quote:

Originally posted by TigerDore:

quote:

Originally posted by c1steve:

quote:

Originally posted by butterflyeffect:
Global Warming is Leftist scheme to embezzle tax payers Money.

Global warming is definetly happening, however the cause is not fully understood. Ocean are slightly warmer, which has caused extremely large amounts of coral bleaching, etc.

It would seem that a slightly warmer ocean would cause coral reefs to thrive and grow. A one degree change, if that, doesn't seem as if it would have much effect either way. I believe coral damage is coming from any combination of pollution, including sunscreen, and tourist divers who don't know or don't observe the rule of not touching the coral. I would really like to see the currents studied and water samples taken to test for pollution and its source(s). This would seem to make a lot more sense.

A temperature differential of only 6* (for instance) is an enormous problem for humans, and we have much more robust ways to deal with it than many critters in the oceans/seas.

quote:

Originally posted by rduckwor:
Well, at least the authors of the original publication were honest and rigorous enough to admit and correct their error. Clearly, they have no political agenda and are real scientists.

Rare these days.

RMD

Agreed.

“The findings of the ... paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

What I would like to know is why Nature journal was so quick to publish the findings. The article claims it was peer reviewed, and yet the mistake was located on the first page of the paper.

I can't help but wonder about the competency of the initial peer review, if indeed it was...and why the rush to publish? It seems to me that a paper should undergo a number of peer reviews by different researchers before ever submitting it to a respected and widely read journal to be published.

I'm sure the article was reviewed by top men.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
A temperature differential of only 6* (for instance) is an enormous problem for humans, and we have much more robust ways to deal with it than many critters in the oceans/seas.

I certainly understand your point, but I really think a 1 degree change couldn't possibly kill coral, or it wouldn't have survived until modern times. The earth has seen much greater fluctuations before now. I believe this is more boogie-man hysteria from the climate catastrophe crowd. For them, everything that happens is global warming.

I think the more sane approach includes monitoring water contaminant levels, and I think this is something on which we need to focus. I am also interested in the non-hysterical sun-spot activity observation and seeing how it plays on the earth's temperature. If they are correct, the earth will be in a cooling cycle very soon. That could also kill off coral, probably more quickly.

I remember watching a programme recently about the environment, centred on Greenland. The talking head was talking to an environmentalist/climatologist whilst standing on a bit of land adjacent to a glacier. He was explaining about the rapidly-disappearing glaciers, citing the example of the one in plain view that had receded somewhat over the last couple of decades.

'Look here', he announced, 'just LOOK how far this glacier has evaporated in less than twenty years. And look here over here' he added, pointing to a spot about twenty yards from the foot of the glacier, 'where archeologists from Ahrhus University are currently examining an old Viking-age farmstead from around the middle of the eleventh century...'

The talking head, who was plainly more intelligent, asked him why we could now see a Viking age farmstead if the glacier had been there, and what evidence was there to show how the Vikings built their farmsteads underneath a hundred million tons of ice.......

It's hard to make it up on the spot, and the 'scientist' was totally at a loss as to providing an explanation, except to mumble something about 'circulatory ice-flow' and so on.

I am still waiting for the Ice Age predicted in the early 1970's.

By now, we were supposed to be under three feet of snow in June and our northern harbors ice-bound year round.

.

quote:

Originally posted by redleg2/9:
I am still waiting for the Ice Age predicted in the early 1970's.

By now, we were supposed to be under three feet of snow in June and our northern harbors ice-bound year round.

.

I was a kid in the early '70s and I recall reading the same prediction in National Geographic and hearing adult experts on TV talk about it. I remember being mildly concerned about the prediction and both concerned and excited that the coming Ice Age would mean that my family and I would be living in an igloo or cave and I would get to see Wooly Mammoths.

...if I recall correctly that was prediction was supposed to occur before we reached the 21st century.

The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

how's that global warming doing today? 9" of crystalline water at my house this morning.

