backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 332 comment(s) - last by welshlaw.. on Jan 20 at 1:34 AM


Dr. William Happer  (Source: Princeton University)
Scientist fired by Al Gore was told, "science will not intrude on public policy".

Noted energy expert and Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer has sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming "mistaken".

"I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect", said Happer. "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science."

Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. "The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past."

In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".

Happer's latest remarks were made yesterday, as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list, many of whom have been interviewed previously by DailyTech.

"Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility," Happer concluded.

In response to Happer's remarks, Senator James Inhofe, ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said, "The endless claims of a consensus on man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day".



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 2:49:47 PM , Rating: 1
This is beyond idiotic. Happer is just another mediocre scientist in a tangential field, who wants to blame the loss of his job on the anthropomorphic 'beast' that is climate change. He was fired for testifying to congress about a field of science in which he has no experience or credentials. For a government employee, that's understandably a pretty gross offense. Happer is at the far end of the crackpot stick, claiming that UV doesn't cause cancer, when the biggest clinical trials in medical history show that it does.




RE: Happer != Expert
By Oregonian2 on 12/23/2008 2:54:44 PM , Rating: 3
I just wish some of this global warming would come to the pacific northwest. In the thirty years that I've lived in this area, I've not seen anywhere near the snow that I've seen here in the last week than any (other) five year period combined. It's also been snowing in Las Vegas -- they might like some global warming too.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By whiskerwill on 12/23/2008 3:01:08 PM , Rating: 5
Climate is just weather averaged over time. Global warming does not mean "colder winters". That CO2 is still up there, trapping heat, remember? In theory, at least.

Even more embarrassing, we didn't have a hot summer, we had an extremely mild one.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:06:53 PM , Rating: 1
Well, what time do you average over, then? Obviously, it isn't just a question of one year's average temperature (that's exactly one sample in climate terms). What you really need to look at is year-on-year changes. Nobody can say anything conclusive about warming or changes in variability even in the last ten years of climate history, so it's always silly to pin short-term temperatures on either warming or cooling trends.


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/2008 3:42:03 PM , Rating: 5
> "What you really need to look at is year-on-year changes."

Over a 9 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 100 year period, the earth is warming.
Over a 1500 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 13,000 year period, the earth is warming.

Which of these periods is the correct one to use?


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By rninneman on 12/23/2008 4:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be willing to bet masher's data is good, but at least one of the graphs you posted is not accurate. The second one looks like the data published by NASA before they discovered the Y2k bug that showed 1998 to be the warmest year on record when it really was 1934. In fact, the corrected data had the majority of the top ten warmest years on record before WWII. I'm sure masher can elaborate.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 6:36:24 PM , Rating: 1
Masher's point is still relevant even if the times are off. Which period do we use and why? You seem to think you are an expert so enlighten us.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Ammohunt on 12/29/2008 2:49:01 PM , Rating: 3
The earth has been warming since the last Ice Age...I for one am glad of it.


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/2008 4:34:06 PM , Rating: 5
Satellite Time Series Data on Tropospheric Temperature Readings, straight from the source:

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_mon...

Plug them into your favorite graphing or data analysis program yourself. No statistically significant warming since 1995, and a slight cooling trend since the end of 2000.

The Medieval Warm Period was unquestionably warmer than today-- which explains why, as glaciers roll back in Greenland and Scandinava, we find the remmants of Medieval farms and mines beneath them.

As warm as the MWP was, it was nothing compared to warming events such as the Bolling Interstadial, some 15K years ago or the Atlantic Postglacial Period.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
He said it better than I did below....


RE: Happer != Expert
By ddarko on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 7:05:18 PM , Rating: 5
the old adage '73 percent of stats are made up. including this one.' couldnt be more apt. global warming is as much about stat and counter stat as about good science these days. the truth is that as a race, we still know crap all about this planet, let alone it's quirks and cycles over millenia.

i dare say by the time we have proven absolutely conclusively the matter one way or the other, the planet will either gone up in smoke, or we will have the technology to correct it all anyway! lol


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By Dharl on 12/24/2008 12:15:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Climate science really isn't about misrepresenting statistics.


You're absolutely right! It's about money . Climate Change aka. Global Warming/Cooling has been nothing more than the "bailout" of the scientific community for decades. I remember when I was younger being told the next Ice Age was coming. Flash forward 15 years and you start hearing the exact opposite. How the world's sea levels are going to rise.

Now it's even worse with the Climate Change crap, heck they had to change the name not for science but for PR.

