- This topic has 4 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
It's back: The mini ice age starts here. I just want to know when the climate scientists are going to admit that they dont really know what is going on? It seems clear that climate science is in its infancy and it is well nigh impossible to make predictions based on what they know now.
Climate means the average weather conditions in a particular location. Climate is the average weather conditions – temperature, pressure, precipitation and humidity – expected for a certain place. Climate is based on the average weather experienced over 30 years or more.Weather describes the condition of the atmosphere. It might be sunny, hot, windy or cloudy, raining or snowing.(But well, frozen oranges in Cape , bikini in Israel ... way to get confused !)http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/climate http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm
I think what this shows, however, is that scientists don't know as much as they may think they do. Such as this:
In March 2000, Dr David Viner, then a member of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, the body now being investigated over the notorious ?Warmergate? leaked emails, said that within a few years snowfall would become ?a very rare and exciting event? in Britain, and that ?children just aren?t going to know what snow is?. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cKKbK4IN
There is actually a pattern of scientists making drastic claims about the climate. In another decade, will the scientists speaking today, trying to get the world spend trillions to combat global warming, also be proved wrong?
Just heard on CBS that because of the freeze in Florida, produce prices will be high for about a month. OK, a few days of cold weather did this. Can anyone tell me what a few days of warm weather ever did? I hope there are some scientists who are wondering what to do in case of colder temps worldwide, because that will be a lot more dangerous and costly than a few degree rise in temps, IF that alleged rise in temp is true and accurate as they claim.
The science guys dont really have a clue how the climate works but will not admit it. I mean, it is a pretty daunting task, think of the number of possible inputs into the world environment that could have an impact on climate. Out of all the possible climate affecting factors they want us to believe that one input; CO2, is going to cause the temperature to rise, melt the ice caps, kill the polar bear, and destroy civilization. Sorry, I call BS.
The science guys dont really have a clue how the climate works but will not admit it. I mean, it is a pretty daunting task, think of the number of possible inputs into the world environment that could have an impact on climate. Out of all the possible climate affecting factors they want us to believe that one input; CO2, is going to cause the temperature to rise, melt the ice caps, kill the polar bear, and destroy civilization. Sorry, I call BS.
That's been my concern all along. The complexity of climate, the number of inputs, must be quite high, and scientists just don't know for sure how all these things work together. Yes, they can look to past events to predict the future, but with more complexities future predictions become hazier. Added to this is the whole issue of causation, by which the claim is made that CO2 is causing the warming of the earth, and also that by reducing our production of CO2 we can cool the earth back down. Add to this the hugely political overtone of the issue and it should be cause for great concern. What political overtones? Case in point - is it any coincidence that Hugo Chavez went to the Climate Summit in Copenhagen to rail against capitalism, to which he got applause from the crowd there?
OK, we've all seen stupid articles and dumb claims by the AGW believers, but this article has to be one of the stupidest I've ever read. This scientist contradicts himself throughout.Example:
He told a UN conference in September that changes in ocean currents known as North Atlantic Oscillation could dominate over man-made global warming for the next few decades. Controversially, he also said that the fluctuations could also be responsible for much of the rise in global temperatures seen over the past 30 years.
First he says man-made global warming then in the next paragraph he says the fluctuations in the oscillation "could be responsible." So which one is it, genius? ::)
