Arnold Schwarzenegger Liberal or Republican?

Once again please do your homework. The Bush administration has done nothing on global warming. Why? Because there is no scientific proof that it exsists in the manner that others are claiming.

Link

or this:

Most of the body of global warming theory is based on computerized climate models called global circulation models or GCMs, for they are almost the only tools global warming researchers have. GCMs are difficult to make as making them properly involves a deep-rooted understanding of the way the atmosphere works and how its actions are interconnected with other planetary bodies, such as the oceans or the terrestrial biosphere. But our understanding of the inner workings of the atmosphere and the ways it relates to other planetary bodies is not very good. Renowned NASA climate modeler James Hansen, the man whose summer 1988 congressional testimony kicked off the climate change debate, states in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: "The forcings [outside factors] that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate changes." One of the fundamental illustrations of chaos, the butterfly effect, displays the interconnectedness of the atmosphere system when it states that a butterfly fluttering through the air in China could cause rain in New York the following spring. GCMs are made by formulating mathematical descriptions of the interrelationships between the atmosphere/ocean/biosphere/cryosphere system and conducting numerical experiments. They certainly are unable to form a mathematical description based on the kind of interconnections, or feedbacks, that the butterfly effect would suggest. Indeed, Michael Schlesinger, modeler at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, tells us that "in the climate system, there are 14 orders of magnitude, from the planetary scale--which is 40 million meters--down to the scale of one of the little aerosol particles on which water vapor can change phase to a liquid [cloud particle]--which is a fraction of a millionth of a millimeter." Of these 14 orders of magnitude, only the two largest (the planetary scale and the scale of weather disturbances) can currently be included in models. Schlesinger notes that, to include the third order of magnitude (the scale of thunderstorms, at about 50 km resolution) a computer a thousand times faster would be necessary, "a teraflops machine that maybe we'll have in 5 years." Including all orders of magnitude would require 1036-1037 times more computing power (Kerr - Greenhouse Forecasting).

Link

or even this:

In the December 4, 1997 Wall Street Journal, Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson said that the global warming hypothesis is no longer tenable, in spite of observations of increased atmospheric CO2 in the 20th century. Atmospheric temperature measurements in the last 50 years have "definitively shown that major greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring, and is unlikely ever to occur." Temperatures have been rising over the last 300 years, since the "Little Ice Age", but have not yet reached the 3,000 year average. They point to increased solar activity over the last 250 years as the cause of the increase in temperature. In addition, they point out that mean temperatures have actually shown a slight decline in the last 20 years.

Link

If no one has told you, I will. If you do not do your homework around here your arguement "will be" shredded. As you can plainly see I have done mine. Can you say the same?

In the December 4, 1997

And how old is your homework? Please over 2000 scientist have said global warming exists is real and is caused by automobiles only 3 scientists have tried to disprove it.

Go ahead post more "old" information before Arnold & Bush's No hummer Left Behind act which killed the enviroment in less than 6 years.

And how old is your homework? Please over 2000 scientist have said global warming exists is real and is caused by automobiles only 3 scientists have tried to disprove it. Go ahead post more "old" information before Arnold & Bush's No hummer Left Behind act which killed the enviroment in less than 6 years.

Links, proof?

Credibility, proof, and an arguement you have not. Hmmm? Think about it dude.

And how old is your homework? Please over 2000 scientist have said global warming exists is real and is caused by automobiles only 3 scientists have tried to disprove it.

Oh please! This is such an outright lie. The scientific community is in general agreement that the climate has gotten warmer over the past 100 years, by 1 degree. Get that? 1 degree.

The scientific community is very far from being in agreement over whether this is just natural post ice age warming or increased significantly by human technology.

Reactionary articles posted by some scientists clammering for research dollars is not proof of anything except how gullible some people can be.

The sky isn't falling and the scientific community is nowhere near in agreement over the "glabal warming" issue.

There is overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are causing global average temperatures to rise. Conservative think tanks are trying to undermine this conclusion with a disinformation campaign employing “reports” designed to look like a counterbalance to peer-reviewed studies, skeptic propaganda masquerading as journalism, and events like the AEI luncheon that Crichton addressed. The think tanks provide both intellectual cover for those who reject what the best science currently tells us, and ammunition for conservative policymakers like Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who calls global warming “a hoax.”

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2005/05/some_like_it_hot.html

The only people lying are right wingers. So you can make more money gutting the Clean Air Act.

Fact vs. Fiction on Climate Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We've just had the coldest day in June -- so much for global warming!

Fiction: Just look at X: it's the coldest day/month/year on record ... or: Region X has cooled by Y°F over the past two years! There is no global warming!

Fact: Statements like the one above are deliberate attempts by climate contrarians to confuse and mislead the public. It's an attempt to disprove the reality of global warming with a cold weather anomaly. This is not only scientific bogus, comparing apples and oranges, but outright dishonesty. Weather is the state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, defined by variables such as temperature, moisture, wind, and barometric pressure. It is highly variable from day to day. By contrast, climate describes long-term weather patterns, with average temperatures and precipitation totals as well as typical occurrences of climatic extremes (such as normal dry periods or tropical storms) being used to characterize the climate for a particular region. This distinction is very important. Averages are always made up of numbers differing from the mean. Global warming is about the average going up. Over time this will make extreme colds become less likely.



Oh, what's a few degrees?

Fiction: A few degrees temperature increase won't matter much, and besides, warmer is better -- fewer cold-related deaths, longer growing seasons, lower heating bills. How many people actually notice the difference between 86 and 88.5°F?

