Purdue Online - New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

08-23-2007, 12:29 AM

PurdueDoubleE

16-0*

Join Date: Apr 2005

Posts: 3,193

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Quote:

Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.

“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,” declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop” the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,” was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. [url=http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf(LINK)[/url]

“Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.” Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.

“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.

No, global warming alarmism isn't a political tool used to justify worldwide wealth reditribution. It's real. I'm thuper therial.

08-23-2007, 12:36 AM

PurdueDoubleE

16-0*

Join Date: Apr 2005

Posts: 3,193

Another money quote:

Quote:

Bjarne Andresen says, an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate.” He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book."

08-23-2007, 04:37 PM	#3
xero Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 579	Doesn't really matter. Science is no longer the responsibility of scientists. Politicians have taken over. __________________ Ron Paul for president in '08

08-23-2007, 05:03 PM	#4
PwrRngr Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 306	It doesn't matter what scientific evidence you show people, they are still going to keep saying global warming is happening. Some people remain ignorant in the face of facts. Nice find on the article.

08-24-2007, 05:40 PM	#5
Anime12478 Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 242	Maybe we should stop wondering if we are actually going through global warming or not and concentrate on ways to prevent it in the future. __________________ My webpage

08-24-2007, 06:25 PM

PurdueDoubleE

16-0*

Join Date: Apr 2005

Posts: 3,193

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anime12478

Maybe we should stop wondering if we are actually going through global warming or not and concentrate on ways to prevent it in the future.

The entire point is that, according to some, humans have a negligible effect on the environment either way. If we're powerless to cause global warming, we'd be equally powerless to prevent it.

08-24-2007, 07:30 PM

PwrRngr

Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2007

Posts: 306

Quote:

Originally Posted by PurdueDoubleE

The entire point is that, according to some, humans have a negligible effect on the environment either way. If we're powerless to cause global warming, we'd be equally powerless to prevent it.

Obviously someone *cough cough, two posts up, cough cough* has decided humans cause global warming and scientific fact won't change their opinion...

08-24-2007, 07:47 PM

SeaWolf

Asker of the Obvious

Join Date: Feb 2005

Posts: 1,606

National Review

Quote:

Point and counterpoint:

"Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say."

—Michael Schirber, LiveScience, 29 June 2005

"The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says."

—Catherine Brahic, New Scientist, 23 August 2007

Whatever the anomaly, the cause is global warming.

08-24-2007, 09:28 PM	#9
Punx Clever BOFH Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Hell Posts: 1,093	fuck that, it's gotta be bush's fault! __________________ Relying on the police for safety is about as smart as putting on a condom after you fuck a hooker.

08-25-2007, 07:58 PM	#10
severedconnection Eviscerator Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Lafayette Posts: 226	Hopefully, either way, the dinosaurs will return. Because they caused global cooling after that first several billion years of global warming back in the day, and I really hate summer. A lot. __________________ _______________________________________ I will probably contradict myself in 5 seconds.

08-27-2007, 11:58 AM	#11
Evict3d flame retardant Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: San Diego Posts: 1,008	You can’t prove the Grand Canyon was eroded over millions of years. What I think happened was the great flood, yeah the same one as Noah’s ark, washed away the sediment and left the Grand Canyon as it is today! We should remove all the signs at the grand canyon that refer to millions of years because it can’t be proven and discriminates against the Noah’s flood theory. Oh wait, we did. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ZKglfPdS0 __________________ Ron Paul for president in '08

08-27-2007, 12:45 PM	#12
PurdueDoubleE 16-0* Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,193	That has what to do with the topic of the thread, again?

08-27-2007, 01:47 PM

#13

Punx Clever

BOFH

Join Date: Apr 2005

Location: Hell

Posts: 1,093

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evict3d

You can’t prove the Grand Canyon was eroded over millions of years. What I think happened was the great flood, yeah the same one as Noah’s ark, washed away the sediment and left the Grand Canyon as it is today!

We should remove all the signs at the grand canyon that refer to millions of years because it can’t be proven and discriminates against the Noah’s flood theory.

Oh wait, we did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ZKglfPdS0

Nice try at being witty, except there is no parallel with the original topic.

Hate to say it, but the article is talking about how much of the "proof" of global warming (or at least the big scare we have all been hearing) is bunk. And, contrary to your attempted wit, the article actually references new studies that have been reviewed by the scientific community at large.

Now, if the thread was about intelligent design, you might have accomplished your goal of making a point. As it stands, you look like an ignorant ass (pun intended).

__________________
Relying on the police for safety is about as smart as putting on a condom after you fuck a hooker.

08-27-2007, 07:41 PM

#14

Evict3d

flame retardant

Join Date: Sep 2004

Location: San Diego

Posts: 1,008

lol, bunk...

