Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Joined
·
28,829 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Texas sets record for hottest summer in US - Weather - msnbc.com

And hey GCC deniers, don't let anything like science get in the way of your idiot thinking on the subject. An article from almost three years ago:



Are Global Warming Models Accurately Predicting Our Future? New Study Reveals the Answer—A Galaxy Interview

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/04/are-global-warm.html



There are a lot of competing theories out there when it comes to climate change. It seems that for every expert opinion there is an opposite opinion, and for every piece of evidence there are contrary views. Politicians, scientists and environmentalists alike can’t seem to agree on all of the facts. But what about all of these computerized climate models coming out? Are they reliable and accurate? Can we trust the predictions these models generate?

In the recent study "How Well do Coupled Models Simulate Today’s Climate?” which will be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, meteorologists analyzed a wide range of existing models. Co-authors Thomas Reichler and Junsu Kim from the Department of Meteorology at the University of Utah researched how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate by comparing the output of the models against observations for present climate. Using this method, the scientists analyzed about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the past two decades at major climate research centers in China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Korea, Great Britain, Germany, and the United States, including the very latest model generation used for the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The results of this study conclude that current climate models are quite accurate in terms of present climate, and can therefore act as valuable tools in predicting future trends. If so, that would mean that the models used for the recent IPCC report are realistic. Of course, unknown future variables, such as how we choose to respond to climate change, could change these projections, hopefully favorably. However, the data we have now is reliable, concludes the study. The research also found that most of the existing models project a global warming trend of about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100-year period. Such a dramatic rise in temperature would likely have a devastating impact on many forms of life, including humans.

But what about the various claims from some experts that the Earth isn’t getting warmer, or the even more contrary claim that we may actually be entering into a cooling phase in the Earth’s climate cycle? The Daily Galaxy interviewed the lead author of the study, climate expert Thomas Reichler, to hear what he has to say about it. According to him, anyone claiming that the Earth isn’t getting warmer, or that it’s perhaps even getting colder, simply isn’t looking at the actual data, and very likely isn’t even a real scientist.

“I don’t think there is any scientific evidence to support such an idea. People may be coming up with those kind of ideas, but I don’t think it’s coming from scientists,” Reichler told the Daily Galaxy.

Reichler pointed out that most scientists agree that climate change is a real and critical issue, because that is what the scientific evidence accumulated thus far suggests. Climate change is expected to cause a wide range of weather and temperatures fluctuations including some areas becoming colder, but the overall trend is warming. According to Reichler, people can have an opinion that climate change isn’t real, but that doesn’t change the reality of it.

“There is absolutely no doubt that the world is in a warming phase,” Reichler told the Daily Galaxy, “and that conclusion is supported by 99% of all serious scientists, so I’m certainly not alone in that certainty. ”

But what about those who claim that climate change is part of an inevitable climate cycle that has little to do with humans? Is global warming a man-made phenomenon, or part of an inevitable climate cycle? According to Reichler, nearly all scientific evidence to date suggests that humans do play a role in the issue.

“Of course, there are some other contributing factors but the main factor involved is the many human activities that significantly increase levels of greenhouse gases.”

The Daily Galaxy asked Reichler what he believes average people can do on a day-to-day practical level to make a positive difference. Reichler says that, on the most basic level, people can make a significant difference by consuming less fossil fuel and by making our homes and lifestyles more energy efficient.

“Drive smaller cars, drive less, and insulate your house well. Things like this can make a difference.”

The model study is here:

http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~reichler/publications/papers/Reichler_07_BAMS_CMIP.pdf
 

·
Administratoris Emeritus
2021 SL770
Joined
·
46,416 Posts
Global warming is declared a hoax every winter, then fully resuscitated every summer.
 

·
Registered
300SD
Joined
·
11,191 Posts
Who needs science when you wear a cowboy hat and boots, and a pair of six shooters and shoot from the hip all the time? :(
 

·
Registered
83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Joined
·
28,829 Posts
Discussion Starter #4

