New info seems to contradict what others have said. Wonder who is right and if more will be "discovered"?

Question

Just reading today that the newest data fed to the newest model suddenly says "Global Warming: will be slower than expected". Second time the computer programs have had to be changed and more real data considered, and each time Global Warming takes a hit...deferred, they say, can't be wrong, just deferred...the COMPUTER SAYS SO!!

How long will this keep happening, GW converts?

Second issue is the natural Gas Flaring. I have been told on here it was all under control, no more flaring off, and now the satellite pictures show massive flaring, releasing "greenhouse" gases in great quantity. Natural gas flaring is not necessary, just seems to be an easy and cheap way of disposing of this resource.

So who is right? Satellite pictures, or what the countries claim, and what those who build "recovery plants" claim? I sense that one of them must not be telling the whole truth!

So, how do we take care of this massive waste of resources and source of vast amounts of "Greenhouse " gases?

Thanks, grizz, for the vote of confidence! Your concern is appreciated, and no, I am not on any anti-paranoia drugs to my knowledge. Have you a favorite?

Thanks, 3DM. Got my info off an article in think in Yahoo news, but sorry, might have been in MSNBC...was reading from both.

3DM...supposedly currently attributed to the Russians, theya re beating Saudi in brilliance at the moment, for the news story

White Polish, good observations, and no, unless your hubby is in Russia and you are feeding him an awful lot of chili, I think he is off the hook, this time!

John, who but the GW religion fanatics say that the issue is finally and forever settled as man's CO2 and that only and all?

There still is a lot of dissent, only as you know, the press controls what gets released. And truth is not a long point in a lot of the press, sensation is. I find it hard to believe how the GW advocates cannot see how much DAMAGE they are doing to the world with things like the bulldozing of the jungles for Carbon Credits to trade and make billions and the destruction of the underdeveloped nations so the developed ones can be richer.

I guess when one espouses a secular religion, the whole picture fades from view, with selective hearing and seeing..

Sorry, i do not agree with you; I read more widely I guess.

Bob, seems to me there are lots of voices raised in dissent, but not being published, And if the findings that the computer programs were still wrong is not considered a reason to recheck, you folks are acting on a religious type faith rather than on facts and the need to clarify before making commitments impossible to reverse.

That said, your analysis of Bad or Worse does not hold water historically. The MWP, pretty well substantiated historically, was a time of exploration, expansion, good crops, growth in the arts, and fairly pleasant life for those humans we have history on.

Why will THIS global warming not be the same, if we let it happen and cooperate? more land available, more resources available, more agriculture, chances to build better cities, growth in the arts, and even the sciences occasioned by less strenuous needs to support mere life.

I think you need to look at history as to the effects, not watch Mr. Gore's sci-fi film of what he thinks might be bad or badder.

Patrick, perhaps it is because so much data is being withheld, and so many people shushed and telling about it, and what does leak out about huge profits being made by exploitation of the alleged disasters on the way, along with the information, as from Snopes, on the actual home lifestyles of some of the proponents of Global Warming as a catastrophe requiring much new lawmaking and privations and spending, and one that gets hollered at as the head of government, but has a good eco-friendly home built of modest size. Is there NOT something "fishy" going on here?

I was just seeing a figure of Global Warming as being 0,0177 degree per year. And it said 2 degrees was the limit before we have dire disasters all over creation. Now, if my calculator is right, that is 113 years from now; so why the rush to try everything that infringes on our economy and freedom, and makes big money for select groups, right NOW! If it walks like a conspirator, and quacks like a conspirator, and covers up money flows like a conspirator, should we then assume it is merely a duck?

Another conspircy by the GW cabal to get money and power right now?? Or did someone feed the wrong figures?

Answer 1

Without sources, this information will be totally ignored by the global warming faithful. Only speculation that favors GW dogma is allowed to exist with no basis. Even with sources, they will find some other reason to disregard this information and discourage others to look into it.

Makes you miss the good old days when Hansen and Gore said that we'd be in a full-tilt crisis by now. These days, they put off the projections 50-100 years from now...and any climate different from last year is proof that they know what they're talking about: "See, we predicted that unpredictability!"

As for the NG flares, they don't care. Since the US consumes the greatest amount of oil, then those flares will be attributed to the US; only seems fair. Right?