Fact: Considering that in some regions people experience large daily temperature ranges (20-30°F), climate skeptics try to convince the public that global warming by a few degrees is nothing to worry about. This is another version of deliberately confusing weather and climate (see above). A small increase in the average temperature, however, obscures extremes and patterns of warming that are quite troubling: nighttime temperatures increase more than daily averages; there are already and will be more extreme heat but less extreme cold events; poleward latitudes warm more than other areas, etc. While the benefits of warming pointed out in the skeptics argument are certainly among the potential impacts of climate change, the potential negative impacts -- such as heat-related illnesses and deaths, increased heat stress for crops, greater energy needs for cooling etc. -- are strategically omitted. Moreover, it bears emphasis that the difference in global average temperature between the last ice age and the present day is about 9°F! This puts the IPCC's projected range of climate change-related global average temperature increases of 2.5-10.4°F in an entirely different light.



Human CO2 emissions are small compared to natural CO2 exchange.

Fiction: The 4.5% of the world's greenhouse gases that humans generate is insignificant when compared to the 95.5% generated by nature.

Fact: It is indeed true that human emissions of CO2 are a small percentage of the total carbon cycled through the different components of the Earth system: plants, soils, rocks, the oceans, and the air. But these human emissions are by no means insignificant. For the last 420,000 years, until the beginning of the industrial revolution (~1750), this cycle of carbon exchange was in a quasi-stable equilibrium, i.e., the continual release and uptake of carbon kept CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere fluctuating between 180 ppm (parts per million) and 280 ppm. Since 1750, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31%, to a present level of 367 ppm. This increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels and large-scale deforestation and land-use change. These human activities have forced the carbon cycle out of the state of equilibrium and out of the known range of variation.



Satellite temperature records don't show any global warming.

Fiction: Satellite temperature records do not show a warming trend over the past 20 years, and ground-level data are incorrect and exaggerate the warming.

Fact: It is true that temperature records derived from satellites show either less warming than surface temperature data or even a cooling trend. Recent studies (most notably a study by the National Academy of Sciences published in 2000) found, however, that satellite data needed to be adjusted for some measurement and calibration problems. These adjustments bring surface and satellite records into better agreement, both showing a warming trend. It is important to note that many surface temperature records date back to 1860, while satellite records only date back to 1979. With such a short data record, observed trends can be strongly affected by extreme conditions -- such as the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which decreased atmospheric temperatures for several years. In addition, satellite and surface data differ in what they record: surface thermometers measure the air temperature at the Earth's surface, while satellite data take temperatures of different slices of the atmosphere. Including records for the upper atmosphere -- where the depletion of the ozone layer has had a cooling effect -- will lower the overall temperature trends observed from satellites.



The observed warming is all due to solar variation, not human activities.

Fiction: An increase in solar irradiance is the main cause of the Earth's current warming trend. Therefore, reducing fossil fuel emissions would not impact the Earth's temperature.

Fact: Current scientific understanding leaves little doubt that the sun's radiant output impacts the Earth's climate on both decadal and centennial time scales. However, it is only one of many components affecting terrestrial climate. According to the findings of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, the warming effect due to increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is estimated to be more than 8 times greater than the effect of solar irradiance.

What about the 19,000 scientists who claim we should not worry about global warming?

Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on climate change. Just look at the 19,000 scientists who signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project.

Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.

sorry drmiler, i forgot to add the above was copied from the first link you provided.

From ScienceDaily: June 15, 2001, Ohio State University

Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.

The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says.

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer."

He examined data that Cambridge University geologists Nicholas Shackleton and Neil Opdyke reported in the journal Quaternary Research in 1973, which found that global temperatures have been oscillating steadily, with an average rising gradually, over the last one million years -- long before human industry began to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Opdyke is now at the University of Florida.

According to Shackleton and Opdyke's data, average global temperatures have risen less than one degree in the last million years, though the amplitude of the periodic oscillation has now risen in that time from about 5 degrees to about 10 degrees, with a period of about 100,000 years.

"Today, we are simply near a peak in the current cycle that started about 25,000 years ago," Essenhigh explained.

WWW Link

That's only one of many scientists who do not agree that the current warming trend is anything more than part of the natural cycle. An Ice Age just ended (in geoligc terms). It only stands to reason things would be warming up. Eventually it's going to go the other way and head into another Ice Age. It's all perfectly normal. The sky is not falling.

I am really convinced liberalism is a mental disorder.

Reply #10 I am really convinced liberalism is a mental disorder.

Nah. Most of them are sincere and actually believe the stuff they have been told.

It's the ones that make comments like

The only people lying are right wingers. So you can make more money gutting the Clean Air Act.

that I think maybe it's time for another two for one sale on tinfoil hats.

Well I would have trouble accepting Prof Essenhigh's conclusions on this topic as he is a mechanical engineer, not a climatologist.

WWW Link

And the last two paragraphs of your article:

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in other studies.

"If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening," he wrote in his Chemical Innovation paper. "But if there are objections, let's have them with the numbers."

Well I would have trouble accepting Prof Essenhigh's conclusions on this topic as he is a mechanical engineer, not a climatologist.

Why? If you read his fields of research I'd say he's highly qualified. Perhaps that's the whole problem with this issue; too many people looking at something in exactly the same way.

I really don't see your point in the two paragraphs you quoted. He acknowledges that his conclusions are in the minority, that he has taken a fresh look at some parts of the issue that nobody else the sense to take into account, and welcomes factual objections. Sounds like an honest scientist to me. Hmmm, maybe that's your objection?