·
Registered
83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Joined
·
28,829 Posts
Discussion Starter #5 (Edited)
Who needs science when you wear a cowboy hat and boots, and a pair of six shooters and shoot from the hip all the time? :(
We have climate change models which predicted years ago the world we are living in today, and it is sad that so many people would rather believe self-serving political bullshit instead of realizing they are going to kill their own children. If these predictive models continue predicting accurately, the Great Plains, which is the actual source of the US's power and wealth, are going to dry up and blow away. We are watching it happen. Read this from the 2003 study and contrast it to the article posted in the OP:
The observed climate trends over the last century have been dominated by increasing precipitation, rather than by drier conditions (see Downpours, Heavy Snowfalls, and Flooding). Some regional decreases in precipitation have been observed, notably in parts of Africa, the Caribbean, and tropical Asia (IPCC, 1998, Appendix A). There is presently no evidence for an increase in the frequency of droughts in North America over the past century, in part because the severe droughts of the 1930 s dominate the historical record (Karl et al., 1996). Studies of past drought variability in the US Great Plains, however, indicate the potential for more severe and frequent droughts in the future (Laird et al., 1996; Woodhouse and Overpeck, 1998), and human-induced warming may exacerbate this natural variability.
And take a look at this:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JHM544.1

This is real science, telling us why the world is the way it is, and not some shithead bullshit.
 

·
Registered
Trek 520
Joined
·
3,407 Posts
Not surprisingly, there is a Christian component to rejecting global warming theory.

In a recent post The Folly of Faith I mentioned that a connection exists between global warming denialism and religion. Here I would like to provide more justification for this claim.

Evidence exists that many who deny the dangers of global warming do so out of religious conviction. A Pew survey asked the following question: "Is there solid evidence the earth is warming?" Let me just give the percentages who said yes and agreed that it is the result of human activity:

Total U.S. population 47 %; Unaffiliated with any church 58 %; White mainline Protestants 48 %; White, non-Hispanic Catholics 44 %; Black Protestants 39 %; White evangelical Protestants 34 %.
Also interesting was the result that 21 percent of all Americans, 18 percent of the unaffiliated, and 31 percent of white evangelicals said there was no global warming at all. While mainline Protestants and Catholics are close to the national average, they still are below that of the unaffiliated. Surely the fact that 58 percent of the unaffiliated support the scientific consensus while less than 50 percent of believers do is evidence for a correlation between religion and global warming denialism.

The role of religion in global warming denialism can be seen in the political battles over the teaching of evolution. In 2010 the Kentucky Legislature introduced a bill encouraging teachers to discuss "the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories," including "evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning." A similar bill was passed in Louisiana in 2008 and in 2009 the Texas Board of Education required that teachers present all sides of the evidence on evolution and global warming (Leslie Kaufman, "Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets," New York Times, March 3, 2010).

Demanding equal time for opposing views on evolution and global warming is like demanding equal time for phlogiston and flat-Earth theories.

Those for whom the Bible is the literal world of God take seriously the last book of the New Testament, Revelation, which describes the end of times. What's more, the Jesus of the Gospels predicted that the Son of Man would return in a generation to set up the Kingdom of God on Earth (Matt 16:28; Matt 24:34; Mark 9:1; Mark 13.30; Luke 9:27). Of course he didn't, but for two thousand years Christians have always thought the end was right around the corner. Why worry about global warming if the kingdom of God is at hand?

If you read this after 6 p.m. Saturday, May 21 you know that the latest prediction of Jesus' coming has failed.

John Shimkus, Republican of Illinois, is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives. He has argued that climate change is a myth because God told Noah he would never again destroy Earth by flood (Gen 8:21-22). He is seen on a video as saying, "The earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood. . . . I do believe God's word is infallible, unchanging, perfect."

In 2009 Representative "Smokey Joe" Barton (Republican from Texas) told C-Span:

I would also point out that CO2, carbon dioxide, is not a pollutant in any normal definition of the term . . . I am creating it as I talk to you. It's in your Coca-Cola, your Dr. Pepper, your Perrier water. It is necessary for human life. It is odorless, colorless, tasteless, does not cause cancer, does not cause asthma.

A lot of the CO2 that is created in the United States is naturally created. You can't regulate God. Not even the Democratic majority in the US Congress can regulate God.

If you think greenhouse gases are bad, life couldn't exist without greenhouse gases. . . . So, there is a, there is a climate theory--and it's a theory, it's not a fact, it's never been proven--that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the upper atmosphere somehow interact to trap more heat than the atmosphere would otherwise.


Personally, I can't see how in a pumping back into the atmosphere in a century or two carbon that took millions of years to accumulate in Earth can be harmless.

Perhaps the most vocal denier of global warming is Republican Senator James Inhofe. In a speech on the Senate floor on July 28, 2003 he called catastrophic global warming "a hoax." He referred to "satellite data, confirmed by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) balloon data, confirms that no meaningful warming has occurred over the last century." This is false. The satellite data in fact corroborated the warming trend reported from surface measurements.

