Should the global warming scientist get at least one thing right before we believe AWG?
West Nile SARS Avian Flu malaria predicted to rise because of Global Warming. These diseases were to ravage the human population starting in 2005 when millions were predicted to die in world wide pandemics
Ice caps were to completely disappear by 2010. The Antarctic Ice sheet has been growing for years, there is more ice mass on the South Pole then 15 years ago. Today Greenland and the Arctic ice is almost at 100% except for an area north of northern Europe, which is experiencing a mild winter, and the ice is thicker this year than in previous years
The thawing permafrost was to cause millions of tons of methane to enter the air
Ice melt was to cause more of the Suns energy to be absorbed by the Earth, there would be less ice to reflect the Sun's energy into space. This would cause a positive feedback that was to create a thermal run away with the climates temps
None of this ever happened. None of the scientists were able to predict the future Why should we trust them now?
2008-03-10T19:34:08Z
There were to be more and more severe Hurricanes - Again never happened.
Are they just guessing, or are they using a scientific method?
Campo2008-03-10T20:18:29Z
Favorite Answer
Alarmism is borne out of the need for the low-acheiver type scientists to get grant money so they can keep themselves employed. So they make some dire predictions, hire lobbyists, and get money to do studies. That is why politicians like Al Gore are their best friends.
The Heartland Institute are a joke they don't seem able to put forward anything that dosen't fall to pieces whether it is this list ~10% within 24 hours of its release saying they new nothing about being on the list sounds much like the Oregon Petition which used a similar tactic. This is Heartland Institute stock & trade the conference they held in New York recently claimed several hundred scientists but turned out to have only a handfull and they had been paid to attend.
You know, it struck me that rational analysis of the effects of global warming mention none of these things (at least in the time frame you claim). However, oddly, skeptics are quite fond of *saying* that rational analysis of the effects of global warming predict these things. Could you point to parts in the latest IPCC WG2 report where they make these claims? I don't think they're there, but maybe I missed those parts when I read it.
http://www.ipcc-wg2.org/
For instance, malaria is endemic to much of the globe, it was never a purely tropical disease. In contrast, Yellow and Dengue fever are tropical and are moving polewards. West Nile, SARS, and Avian Flu are emerging diseases, and especially in the case of SARS since the pathogen causing it is unknown, attributing their spread solely to climate change is ridiculous.
Hey, who was right in 1988 about what global mean temperature would do, Lindzen or Hansen?
What if you could back up your statements with links? That would be nice. I don't think you can find any scientific papers claiming the things you suggest in your question. Maybe you should pause your Y! global warming answers for a short time and read the IPCC reports instead. You may be surprised of what it says. Clue: It's not anything of the above although some of your statements may be available as possible future scenarios. If you're mixing a possible future prediction with the past you really need to take a break.
Good points, Jello. I would still like to know 1 thing. Just 1 minor thing. What is the global mean temperature? 1 simple thing that the whole global warming scare is based on. If someone would like to give me that figure, I would like to ask how that number was derived. Is it derived from actual data dating back to the 19th century? How accurate is the data from the 19th and early 20th centuries? Were temperature readings collected from around the world?
Actually, I know the answers to most of that. I don't know the global mean temperature. I do know that the only semi-accurate temperature readings through the early 20th century came from North America and Europe. If we don't have accurate temperature readings from the rest of the world, how can we compare temperatures today to temperatures 120 years ago? We can't. If we can't do that, then someone please, please, please tell me how we can draw any conclusions about warming or cooling. We can't. Even if we had worldwide readings from the 19th century, how can we say that the Earth has warmed .7 degree C when half of the readings were only accurate to 0.25 degree C? We can't.
One last thing. Even if we had an accurate global mean temperature, how do we know that it is the "normal" temperature of the Earth (if there is such a thing)? What if the "normal" temperature is 2.0 degrees C above where we are now? In other words, how do we know what the scale is?
Bonus points for anyone proposing tree rings and core samples help us in determining accurate temperature readings.