Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:49 pm Post subject: The Global Warming Debate
from THE TECHNICIAN ONLINE
Taylor O'Quinn, Staff Writer
2012 was the hottest year recorded in the Continental U.S., and this year is expected to break more records.
Robert Bruck, professor of plant pathology, forestry, environmental science and technology, said for the first year in 34 years of teaching, he will use the word “fact” in relation to global warming.
“People need to wake up. This is not a political ploy, it is science,” Bruck said. “A global holocaust is what it will take for people to wake up after tens of thousands of people die.”
Bruck said mankind is a large contributor, if not the sole cause, for the excessive warming of the earth.
“Things are happening much faster than anyone anticipated in terms of global data analysis,” Bruck said. “It will be life-changing during the lifetimes of all of the students on campus.”
Michael Scanlan, a sophomore studying meteorology, said he too has studied a trend of rising temperatures since the industrial revolution when humans began using more fossil fuels.
Scanlan said that rising temperatures could lead to warmer oceans, creating stronger and more destructive hurricanes and a rise in sea levels. Since 1990, sea levels have been rising at about 1.8 millimeters per year, according to Scanlan.
Higher temperatures and warmer global climates will lead to longer and heavier droughts as well, something Scanlan said could affect the entire population. We could even be seeing the effects close to home, including changes at Lake Gaston and Falls Lake near Raleigh.
“Winter doesn’t seem to exist anymore,” Bruck said.
Bruck said if the current pattern continues, popular tourist areas such as Wilmington may no longer exist by the end of the century, bringing the N.C. shore near New Bern.
With more frequent and longer lasting droughts due to the rise in average temperatures, Scanlan said tourism could increase in cities and lakes as opposed to the beaches because of the heat from the sand.
Bruck’s initial interview to be a professor at N.C. State was cancelled due to two feet of snow in Raleigh. Now, 34 years later, Raleigh has seen temperatures in the 70s during mid-January.
Bruck said Chris Christie, the Republican Governor of New Jersey, was “screaming” about global climate change following Hurricane Sandy, behavior that is unusual of the party. He said that he believes it proves a widening acceptance of global warming.
“Two ex-PhD students of mine work for the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and they showed me their data,” Bruck said. “They’re scared.”
Humans are currently emitting 79 billion tons worth of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels into the atmosphere according to Bruck, something he said he believes is a significant contributor to the warming trend.
“Higher carbon dioxide levels lead to higher temperatures which lead to a warmer climate,” Bruck said.
Bruck, Scanlan and global climate scientists all agree global warming is quickly becoming a “fact” and deserves more attention.
Bruck said people need to start seriously considering alternative energy options such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass energy.
“We need to start thinking about how the future of our planet will be,” Bruck said.
Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:35 pm Post subject: Re: The Global Warming Debate
“Winter doesn’t seem to exist anymore...”.
Sure. Wait 'til next week.
It is these kinds of comments - and the likes of (upside-down!) exploding-thermometer graphics http://postimage.org/image/4c0ug3993/ (of highs, the outliers) - that stop me from considering that side of the argument. They do themselves no favors - but the media loves it.
Is the Earth warming? Maybe. Has it done that before (and has Man apparently continued to prosper, anyway)? Yes. And then it cooled.
Pardon me while I exhaust some CO2. Yawn.
Last edited by GTBecker on Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:10 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:35 am Post subject: Re: The Global Warming Debate
16th Jan 2013 at 15:32 | By Alyssa Carducci
Climate Alarmist Michael Mann Charges $10,000 Speaker Fee
Prominent global warming alarmist Michael Mann, who often asserts that scientists who are skeptical of his alarmist global warming theories are motivated by making money, charges $10,000 plus expenses for speaking fees, Media Trackers Florida has learned. The revelation about Mann’s exorbitant speaking fees comes as Mann prepares to give a global warming presentation at a taxpayer-funded Florida public college. Mann will be speaking at Valencia College Thursday, January 17, at 1:00 pm.
Mann’s agent, Jodi Solomon, said in a phone call earlier this month that Mann would charge $10,000 plus travel expenses to address a meeting of Florida air conditioning specialists.
Ironically, Mann publicly accuses scientists of making money off their skepticism of Mann’s alarmist global warming claims. For example, in a 2012 interview with Popular Science, Mann accuses scientist Steve Milloy of being a “valueless, all-purpose denier for notorious industries who need a hired gun.”
Mann presented no evidence of whether or how much money “notorious industries” allegedly give Milloy.
Mann’s speaking fees, however, call into question his motives for championing global warming alarmism. According to the American Spectator, Michael Mann research projects received nearly $6 million in grant money through the end of 2009. Public records show Mann research projects additionally received nearly $1 million since 2010.