Inhofe is one of the most conservative members of the Senate and, characteristically, also promotes evangelical causes. He has used government funds to travel at last twenty times to Africa on missions that he himself has referred to publically as "Jesus things." There he has "played an active role in the faith-based aspect of our anti-AIDS campaign," according to a Ugandan diplomat.

The Cornwall Alliance for The Stewardship of Creation has issued what it calls "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming." Here's what it says"

WHAT WE BELIEVE

1. We believe Earth and its ecosystems--created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence --are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

2. We believe abundant, affordable energy is indispensable to human flourishing, particularly to societies which are rising out of abject poverty and the high rates of disease and premature death that accompany it. With present technologies, fossil and nuclear fuels are indispensable if energy is to be abundant and affordable.

3. We believe mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, achievable mainly by greatly reduced use of fossil fuels, will greatly increase the price of energy and harm economies.

4. We believe such policies will harm the poor more than others because the poor spend a higher percentage of their income on energy and desperately need economic growth to rise out of poverty and overcome its miseries.



WHAT WE DENY

1. We deny that Earth and its ecosystems are the fragile and unstable products of chance, and particularly that Earth's climate system is vulnerable to dangerous alteration because of minuscule changes in atmospheric chemistry. Recent warming was neither abnormally large nor abnormally rapid. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.

2. We deny that alternative, renewable fuels can, with present or near-term technology, replace fossil and nuclear fuels, either wholly or in significant part, to provide the abundant, affordable energy necessary to sustain prosperous economies or overcome poverty.

3. We deny that carbon dioxide--essential to all plant growth--is a pollutant. Reducing greenhouse gases cannot achieve significant reductions in future global temperatures, and the costs of the policies would far exceed the benefits.

4. We deny that such policies, which amount to a regressive tax, comply with the Biblical requirement of protecting the poor from harm and oppression.


However, it must be said that many believers, including some prominent evangelical Christians, see their "stewardship" of Earth, ordained by God, as requiring that they pay attention to the warnings of climate scientists. In 2006 some eighty-six evangelical leaders signed a statement saying, "Millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors." The list included Rick Warren, author of the blockbuster bestseller The Purpose-Driven Life. However, other leaders including Watergate felon Charles Colson, founder of the Prison Fellowship Ministries, and James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, objected to the move (Laurie Goodstein, "Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative," New York Times, February 8, 2006).

The Rev. Jim Ball, senior director for climate programs at the Evangelical Environmental Network that accepts the science of global warming, as saying that many of global warming deniers feel that "scientists are attacking their faith and calling them idiots so they are likely to be skeptical" about global warming (as quoted by Goodstein).

Nevertheless, as we saw above, two-thirds of white evangelicals do not believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

The Catholic Church is becoming increasingly green. In 2007 Pope Benedict told a Vatican conference on climate change to "respect creation" while "focusing on the needs of sustainable development" (John Vidal, and Tom Kington, "Protect God's Creation: Vatican Issues New Green Message for World's Catholics," The Guardian, April 27, 2007) Still, over 50 percent of white, non-Hispanic Catholics do not believe in AGW.

Corporate greed is the primary motivation for global warming denial. However, the antiscientific attitudes of the Christian right are being exploited to prevent the government of the United States from taking actions that might be essential for everyone's welfare, including the grandchildren of those industrialists, preachers, politicians, and scientists who now so vehemently oppose any action.





Victor Stenger: Global Warming and Religion
 

·
Registered
2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Joined
·
9,956 Posts
It seems to me the politicization of religion is at the source of the statistics quoted. If churches were truly focused on spiritual health concerns instead of politics there would be none of this crap. There would be none of this "poor picked on Christofascist" attitude. The more political the religious nuts get the more they ignore their basic, and only opportunity for positively influencing mankind, which is attending to the spiritual needs of their group.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Christo-fascist movement is well on the way to being totally corrupted by their obsession with political power. And surprise! The same segment of the population that is taken in by this bullshit is the segment of the population that can actually believe nonsense in the Bible. It amazes me. The Bible was written by men, at a time when so little of the environment man lived in was understood, yet it is somehow held as an authoritative document on issues of modern science to the extent where the work of men today is disregarded in favor the work of men before they had the math or thousand years of experience we have now because some other man told them it was the word of god. Wow. No wonder the guy with the magic shorts was not laughed into the insane asylum when he started his church.

