Comments on: Temperature: Fair?

[journotlist]

By the way, when several hundred thousand square miles of the midwest flooded in 1993, what greenhouse gases caused that? What about when it happened in 1927? Or 1844? How is it St. Louis can handle water 20 feet above flood levels but you think the rest of the world can't handle 3 milimeters per year? Weather changes all the time, you can't control it - not now, not ever.

[journotlist]

Well then you've come to a conclusion where NASA has not. The fact of the matter is that the sun is delivering far more heat today than at any recorded time in history. Argue with that if you like, but the sun controls the temperature of the Earth far more than gases above it or ice below it. >>Now, if we want to run the risk of more frequent Katrina's and greater lowland coastal flooding, then that's one thing.<< Ah yes, the argument that we'll have more frequent and stronger storms like Katrina. I've heard that one a few hundred times in the antique media. You might like to know that Katrina was a class 3 hurricane which is a lightweight as hurricanes go and only caused so much damage because a bunch of people were living below sea level. The lesson should be to not live below sea level rather than "EVERYONE QUIT DRIVING CARS!" Further, we've already had a record year in hurricanes. What good is cutting greenhouse gas in America by 10% going to do when you consider the costs and the fact that you can't even prove that this was the cause of the problem. Remember the added heat from a hyperactive sun also warms water, which is 3/4 of our surface area. Not to mention that you couldn't get Asia or Africa to do ANYTHING towards the alleged problem.

[pjh_az]

<<Wow. Does anyone read provided links? There are ways to track solar activity going back thousands of years. Direct observation and recording of solar flares has been done since 1859. >> This is nonsense. Our ability to observe solar flares has changed radically over the past 150 years and some of the ones visible now could not be seen by early observers. Not all flares that indicate solar activity show sunspots - the counts of which reveal the Maunder Minimum. As for statements about the most powerful solar events ever recorded only happening recently, this is more hogwash. With a platform in space like the Solar Max we can see these events - some of which only last minutes to hours - without hinderence of weather systems etc. To infer or imply that there are substantial culpable solar changes going on now, by comparing high quality recent data with lower quality historic data, is a bit of a stretch when contrasted with documented environmental damage and increased CO2 levels.

[pjh_az]

<<I fail to see what any of this has to do with the wrongheaded notion that humans caused global warming, humans can stop global warming, that other factors haven't played a significant role, and that the world can't exist if the sea rises a foot in 400 years or if the seasons change.>> I'm not surprised since the assertion of Global Warming never says that humans are solely responsible, nor that their might not be other factors. What they do say is there is unambiguous evidence of polar cap recession, and that atmospheric models show temperature rises with increasing CO2 concentrations, and that there has been a substantial rise in CO2 levels that is largely correlated with oil consumption and automobile engines. Now, if we want to run the risk of more frequent Katrina's and greater lowland coastal flooding, then that's one thing. But in the absence of a clear concensus that this is what we should lie down and accept, it is reasonable to try and put the brakes on the human caused component - if only to buy time. A person might have cancer, but that doesn't mean they should ignore a cold. Yes other countries are not controllable. But who's to say wars over pollution are not in the future?

[foobarbaz-2009]

>>People using these consensus arguments forget that scientific truth is not determined by consensus Um. Actually, it is, more or less. That's the whole point of peer review, which is actually the standard for determining "scientific truth".

[journotlist]

>>What's funny in much of this is how eager the Right is to scoff at evidence of global warming, or claims that tobacco can cause cancer, but will support premptive war-mongering based on flawed WMD claims.<< There they go again, turning it into a political argument. Claims of tobacco causing cancer, now that is based on science. I believe the argument the right would make is it is a personal choice and that choice should be left up to personal responsibility. I fail to see what any of this has to do with the wrongheaded notion that humans caused global warming, humans can stop global warming, that other factors haven't played a significant role, and that the world can't exist if the sea rises a foot in 400 years or if the seasons change. Please consider taking your political rhetoric to a more appropriate venue, like MoveOn.org.

[journotlist]

>>Unfortunately, the ability to track and monitor solar flares is relatively recent and so we have no accurate idea of historical trends, and therefore can't assume one way or another whether solar flares are a factor.<< Wow. Does anyone read provided links? There are ways to track solar activity going back thousands of years. Direct observation and recording of solar flares has been done since 1859.

[pjh_az]

What's funny in much of this is how eager the Right is to scoff at evidence of global warming, or claims that tobacco can cause cancer, but will support premptive war-mongering based on flawed WMD claims. lol

[pjh_az]

Journotlist writes: "We're surrounded by Chicken Littles." Ah. My apologies. I initially thought you might be a rabid conservative but sice the Bush administration has thrived on a chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling-the-al-queda-are-everywhere-we-need-to-feed-the-military-we-need-to-turn-the-US-into-a-prison-to-protect-its-citizens I can see now you must detest the current administration and instead are a liberal.

[pjh_az]

<<NASA's claim of global warming is a fraud. There is no evidence in China, Russia, Europe, or North America of a "mild winter". Instead, the North experienced snow, ice, sleet, and cold temperatures.>> This is not inconsistent with global warming, and is merely anecdotal - trivially countered by pointing out Phoenix has gone almost 130 days without a drop of rain, and here in northern Arizona, we have only seen a few inches of snow when we would normally have 70 - 90+ inches by now. <<Certainly, the planet is beginning an ice age.>> Really? With record melting of the polar caps thoroughly documented why are you so certain of an ice age beginning?