A question about global warming for conservatives

now thats just not true, and it shows either a disregard or simply an ignorance.I like discover magazine. Its not all that popular, but the articles i find there are intriguing and on the straight and narrow. Now discover is pro global warming in general, ihave read dozens of articles in their magazine about the fact. In this past months, i came across an interview with Henrik Svensmark, a Danish climatologist. Now, a global warming magazine citing work done AGAINST global warming?! preposterous!I make no claims to his credibility, but there is official work done and published by scientists that counteracts global warming. It has been said that "the debate is over," and i cant agree with that. The debate is never over in science in matters of theory and it should never be allowed to end.The website didnt post his whole interview, but i found his works here:
http://www.dsri.dk/~ndm/PDF/manuscripts/PRL_1998_PDF.pdfThis work was done before the media really picked up global warming, it was not a rebuttle to anything. His work stretches back decades.there are examples of the other argument, and they should be respected. I still have to say that the argument can still be argued, as convoluted as the sentence comes out.Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

---

This statement is false.

First of all, Taz, I want to say that though we usually don't see things alike, imo you're a great asset to EvC and I appreciate your input.As to the question at hand, I've been predicticting global warming for decades, including the 1970s when scientists and weather people were predicting an ice age. Why? Because I've been studiously into the Biblical prophecies for over 50 years and the Bible emphatically prophesies global warming for the latter days of this age for the planet. This applies to the prophecies of both Old Testament and New Testament prophets, especially the prophet John in the Revelation.Not only that, but the Revelation 16 account (4th wrath bowl) attributes it to the sun and not so much what man is doing on on earth. This is consistent with the sience of global warming as I understand it.My fellow conservatives and Christians aren't much into the prophecies and this is just one of the shortfalls of their conclusions and understanding concerning the latter days and what is to come.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

ahh...i make no connection betweet svensmark and the above, nor do i claim that the above as what i labled plausible counter-arguments to global warming.No offense buzsaw, but i dont want to be assulted, im not arguing what ur saying and i dont want it labeled as such.

I'm sorry, but it is true. For instance, researcher Naomi Oreskes did a search for journal articles on the ISI database for all articles and abstracts related to "global climate change" between 1993 and 2003, and then compared the number of papers that either explicitly agreed with or did not explicitly challenge the consensus that anthropogenic climate change was occurring, to the number of papers that did question that position.There were no such papers. Not a single scientific paper published between those dates questioned the scientific consensus. And I'm not aware of a single paper since that has done so. Grist.org: Climate. Justice. Solutions. | GristThat's great, I'm sure it was interesting reading - but Discover isn't a peer-reviewed journal and an interview isn't published research.Svensmark hasn't published in any climatology journals; his discredited work on "cosmoclimatology" appears only in physics journals ill-equipped to address arguments about climate. And his paper has significant data and methodology issues that appear to indicate he's massaged his data somewhat without telling anyone. Where is some? Can you post a single paper whose research claims to contradict the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change?A single one? But that's what I'm saying. There are no examples in the peer-reviewed climate research - which is where science happens. The climate change deniers only deny anthropogenic climate change in interviews to Discover magazine, and in Congressional hearings, and in front of showings of An Inconvenient Truth, and in journals where the jury doesn't have the expertise to asses climate claims.That's not how science is done. Climate change deniers insist on presenting their arguments in every forum - except those where they can be assessed by experts. What's up with that? Why doesn't that trigger your bullshit detector?The idea that there's some kind of legitimate dispute on this issue is misinformation, and you fell for it. People like Svensmark and Lord Christopher Mockton are shysters, and the fact that they've contributed zero to the real climatological debate occurring in climatological journals is the proof.

False. Solar output has fallen since the late 90's, during the precise period that warming has been the most intense.The science is clear that the sun has little to do with it. Global climate change is due to human greenhouse gas emissions; the scientific consensus couldn't be clearer on that issue.

Well I am not "conservative" but from a very young age, I knew we were screwing up this planet. Not only global warming, but all around pollution.MY first trip to Puerto Rico, I was so psyched, I was leaving polluted NYC and going to "Gilligan's Island", I had visions of palm trees and clean white sandy beaches.As the plane banked over San Juan bay, I could see industry, and what appeared to be a black cloud of pollution pouring into the ocean.Later, we traveled near the bay, and El Morro, the old fort in Old San Juan. There was a man fishing off the pier. Being a fisherman, I went over to see what he was catching. He had a bucket of fish. IT was then that I noticed, the pier was not just a pier, but an outlet for the sewer, and I could see toilet paper, and probably human feces swirling as the water was exiting the sewer.As a matter of fact, it doesn't seem to matter where I go, there are toxic waste dumps (superfund sites) and smelly garbage dumps everywhere. Even where I live 50 miles outside NYC in the woods, we have a superfund site about 3 miles from my house.Sometimes I feel like we are nothing but a bad plague for this planet, and mother earth will dispose of us, if we don't do something about it now. The last few years, the weather has been kind of crazy, I have noticed more, and more wind, (I pay attention to the wind everyday, because I fly model planes) I believe it has to do with global warming for sure. The warmer air has an effect on the warm and cold fronts, and pushes them like waves, and the waves are getting bigger and bigger. I can't remember the last time the jet stream was steady, and not doing gyrations across the nation, causing tornados, and storms.I agree with the theory that our global warming will have a synergistic effect, and things will get exponentially worse, and possible get so bad, that we won't be able to reverse it. Only time will tell.I believe in God now, and in my belief, I think God gave us this planet, so that we could take care of it, and all the people in it. We fall extremely short of that goal, and most "religious" people are highly disappointing to me. I sometimes wonder if this all ties into revelation prophecies or not. If we keep pouring waste into the ocean, it won't be long before a seven headed dragon pops his out, and starts eating people or something. Lord knows we deserve it.

