8 years of cooling???

[HoustonRaven]

You might have missed the sarcasm in the comment relating to farming vikings.

The idea of the volcano causing more CO2 release then 10 years of human activity, if true, doesn't, as an argument, demonstrate that humans are either responsible or not responsible for climate change. At the core it is a fallacious argument. The example of the volcano is an "appeal to emotion" that politicians are using to sway opinion. It doesn't mean anything but sounds really good and if you are easily swayed, the proposistion works. If anything an erupting volcano is more likely to create global cooling as was seen in Pompeii since the sunlight is blocked out. Co2 is also not the only concern as far as human-instigated global warming is concerned. I haven't watched the video but Rush has been spouting off about volcanos lately.

A similar but opposing argument would be the release of the report just yesterday that antartica is melting faster than is expected. Sounds good...is scary...creates an emotional response in me but doesn't prove that climate change is caused by human activity. Those easily swayed will jump on board though.

Just trying to keep this thread research based and not emotionally based.

How is any of that volcano argument emotional?

Al Gore and his ilk make the claim that increased CO2 output by humans is causing global warming.

If you view the webisode I mentioned and read Roy Spencer's research, as well as research from the USGS, they all document the levels of CO2 volcanos pump into the atmosphere. Man's contribution to CO2 output is something like .00001% -- a spit in the ocean.

When I am done polluting my brain with Grand Marnier this weekend, I will send out what I have.

Meanwhile, here is Dr. Spencer's site. In it, he links to a bunch of studies:

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-...al-warming.htm

[Galen Sevinne]

How is any of that volcano argument emotional?

It doesn't prove a thing. To say a single eruption creates more co2 than a decade of humanity makes the decade of human caused co2 appear small but there is no objectivity about an eruption...no numbers, no science just ambiguous understandings of a volcano. it appeals more to our emotional experiences of volcanos than our intellectual.

If you view the webisode I mentioned and read Roy Spencer's research, as well as research from the USGS, they all document the levels of CO2 volcanos pump into the atmosphere. Man's contribution to CO2 output is something like .00001% -- a spit in the ocean.

Spencer has been linked to The Heartland Institute, The George Marshall Institute, The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance and most notable the Tech Central Science Foundation which receives money directly from Exxon.

[Galen Sevinne]

How is any of that volcano argument emotional?

Remote Alaska volcano erupts, spewing rock and ash:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080713/...alaska_volcano

I guess Rush and the rest of the right-wingnuts will be showing how we just doubled the amount of human instigated co2 in the environment from one eruption. I will be looking for the data. Oh yeah there was the eruption in Hawaii last week which means we are now quadrupeling the amount of human-instigated co2. And don't forget about the eruption in Ecuador last year...man that is alot of co2. Hard science for sure. I wonder how much CO2 Rush adds to the environment during each talk show?

[HoustonRaven]

It doesn't prove a thing. To say a single eruption creates more co2 than a decade of humanity makes the decade of human caused co2 appear small but there is no objectivity about an eruption...no numbers, no science just ambiguous understandings of a volcano. it appeals more to our emotional experiences of volcanos than our intellectual.

As stated before, once I get back to Texas, I will provide sources. Maybe your definition of emotion is different from mine. When the left claims that its man made co2 causing global temperature increases (not an emotion claim from the left) and it's been noted the levels of co2 caused my natural factors such as volcanoes (again, nothing emotion there) then it stands to reason (not emotion) what impact, if any, man has on global temperatures.

Spencer has been linked to The Heartland Institute, The George Marshall Institute, The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance and most notable the Tech Central Science Foundation which receives money directly from Exxon.

Ah yes, the last tactic of the left, straight from the pages of the Communist Manifesto -- attack the person, not the message. The dubious term "linked" comes from the same guy who has been demanding facts. Yes, Dr. Spencer has spoken to all of those groups (so?). He has also spoken in front of Greenpeace, NOAA and has engaged in debates with the climate dude over at NASA. No, Dr. Spencer hasnt received a dime from Exxon or the like -- he would lose his tenure and his job. I find it curious how it's ok for Al Gore to get money from George Sorros and his motives are not in question. Yet, Dr. Spencer has a few speaches in front of conservative groups and his reseach is somehow bunk.

The enlightened left indeed.

I guess these 17,000 Dr's and scientists are in the back pocket of Exxon or simply Rush fans:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...Global_Warming

Or this professor from Colorado .... He must be a Sean Hannity fan ....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1023334.stm

Or those wacky right wingers over at Harvard ... they were spotted getting gas a Moble station once ....

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2...1-weather.html

And those loons over at MIT. Doesnt one of your poster boys for the left teach there?

http://www.examiner.com/a-173632~The...l_warming.html

[Galen Sevinne]

HR

I began this thread specifically for evidence....evidence based on methodology...to the fact that the earth has truly cooled in the past 8 years.

I wanted to get away from the other more opinion-based threads. I asked if anyone had any research-based links with methodology that showed a cooling 8 year period. NASA cites research that indicates a warming as does the British Antartic Survey. I have found their methodology sound.

To this thread, you have contributed an (1) op-ed piece. I am sure you understand what an op-ed piece actually is, right? No need for me to question where the methodology would be in that article. (2) You have spoken of volcano eruptions which I guess are supposed to lead me to the conclusion that the earth is cooling or maybe that man doesn't have an impact. I don't know but it really doesn't prove either and if you think it does, you could use a strong course in scientific method. (3) You push Roy Spencer who is indirectly funded by Exxon through Tech Central and accuse me of typical liberal ad hominem attacks. If you think providing a scientist who sits on the board of a think tank that receives money from Exxon as a good source then maybe I am barking up the wrong tree and this is the wrong type of forum for academic discussion. Here is a link in a .pdf file that you might be interested in... for Spencer's involvement see endnote #62.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...xon_report.pdf endnote 62

(4) You push a video which with careful research on my part seems like a Micheal Moore documnetary...entertaining, yes but I wouldn't be quoting it amongst research-based individuals. I am currently looking for a copy of it because I would like to see it but reviews I have found so far include:

(A) “What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it's hard to know where to begin - Carl Wunsch (a scientist from the film).

(B) Many readers will be aware that Durkin has previous ‘form’. In 1997, Channel 4 broadcast his three-part series, Against Nature, which suggested present-day environmentalists were the true heirs of the Nazis. (See George Monbiot, ‘The Revolution Has Been Televised,’ The Guardian, December 18, 1997;

(C) Eight of the scientists in the film - John Christy, Paul Reiter, Richard Lindzen, Paul Driessen, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and Tim Ball - are linked to American neo-conservative and right-wing think-tanks, many of which have received tens of millions of dollars from Exxon.

(D) “For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change.”

(E) Both Singer and Michaels represented the fossil fuel lobby’s Global Climate Coalition and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leader in global warming scepticism.

I could go on but I will wait until I see the film myself to get a feel for the methodology behind their work.

HR - I am hoping to have an intelligent discussion on this. I offered two links with a lot of information...one from each side of the debate. I have not mentioned Al Gore or any other "liberal" nor have I gave links to any left-wing think tanks. You seem to simply google for information without reading about what you are actually reading about. In other words, read the citation then read about the citation to see maybe why it was written. If you don't want to do that then it is clear you are only looking for evidence to support your conservative claim vs. looking for truth regardless of what side the political spectrum it falls on.

A final comment on how even Exxon in a moment of salvation sees (or is probably being pressured) a need to be more objective in how we study cliamte change:

Exxon has admitted - for the first time - that the climate deniers it funds are causing problems for action on climate change.

This is a first for the company which has spent, since 1998, $23 million funding the climate denial industry.

And it's official - Exxon made this statement in this year's Corporate Citizenship Report, released in time for its shareholder meeting.

The statement reads:

"in 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy interest groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner." (page 41 under "public policy research contributions."

In other words, Exxon is trying to clear its name from the global climate change deniers industry.


If Exxon can try to approach the subject in a less biased manner, so can you.

[HoustonRaven]

Galen,

While asking me to be non-biased, you go right ahead and do the same -- and throw that dubious "linked" term around again.

I stand by my facts. Yes, those scientists spoke to conservative groups. They also spoke with liberal ones. They also teach at some pretty liberal schools. Spencer, in his book, talk about the money claims. He denies ever receiving a dime from any oil interest and not one person as ever been able to refute his climate models -- which is why people on the left like you attack the person, not the facts.

