Global Warming Consensus

Sorry Ed but you're wrong on both counts.

1. Appeal to Authority is a fallacy if you are making an appeal to an inappropriate source of authority (not an expert in the area under discussion), if there is no need to appeal to an authority (if the question can be answered by observation and calculation), if the authority is an expert but is not disinterested, or the authority is an expert, but his opinion is unrepresentative of expert opinion on the subject. These were 650 scientists who are considered experts in the field(s) directly associated with global warming research. They just happen to be the first ones willing to admit that the "science" behind man-made global warming is, shall we say fishy, and to publically go against the grain.


2. This is not a majority. No one is trying to argue that point. We are simply contradicting the former claims by Al Gore and some UN Yahoos that there was/is a "consensus" among all scientists that global warming is real and it is man made. There is not consensus on either point among scientists researching the issues.

 

You are welcome. I'm glad I could help. The question is did you bother to read any of the links that go to primary sources addressing Global Warming?

 

I've been reading primary sources addressing Global Warming (via the "what happens if you burn all the oil in the earth in under 400 years) since long before this meaning of 'link' had any meaning. In fact, about the year you were born I was a Science Fiction reader and read my first heavy hug-a-tree SF book.

 

Statement: 2008 will likely be the coolest year of the decade.
BTW, 'the decade' is 2001-20010. So the true statement has to be:

2008 will likely be the coolest year of the decade SO FAR.

If the average temp in 2008 is warmer than 2000, 2008 will be the 9th hottest year 1850-2008 (9th hotest out of 150 years - top 6%).

This is likely

If the average temp in 2008 is less than 1996, then 2008 will be the 18th hottest year 1850-2008 (18th hottest out of 150 years - top 12%).

This is less likely

so
"2008 will likely be the coolest year of the decade SO FAR"
is likely true. but so is the following statement true
"2008 will likely be the 9th hottest out of the last 150 years"
also
"2008 will likely be in the warmest 6% of the last 150 years.


2008 will likely be the coolest year of the decade SO FAR. - if true

2008 will likely be the 9th hottest out of the last 150 years - then true

 

Okay, but what does any of that have to do with whether or not the www.globalwarminghoax.com site provides reliable information? So are we to consider you to be an expert on the subject of man-made Global Warming?

 

I think if you go back a re-read the article you'll see that the decade they are talking about is the ten year period running from 1998 (the record high temp year) to 2008 (likely the coolest on record for that specific 10 year period). So again you are arguing a point that no one has tried to make.

 

I've never understood why people are so adamantly against reducing automobile and factory toxic emissions. Even if we're wrong about global warming there is a clear benefit to our health by doing this. Ever been in LA on a REALLY bad day?

 

I dont know anyone who is against this. How we get there is where the difference is.

 

Nothing, I was explaining why I'm an expert (or at least have studied the matter the last 44-48 years). BTW, that particular location majors on opinion and has little hard facts (much like BB).

Feel free.

I also studied what happens when most of the oil is outside the USofA and most of the money & oil-need is in the US. About 1974 it was obvious that (at the current rates - those rates of use increased faster than expected) by 2000 the Saudi (and neighbors) would OWN the USofA). Seems that we guessed wrong. The Saudi (and neighbors) didn't mind buying enough weapons from Red China to wipe Israel off the Earth (they still haven't figured out how to do that without killing a lot of Palestinians, Syrians & Egyptians). Cost lots of money. So China owns the USofA. And they are about to call in the loans - do you read the paper?

 

JustChristian:

This has little or nothing to do with the discussion. My one daughter lives just north of you in Roswell. Last year they got the first snow ever there and it covered her backgarden and porch with about a 1/2 inch of snow.

Also, her daughter was riding horses near Atlanta when that big storm hit. They were given 15 minutes to put the horses under cover and head for a hotel in Atlanta where the storm hit. I understand that was the first such storm to hit Atlanta. It went north and south of Roswell.

Are the pros blaming this on global warming down your way?

Cheers,

Jim

 

That is a problem with Global Warming. The situation where it snows in Roswell, New Mexico is this: A low pressure area (also known as 'storm') in western New Mexico (or Eastern Arizona) to move moist Gulf air, a cold front from the North (Canada) . Note 'cold' here means cooler than the moist air.