Mann collects speaking fees in addition to his grant money. Mann is a very busy public speaker who may well be making hundreds of thousands of dollars in annual speaking fees. Mann did not return a call asking how much he is charging Valencia College for his talk or how much money he made from speaker fees in 2012.
James Adamski, who is organizing Mann’s talk at Valencia College, declined to disclose how much the college is spending on Mann’s speaker fees. Adamski confirmed in a telephone call that he worked out a financial agreement with Mann, but now claims he doesn’t know or doesn’t remember specifically what is contained in those financial agreements.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 3:46 pm Post subject: Re: The Global Warming Debate
Article by John Hayward
7/30/2012 03:04 PM
The Cult of Global Warming still has a huge amount of money and political influence, so no landmark on the steady unraveling of their con job should go unremarked. A big one arrived in the form of a study conducted by Anthony Watts and an army of volunteer assistants: the data assembled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commonly cited for years in support of the global warming scare, is wildly inaccurate. It literally doubled the amount of actual warming that took place over the past half-century.
This occurred because most of the climate stations in the United States are located within the heat envelopes of major cities. They weren’t detecting any “global warming.” They were, in essence, detecting engine heat. The readings from accurate weather stations were actually adjusted upwards to agree with the inaccurate readings.
Global-warming skeptics couldn’t be any more vindicated if the entire climate change establishment cried “Never mind!” in unison, then scurried back to their labs to conjure up a new apocalyptic man-made threat they could blame on capitalist success.
“Is this a case of deliberate fraud by Warmist scientists hell bent on keeping their funding gravy train rolling?” asks highly vindicated skeptic James Delingpole. “Well, after what we saw in Climategate anything is possible. (I mean it’s not like NOAA is run by hard-left eco activists, is it?) But I think more likely it is a case of confirmation bias. The Warmists who comprise the climate scientist establishment spend so much time communicating with other warmists and so little time paying attention to the views of dissenting scientists such as Henrik Svensmark – or Fred Singer or Richard Lindzen or indeed Anthony Watts – that it simply hasn’t occurred to them that their temperature records need adjusting downwards not upwards.”
This is not an arbitrary point of contention between academics. Billions of dollars in wealth has been destroyed in the name of global warming. Americans still live under the dominion of laws passed on the basis of junk science. A generation of children has been aggressively indoctrinated in this garbage throughout their school years. The indoctrination remains useful to the Left, because it has taught kids to view the human race as a kind of cancer, which can be controlled only by a synchronized effort between politically correct scientists and government agencies.
Delingpole facetiously cautions against triumphalism in the wake of this NOAA analysis, because it would be “plain wrong” to dance on global warming’s grave. He’s kidding, of course. In truth, it is critical to make the shame and fraud of global warming part of our common knowledge. We must carefully document how this scam was perpetrated, and remember the techniques it employed –from corrupt “hockey stick graphs” to mountains of wildly inaccurate data – so that we never fall for anything like it again. Politicized pseudo-science comes at the expense of real science, and that is an expense we can never afford.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:05 pm Post subject: Re: The Global Warming Debate
Steve, there is no point in starting the debate here. You will think I'm a scientifically-blind idiot and I'll likely have a similar impression of you if our positions would not change as a result. I have had this argument before; in fact, a partner of mine 15 years ago was instrumental in creating the notion of Carbon Credits. Shortly after, we parted company.
During that period, he and I and others presented our positions and constructively argued them. His was largely based on what he believed were legitimate studies which suggested CO2 concentration increases caused historical temperature increases. His argument tactfully changed after a realization that apparent CO2 concentration increases _followed_ temperature rises in the fossil record. CO2 concentrations did not precede temperature rise - which, of course, would be necessary if CO2 were the culprit. These data are commonly available if you'd like to research it.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 4:08 pm Post subject: Re: The Global Warming Debate
The following is a post by a guest who said to use the name Ray.
"2012 was the hottest year recorded in the Continental U.S., and this year is expected to break more records"
Before this assertion can be made globally, we have to wait and see what the effects of the record cold in Asia from Oct-Dec 2012 brings. While the U.S. set a new 'alleged' heat record, Asia has been breaking/shattering cold records. What a convenient 'inconvenient truth' to ignore in this article. Temperatures have been a steady -50C across much of Siberia and subzero temperatures are common over most of Asia for long periods of time. Mr./Dr. Robert Bruck is a professor of plant pathology, forestry, environmental science and technology, which hardly qualifies him to make statements about global warming or anything weather-related for that matter. He further proves his ignorance about the atmosphere with this statement -- “Winter doesn’t seem to exist anymore.” OH REALLY???? Try telling that one to the Russians and even the Indians and Bangladeshis who are suffering through one of the coldest winters on record!! Just because it doesn't snow 2 feet in Raleigh each winter doesn't mean that the earth is getting warmer. A 2-foot snow event is a relative rare winter phenomenon even over the far northern U.S., but is even more rare in lower latitudes like Raleigh, North Carolina for crying out loud.