First off let's use some common sense. You have governments, colleges, and others willing to give out millions upon millions in grants to the study of Global Warming. There are plenty of greedy scientists, on both sides of the issue, willing to hold out their hands to that kind of cash for their research. Oh, and if it helps them live out an elabortate lifestyle then so be it...

Second, any scientist, or an individual with common sense, who tries to discredit Global Warming is going to have one heck of an uphill battle on their hands. For every one "Cherry Picked" source that can be provided, there are ten opposing Global Warming related views out there. They aren't "Cherry Picked" their called the minority or less vocal.


RE: Happer != Expert
By bfonnes on 1/19/2009 11:27:22 PM , Rating: 1
If I recall, before masher2 started his blog for DailyTech and sold out in the name of psuedoscience, he was a little snooty, but now he has shown his true colors.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ttowntom on 12/24/2008 8:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
NOAA and the IPCC won't touch that data
If you look on their website, you'll see that NOAA scientists use the SSMI data in much of their research.


RE: Happer != Expert
By rbuszka on 12/31/2008 2:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
Could I not as easily say that scientists who suggest man-made global warming as the cause for recent rises in global temperatures are more concerned about their own recognition than about "good science"?


RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 6:07:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Nice cherry picking there.one shows statistically significant warming (that's the one you ignored), and the other shows statistically insignificant warming
Nice attempt to spread FUD, but the dataset he linked was the RSS satellite data, not the UAH/Christy dataset referring to in your Youtube post.

And by the way, your video is old. As of now, none of the satellite datasets show ANY statistical warming over the last 12 years or so.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:13:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Then surely you are aware that the UAH and RSS data suffer from similar uncertainties
A land dataset like NASA's GISS suffers from much larger uncertainties. Urban heat island, temperature stations that get closed, moved, put next to heat sources, measured at different times of day, a hundred other things. Even something so simple as a different kind of paint on the Stevenson Screen around the thermometer can make difference of a couple degrees. And to top it all off, places like NASA's GISS apply their secret sauce of hundreds of thousands of "corrections" that make older years cooler, and recent years warmer.

But the most inconvenient fact of all is that even the land temperature sets show cooling now. They only show it going back a few years instead of ten or more, but they still show it. But don't worry. As soon as James Hansen (the global warming fanatic who runs NASA's GISS) has a little more time to "correct" his data, he'll be showing warming again.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:42:37 PM , Rating: 3
Great, Tropospheric Temperature Readings. Unfortunately however, we live on the ground, and those are the numbers which are important to our lives. Also, if we are cooling since 2000, how are all the top 10 of Earth's warmest years since 1997??

EARTH'S TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS

1- 2005
2 - 1998
3 - 2002
4- 2003
5 - 2007
6 - 2006
7 - 2004
8 - 2001
9 - 1997
10-1999

(Since 1880)
(Source: National Climatic Data Center)


RE: Happer != Expert
By Duwelon on 12/23/2008 6:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
My great great great great great great great great grandfather's high altitude jet plane has proven that your numbers a lie.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By Duwelon on 12/23/2008 9:32:00 PM , Rating: 3
Oh get off of your cross.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 9:35:04 PM , Rating: 1
Little difficult to "lie" with raw and accurate data. The top ten globally warmest years since 1880 is just that, no debate about them.


RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:25:03 PM , Rating: 5
The NCDC data is far from "raw and accurate". It's a massaged dataset that contains hundreds of thousands of various corrections, adjustments, and fudge factors. It also is measured by stations that 50 or 100 years ago, were in open fields. Today, they're next to parking lots, a/c heat exhausts, even barbecue grills. Here's one example.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/how_not_t...

The Surface Stations project has looked at hundreds of these stations. Almost half of them have serious problems like this.

BTW when one looks at those few temperature stations that are still in rural areas, they show little or no warming trend.


RE: Happer != Expert
By King of All Cynics on 12/24/2008 4:12:20 PM , Rating: 5
Two questions come to mind: What were the 10 coldest years on record, and is the last 128 years of climate records truly representative of the Earth's entire billion year history of climate?

IMHO, the title "EARTH'S TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS" is a tad bit myopic in its scope.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gary Right On on 12/27/2008 1:26:55 PM , Rating: 3
You forgot to mention that these are the Earth's Top Ten Warmest years that you know about.

EARTH'S TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS

1- 2005
2 - 1998
3 - 2002
4- 2003
5 - 2007
6 - 2006
7 - 2004
8 - 2001
9 - 1997
10-1999


RE: Happer != Expert
By Finn Maccool on 12/27/2008 5:04:01 PM , Rating: 3
No they're not the 10 warmest years on Earth. Good temperature records go back less than 150 years. That's right when we came out of the little ice age, so its not surprising to see temps going up.

