Comments on: EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

[nazdackster]

ubrew12, just want to make sure you understand. Even though several data sets are corrupt, there IS evidence of warming on earth, at least until 1998 or so. It's mild, and it's related to solar, and possibly even CO2. CO2 increases SHOULD increase earth's temperature slightly, but it is a bit player at best, and just isn't up to the task given water vapor's overwhelming role as the major greenhouse gas and its overlapping absorption pattern with CO2. Further, the idea that there is a net positive feedback that is going to somehow amplify CO2's effect has been shown over and over to be false. How many times must one show that convection is the major driver of heat transport to space (which is a HUGE negative feedback)? No matter what the models say, if the actual earth (um, where I live) refuses to cooperate, it's back to the drawing board. At least that's how it works in any scientific field OUTSIDE of climatology. Why is that? Hmmm?

[nazdackster]

ubrew12, if it wasn't obvious from my post, the natural cycles will simply continue as usual. My point was, that with this GCR / solar magnetic field / solar wind / earth temperature amplifying relationship, the idea that solar variation is not enough to explain earth's temperature cycles is now put to rest. Solar behavior is still so poorly understood that virtually all models attempting prediction of future solar activity fail. The particular minimum we are in now is an excellent example, and explains falling temperatures, and cold weather records falling by the dozens lately. NASA has been trying to predict when the uptick in solar activity will happen and so far has done nothing but regularly extend their guess. We are still in a deep minimum, and really, it's anyone's guess when activity will start to ramp up. There is a potential for this cycle to be much like the Maunder or Dalton minimums, as it is already the longest in 180 years. If this happens, solar cycles will tend to be weak for several 11 and 22 year cycles after that, which is why you often year about cooling until 2030 to 2040. My own model prediction based on ocean cycles and "regular" solar cycles is cooling until 2038, then back to a warming phase.

The other interesting fact is that solar activity during the alleged period of rapid CO2 and temperature growth was also abnormally high for several cycles. But if you measure just TSI, there is not enough difference to explain the higher temps. Now with the GCR link to cloud effects and albedo, less GCR's during that period led to fewer clouds and a darker / more absorptive planet, which does explain the temperature increase (which is exceedingly small anyway). Read up dude, the truth is out there for everyone to see.

[ubrew12]

Three whole years! And HOW many weather stations are on Mars, and HOW many climatologists are studying its weather? What I find amazing is you deniers will reach past the THOUSANDS of scientists studying planet earth, and pretty much in unison crying that AGW is real and could be dangerous, and latch onto a SINGLE data point from MARS!! 'Sorry, all that AGW data on Earth is wrong. No warming here. Ahhh, but MARS!!! Thats another matter' LOL.

[ubrew12]

Hansen gets a prize for being a good scientist and you figure he's on the take??

Exxon doesn't send money to NCPA and Heritage Foundation out of altruism. Those aren't awards Exxon is paying, they are salaries.

[Rockyfromcali]

...and Al Gore was just a politician...and really not a very good one.

Do you have anything other than the standard "Exxon" cry?

[Rockyfromcali]

"This media evenhandedness is a little disturbing when you realize the two sides of the argument are treated as if they had equivalent amount of scientific integrity. This is irresponsible dishonest. It's an issue of science. Serious debate is not really open to political partisans."

Your arguments do support this point of view. Sure cannot have the media be evenhanded...

Debate is not tolerated by those who are pushing this agenda...they have pulled up the ladder and declared the science settled...which violates every responsible principle of science.

It is laughable that someone who seriously contends that the world owes a debt to Al Gore for his efforts can make the statement

"Serious debate is not really open to political partisans."

If you were trying to be ironic, that statement would work well.

[Rockyfromcali]

jon2012-2009

You state....
'Show me the people saying it's all a hoax and I'll show you groups who are obscure, who can't be traced to a credible history of objective, nonpartisan efforts to understand global warming, suggestive of hidden agendas, or simply individuals who have opinions but without command of the facts."

IPCC members, some of whom have asked to have their names removed from reports, and had to threaten lawsuits to have names removed, have called out the actions of the IPCC. Science never has, and never should be about consensus...it is about what can be observed, tested, and measured. If the science on AGW is solid, it does not need you or anyone else to defend it...the facts will speak for themselves. The facts as they now sit, are that the models that are being utilized by AGW supporters do not even have the ability to tell us what weather was in the past when the relevant numbers are entered into their formulas...if they can not even explain the past...why do you trust them to forecast future climate conditions?

You put forth your opinion, while calling out others for not providing facts...but where exactly are your facts?

[jon2012-2009]

I have deep respect for Al Gore. He's not a scientist so on scientific matters he can't really take a position, a scientific position. But what he does is give visibility to the position taken by thousands of scientists on climate change. He's done that and the world owes him much.

[jon2012-2009]

Yeah, if you can't get a hearing from scientists, try it on a public forum and let the loonies come out of the woodwork.

[jon2012-2009]

On the other hand, there is value in making this debate inclusive of people who are not intellectually trained to grasp the nature and scope of scientific evidence. If you can't convince the scientists, there's still the more easily manipulated public opinion up for grabs, as always.