Quote:

“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 – 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,” he added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming

it is painful

__________________
Ron Paul for president in '08

08-27-2007, 08:00 PM

#15

Punx Clever

BOFH

Join Date: Apr 2005

Location: Hell

Posts: 1,093

Quote:

“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time -- Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to,” Motl explained.

“As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity,” Motl concluded.

RTFA

And, quoting wikipedia as evidence? Cmon!

I'd rather believe what the experts from MIT say about the subject at hand than what is written on Wiki about POLITICS.

Once again, you come out looking like an ignorant ass (does anyone else find the college republican's flyers as entertaining as I do??).

__________________
Relying on the police for safety is about as smart as putting on a condom after you fuck a hooker.

08-27-2007, 08:18 PM

#16

PwrRngr

Senior Member

Join Date: Apr 2007

Posts: 306

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evict3d

lol, bunk...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming
it is painful

I'm not going to even read that...FUCK IT!

When you get past the high school level where they tell you wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, I'll read your shit. Anytime someone tries to back an argument w/ wikipedia I don't even pay attention. Learn to do real research instead of using youtube and wikipedia! (youtube wasn't used in the current statement but it has been used before)

On topic. I still don't think the debate over global warming will ever be solved. If people are causing global warming (assumption for a point), we should stop looking at the US like it's this huge monster. Have you looked at China's CO2 output recently? Give them a couple years and they're gonna lead everyone in output. Maybe someone needs it inform them about the problem they might be contributing to. Even if the US stops CO2 emissions completely it won't matter much until all other major countries cut emissions (if we impact it at all).

Last edited by PwrRngr : 08-27-2007 at 08:23 PM.

08-28-2007, 04:18 AM

#17

anuttam

Senior Member

Join Date: Aug 2005

Posts: 245

Quote:

Originally Posted by PwrRngr

Nice find on the article.

I'd have to disagree, most of the links are to other blogs, and sometimes, the authors own blogs. I personally don't think that it is a credible news source.
Peer reviewed studies are usually found in science papers, not blogs. Blogs usually are usually opinionated.

08-28-2007, 11:05 AM

#18

Mothrog

Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 1,019

Quote:

Originally Posted by anuttam

The blogs are all referencing scientific papers.

08-28-2007, 04:42 PM

#19

Evict3d

flame retardant

Join Date: Sep 2004

Location: San Diego

Posts: 1,008

Quote:

Originally Posted by PwrRngr

If people are causing global warming (assumption for a point), we should stop looking at the US like it's this huge monster. Have you looked at China's CO2 output recently? Give them a couple years and they're gonna lead everyone in output. Maybe someone needs it inform them about the problem they might be contributing to. Even if the US stops CO2 emissions completely it won't matter much until all other major countries cut emissions (if we impact it at all).

Oh, i agree. We really need to worry about upcoming industrial nations and their carbon emission. Many speculate china to overtake the US within the next 10 years for CO2 emissions.

How can you expect China to curb its carbon emissions if we don’t lower our own?

Kyoto Protocol participation map

as far as MIT

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/climate-speth.html

Quote:

Scientists urged to spread word on global warming

Global warming is real, dangerous and ignored at great risk to the planet, a leading environmentalist told an audience of about 250 at last week's inaugural MIT Environmental Fellows Invitational Lecture.

Professor James Gustave Speth, Dean of Yale University's School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, urged the scientific community to make its case to the public, which remains unconvinced of the crisis despite decades of first-rate science and policy analysis, he said.

Temperatures at the Arctic are already climbing, and there will be "irreparable damage in the decades ahead due to our negligence" in addressing climate change. U.S. policy makers and citizens must be spurred into action, Speth said in his talk, "Some Say by Fire: Climate Change and the American Response," held Wednesday, April 6.
...

__________________
Ron Paul for president in '08

08-28-2007, 06:29 PM	#20
Punx Clever BOFH Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Hell Posts: 1,093	read your link. its from 2005. not exactly the most recentnews is it? now, stop, RTFA, and you will see what I mean by MIT scientists. __________________ Relying on the police for safety is about as smart as putting on a condom after you fuck a hooker. Last edited by Punx Clever : 08-28-2007 at 06:49 PM.

08-28-2007, 07:23 PM

#21

Mothrog

Senior Member

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 1,019

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evict3d

How can you expect China to curb its carbon emissions if we don’t lower our own?

Except the poorly thought out Kyoto Protocol doesn't require China to reduce its emissions. If we signed the Kyoto Protocol, we'd have to reduce our emissions 30% by 2010. That's impossible and, quite frankly, would be economically devastating. There's good reason we haven't signed.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode