Joe wrote:

I wonder if Neandertals ran around blaming men with fire on the end of
the Ice age?

Have you seen "The 13th Warrior"? It's a Beowulf story--
a fictional account attempt to explain how such a
legend could have gotten started.

Gilligan wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote

There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor,
and it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists
understand that.

Really?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;308/5723/847


ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...MPOSITE.v2.PDF

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...O_VIRGO.v2.PDF

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...crimsat_2.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...solar-warming/

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Yeah, really, Glen. From your links:

"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000
global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming."

IOW, some scientists published a model where about a quarter of the
global warming is explained by solar variation. That hardly refutes the
fact that there's a consensus about the reality of the earth becoming
warmer. Or the consensus view that human behavior is a factor.

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what
you are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for
a survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

//Walt

Gilligan is just an interesting troll. No offense is intended I'm sure.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote
There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor,
and it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists
understand that.

Really?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;308/5723/847


ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...MPOSITE.v2.PDF

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...O_VIRGO.v2.PDF

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...crimsat_2.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...solar-warming/

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Yeah, really, Glen. From your links:

"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000
global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming."

IOW, some scientists published a model where about a quarter of the global
warming is explained by solar variation. That hardly refutes the fact
that there's a consensus about the reality of the earth becoming warmer.
Or the consensus view that human behavior is a factor.

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what you
are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for a
survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:
"Capt. JG" wrote
There is absolute consensus. Human beings are a significant contributor,
and it's obvious if you look at the data. All reputable scientists
understand that.

Really?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;308/5723/847


ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...MPOSITE.v2.PDF

ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...O_VIRGO.v2.PDF

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Lib...crimsat_2.html

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...solar-warming/

http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

Yeah, really, Glen. From your links:

"We estimate that the sun contributed as much as 45–50% of the 1900–2000
global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming."

IOW, some scientists published a model where about a quarter of the global
warming is explained by solar variation. That hardly refutes the fact
that there's a consensus about the reality of the earth becoming warmer.
Or the consensus view that human behavior is a factor.

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what you
are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for a
survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

//Walt

Consensus does not make fact. Phlogiston theory was a consensus. Mars is
experiencing global warming too:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ge_031208.html

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977

The sun is the only thing common to Mars and Earth.

The sun's output is increasing, there is even a "consensus" on that:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...rradiance.html

http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040...5714-6334r.htm

I say that human activity will not warm the planet. During every heat spike
over the last million years, the temperature rapidly dropped. Look he

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


Global warming is at best a transient phenomena. The temperature will always
go to some long term average value. It has for millions of years. Why is it
different this time?

Interesting and related read:

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

Gilligan wrote:

"Walt" wrote

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what you
are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for a
survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

Consensus does not make fact.

Yeah yeah yeah. And Gravity is just a "theory".

Look, you can either believe the scientific consensus or not. It may
well be wrong - the scientific method is not infallable, it's just the
best we've got. But please stop trying to muddy the water by claiming
that there is no consensus. There is.

snip irrelevant Martian tangent

//Walt

Gilligan doesn't evolve either.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:

"Walt" wrote

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what
you are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for a
survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

Consensus does not make fact.

Yeah yeah yeah. And Gravity is just a "theory".

Look, you can either believe the scientific consensus or not. It may well
be wrong - the scientific method is not infallable, it's just the best
we've got. But please stop trying to muddy the water by claiming that
there is no consensus. There is.

snip irrelevant Martian tangent

//Walt

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Gilligan wrote:

"Walt" wrote

You are trying to stir up controversy where none exists, and then say
"see, there's no consensus". It's disingenuous, and I'm not sure what
you are attempting to accomplish by it.

Please see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686 for a
survey view of consensus scientific opinion.

Consensus does not make fact.

Yeah yeah yeah. And Gravity is just a "theory".


Gravity is the least understood of all the forces. There's a consensus on
"dark matter" but no one can measure it or show it exists. But there is a
consensus.


Look, you can either believe the scientific consensus or not. It may well
be wrong - the scientific method is not infallable, it's just the best
we've got.

It may not even be the best we've got. All it is is a "consensus".

But please stop trying to muddy the water by claiming that there is no
consensus. There is.

I really don't believe there is a consensus. The publishing is biased, the
federal government funds a lot of research claining global warming exists.

The warming exists only over very short term running averages, up to the
order of a human lifespan. Any longer period of time averaging the warming
disappears.

I agree the earth has been getting warmer in the last several decades. That
can be measured.

I agree the sun has been warming up. That can be measured.

I don't think computer climate models are useful for predicting anything. No
model has ever been validated. For a long term climate model to work weather
forecast should be quite accurate out to at least one half the time span of
the climate model or even more. Weather forecasts fall apart after one week.
Refute this, show me a validated computer simulation. To say the cause of
warming is primarily due to humans is wacko. Look at the data, the warming
started to occur at the turn of the last century way before cars,
smokestacks and conspicuous consumption Republicans. What caused the other
sudden warmings in the last million years?

Every morning I beat a drum and the sun rises. Tomorrow if I don't beat the
drum, will the sun rise?

Global warming is nature at its best. It may get warmer, but it will cool
down too. It happens regardless of man.

There is no consensus on the actual cause of the warming, except what can be
measured - the sun is getting warmer. The rest is speculation.



snip irrelevant Martian tangent

//Walt

Capt. JG wrote:
Gilligan doesn't evolve either.

What did you want him to evolve into?

Gilligan wrote:
Consensus does not make fact.

Agreed.

Phlogiston theory was a consensus.

I'm not sure about that, but at one time it was definitely a
consensus that the Earth was flat. Was the Earth really flat
back then, and only assumed oblate speroid-hood when we
believed it to be so?





I say that human activity will not warm the planet.

Where does the heat go from combusting all that fossil fuel?

We are introducing a HECK of a lot of BTUs into the Earth's
atmosphere & oceans (accounts put the total over a hundred
quadrillion per year). Are you saying that the 1st Law of
Thermodynamics does not apply?



Global warming is at best a transient phenomena.

What would it be at worst?

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
news
Gilligan wrote:
Consensus does not make fact.

Agreed.

Phlogiston theory was a consensus.

I'm not sure about that, but at one time it was definitely a consensus
that the Earth was flat. Was the Earth really flat back then, and only
assumed oblate speroid-hood when we believed it to be so?

Check out:

Anthropomorphic physics. Supposedly a dead science but it is making a
comeback in the quantum world.






I say that human activity will not warm the planet.

Where does the heat go from combusting all that fossil fuel?

We are introducing a HECK of a lot of BTUs into the Earth's atmosphere &
oceans (accounts put the total over a hundred quadrillion per year). Are
you saying that the 1st Law of Thermodynamics does not apply?

The heat goes into chemical bonds (making new chemicals in the environment),
phase changes (creating water vapor for instance), mechanical work (such as
winds, oceans currents). Big ass hurricanes are one way to disappate the
heat energy, melting ice takes a lot of heat also. The heat doesn't
necessarily have to warm the globe. If a 0.05% change in the sun's output
does not warm the globe, and the molten core of the earth does not warm the
globe, then how are those measly human BTU's going to warm the globe? If
the earth warmed, more energy would radiate into space (Boltzman's law).

Cause and effect: why did the warming start before these Quadrillions of BTU
were pumped into the atmosphere?





Global warming is at best a transient phenomena.

What would it be at worst?

A good reason to bong up!



DSK