Last week, Dhaka, Bangladesh -- a tropical city -- set a record low of 37F! Definitely sounds like global warming, huh? But not surprisingly, global warmists did in fact try to link the record cold in Asia, including Bangladesh, to global warming with the following flawed statements --
"Experts are blaming the cold temperatures on more intense cold fronts resulting from global warming melting polar ice." "Extreme events are on the rise throughout the world and they will continue to increase further due to global warming," said Aninun Nishat, an environment specialist.
Cold fronts do not come up into Bangladesh from the warm Bay of Bengal, and cold fronts rarely if ever come across the extremely high and formidable Himalaya Mountains. So this was an extreme cold push coming from inland Asia that forced cold air over the high mountains. THAT is/was not caused by some wimpy oceanic frontal system!
Furthermore, just to prove how disingenuous Dr. Bruck is, and how he is employing typical over-hyping and even lying tactics, check out his attached temperature graph. Notice how the 44.1F average 'high' (high when?? average high in January??) temperature in 1982 is plotted HIGHER on the graph than the 49.0F 'high' in 1962, even though 44.1 is less/lower than 49.0! Similarly, notice how the 53.9F 'high' in 1992, is also plotted higher on the graph than the 55.1F 'high' in 1972. I don't know where this guy learned his math, but 44.1 is < 49.0 and 53.9 is < 55.1 and, therefore, should plotted lower on his temperature graph. Then also notice how he exaggerates the height of the 57.1F 'high' in 2012 as compared to the other temperatures. Using his scale as a calibration, that 57.1F temperature plot would actually be closer to about 90F!
Lastly, just because the U.S. might experience record warmth does not mean the entire northern hemisphere (NH) is warming up. The U.S. lower-48 States land mass only comprises perhaps one-tenth of the total land area of the NH. The cold wave in Asia -- e.g., Russia, China, -- will contribute more to the NH temperature average than the U.S. will. Plus, the Antarctic ice cap is larger than it has ever been. NOAA recently released a somewhat disingenuous report about how 2012 was the warmest ever for the U.S....which is questionable given that we have far more reporting stations today than we did beginning back in 1880, which skews the data sampling towards the more recent (i.e., last 30 years) temperature data. In that NOAA report it was stated that "...the Arctic experienced a record-breaking ice melt season" whereas the Antarctic ice extent in the southern hemisphere (SH) was only "above average." However, the truth of the matter is that the SH ice sheet is increasing, not decreasing, and is setting records for areal size.
"Antarctic sea ice set another record..., with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year (September 12 of this leap year ). "
"NPR failed to mention anywhere in its article that Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012."
"...new data show ice mass is accumulating on the Antarctic continent as well as in the ocean surrounding Antarctica. The new data contradict an assertion by global warming alarmists that the expanding Antarctic sea ice is coming at the expense of a decline in Antarctic continental ice."
Remember, climate is an average of weather extremes across the globe, not just in the U.S. When the NH is warmer, the SH compensates by cooling. THAT is how the earth maintains a temperature balance.
Posted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:33 pm Post subject: Re: The Global Warming Debate
> ... just to prove how disingenuous Dr. Bruck is, and how he is employing typical over-hyping and even lying tactics, check out his attached temperature graph...
To be fair, that graph is likely an artifact of "... the official student newspaper of N.C. State University" staff writer Taylor O'Quinn, who published the article in The Technician Onlinehttp://www.technicianonline.com/ . Dr. Bruck has been on campus for 34 years, the article suggests, but he probably didn't do the story's artwork.
The "They’re scared" comment suggests to me that the quoted ex-students are not scientists - and nor does he expect them to be - but are the emotional products of a pseudoscience education; I do not recall reading a paper in a prestigious journal that climaxes in "I'm scared".
Perhaps the agenda at the school is not so strong on science. Indeed, the current Top Story features a Christine Grant, apparently recognized by the American Chemical Society, not for anything that deals with chemistry, but for "promoting diversity." I wonder if DuPont would hire her for that contribution to the literature. I hope not. _________________ Tom
http://18.104.22.168/amb9 Cape Coral Ambient Stereo (Birds, fish, et al)
http://22.214.171.124/amb9u Ultrasonic Stereo (Bats, bugs)
http://126.96.36.199/vhf9 All-channel Marine VHF (Boats, USCG)
http://188.8.131.52/vlf9 VLF (Lightning, spherics)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum