8 years of cooling???

[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 .....

[Galen Sevinne]

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?

Thanks for the links....here is what they say:

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

STEVE INSKEEP: One thing that's been mentioned that NASA is perhaps not spending as much money as it could on is studying climate change, global warming, from space. Are you concerned about global warming?

MICHAEL GRIFFIN: I am aware that global warming -- I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down -- pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is manmade. Whether that is a long term concern or not, I can't say.

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

Griffin's comments immediately drew stunned reaction from James Hansen, NASA's top climate scientist at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."

Hansen believes Griffin's comments fly in the face of well-established scientific knowledge that hundreds of NASA scientists have contributed to.

"It's unbelievable," said Hansen. "I thought he had been misquoted. It's so unbelievable."

Several other NASA climate scientists contacted by ABC News echoed Hansen's comments, saying an overwhelming majority of their colleagues believe global warming is an urgent issue that society should be addressing. The scientists asked that their names not be used because they did not want to jeopardize their careers.

Do you support the theory of human-induced global warming HR? I was thinking the whole time you were on the denial side. My bad. I think we belive the same thing afterall...or that is at least what it appears like from your links.

Funny thing about this debate.

The funny thing is that it really isn't a debate

You're right Galen. Maybe I do need to dig a little deeper.

Thanks for conceding that point.

[jonboy79]

What I think is INCREDIBLY ARROGANT
is Hames Hansen's statements. Basically he is saying that he knows the world is going to end due to manmade global warming. I think he is THE ONLY person I've ever heard go that far.

All Griffen said was that he wasn't sure... And Hansen Fires back with a VENGENCE. I wonder who fills his bank account with Bills? I bet it has somethign to do with Carbon Offset Credits....

[HoustonRaven]

Oy.

I NEVER, not even once, said global warming isnt happening. Its been documented by the 4 leading climate research organizations. I have even linked to them myself earlier in this thread.

What I have said and upwards of 31,000 other climate researchers are also saying is what impact, if any, man has towards it. Hell, I would be screaming to the hilltops that man-made global warming is indeed as dangerous as the left makes it out to be if I had a fat-cat like Soros giving me millions.

Nice try though reading into my argument. Definitely fits the narrow argument you've been making.

[PD101]

Here is an interesting site where you can trend the number on a warming pattern. If you play with the years you can make it seem like we are cooling because of the warming in the 30's and 40's and the cooling in the late 70's and the early 80's. However all you have to do is fly across country to see how much environmental issues effect us. FYI when the world has a large volcano it tends to coll.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/...h/cag3/md.html

[HoustonRaven]

PD101,

Thanks but I dont think anyone is claiming that the environment isnt in flux. What we are debating is man's contribution to that flux (if any).

And I travel all across the country (sometimes, the world) for my job and if a laymans eyes were indeed proof, I'd have to say we're doing just fine.

Remember, the same folks that tried to sell us on global cooling in the 70's and 80's are the same ones trying to sell man-made global warming. Me personally, I happen to think that bright ball of fire in the sky has more to do with it then the minute amount of co2 (a natural gas that is needed for all life on this planet) we spit out.