<p>Does anyone really buy the fact that the weather patterns for the last 100 years means snot? Let’s see. 100 years is what, 1% of the weather activity that has occurred since the last ice age (conservatively 10,000 years)? We want to take what has happened on 100 years and assume that we know what the climate is doing. I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that it was hotter or there was more co2 in the air 1,000 years ago. I wonder what kind of gas mileage they were getting out of their cars back then?</p>
<p>It was not the last 100 years! I missed one 0. </p>
<p>I don’t exactly remember how far back they went, but I think the data was as far back as 1000 years ago.</p>
<p>
Actually, pmrlcomm, they changed the terminology because some people are so stupid they couldn’t understand that “global warming” didn’t mean that it would be hotter every day, everywhere on earth, than it was the day before, day after day, so every time it snowed somewhere on Earth they crowed that that proved that global warming was a hoax. The phenomenon is global warming. The consequence is climate change (in various forms in various places and times.)</p>
<p>Electing not to believe what the overwhelming majority of qualified scientists agree on is pretty much the hallmark of either a crank or one of the numerous Americans who are fertile ground for the propagandists. There’s always a fringe scientists or two to carefully feed to the gullible who are too lazy to see through the pop-science “skeptics” smokescreen. There’s a reason why a lot of Americans believed that WMD’s had been found in Iraq after the invasion even though the opposite fact was well publicized. And there’s a reason why a lot of those same people are “skeptics” about global warming today. (Hint: it’s not because they’re actually “skeptical” at all.) If you actually think there’s a bona fide controversy among scientists about global warming try to find serious, rigorous, peer-reviewed research papers supporting the claims of the “skeptics.”</p>
<p>Regardless of anyone’s opinion on Global Warming/Climate Change, Al Gore, or The Nobel Prize, the fact remains that the introduction of more “Green” technology is in the best interest of our planet.</p>
<p>It benefits us greatly to find more economical & ecological use of our resources. I don’t think anyone disputes that.</p>
<p>I am not a fan of Al Gore and I think “An Inconvenient Truth” is bunk. I’m disappointed that he was awarded the Nobel Prize and even an Academy Award for that fiction. But I like the idea of encouraging everyone to stop polluting, recycle and conserve energy.</p>
<p>Whether you think the consumption of fossil fuel is causing a change in the Earth’s temp or not is really irrelevant - we still need to develop alternative energy sources.</p>
<p>Why is it so controversial?</p>
<p>Sorry tega but they don’t have weather data back that far. I can just envision the crusaders stopping on their way to Jerusalem to take wind and temperature readings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Last I checked it wasn’t the “overwhelming majority”. There seem to be plenty of scientists on each side of the debate. Fairly prominent ones at that. Since you are in the know why don’t you toss up some links to your serious, rigorous, peer-reviewed, non-biased, non-greenpeace funded research papers. I would very much like to read them.</p>
<p>To bz’s point. Just because I think the whole climate change (whatever they are calling it now) doesn’t mean I think it’s a good idea to pollute more than you have to. I would happily buy a hybrid or more fuel efficient vehicle if were economically feasible to do so. Just because people don’t believe the propaganda doesn’t mean they are clueless.</p>
<p>[Reason</a> Magazine - Two Sides to Global Warming](<a href=“http://www.reason.com/news/show/34939.html]Reason”>Two Sides to Global Warming)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think some of it was simulated data. They had a program on recently where they used trees in the amazon forest and some parts of the world to determine the weather patterns in different regions of the world as far back as 500AD (I remember it was early AD but I am not sure about the 500). I will write down the name of the program if they show it again. </p>
<p>In economics, most data sets are less than 200 years, but you can simulate more data.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What did you check?</p>
<p>(bz2010, You asked, “Why is it so controversial?” See bolded section in first paragraph.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The link would have been fine. Thanks for posting it. </p>
<p>If you find the name of that it would be interesting tega. More to the point is if it was hotter 1,000 years ago what caused it? Too many low mpg pigs, cows and horses?</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting discussion of how bogus “controversies” are created about things like smoking, evolution, global warming, etc.: [Only</a> In It For The Gold: History of AGW Consensus by Mashey](<a href=“http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2007/10/history-of-agw-consensus-by-mashey.html]Only”>Only In It For The Gold: History of AGW Consensus by Mashey)</p>
<p>The Luntz memo on how to manipulate public opinion on this subject is interesting reading, too. (linked to in the blog and on Wikipedia.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A quick trip to sciencemag.org yields:</p>
<p>[Earth’s</a> Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications – Hansen et al. 308 (5727): 1431 – Science](<a href=“http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;308/5727/1431?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=Global+Warming&andorexacttitleabs=phrase&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=20&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT]Earth’s”>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;308/5727/1431?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=Global+Warming&andorexacttitleabs=phrase&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=20&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT)</p>
<p>[GLOBAL</a> WARMING:Global Climate Data and Models: A Reconciliation – Hansen et al. 281 (5379): 930 – Science](<a href=“http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;281/5379/930?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=Global+Warming&andorexacttitleabs=phrase&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT,HWELTR]GLOBAL”>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/sci;281/5379/930?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=Global+Warming&andorexacttitleabs=phrase&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT,HWELTR)</p>
<p>[Fossil</a> Plants and Global Warming at the Triassic-Jurassic Boundary – McElwain et al. 285 (5432): 1386 – Science](<a href=“http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;285/5432/1386?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=Global+Warming&andorexacttitleabs=phrase&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT]Fossil”>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;285/5432/1386?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=Global+Warming&andorexacttitleabs=phrase&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT)</p>
<p>[Simulation</a> of Early 20th Century Global Warming – Delworth and Knutson 287 (5461): 2246 – Science](<a href=“http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;287/5461/2246?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=Global+Warming&andorexacttitleabs=phrase&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT]Simulation”>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;287/5461/2246?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=Global+Warming&andorexacttitleabs=phrase&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT)</p>
<p>[Paleobotanical</a> Evidence for Near Present-Day Levels of Atmospheric CO2 During Part of the Tertiary – Royer et al. 292 (5525): 2310 – Science](<a href=“http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;292/5525/2310?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=Global+Warming&andorexacttitleabs=phrase&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT]Paleobotanical”>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;292/5525/2310?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=Global+Warming&andorexacttitleabs=phrase&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=10&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT)</p>
<p>Good luck with your reading - there’s plenty more out there if you’re interested. </p>
<p>I’d also be ‘interested’ if you can find peer-reviewed articles in Science or Nature that indicate there is no link between increased CO2 emissions and recent global warming.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Weather is the day to day variations in temperature, whereas climate is long-term weather change, thus global warming is called ‘climate change’.</p>
<hr>
<p>Hard to ignore facts.</p>
<p>We’ll all find out eventually…one way or the other.</p>
<p>
Would this be before or after the sea-level rises several feet?</p>
<p>If as some believe that man is responsible, Mother Nature has its own way of correcting things that are out of balance. It would be presumptious of us that we could control it or even capable to do so. If it was global cooling instead would we here cries to burn fossil fuels as fast as possible to reheat the world. I think not!</p>
<p>A great article on the politics of global warming in the Bush administration:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[The</a> Secret Campaign of President Bush’s Administration To Deny Global Warming : Rolling Stone](<a href=“http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_george_bushs_administration_to_deny_global]The”>http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_george_bushs_administration_to_deny_global)</p>
<p>(Note: The Bush administration reversed its position on global warming earlier this year.)</p>
<p>Hmmm…latest I read was it was rising at 3 mm per year +/-, albeit increasing…but no reference to how much. 1 foot equals 304 mm’s. So depending on how you look at it it would take 300 years for the oceans to rise 1 foot. Better get your raft out… Just to appease mapesy this data was found from a very credible source:</p>
<p>[Welcome</a> on ARGO.NET, the International Argo Project Homepage](<a href=“http://www.argo.net%5DWelcome”>http://www.argo.net) <==click on the brochure icon, page 2. You should be happy, it talks about the global warming. I don’t think we are in any danger of drowning any time soon.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There may be some merit to that theory. At some point, Mother Nature will probably get sick of humans raping, despoiling, and using up the planet’s resources, and will send along some nasty virus to wipe us out!</p>
<p>
True, true. One way is called an “Ice Age.” (Not so much fun for the local humans, though.) As to presumption, I think it’s presumptuous to think we can pump billions of tons of extra CO2 into the atmosphere year after year and expect “Mother Nature” to clean up after us. I guess that’s just the “Dad of teenagers” in me coming out, though.</p>
<p>Would you cry as loud, if it was global cooling to burn fossil fuels to reheat the world? Just asking for some intellectual honesty?</p>
<p>
That is very naive. That website looks at previous/current levels and projects them forward without considering the exponential growth of CO2.</p>
<p>Here’s a Science paper which actually simulates the the sea-level forward by including those effects, which predicts a rise of 0.4 - 1.5 m in the next 100 years. Note that the paper reproduces the current rates (~3mm per year) using its model. In simple terms: rates can change over time.</p>
<p>[A</a> Semi-Empirical Approach to Projecting Future Sea-Level Rise – Rahmstorf 315 (5810): 368 – Science](<a href=“http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;315/5810/368?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=rise+sea+level+global+warming&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=or&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT]A”>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;315/5810/368?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&andorexacttitle=or&titleabstract=rise+sea+level+global+warming&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=or&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=7/1/1880&tdate=6/30/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT)</p>
<p>I hope you don’t live in Florida!</p>