Global warming - a big, healthy dose of reality here:

[david gibson]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...k/6795858.html


this is by Dr. Neil Frank, a man well known and respected here in Houston:

Neil Frank, who holds a Ph.D. from Florida State University in meteorology, was director of the National Hurricane Center (1974–87) and chief meteorologist at KHOU (Channel 11) until his retirement in 2008.


please point this article in the direction of global warming sheep that you may know....

[Gerry Clinchy]

Was it not mentioned in some previous discussions that increases in CO2 followed warming, rather than preceding it?

If this were correct, then the CO2 increases would be an effect, rather than a cause of the warming trend. Perhaps someone recalls that discussion?

[subroc]

good article.

[dnf777]

CO2 is NOT the chief greenhouse gas. Anyone who hangs their hat on CO2 is not versed in climate change. And yes, that includes Al Gore, as well as his political opponents who use CO2 to discredit the entire scientific field. I don't think science and politics are good bedfellows, and this debate proves it.

[david gibson]

Was it not mentioned in some previous discussions that increases in CO2 followed warming, rather than preceding it?

If this were correct, then the CO2 increases would be an effect, rather than a cause of the warming trend. Perhaps someone recalls that discussion?

John Stossel pointed that out in his dissection of "Inconvenient Truth" by zooming in closer of Algores own chart.

Conveniently, Algore avoided the question then and continues to do so.

[subroc]

CO2 is NOT the chief greenhouse gas. Anyone who hangs their hat on CO2 is not versed in climate change. And yes, that includes Al Gore, as well as his political opponents who use CO2 to discredit the entire scientific field. I don't think science and politics are good bedfellows, and this debate proves it.

If not co2, what do you, as a "normal weather pattern denier" base your belief that man is the cause of global warming?

[Richard Halstead]

Why is it the main proponent for global warming is the same person giving talks about the effects of global warming. Meanwhile his networth has incrased by millions. Maybe if he dld the lectures pro bono he might be more believeable.

[dnf777]

If not co2, what do you, as a "normal weather pattern denier" base your belief that man is the cause of global warming?

You won't pin me down on this....I'm not a climatologist. From my reading of what I consider reliable sources, it seems that the number one contributor or greenhouse warming is water vapor. In potency, methane is near the top. CO2 has 1/4 the effectiveness as methane in trapping heat. This is a complex issue. When you look at trends, it appears undeniable that we are contributing to the warming of our planet, or else there is an unprecedented acceleration of climate change never seen before outside of catastrophic volcanic eruptions.

I do not blindly follow Al Gore. He clearly has an agenda to promote. But I also do not follow those who dismiss global warming. We should disconnect politics from the science here, and listen to what the credible scientific community has to say. Like I've said here before, following Al Gore's lead on this, is only slightly more ridiculous as totally dismissing the problem altogether.

[subroc]

...When you look at trends...

Like Mann's hockey stick? Mann's hockey stick is being discredited every day. So if you are using that as a basis, your entire frame of reference is called into question.

...it appears undeniable that we are contributing to the warming of our planet, or else there is an unprecedented acceleration of climate change never seen before outside of catastrophic volcanic eruptions...

I am not sure your "undeniable that we are contributing to the warming of our planet" is based on anything. That is like saying the sun will rise today, 114 people will be killed in car accidents, therefore, the sun rising caused the car accidents and their deaths. If there is significant debate in the scientific community on this, how do you get to your conclusion?

[dnf777]

Like Mann's hockey stick? Mann's hockey stick is being discredited every day. So if you are using that as a basis, your entire frame of reference is called into question.

Since I'm not familiar with Mann's hockey stick, I genuinely doubt I'm using it as a basis. Does he play for the Penguins?


I am not sure your "undeniable that we are contributing to the warming of our planet" is based on anything. That is like saying the sun will rise today, 114 people will be killed in car accidents, therefore, the sun rising caused the car accidents and their deaths. If there is significant debate in the scientific community on this, how do you get to your conclusion?

I completely understand the difference between correlation and causality. I also understand statistical sampling error. Thats why I cringe when I hear rednecks say things like, "dad-burn, more snow in Houston...so much for global warming!" Basically, those who have let politics could their objectivity will see only what they want to see. There's no use arguing with that mentality. And to aniticipate the flames back at me, I will say that Gore is just as blinded as the right wingers, neither of which are based on scientific review.