Answer 2

Hard to provide a factual answer. There are several thousand climate models, they produce a variety of results. Some are more accurate than others, some show slower warming, some show increased warming. Without knowing what you're comparing with what it's impossible to answer.

The majority of climate models now show that warming is occurring faster than previously thought, this is confirmed by actual observations which show warming is now 0.0177°C per year (up from 0.0156°C per year).

A recent report stated that over the next couple of years the natural component of global warming will be greater than it has been of late. Unfortunately some have rewritten this and concluded it means global warming is slowing down, some reports also claimed that it meant global warming had been 'deferred'.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what the original report actually says. It's a common practice amongst some sections of the media and certain skeptics to selectively edit scientific reports and to rewrite them to suit their own point of view. It happens all the time, I've had it done to reports that I've written.

- - - - - - - - - -

Gas flaring isn't something I know much about but my guess would be that developing economies and nations do not have the resources available to implement clean technologies. As often happens, they'll be using the same technology that the developed world was using 10, 20, 30 years ago.

If the situation were examined in detail I suspect it would show that Europe, the US and the more developed nations were using 'recorvery plants' whilst the Chinese, Russians, Africans etc were still flaring the waste gases.

Answer 3

A "conventional guy" is fairly a b.s. remark. It way not anything in that context. FOr illustration, who is traditions does he train? Catholics? Italians? Irish? Protestant? It fairly way not anything. But, what I feel he way is that he thinks a person will have to "put on the pants" in a courting, which means make all the difficult selections, and earn all of the cash to help the household, even as the girl or spouse's awareness shall be on elevating the kids and keeping a loved ones. He would additionally simply imply that he's going to pay for the whole thing while you cross out on dates. If he's calling different guys nerds and stuff like that, I would not hassle with him. He appears like an egotistical jerk. I imply, what makes him so cool? And sure, he does sound controlling, but additionally appears like a phony. -Kidx

Answer 4

There are real scientific disagreements about various details. How much will happen how fast is a common area of different opinions.

But aside from a very few skeptics, scientists agree about three things.

Global warming is real. It's mostly caused by us. It presents a major threat to our well being.

The disagreements are about; will it be bad, will it be really bad, or will it be really really bad. Not bad is not a possibility.

The IPCC report is a "low end" estimate, since hundreds of scientists had to sign off on it, and there were some "policy" edits that reduced the level of concern expressed there. "An Inconvenient Truth" is at the high end. The truth will likely be somewhere in between.

EDIT - The MWP was a little cooler than we are now. Ten studies:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

If we get as little as 2-4 degrees of warming (and we're headed there fast) the costs of dealing with coastal flooding and damage to agriculture will wreck our economy. Details here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

Forget Gore (note that I said he was a high end estimate). You need to rely less on your gut, and more on the data.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

More info and data here, objective and non-political:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Answer 5

Why are there so many conspiracy theorists on the side of global warming denial?

Scientists are not interested in fixing and making up results, they are interested in creating accurate models, regardless of what the model tells them.

A computer model is like an equation for a very complicated system. There are many climate models, the one you would be reffering to is just one of many.

I tried to find what you are reffering to, but i only came up with this link (recent):

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/osu-atd021207.php

so scientists will take this data and adjust their model, this is how science works. We learn more every day, our computers get faster as time goes on, allowing for more accurate predicting of climate. The climate models are much better than ones from the 80's or 90's and ten years from now they will be much better than today, make no mistake, the so-called global warming debate will be settled with 100% confidence in your lifetime(assuming your not elderly).

Answer 6

I guess we can't refute what Satellite Pictures reveal. Just don't trust everything the Politicians are telling you. They could not care about the atmosphere. It's their bank accounts that matter, in hand with the big corporations.

We all should really get more knowledge on the subject, (myself included) and then start shouting about it.

Answer 7

Don't listen to that old grizzly bear man. He's just bitter...... and wrong.

We are learning it's all about the $, bottom line. These phonies will be exposed and they of course will have the backing of the mass media to cover their sorry tracks.

I have not heard of that gas flaring thing, I'll need to research that a bit more. Are you sure that's not just from my husband after a nice chili dinner?


*** And that "Johnny Walkup" is one funny dude, isn't he? He impresses the masses with his sly anecdoes, I SO admire him. ;-D Ahem.

Answer 8

You seem to have the Global Warming problem confused with some sort of debate.

Answer 9

LOL Like your gonna convince the GW fanatics that the sky isn't falling.