Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[shockerofandover0943]

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1kvDpIy8h

[kcshocker11]

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz1kvDpIy8h

This article is from a far right wing source. It cherry picks data and NASA denies its results

Next, they launch off into their nonsense about how the flat temperature trend is all because of a decrease in solar activity, and we’re heading into a new Little Ice Age. The press release the Met Office put out just prior to the one I already mentioned was entitled, “Decline in Solar Output Unlikely To Offset Global Warming“, but the Daily Mail reporter says that these findings are “fiercely disputed by other solar experts,” and quotes Henrik Svensmark. I could name a couple other solar guys who agree with Svensmark, but that’s all. He’s definitely on the fringes. Svensmark has an interesting theory about why changes in Solar output might exert a much greater influence on climate than the models give it credit for, but the problem is that the statistics don’t pan out.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/rel...utput-research Heres a link to the original article, odd how its changed in yours

Carried out by the Met Office and the University of Reading, the study establishes the most likely changes in the Sun's activity and looks at how this could affect near-surface temperatures on Earth.
It found that the most likely outcome was that the Sun's output would decrease up to 2100, but this would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases

Peter Stott, who also worked on the research for the Met Office, said: "Our findings suggest that a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases on global temperatures in the 21^st Century."

Heres what is thought of the experts quoted in the Daily Mail article

If the scientific consensus doesn’t agree with what you want to hear, the Daily Mail reporter knows that you can always get some D-list fringe scientists to make it all better. E.g., take a look at Nicola Scafetta, who thinks that Jupiter and Saturn are affecting the climate to create a 60-year cycle, which Judy Curry also apparently buys into. Yep. But don’t ask Scafetta or Curry what Jupiter or Saturn are supposed to be doing that affects the climate, because they can’t give any physical mechanism. Maybe that’s why the Daily Mail calls Curry “one of America’s most eminent climate experts.” Whatever. Also, take a look at Benny Peiser, who is a social anthropologist too ignorant to properly read the scientific literature on climate change.

[shockerofandover0943]

This article is from a far right wing source. It cherry picks data and NASA denies its results



http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/rel...utput-research Heres a link to the original article, odd how its changed in yours

Somehow, I just knew that you would be the first to respond. I still think that the point regarding sun spots and the sun in general is interesting. Also, I think it is interesting that there hasn't been any warming in 15 years. But what do I know, and what do you know? The idea of "global warming", or as it is now being referred to "climate change", has become so deeply entrenched on both sides that there is little data out there that isn't biased one way or the other. Any group could find scientists to support their point.

[SB Shock]

Somehow, I just knew that you would be the first to respond. I still think that the point regarding sun spots and the sun in general is interesting. Also, I think it is interesting that there hasn't been any warming in 15 years. But what do I know, and what do you know? The idea of "global warming", or as it is now being referred to "climate change", has become so deeply entrenched on both sides that there is little data out there that isn't biased one way or the other. Any group could find scientists to support their point.

LOL. To him everything has been cherry picked.

There was even a nobel peace price winner who came out in a editoral

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

Regardless, I'm still waiting for the global warming faithers to tell me what really is wrong with global warming - it is much better than the alternative - global cooling.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

by the way I found it interesting when reading the emails that have been released in the global warming scam email release that some of the guys admitted they didn't know how to plot the data in excel.

[kcshocker11]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Above is research stating that 97 to 98% of experts agree that global warming is occurring and it causes.

Are there skeptics? Yes

Below is a list of the prominent skeptics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#cite_note-0

To make out like there is a high degree of skeptism is silly. Should skeptics concerns be addressed, yes. Have they? I believe so from what I have read.

[SB Shock]

Still have not answered my question.....

[kcshocker11]

Still have not answered my question.....

I would suggest you write the National Science foundation, NASA etc or leading climatologists

[Kung Wu]

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/20....full.pdf+html

Above is research stating that 97 to 98% of experts agree that global warming is occurring and it causes.

Are there skeptics? Yes

Below is a list of the prominent skeptics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming#cite_note-0

To make out like there is a high degree of skeptism is silly. Should skeptics concerns be addressed, yes. Have they? I believe so from what I have read.

If I believe that humans contribute to 0.0001% (contribute a completely irrelevant amount to global warming by way of carbon emissions), would I be in the Yes column or the No column? Technically, that would put me in the Yes column wouldn't it? If I post a paper acknowledging an irrelevant amount of contribution, I _am_ admitting _some_ contribution. While a "skeptic" I would be labeled a believer. How did they decide who is UE and who is CE, their paper doesn't say.

[Kung Wu]

And there is a strong argument to be made that your paper proves the point why people _should_ be skeptical ... but I don't have time right now.

[kcshocker11]

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/aug/22/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-more-and-more-scientists-are-quest/
This is nice clear and concise with nice links to back it up.

[pinstripers]

My feeling is that it is likely happening, and that it has happened many times before. Is mankind accelerating this cycle? Yeah, maybe. Next?

[SB Shock]

Above is research stating that 97 to 98% of experts agree that global warming is occurring and it causes.

Capture.JPG

To make out like there is a high degree of skeptism is silly. Should skeptics concerns be addressed, yes. Have they? I believe so from what I have read.

The Global Warming Faithers have been doing everything they can to get around FOIA so they don't have to release their data because they have admitted (in email) they don't want people to have a chance to find errors (or where they have doctored data in some cases) - but this is called in the scientific world: Peer Review.

[SB Shock]

I would suggest you write the National Science foundation, NASA etc or leading climatologists

Don't need to. I know the answer, I just wanted to see if you did. Let me help you out here is a picture of greenland during the last Global Warming period.

greenland-surfer-girl-e1305554595172.jpg

[WstateU]

Yea, I realize this video probably has a bazillion youtube views by now and has likely been posted here before. If not, just hang with it, Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) eventually makes a global warming point. :culpability:

[GarH]

I hear all the "REAL" scientists are now in agreement that the world is flat.