I believe you are going by anti US UN propaganda. The real science is tending to take issue with you. Here are a couple of sites and there's a lot more out there if you care to check it out.Some conservatives are agreeing to global warming but take issue with the primary cause being human caused. I believe most global warming advocates agree that emissions are a factor but the more recent science favors the sun as the primary cause.Btw, according to what I've read, there has been a net increase in global warming over the last century. Where are you getting your data?BBC News | Sci/Tech | Global warming - is the Sun to blame?Global warming may not be caused by humanity's fossil fuel emissions, but could be due to changes in the Sun. Research suggests that the magnetic flux from ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/358953.stm - 19k - Cached - Similar pagesMars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist SaysSimultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent ... that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. ... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...0228-mars-warming.html

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

No, Buz, I'm going by the data. Here's the solar irradicance data from the Max Plank Institute for Solar Research:The solar irradiance is the blue line that doesn't rise significantly after 1940. The red line is the mean climate, which has risen precipitously over the same period.I trust it's clear? The sun can't force warming if solar output hasn't risen any. Abundantly false, Buz. The IPCC A4 report, which represents the state of the art consensus science on the issue, soundly rejects solar forcing as the primary agent of the current climate change. Mars's shrinking polar caps are caused by perturbations in Mars' rotation, not by any change in insolation - which, I've just proven, hasn't changed significantly since 1940 and indeed has been falling since the late 90's.Did you even read your own article, Buz?

quote:

---

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

​

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

​

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

​

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

---

Abdussamatov rejects the very idea of greenhouse gases themselves, and since that's an easily-demonstrated physical property of various gases, he's essentially saying the Earth is flat. He's a crank, not a scientist. The sun is not responsible for global warming, and the consensus science is very clear - the cause is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The consensus couldn't be clearer.And even Abdussamatov is forced to conclude that insolation is dropping! In your own article!

quote:

---

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said.

---

Did you even read your own article? Or did you see "Mars hints at solar..." and not bother to read any further?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Where did that graph come from?Adminnemooseus

---

I think the answer is SUVs and pickup trucks. In other words: they don`t like when people tell them they have to change life style. that`s why they are called conservatives

Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research{Crashfrog added it by edit after my request. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

---

We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.

​

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

False. Solar output has fallen since the late 90's, during the precise period that warming has been the most intense.The science is clear that the sun has little to do with it. Global climate change is due to human greenhouse gas emissions; the scientific consensus couldn't be clearer on that issue.1. Draw a straight line through the graph from 1860 to 2000 just as stock analysts study the trend of a stock. You have the trend which is up.2. The graph goes up to 2000. This is 2007. From what I understand the spike upward on your blue line as well as the red line, if updated to now would show a significant rather continuous spike upward.3. I believe sun spot activity and other factors weigh in here. I need to do some more reading to get a better handle on the subject. However the general concensus among scientists seems to favor the sun and things going on with it as the more significant cause with man being the lesser factor.4. There is quite intensive debates going on and politics definitely has a bearing on the position different folks are taking. The UN appears to look the other way on China and careless industrial nations like them but demands more of the West which figures, being this world body has always had a strong anti-democratic West bias since it's inception. Thus conservatives are interested in the facts concerning where the problem lies.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW

I can draw any kind of line I want on the graph; the only line that matters is solar luminance, which as you can see has been steady since 1940. Nowhere near the same rate as the warming trend overlaid on it. You'll have to present some evidence that it does. The data I'm looking at:indicates that, if anything, solar illuminance has declined slightly since 2000. (From the World Radiation Center. Sunspots are on a stable 11-year cycle, everybody knows that. You can see the cycle in the graph above, it's abundantly obvious. As you can see, we've been coming off the peak of the cycle at the same time that warming has been the strongest. In the science, where politics are essentially irrelevant, there's no debate at all. In a survey of 10 years of published climate research, researcher Naomi Oreskes found zero published papers that took issue with the basic premise that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for a warming climate trend. Also there's the fact that the West is responsible for the majority of the gas emissions. You know, just a thought. If you have such a deep, abiding interest in the facts, perhaps you could present some, or respond to mine.

You're refusing to admit the fact that in the past century and a half from 1860, global warming has been on the steady rise which appears to me to be significant for such a short period. By using the 1940 date you are choosing the short date that supports your viewpoint.The red line of record breakers on your first chart is also very significant in that very irratic and catastrophic weather patterns are emerging with new record heat temps. I heard either on the weather channel or a TV weather science program the other day that significant new record highs are expected in just the next 20 years mostly due to sun activity. This is very consistent with the Biblical prophecies in regard to global warming in the latter days.I'm saying all this to explain why I, one unique Biblical conservative fundamentalist was able to predict global warming way back in the 1970s when the talk was ice age and when my conservative Biblical fundamentalist brethren who weren't into the prophecies were saying the opposite. The prophecies never fail. You can count on them even on the weather. Now they're very concerned about an astroid hitting earth which also appears to be Biblically prophesied in the apocalypse.Btw, do you know why is there are two blue lines on that chart, the darker spiking higher than the lighter one? I didn't see where the chart explained that.

The trend is more drought and catastrophic weather patterns which dump a lot of rain in concentrated regions causing flooding and severe drought in other regions. This drought and heat tends to evaporate moisture into the atmosphere. The more H2O in the atmosphere, the more the blanketing insulating effect and the hotter the earth gets even though the sun may not be as bright, i.e. cloudiness, i.e. darkening of sun and moon (appearing as blood red) as Biblically prophesied.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW