes, your hero, says, If anything, he is much more "alarmist" than others! He does question the science of global climate modeling (as any good scientist would), but he doesn't particularly bias towards one side or the other. Stop distorting scientists words or post things that you don't understand.
Discoveries that overthrow prevailing consensus huh? Ok, here's a discovery for you. I'd say it's not a warming factor with long term support based on no available, verifiable, data that the temperature of the planet itself is significantly higher due to human intervention on a consistent basis for a term longer than fifty years. Just as with stocks, one should pull the MA indicator back to a time frame more relevant to the history of the planet to make planetary revelations. Also, there has been no significant data showing that the earth itself will not survive said disruptions by humankind. History again reveals that the planet has endured, and continues to endure, in spite of the presence of the inhabitants. And in many areas where man is (and is not) present, the planet seems to be able to recover without human assistance. Having survived numerous generations and species of beasts, plants, animals and possibly aliens, the planet has shown remarkable resilience throughout its discernable history. When there have been significant planet initiated events (earthquakes, volcanoes and ocean shifts) with greater disruptive powers than man possesses, have caused more particulates to enter the atmosphere than man has collectively added through his history, the eco system has adjusted and the conditions have had but a temporary discomfort to and from humans who wish to complain if they were alive during said events. History would also show that planetary disruptions have occurred since man has been alive and able to record the events and in spite of his recording, events have happened. Man, and his infinite wisdom at this time, has evolved to the level of significance as to be able to record said events in great detail and document. The recording and notations of these occurances at this time are further awaiting discovery of the necessary departments to file said reports for ~ recording. I would also state that the discomfort levels within certain members of the human species are no more than grumbling. History has shown that natural evolution, if required, will ultimately cause the body to adjust to the environment and the resulting appropriate adjustments will probably be made without any significant intervention by man. And I would strongly disagree with you. Your comments don't show your ignorance to scientific studies at all. They actually support your ability to have a differing opinion. And I do support your ability to do that. Have a different opinion that is.
There was a study a while ago by many of the same scientists which stated that the ice is melting on Mars and Jupiter also. Now I really can't verify this, but I don't think we're there yet.
I'm neither republican nor democrat, and I don't agree either with unlimited lawsuits. Maybe they do so to prevent the trillion dollar award by some liberal based jury who wanted to be on "Nightline" and/or go down in history as "The Jury That Awarded the Trillion!" The answer here, is not in the courts.
Here are the questions I think must be answered before we can solve anything: 1. What is the correct average global temperature? Or. What year/time period average should we use to determine the correct temperature? 2. Has the Earth been warming? How much? For how long? What happened to the global climate before this most recent trend? 3. Is global warming bad or good? 4. What has caused the most recent temperature change? Man? And what caused the previous temperature change? And the one before that? And what about global warming on Mars? 5. If there is global warming and it is bad, how much would it cost man to stop/reverse this trend? Or will the trend reverse on its own? And would the money be better spent on other things?
Uh, Tennekes did not make those comments. Check the link. And yes, I do understand what I post. And why the hostilty? Is it that you just cant't accept the fact that there are contrary views to what you get spoonfed by USA Today and CNN? You keep making the statement that the "concensus" is the earth is warming due to the actions of man. All I'm pointing out is that is NOT the case. There are problems with the models, which are nothing more than a guess. Take a look at the what Dr Manns' peers have said about his "Hockey Stick" chart.
The hostility is because you constantly post long articles that people are not interested in reading. Just say what you think would be much more productive. Read what Tennekes said. The summary at the top of the webpage pretty well sums up what he said. I was mistaken to think the summary equals his words. If you disagree, I'm not going to argue. There is a difference between the predictions of the models, which Tennekes disputes, and scientific observations, which as far as I can tell, he does not. Basically what he says is that whatever the existing models predict, I don't believe (good for him!) That is a proper skepticism from the point of the view of a scientist. This skepticism, however, does not change the fact that the global warming has been and is being observed. I am completely with Tennekes on the models. I don't believe that model predictions are ever reliable. However, there is no bias in this skepticism. There is an equal chance that the future is either cold as heaven or hot as hell. Whatever the models say, they likely underestimate the effects of human activity. I think Tennekes also agrees on this point.
These are very good questions. I don't think I can do justice to the answers but I'll try. 1. What is the correct average global temperature? Or. What year/time period average should we use to determine the correct temperature? Scientists have figured out pretty reliable ways to measure temperature/climate changes over both long and short periods of times. For examples, by look at O18 isotope content in various fossiles. To explain any of these methods it will make this post too long. The key is, whether measurements from different methods and from different regions agree with each other. For the most part, they do. When they found disagreement, it's often factors that were not considered at the time (for example, the ozone hole which leads to regional cooling). 2. Has the Earth been warming? How much? For how long? What happened to the global climate before this most recent trend? The Earth has been warming in the past 200 years, and the trend is accelerating. The global climate was relatively accomadative to humans in the past 10,000 years. This is the direct cause for the rise of agriculture. Recent human activities are about to break this relatively calm period. Before that, there were violently warm and cold periods (ice ages, for example). 3. Is global warming bad or good? It's not the warming per se. It's the violence in the climate pattern (more hurricanes, more droughts and floods, etc). Bad or good is subjective. Any significant changes in the climate will lead to significant reduction in agricultural output. Is that a good or a bad thing? That depends on who you are. 4. What has caused the most recent temperature change? Man? And what caused the previous temperature change? And the one before that? And what about global warming on Mars? Although no science is 100% certain, there is a very high probability that the recent climate change is cause by human activities. There are many scientific studies on this. They more or less reached the same conclusion. 5. If there is global warming and it is bad, how much would it cost man to stop/reverse this trend? Or will the trend reverse on its own? And would the money be better spent on other things? That's the question for politicians/voters to answer. I don't know whether the trend will or can be reversed, or whether humans need to actively try to reverse the trend. However, since the recent climate changes are likely due to human activities, it would certainly be a good idea to try to reduce human influence on the climate as much as possible, before we understand more about it. What is the cost/benefit ratio and where do we draw the line? I don't know. Accept the scientific fact of global warming, then we can debate whether we want to do anything about it. There is no reason to mislead the public by either exagerating or denying it.