Besides we know from ice cores and other records that temperatures were a lot hotter at various times in the past. When computer models can tell us exactly why those times were hotter, maybe we can trust them to explain whats happening today.


RE: Happer != Expert
By bfonnes on 1/19/2009 11:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
so, let's do Jurrasic Park and revive the dinosaurs... Maybe they can tell us something...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/29/2008 10:18:11 AM , Rating: 1
I didn't forget to mention anything. Right at the bottom I posted the source and time range, since 1880.

Oddly enough, 2008 is going to take the #10 spot on that list. Where are those people saying "the past century of global warming was wiped out in the past 2 years alone" now??


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
I should add that your statement about the so-called Medieval warm period is also incorrect. This notion has been thoroughly debunked in the literature. See, e.g., http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medie...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:46:57 PM , Rating: 1
And two more graphs to show the same thing, as if one isn't enough:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Y...

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bb/1000_Y...

Nah, we aren't warmer now...... LOL


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 5:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
I would say the NOAA's website is a more accurate source than some "global warming art" site. LOL!


RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/23/2008 8:25:09 PM , Rating: 1
Look at all that ice going down, oops we forgot to include Anartica. Oh well it just one small tiny piece of ice, it won't matter. Plus, it wouldn't get me more funding to show the total going up. If NOAA is publishing graphs that leave out Anartica then it is intentionally skewing data Which frankly, means I need to look at all their data with a skeptical eye. Note: one graph only goes to 2000 and therefore is irrelevant to the last 9 years conversation. If you take the high point as your starting point then the graphs do show cooling in the last 9 years. This is correct but if you take one year later it is a warming trend. All depends on the dataset you choose.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 8:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Learn to read. The first ice graph does go past 2000, it is just not marked on the scale of 10 year increments since we have not yet reached 2010. Doh! Also, the second graph shows all the way to 2007 specifically. Antarctica was left off because it shows no statistical trend either way.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 5:52:10 PM , Rating: 4
Learn to read. I said one graph. Not graph one. Showing no statistical trend either way is significant. Leaving out Antartic is still intentionally leaving out relevant data. Or as you would say cherry picking the results that correlate to the conclusion you desire to show. Rightly is was mentioned that picking one graph thats shows no change was wrong when another shows rising temps. Failing to leave out the largest ice mass on the planet is also wrong. Even if it shows no change.


RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:36:25 PM , Rating: 5
The problem with trying to prove GW by saying "Look! The ice is melting!" is that polar ice STARTED melting when the (last) ice age ended. Just because it hasn't stopped in the last 100 years proves nothing at all.


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/26/2008 6:20:10 PM , Rating: 5
> "And NOAA's data says the exact same thing:"

Did you even look at the graphs to which you linked? The NOAA charts bear out my claim. For instance:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming...

Clearly shows little to no trend in the troposphere (where AGW predicts the most warming should appear) since 1995 and a slight cooling trend since 1998. Even the surface record shows a cooling trend there, albeit of shorter duration.

You may be referring to this graph:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming...

However, you've likely failed to notice the data there ends in 2006, and the blue trend line is a decadal average anyway. If you look at the discrete measurements themselves, you'll see the same signal.

Of course, the signal over the entire scale of ~150 years is still warming. But starting the scale at 1860 can be quite misleading. Looking back to the 13th century, the picture becomes considerably different -- and a good bit less frightening:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2102/39126595uk...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/29/2008 10:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
Claim for what? Both temperatures for the troposphere show a clear positive trend to anyone who passed 5th grade math.

And yes, the data ends in 2006. So what? The trend is still there, and 2007 and 2008 do not bring the graph down. The 5-10 year average is what shows the trend. Discrete data points are worthless. But if you really want to include them, both 2007 and 2008 are still in the top 10 warmest years on record.

Also, did you fail to notice your saving graph only goes through 1977??


RE: Happer != Expert
By omnicronx on 12/23/2008 7:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig61...

Look at 1000-1200, there definitively some big spikes there.

quote:
This notion has been thoroughly debunked in the literature.
Lets stop right there, Europe is not the world. Literature proves nothing, unless you have sources from all around the world, which most definitively does not exist. North America was not even discovered until the end of the Middle ages.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 8:05:33 PM , Rating: 1
We have reconstructed temperature data from all over the world. That is how we have temperature data going back millions of years.


RE: Happer != Expert
By pomaikai on 12/24/2008 2:53:29 AM , Rating: 3
reconstructed based off of calculations using a theory that could be incorrect? I am waiting for the "oh crap" moment where they realize they forgot one important piece that causes them to throw everything out the window and start all over.

I am not disputing any data that has been collected, but I dont believe for one second that they can accuratley predict what the weather was 150,000 years ago with any accuracy other than "it was cold" or "it was hot". All we can do is take pieces of what we learned and try to fill in the blanks. Thats like filling in a crossword puzzle without all the clues, sure you could make words fit and finish the puzzle, but whos to say it is the correct words without all the clues.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 3:01:27 AM , Rating: 2
We are discussing the so-called medieval warm period -- a broad, long-term trend in average european temperatures in the middle ages, not the weather on Sunday, March 27th, 1334 AD. Nobody stated or implied that we knew the precise weather (although, FWIW we do have some knowledge of that because monks tended to record such things). I'm not sure what you're claiming, but there isn't really any connection between the first and second paragraph of your post.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/27/2008 1:03:22 AM , Rating: 2
doesn't matter. Proxies have much less resolution than direct observation of course. Reconstruction by proxy is not that good considering data-point smearing and the simple averaging process of proxies.


RE: Happer != Expert
By sviola on 12/24/2008 6:50:49 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, you are wrong. Norses were in America in the 10th Century. They colonized Greenland for 500 years (and it still belongs to Denmark). And Leif Ericson settled a colony in Newfoundland in the year 1001.


RE: Happer != Expert
By texasredbud on 12/24/2008 10:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
So the MWP is cooler than the climate today, but it was still a period of significant warming. Do we know why the climate warmed up during that period? If one looks back over time, there have been significant fluctuations in climate that were 'natural' (not caused by human creation of CO2). How do we possible know that the current warm period is not a natural variation? It would appear that the MWP was natural, so why not this warm period?


RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 5:56:10 PM , Rating: 3
So please explain the farms under the glaciers. The link does not explain the emperical evidence. You link to a computer generated "reconstruction". While ignoring the emperical evidence that it was warmer.
"In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years." "It appears" is hardly a conclusive statement. And hardly "thoroughly bebunked" his statement. Not to mention it is from the IPCC not NOAA. I keep seeing graphs of shrinking glaciers as proof of global warming. Yet, evidence of a smaller glaciers in the past is irrelevant. Which is it? Are shrinking glaciers a sign of global temps or not?


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/26/2008 6:28:42 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So please explain the farms under the glaciers. The link does not explain the emperical evidence. You link to a computer generated "reconstruction". While ignoring the emperical evidence that it was warmer.
There's more than empirical evidence that the MWP was warmer than today. Quite a few research papers indicate such. Here's one example:

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3...

Here's another that indicates not only was the MWP warmer than today, but that the Roman Warm Period (before the Dark Ages) was even warmer still:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/284...


RE: Happer != Expert
By BreathingCausesGW on 12/24/2008 10:25:00 AM , Rating: 3
your chart is horribly skewed.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/globa...

"The past 9 years have been the warmest on record since 1880"
-pretty sure the 10 warmest years in descending order are: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.
IBD recently quoted these numbers as well.
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=31458...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/2008 10:38:43 AM , Rating: 1
My chart is based off raw data, and is quite correct. You however quote the temperatures for just Greenland (which is NOT the world), and quote an editorial (not a scientific source, which also lists no references for it's data), which does not even list correct data itself.

My data is straight from legit sources, where is your made up data from?? Someone who doesn't even know the difference between weather and climate??


RE: Happer != Expert
By BreathingCausesGW on 12/24/2008 12:18:21 PM , Rating: 3
your are correct that the chart is of Greenland and not Global. My point was more that the time period used in the chart is a more accurate depiction of long term trends than using only data from 1880-present. Can you show me a chart of global climate trends over the same time period found in the chart i posted? I've actually found that to be harder to locate than you would think.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/2008 1:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I can show you long term charts. In fact I can go back even further to show that we are at or near a temperature high point, and at or nearing an ice low point.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8...

But the last 2000 years shows it perhaps the best
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/27/2008 1:10:50 AM , Rating: 3
Wow I din't know thermometers were 2000 years old. (Wasn't it 1724 or something)

Proxies are no substitute for direct observation. Considering the error bands on observable data, and all the issues of land use changing, proxy reconstructions are much much worse.
All you have proven is that you can google. Tell me in your school did they teach you that a value such as delta 1.26C +/- 3C was pointless or not?


RE: Happer != Expert
By Finn Maccool on 12/27/2008 5:07:04 PM , Rating: 5
Marduke, quoting Wikipedia for accuracy is like kissing your sister for a hardon. Especially on any politically correct topic like global warming. Newspapers have run stories about the hordes of fruitcake enviros that infest Wikipedia and how they slant every story.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/29/2008 10:20:06 AM , Rating: 1
Ok, so what do you have to say about the NOAA graphs that show the identical information?? I have posted several of them here.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ddarko on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Andy35W on 12/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By BreathingCausesGW on 12/24/2008 10:42:56 AM , Rating: 4
what??? did you even look at the chart you posted? you see that spike between months 228-240? That would be the year 1998. please show me how you can draw ANY sort of upward sloping trend line from 1998 to present. (and please refrain from getting in to semantics about that period being 10 years instead of 9.)


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 6:53:28 PM , Rating: 1
First, you call him dumb because he comments that the chart shows exactly what he says it does. The comments are about 1998 to present so you post a comment about 1880 to 1997? And you call him dumb? Your wiki chart shows exactly what he said. To be frank picking from 1998 to present to base a trend on is misleading because you are starting at a spike. Quit the name calling and instead reply from 1999 to present is cleary a rising trend. Or point out that yes that is true the TREND is decreasing but that the average of those ten years is still higher then the average of any ten years since 1880. Ten years is not going to make or break global warming. The trend is rising temps over the last century+. The question is it man caused or natural variation.
Can someone please explain to me how in your first chart el nino/nina changes the global temps? Global temp is supposed to be an average heat i.e. energy. How does a wind moving the energy from one location to another change the amount of energy in the system. Unless, I am mistaken the energy is neither created nor destroyed.


RE: Happer != Expert
By retrospooty on 12/24/2008 8:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
"Over a 9 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 100 year period, the earth is warming.
Over a 1500 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 13,000 year period, the earth is warming."

Well said. Thats probably the most simple concise example that I have seen... In other words, dont panic... The Earth is gonna do what its gonna do. We evolved to teh point we are, because we are smart and able to adapt to a changing environment.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By retrospooty on 12/24/2008 8:48:01 PM , Rating: 4
Wrong how? The point is that the Earth goes through these phases, warmer is not going to kill us. You think the earth was warmer 15000 years ago? It was in an Ice age. Its been in and out of them again and again for the past several million years...


RE: Happer != Expert
By TETRONG on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By rcc on 12/24/2008 5:07:12 PM , Rating: 3
lol, what happened? You find out you are getting a lump of coal tomorrow?

It's fine to disagree with someone, encouraged even. But the personal attacks are just juvenile.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 3:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global warming does not mean "colder winters".


It does for high latitudes. A.K.A. much of the Northern Hemisphere. Global warming screws up the ocean currents which bring warm equatorial waters to high latitude areas, meaning those areas are no longer warmed, and they get.... you ready for this.... colder!!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 3:39:42 PM , Rating: 1
Last I checked temperature is far from the only controlling factor involved in currents, so this seems a bit silly to say with such certainty, this is of course unless you think "global warming" affects planet rotation and moon gravitational forces.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 3:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, the warmer temps melt the ice, which dumps fresh water into the ocean, which screws up the currents. It will get colder, the ice will return, and we'll be in for another VERY cold period.


RE: Happer != Expert
By porkpie on 12/23/2008 3:59:15 PM , Rating: 5
So if it gets warmer, you can blame global warming. And if it gets colder, you can blame global warming also.

Cool, we can't possibly be proven wrong!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By jimbojimbo on 12/24/2008 12:16:10 PM , Rating: 5
Don't you know? People are more powerful than the sun!! We completely control our environment and the sun has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. Yep, nothing.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Regs on 12/29/2008 3:01:25 PM , Rating: 5
My flatulence has flared up every 11 years causing a 1.3 W/m2 variance in solar output.

In all due respect to the discussion at hand, everything we have referenced come from poorly developed models. There is still much to discover of what actually causes climate change.

It's human instinct to demonize and manifest an evil to something we do not fully comprehend. In this case it's our neighbors.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that short-term variability (particularly increases in variability) isn't inconsistent with the predicted changes. Nobody but CNN and FOX actually use these seasonal weather events as evidence in support of or opposition to the scientific viewpoint. Find me a paper that says 'Winter 2008 is cold --> global warming', or even 'july 2008 was hot --> global warming.' None of the scientists do that, only the politicians and journalists.