Jim
 

·
Registered
300SD
Joined
·
11,191 Posts
If all Christians actually practiced what Jesus Christ teaches in the New Testament gospels, the world would be a lot better place.
 

·
Registered
1985 190E 2.3-16
Joined
·
1,583 Posts
Now, let's take a different look at that first article, without tarring and feathering a dissenting opinion with the blindness of religion.

What you're seeing is fluctuations in weather - short term. Global warming seeks to predict changes in climate - very long term. This is the sort of alarmist article that uses selective facts to present a distorted picture to people predisposed to believe the worst because the last summer was hot.

In the US, the hottest dry spell was the period of 1934-1936, not this summer in Texas. My summer was fairly hot, but it rained like crazy all summer. Last summer was hotter and drier, and the worst summer I can remember was 1983. Just because Texas had one hot summer is no guarantee that the world is coming to an end. Understand the difference between weather and climate.

Is there truth behind the assertion that rising CO2 levels are altering the climate? I don't know. Perhaps, but the subject has become politicized, and the research has become politicized. Most climate research is driven by government grants, and those grants are doled out by political influence. If the bulk of climate research grants go to institutions that have a record of predicting human caused global warming, guess what gets 'proven'?

I'm not denying global warming out of hand, but I am highly suspicious of what is being said about it today, because it is now political. Cutting down on CO2 will be very expensive. Arguably, we need to get off of fossil fuel, and destroying the S American rain forests is not a good idea. But let's not wreck the credibility of science in the process by panicky and irrelevant references to short term weather fluctuations.
 

·
Registered
83 Astral Silver 280 SL
Joined
·
28,829 Posts
Discussion Starter #12 (Edited)
Now, let's take a different look at that first article, without tarring and feathering a dissenting opinion with the blindness of religion.

What you're seeing is fluctuations in weather - short term. Global warming seeks to predict changes in climate - very long term. This is the sort of alarmist article that uses selective facts to present a distorted picture to people predisposed to believe the worst because the last summer was hot.

In the US, the hottest dry spell was the period of 1934-1936, not this summer in Texas. My summer was fairly hot, but it rained like crazy all summer. Last summer was hotter and drier, and the worst summer I can remember was 1983. Just because Texas had one hot summer is no guarantee that the world is coming to an end. Understand the difference between weather and climate.

Is there truth behind the assertion that rising CO2 levels are altering the climate? I don't know. Perhaps, but the subject has become politicized, and the research has become politicized. Most climate research is driven by government grants, and those grants are doled out by political influence. If the bulk of climate research grants go to institutions that have a record of predicting human caused global warming, guess what gets 'proven'?

I'm not denying global warming out of hand, but I am highly suspicious of what is being said about it today, because it is now political. Cutting down on CO2 will be very expensive. Arguably, we need to get off of fossil fuel, and destroying the S American rain forests is not a good idea. But let's not wreck the credibility of science in the process by panicky and irrelevant references to short term weather fluctuations.
What a load of fucking crap. Short term? I am posting models from ten years ago, and you are calling it short term? The entire point here is that predictive models from years back are proving to be accurate and consistent, confirming scienctific theories on climate change that have been proposed for the last three decades. Things aren't being "said", things are being shown to be, a little thing called "reality". When are you going to accept the truth? When you've left a world of horror to your starving kids? It's time to cut the fucking pathetic bullshit and call a spade a spade. While you have your pathetic little rain story, my state is on fire. People are dying. Crops are failing. Ranchers are selling off their herds. And for you right wingers, it's still time for your fucking word games. Wake up and smell my neighbor's house burning.
 

·
Administratoris Emeritus
2021 SL770
Joined
·
46,416 Posts
We've had severe global warming this summer. But we're getting a bit global cooler now.
 

·
Registered
Trek 520
Joined
·
3,407 Posts
There is no consensus on AGW, or is there?

TrapperJohn,

I agree with the politicalization of AGW. But that is a recent event. It appears to be politics against science.

Initially the science was not "Democratic or Republican".

This link leads to two videos, the first is rather entertaining and created for shock value, but fun to watch. It debunks the "30,000 scientists against AGW" argument.

Is there a scientific consensus on global warming?

The second vid also available on Youtube is rather lenghtly at about an hour, but absolutely worth watching. It covers the science of AGW from even the 1930s.

If anyone can provide links of decades of research that debunks the science behind AGW, please post them.