But we're already supposed to have boiled away.

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked June 29, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.

Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ″eco- refugees,′ ′ threatening political chaos, said Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program, or UNEP.

He said governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect before it goes beyond human control.

As the warming melts polar icecaps, ocean levels will rise by up to three feet, enough to cover the Maldives and other flat island nations, Brown told The Associated Press in an interview on Wednesday.

Coastal regions will be inundated; one-sixth of Bangladesh could be flooded, displacing a fourth of its 90 million people. A fifth of Egypt’s arable land in the Nile Delta would be flooded, cutting off its food supply, according to a joint UNEP and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study.

″Ecological refugees will become a major concern, and what’s worse is you may find that people can move to drier ground, but the soils and the natural resources may not support life. Africa doesn’t have to worry about land, but would you want to live in the Sahara?″ he said.

UNEP estimates it would cost the United States at least $100 billion to protect its east coast alone.

Shifting climate patterns would bring back 1930s Dust Bowl conditions to Canadian and U.S. wheatlands, while the Soviet Union could reap bumper crops if it adapts its agriculture in time, according to a study by UNEP and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

Excess carbon dioxide is pouring into the atmosphere because of humanity’s use of fossil fuels and burning of rain forests, the study says. The atmosphere is retaining more heat than it radiates, much like a greenhouse.

The most conservative scientific estimate that the Earth’s temperature will rise 1 to 7 degrees in the next 30 years, said Brown.

The difference may seem slight, he said, but the planet is only 9 degrees warmer now than during the 8,000-year Ice Age that ended 10,000 years ago.

Brown said if the warming trend continues, ″the question is will we be able to reverse the process in time? We say that within the next 10 years, given the present loads that the atmosphere has to bear, we have an opportunity to start the stabilizing process.″

He said even the most conservative scientists ″already tell us there’s nothing we can do now to stop a ... change″ of about 3 degrees.

″Anything beyond that, and we have to start thinking about the significant rise of the sea levels ... we can expect more ferocious storms, hurricanes, wind shear, dust erosion.″

He said there is time to act, but there is no time to waste.

UNEP is working toward forming a scientific plan of action by the end of 1990, and the adoption of a global climate treaty by 1992. In May, delegates from 103 nations met in Nairobi, Kenya - where UNEP is based - and decided to open negotiations on the treaty next year.

Nations will be asked to reduce the use of fossil fuels, cut the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases such as methane and fluorocarbons, and preserve the rain forests.

″We have no clear idea about the ecological minimum of green space that the planet needs to function effectively. What we do know is that we are destroying the tropical rain forest at the rate of 50 acres a minute, about one football field per second,″ said Brown.

Each acre of rain forest can store 100 tons of carbon dioxide and reprocess it into oxygen.

Brown suggested that compensating Brazil, Indonesia and Kenya for preserving rain forests may be necessary.

The European Community istalking about a half-cent levy on each kilowatt- hour of fossil fuels to raise $55 million a year to protect the rain forests, and other direct subsidies may be possible, he said.

The treaty could also call for improved energy efficiency, increasing conservation, and for developed nations to transfer technology to Third World nations to help them save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions, said Brown.

quote:

Originally posted by redleg2/9:
I am still waiting for the Ice Age predicted in the early 1970's.

It's coming, but not because of man. It's natural:

https://www.iceagenow.info/lac...arns-nasa-scientist/



.

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
how's that global warming doing today? 9" of crystalline water at my house this morning.

But we're already supposed to have boiled away.

U.N. Predicts Disaster if Global Warming Not Checked June 29, 1989

UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000....

We could fertilize the entire midwest with all the BS in that piece.



.

So to study the “heating up of the oceans” we will skip the idea of putting more thermometers in the oceans.....

and maybe if we come up with some complex way of measuring heat “based on the amount of oxygen and CO2” blowing around over the oceans, and use some fancy calculations...

We might come up with the results we want.....


Yeah, I think I see where this is going -