Tv On A Pc

Your blog makes very interesting reading. I’m sure others will think so too I look forward to reading their comments.

Now I know you’re an idiot.
The meteor you’re referring to happened 165 [M]illion years ago.

comment by Jason Hendler

Okay, Crichton has a medical degree from Harvard, so I grant that he has some familiarity with science and scientific terms. But do you think we can bring dinosaurs back, too?
Oh, and come to think of it, diagnose-by-video Bill Frist also has a Harvard medical degree. Maybe we shouldn’t value Harvard M.D.s so much any more.

Excellent response – thanks for addressing my (or Crichton’s) arguements directly, and not simply discrediting the messenger.

Crichton was trying to explain the reason for the higher daily air temperatures, which “scientists” are trying to use as indicators of global warming, and using very simple regression analyses, showing that the greatest factor for temperature increases in many urban areas is the increase in urbanization. A higher temperature in urban areas means ground moisture, which would normally evaporate and cool an area, is instead replaced with concrete, metal, glass, blacktop, etc., which retain the heat and raise the air temperature.

It IS undeniable that CO2 levels have increases significantly relative to pre-existing levels a couple centuries ago, but not very significantly as a component in the total makeup of the atmosphere, which is why the correlation between CO2 levels and air temperature is so weak.

Earth’s climate is constantly changing overall and in specific regions. The retraction of the ice caps from most of north America after the ice age is not due to man’s presence, obviously, so you must concede that this could be part of a continued trend of icesheet retraction that began 10’s of thousands of years ago.

All that aside, I don’t think it is good that fossil fuels are burned on enormous scales everyday, simply on a pollution basis – forget global warming. There are clean energy technologies, and the federal government should create the market place in which these technologies can be developed, produced and sold, so that the consumer and the provider benefit.

Taken with a host of other data, it could lead a certain direction. By itself … localized … one-sided focus (for example, ignoring or not getting readings on the next beach), one should infer nothing. One can’t, without the entire picture … the one signal may be part of a whole, but not a single person posting here knows enough to make the claim it IS part of the whole … the fact they think they do is why some people don’t believe in Global Warming. They see the proponents accept anything as “proof” … a study on 1/2 of 2006’s temperatures and droughts may add facts to the argument, but not much truth. We must be careful not to elevate the facts out of convenience or laziness.

1. Scientists are not basing their beliefs on one single factor. CO2 has increased; no one can dispute this. Glaciers are melting and any increase in glaciers inland is actually supported by the model currently in use. Ice core samples in Antaractica. Tree ring sampling, particularly that of bristle cone trees, the longest-living trees, a few around 4000 years old. Other measurements and observations. And trends over many years, worldwide. (Giacomo, are you paying attention?)

Yup … you’re combining the arguments, though. Global Warming has occurred … CO2 does effect the environment … BUT, many many scientists aren’t willing to draw the line so neatly between them as Al Gore does. THAT’S the problem … not Global Warming, but the actual man made effect upon it. There is very much NOT a scientific agreement on the man made effects … in fact, many say the pluraility is on the “natural” causes side.

As someone who lives in Tucson, I certainly agree that “urban heat mass” exists, since the less developed areas here are noticeably cooler than the more developed areas.

I did a little reading on this phenomenon, and apparently at this time urban heat masses are not considered to widely contribute to global warming; increased CO2 is considered to be the largest single factor.

There are a couple of problems with your thesis that urban heat mass disputes global warming.

1. Scientists are not basing their beliefs on one single factor. CO2 has increased; no one can dispute this. Glaciers are melting and any increase in glaciers inland is actually supported by the model currently in use. Ice core samples in Antaractica. Tree ring sampling, particularly that of bristle cone trees, the longest-living trees, a few around 4000 years old. Other measurements and observations. And trends over many years, worldwide. (Giacomo, are you paying attention?)

2. Urban heat masses also would, if anything, CONTRIBUTE to global warming rather than the reverse. They may not be considered significant on the global scale at this time, but humans are still reproducing and are still moving into cities. You get enough urban heat masses and they WILL contribute to global warming.

It baffles me that I would even have to state this; it should be so obvious.

A sample from one of the beaches would also class as evidence though, which is the point I am trying to make. Evidence doesn’t have to be conclusive all on its own to be evidence. We have seen a lot of evidence on what global warming can do, and there is a increasing scientific consensus that human actions are making it worse. While GW may be cyclical, it doesn’t mean the unprecedented levels of pollution being put out by humanity aren’t effecting that cycle in a less then desirable manner.

Besides, when you get right down to it, wouldn’t the world be a better place if all of the stuff that is causing GW wasn’t around anymore? I mean, no more smog, the Arabs wouldn’t have any economic power, the jobs created by manufacturing that alternate energy source would make up for the jobs lost to oil, really why shouldn’t we start trying to live cleaner?

You’re switching arguments friend. Stick to this thread … my beef is not with Global Warming or Scientific Discovery. My beef is with those who jump on the “it’s global warming” bandwagon when Think Progress posts bland scientific “readings”.

Global Warming has almost universal scientific support, man made as the cause less so, effects if we continue on current path will accelerate less less so, and we ought to stop Global Warming because problems are inevitable even less less less so. The comments here were obtuse given the post’s claims and the scale covered … that’s all I was saying.

Scientists don’t just take results from America. They take weather patterns across the whole world, generally using worldwide Satelite photography, local reporting, and even worldwide disaster reports.

If you were to say that the sea was getting less saltly, and took a reasonable sample from the beaches all across the world, including the poles, and presented them as evidence, and those samples were consistent with your hypothesis, then you would be believed.

And if you want to know what the weather is all across the world its easy enough to look it up, it isn’t like America is the only country that knows the secret of weather forecasting.

It MAY be consistent (we’re not really sure what will happen, scientific postulations at this point), otherwise I totally agree with you.

Uhmmm … exactly my point … the argument here is not “look what’s happening world wide” (which still would be a scientifically poor argument but a much less stupid one) … the argument is “look what’s happening in the US (and only some of it, at that)”.

If I have a theory that the oceans are getting less salty (some say the North Pacific is actually, but it’s not relevant) should I run around supporting my conclusion by the “taste” of the ocean in North Carolina? No … you’d say I’m a moron and that individual non-scientific readings on a localized scale can’t reveal much about the theory at large. Doesn’t mean my theory is wrong … it may mean I’m a fool though.

That’s all I’m saying ….

You’re absolutely correct. One cannot ascertain GW on the basis of temperatures in the US alone.

However, given the adverse effects of GW, we should anticipate temperature and weather anomalies in the US. What we’re observing is certainly consistent. The temperature may go down next year, no question. What’s important are the long term trends, and at the global scale.

If it is a worldwide effect, it will have effects worldwide. Last I checked, my atlas of the world included America.

Global warming certainly exists … I’m sure the debate will rage on about mankinds effect or control over it … trying to pin a drought in one part of our country (whilst flash flooding occurs elsewhere) or a heat wave (in New Mexico which I guess is usually cold this time of year) on it is a fool’s errand … very unscientific. You’re free to believe that global warming is 100% manmade, but let’s not try and squeeze every weather event into that belief, shall we.

If next year the weather is more “normal” (and by normal I mean, what we’ve come to expect) does that mean Global Warming is BS … of course not. Year to year weather patterns change … this has been so for millenia (and far before our gas guzzling SUVs) … chill out.

For those who would flame me, remember, “dissent is the highest form of patriotism”.

- Cheers

This is such a joke. Sigh. I read stuff like this as further evidence of our failing education system. Leave no child behind my ass.

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

The petition wasn’t peer reviewed, and was deceptive to say the least.