If anyone is interested in the subject, please take the time to watch that video.
 

·
Registered
'99 ML430, '12 Silverado
Joined
·
2,368 Posts
Oh really? The dust bowl still holds the record for hottest summer? Guess again.
 

·
It Is What It Is, Dude
Joined
·
22,839 Posts
.


The summer average temperature for 15 states ranked among their top 10 hottest, whereas 46 of the 48 states saw average to above-average temperatures. Washington and Oregon were the only two states below-average summer temperatures.




Cascadia, of course.
 

·
Registered
2004 E500 4matic
Joined
·
3,612 Posts
What a load of fucking crap. Short term? I am posting models from ten years ago, and you are calling it short term? The entire point here is that predictive models from years back are proving to be accurate and consistent, confirming scienctific theories on climate change that have been proposed for the last three decades. Things aren't being "said", things are being shown to be, a little thing called "reality". When are you going to accept the truth? When you've left a world of horror to your starving kids? It's time to cut the fucking pathetic bullshit and call a spade a spade. While you have your pathetic little rain story, my state is on fire. People are dying. Crops are failing. Ranchers are selling off their herds. And for you right wingers, it's still time for your fucking word games. Wake up and smell my neighbor's house burning.
Yes. 10 years is very short term. Besides, I'll bet you can find a climate model that predicts virtually any kind of weather.
 

·
Registered
1985 190E 2.3-16
Joined
·
1,583 Posts
Climate changes are recorded over hundreds, even thousands of years. A brief hiccup in the weather lasts for a few months, maybe even a year or two, and passes. Climate change will stick with us for a long time, and can have severe impact on life as we know it. The polar ice caps could experience severe melting, though whatever is on the N pole won't affect water levels - that ice is floating on water, melting won't affect displacement. Ice on the Antarctic land mass or in the northern polar land masses melting could raise water levels. Keep that in mind, because many of the water level rise estimates I've seen count the N Pole ice melting as adding to the water level. A bit of exaggeration there.

Consider the 'little ice age'. In the 1400's, average temperature in Europe dropped twenty degrees, and stayed that way for almost 200 years. May have been global, but at that time, only Europe was recording temperatures. No reason was absolutely established why this happened, they believe it may have been a high level of sunspot activity. This was also when Greenland iced over and has remained iced over - forests have been found under the ice, and are the reason that the Vikings called it Greenland, it's coastal areas were green when they arrived in the 1300's. Arguably, we may never have completely recovered from that, as Greenland is still iced over, though Europe's temperatures did moderate in the 1600's. That would be considered a short term climate change, it only lasted 200 years, but it had an effect on society. Curiously enough, during that time, the colder temperature should have caused the ocean levels to drop from the extra ice being frozen. But, there is no record of that happening.

Instead of panicking over every variation in weather, look back in history to see what has happened before. Aside from the little ice age, you'll also find a big ice age, plus four mass extinctions of life on earth due to catastrophic events and the climate change that resulted. Global warming can be a serious business, if in fact it is happening, and if in fact our heavy CO2 emissions plus the loss of the rain forests is the major factor. None of those have been absolutely proven, it's more a cause and effect thing at this point.

All we have right now is sample data indicating a slight rise in average temperatures that is too short to be considered a trend, maybe 30 years, and a theory that rising CO2 levels are causing that.

Remember the CFC scare - a hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica led to fears that it would extend and let more UV sunlight through, suntanning all of us into cancer. In the last few years, deep ice core samples from Antarctica have shown that the hole may have been a periodic event going on for hundreds of thousands of years, and those of us roasting in summer in our old R12 equipped Benz's may be doing so for no good reason.

What concerns me about the present discussion is, it's being pursued for alternate agendas. The goal isn't so much to find the truth but to use the scare to bring about other changes for other reasons.
 

·
Registered
Trek 520
Joined
·
3,407 Posts
Yes. 10 years is very short term. Besides, I'll bet you can find a climate model that predicts virtually any kind of weather.
Of course there is, it's called a weather report and usually created by a meteorologist.

The study of AGW includes oceanographers, phyicists, chemists, computer scientists and blah blah blah.

Prior to Gore, Climatology was a non partisan effort. The research as FTL mentions goes back decades.

Or, as Rush Limbaugh may say, "Hurumph".

Now if you can find a climate model that does not confirm AGW, please post it.

TJ, the science behind ozone depletion and CFCs was solid and proven.

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/sc_fact.html
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top