And what about the 5 other links I gave you? -- MIT professors, Harvard professors, 37000 other PhD's and researchers who all think man contribution ot global warming is nothing?

Well, I guess they are all stock holder in Halliburton.

Union of Concerned Scientists is uber left. While demanding less bias, you give a biased site as your "reference" at the same time ignoring the 5 down-the-middle (and sometimes left leaning) sites I gave you.

An the fact that all these people on the left focus on Exxon tells me this is a bumper-sticker cause that has no basis of fact. Around the world, Exxon is the Natty Boh of the oil industry. Their profits are nothing compared to Shell and BP. The left's frenzy with them is nothing more then emotional. Next time you're in Rio, ask the locals what they think of Shell and BP -- I guarantee you wont find a soul who complains given the level of forrestation they contribute.

Liberal projection is so easy to spot.

Our friends across the pond had this little gem a couple of months ago. I guess the UK Telegraph is owned by Ruppert Murdoch or the like ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-warming.html

More to follow when I get to work ....

[Galen Sevinne]

Galen,

Spencer, in his book, talk about the money claims. He denies ever receiving a dime from any oil interest and not one person as ever been able to refute his climate models -- which is why people on the left like you attack the person, not the facts.

I am not attacking him, I am pointing out that I am wary of his findings because he sits on a board of directors of an organization that just a couple years ago received $95,000 from Exxon. Of course he has not received money from Exxon...as in the check was not written out to him directly but Exxon, itself, documents the money going to TechCentral where he served. For my research, that is close enough for me to be wary...maybe not for you but for me...for sure.

As far as no one refutning his models that also isn't true...your hero concedes his own errors:

"The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake but said that their revised calculations still produced a warming rate too small to be a concern." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/sc...erland&emc=rss

This is significant to the idea of actual global cooling in the past 8 years. In the past 8 years the level of warming has slowed down a bit but there is no evidence I have seen about actual cooling. Arguments from NASA point to global warming deniers using the data of the decreased warming trend to begin shifting the perspective to the temperature actually cooling. This is a classic "slippery slope" fallacy. Now you can present the argument that the warming has slowed which NASA believes is in relation to sunspots but to say there is actual cooling...you have yet to impress.

And what about the 5 other links I gave you? -- MIT professors, Harvard professors, 37000 other PhD's and researchers who all think man contribution ot global warming is nothing?

First of all for the 10th time, these didn't show research. They are opinions. I can google just like you and come up with a million opinions...they don't mean anything. The only research I have come upon that was serious was NASA's and they show their research design and their methodolgy by which they came to their conclusions that in the past 8 years, the earth is warming.

Secondly, this thread was asking for someone to point me to research that demonstrates global cooling and basically I have seen nothing any more convincing then a Rush Limbaugh quote. I will put as much credenceinto that as I will the work done by Al Gore. If you want to debate whether humans are responsible for the global warming, I think that would be pretty hard to do. Just trying to figure out if it is actually warming has been difficult.

HR- I have spent 10 years in college. 4 on undergrad an 6 in grad programs completing 2 graduate degrees in a research based field. I have taken numerous classes in research design and completed an array of research projects. An op-ed piece isn't going to convince me that the earth is cooling. Neither is a guy that is in anyway sponsored through oil money.

I am open to the idea that it is cooling because basically that would be good news. I am all for the earth being healthy and me being able to live on the earth for as long as I can. So in a way, I am biased to global cooling if anything but there just isn't any real research demonstrating that. I think we should all put politics to the side and try our best to figure this out. It is our civic duty. Read the opening to this thread again as I think your desire to prove the "liberal" crazy has taken you off task.

Well, I guess they are all stock holder in Halliburton.

no that would be your v.p.

Union of Concerned Scientists is uber left. While demanding less bias, you give a biased site as your "reference" at the same time ignoring the 5 down-the-middle (and sometimes left leaning) sites I gave you.

Everybody is going to lean one way or another that is hard to get around. I only call out those who are financially sponsored by a company such as oil that has a stake in either global warming or cooling. The 5 down-the-middle didn't say anything but an opinion...again research man??? You don't understand that do you?