Was (before Global warming) the low was in Mexico itself - the cold air (which warms up as it goes south) made it RAIN in Tampico, Mexico.
Was (before Global warming) the low in Western New Mexico only brought the most air up to the Middle of Texas, where it rained out before it got to Roswell, so the formerly most air was dry when it got to Roswell.

(Just as hot air rises -- the air cools as it goes up -- both are true)

cold air - cool air - cold air
cool air - warm air - cool air
warm air - hot air - warm air

The hot air rises, relative to the warm air around it.
The air in the central column cools as it rises changing from hot to warm
The warm air rises, relative to the cool air around it.
The air in the central column cools as it rises changing from warm to cool

 

Sorry Ed, but this is Roswell, Georgia.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Since 1964 the world order has been in control of enough nuclear devices to end all human life on earth (maybe all life) - I bet that would have a climatological impact.

For the first three centuries of the Christian Era (AD 0001-3000) the breadbasket of the Roman Empire was the Mediterranean Coast of What is now Tunis to Egypt. It is now largely a desert. Humans depleted the soil & it became an arid desert. (Even the Old Testament Law says to let the land lie fallow one year in seven).

Human-kind was made the steward of the Earth - we blew it. Climate Change Denial is a psychological/sociological problem leading to ruin of humanity

Those who are mathematically inclined figure how much volume of oil is used in the World in a year & relate that to common objects. The hard part isn't the arithmetic but finding the numbers (what is the sq ft. of a barrel of oil?) I do know there are over 100 super tanker ships each the size of one of the twin towers of the WTC that was in New York.

The USofA consumes about 1/4 of the World's oil and consumes 20 Million Barrells of Oil a day (back in 2004). That means a world daily usage of 80 Million barrells of Oil a day. That is 29 Billion barrels of Oil per year. That is about 6 barrels of oil a year per human on the earth. In oklahoma we used to use old 55-gallon oil drums for trash cans. Now it is about belly-button high to me and still wider than me. Call it three feet high and 2 feet across.

The formula for the volume of a cylendar is pi*Rsquared*H here r=2 (about) and H=3 (about) and pi is about 3.14. That makes 1 bbl about 38 feet-cubed.

So my human chunk of oil used each year is 6x38 = 228 cubic feet. That would be a floor to ceiling (10 ft) 5'xt' corner.

All the oil used in the world in one year would fill a square mile - 104 feet deep.

All the known oil reserves in Saudi Arabia will provide 10 years of world oil consumption at the current rate.

 

Tee Hee - My Bad. I live about 100 miles north of Roswell, Georgia. I've had my Air Conditioner (actually it is a greener heat pump) on 5 of the 11 days in December so far. It has been too warm in central Oklahoma all fall and probably all December. So what if it snows even in Havana? The earth is warming up.

 

I keep thinking about the warm earth societies when I go outdoors here and almost freeze my tooties off. Specially when I have to blow 18-20 cms of snow to walk outdoors.

Cheers,

Jim

 

It's no use. When it gets hot, it's global warming. When it gets cold, it's global warming (!).

Of course, if folks would stop all the harping about the global warming myth, think of all the "pollution" (only in the global warming realm could what we exhale be considered "pollution") that would be saved.

 

People keep forgetting that back when Mr. Edwards started reading Sci-Fi they were predicting a global 'Ice Age'. Maybe they were right after all??

Buncha 'science falsely so-called' if you ask me. Of course, you didn't but you'll get over it. :laugh:

 

More snow is a big sign of Global Warming. More snow falls at about 32-degrees-F (less snow falls at 15-degrees-F, hardly any snow falls at 15-degrees below-zero-F). Remember 'warm' is a relative term, not an absolute term.

Especially in Antarctic, a temperature of 4-degrees-F in the middle of February (summer) will set record highs. A temperate of 4-degrees-F in the middle of February sets record lows.

 

Oh well...... Then the chicken little's have all their basis covered then don't they.

 

We are not getting more snow here. We are going through the natural cycles of open and tight winters. Some years we have snow up to our bottoms and other winters I barely take the snowblower out three times all winter.

There are people on both sides, equally qualified on the subject of so-called global warming.

Manmade pollution is global. The cost to partially address this issue will cost Canada billions of dollars, and this will not touch the pollution coming into Canada from around the world and particularly from US industries bordering us.

Cheers,

Jim