Liberal projection is so easy to spot.

especially when that is what you are really looking for here and not the reason for the thread. I get it dude...you are conservative and see anyone that is progressive as a pariah...somehow naive to the workings of the world. I have no real desire to confront that part of you or in any other progressive-bashing conservative. Instead I would rather you present your reason for thinking the earth is cooling.

Our friends across the pond had this little gem a couple of months ago. I guess the UK Telegraph is owned by Ruppert Murdoch or the like ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-warming.html

And what does that prove HR??? That you are vulnerable to opinion? That article actually reports that there are those who believe it is a problem and those who don't.

More to follow when I get to work ....

Seriously...with all due respect, if you can't come up with something similar in structure to the NASA research which through a standard research design, demonstrating global cooling, you are wasting your time.

[HoustonRaven]

Galen,

I've given you both research and opinion. It's all in the links I have provided. Again, nobody said there is global cooling. Rather, a 10 year cooling trend that negates the 1 degree increase. I havnt provided a link on global cooling because EVERYONE agrees we had a 1 degree increase up to 1998.

What is at dispute is the manner in which the increase occurred.

I am sorry the level in which the research I have pointed out to you doesnt reach your "NASA-like" level. I guess climatologist and the like arent good enough for you. Or the 31,000 other PhD's and scientists for the matter.

[jonboy79]

I honestly have been unable to come up with research to backup my assertion of hte 8 years of cooling. I have found many sites that represet1998 as the hottest in recent record(which would mean 99 definately cooled), and I have linked to research from ALL the bigboys saying the last 12 months was in fact cooling. I have also posted research to suggest that sunspots have been, are and will be the biggest driver of climate.

[Galen Sevinne]

Galen,
Again, nobody said there is global cooling. Rather, a 10 year cooling trend.

what's the difference???

I havnt provided a link on global cooling because EVERYONE agrees we had a 1 degree increase up to 1998..

The basis of this thread was your comment that the past 8 years, the earth has cooled. I don't think EVERYONE agrees that there was global cooling up to 1998. Are you then saying that since 1998, a warming has occurred? What exactly are you saying???

What is at dispute is the manner in which the increase occurred.

Not really in this thread since I was trying to get at the idea of 8 years of cooling but now that you mention it. I went to your telegraph link on 37 qazillion scientists say that warming is a fraud and interestingly found this link on the same page: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/digitalli.../ecnclim09.xml

"US scientists reject Bush scepticism over global warming" dated July 15, 2008.

Since you reference the Telegraph a lot as "research" proving your point, I am interested in how you will react to this article. Read it carefully.

[/QUOTE]

[Galen Sevinne]

for all concerned about the debate in this thread here is the what I believe to be the "holy grail" link for this debate.

http://www.climatescience.gov/Librar...-final-all.pdf

Not only does it show evidence of "global warming vs. the idea that there has been 8 years of cooling" but it also shows evidence of human instigated global warming.

The link is for a 180 page .pdf file com completed by The Climate Change Science Program initiated by George Bush. It is tough reading but lays it all out pretty clearly.

It appears that global warming is true and its human causation unable to rule
out.

Truly an inconvenient truth.


Following is the abstract of the report:

Abstract
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming
near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to
challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of humaninduced
global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial
global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde
data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant
discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and
radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets
have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.
This Synthesis and Assessment Product is an important revision to the conclusions of earlier reports from the U.S.
National Research Council and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For recent decades, all current
atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming. While these data are
consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved.
Nevertheless, the most recent observational and model evidence has increased confidence in our understanding of
observed climatic changes and their causes.

[HoustonRaven]

Since we've hijacked the other thread, Id thought Id bring it back this way.

So speaking of NASA being taken as gospil, I am not sure why you keep harping on them as being the authority since even they do not seem to agree. If it's such fact as you claim, why all the debate at NASA?

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=22729

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Sto...3229696&page=1

Funny thing about this debate. The guy who is saying man-mad global warming IS a PhD in climate science, while the guy running the climate department at NASA has almost no back ground in climate research AND has received funds from none other then George Soros.

You're right Galen. Maybe I do need to dig a little deeper. The more I do, the more it looks like wee little Man just doesnt have that much impact on the environment. More to come .....