Skeptical about global warming

As our brilliant lawmakers in Washington develop plans to fix our economy and look forward to saving our planet during the upcoming legislative session, our economy continues to worsen. In the future, we will have difficulty competing in the global marketplace due to the religious group that has formed during the last two decades: the environmental movement. When it started in the late 1960s, it was necessary to correct scientifically proven environmental problems with water and air quality and hazardous waste disposal.

As a practicing environmental engineer, I think the conclusion (based on available historical climate data) that man-made activities are causing most of the climate warming that started in the mid 1800s doesn’t pass the smell test.

If the purpose of this religious group is to simply reduce carbon emissions and change our energy sources, just say so. Don’t use the global warming hysteria as a disguise for your ideology.

Bill McAllister
Liberty

Comments

[John]

TO: All those who are fully "Pro" or "Con" on Global Warming and Climate Change:

We CAN respond (respectfully) to stated facts among one another!

Personal Opinion Only People (PPOP) who without substantiated facts present totally meaningless rhetoric for argument's sake!

BTW: You can tell a PPOP-Replier by their stated hatred for some person(s) or Political Party which is included in the unsubstantiaed viewpoint of their subject matter.

You can also immediately identify these producers (PPOP's) as irrational, poorly educated, misinforned, absolutely rhetorical and intolerant to other people and the reality of the issue. They've never had ANY status in life and this is their one chance to be heard and hopefully recognized! (They already know that they wont be respected)

Quickly ask any one of them if they know anything about, "Sea-Air Action Interface Properties!" Demand an immediate reply but Don't expect it to be lucid!
John-V

[CRD]

[chuckle] I'll stick with NASA's data over your "Conservative" stuff.

[Engineer]

CRD
I have mentioned the global cooling trend several times in the past year. My main reference was an article of which I have a hard copy but which I cannot find on the net nor can I find the articles on which it was based. My source is an article by Jeff Jacoby originally printed in The Boston Globe. My copy comes from The Conservative Chronicles 1/16/08.
During my search I did come across an article that gave the following: "Just how much of the Greenhouse Effect is caused by human activity? It is about 0.28% if water vapor is taken into account-about 5.53%if not". As water vapor is there and must be considered it would appear that human activity has a negligible effect on "The Greenhouse Effect".

[CRD]

Engineer, I'll give you one more chance.

You said, and I quote:

"For the last ten or so years we have been in a cooling cycle."

Don't point us to a link that says, in essence, that if conditions change, we might have cooling.

You said that we HAVE BEEN in a cooling cycle, not that we might eventually get to one. Now, what's your data source that shows that we've been in a cooling cycle for the past 10 years?

As for your supposed link to a solar cause for the warming -- which looks like it might be a personal blog, but I can't tel -- it doesn't even work.

Try this instead:

"Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues."

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

[mianotkia]

Hey its the 27th, I know but would one of you guys send some of that "global warming" out to my house, I mean I am freezing my a$$ off!

[CRD]

[snort]

In other words, you're completely unable to back up your claims below by actual facts.

Good to see you haven't changed, Lloyd!

[Engineer]

There are two questions. !. Is Global warming occurring? 2. If occurring, what is the main cause? As to 1., it would appear that limited warming has been occurring in the last century or so. However, the hottest year on record was in 1999 and that year has not been duplicated. The warming does not appear to be uniform as apparently it was warmer in Greenland before The Little Ice Age than it is today. As to 2., the cause of all other Global Warming has been sun activity. As indicated in one of my links, many think that sun activity is the major cause of the warming experienced during the last century or so.

[jack]

The problem with the whole discussion on global warming is it can only be proven in past tense. And that will be too late to do anything about it.

So, if we develop ways to provide for ourselves while cutting down the amount of crap we put into the air, water and soil, the negative outcome would be...?

[Red Biddy]

By calling the environmental movement a religious group Bill McAllister appears to be trying to insult them.He puts belief in God and global warming in the same category of non-existence. Hum ! Must be an atheist to use such definitions.
Climate change affected by global warming is a fact. What seems to be still a bone of contention is whether human activity is the cause, or part of the cause.
some business people dont want to change their filthy habits and stop polluting the atmosphere because it might effect their bottom line.Ergo in their view
human activity is not affecting the climate.
Bill McAllister calls himself an
environmental engineer - sounds like another Joe the Plumber to me !

[Tom K]

"Global warming" is ideology, period.

[CRD]

No, no, no, Lloyd, you said, and I quote:

"For the last ten or so years we have been in a cooling cycle."

Don't point us to a link that says, in essence, that if conditions change, we might have cooling.

You said that we HAVE BEEN in a cooling cycle, not that we might eventually get to one. Now, put up or shut up, m'man.

As for your supposed link to a solar cause for the warming -- which looks like it might be a personal blog, but I can't tel -- it doesn't even work.

Try this instead:

"Some uncertainty remains about the role of natural variations in causing climate change. Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun. At most. During the initial discovery period of global warming, the magnitude of the influence of increased activity on the Sun was not well determined.

Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. Changes over longer periods must be inferred from other sources. Estimates of earlier variations are important for calibrating the climate models. While a component of recent global warming may have been caused by the increased solar activity of the last solar cycle, that component was very small compared to the effects of additional greenhouse gases. According to a NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) press release, "...the solar increases do not have the ability to cause large global temperature increases...greenhouse gases are indeed playing the dominant role..." The Sun is once again less bright as we approach solar minimum, yet global warming continues."

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

Sorry, Lloyd, but you've got to do better than that.

[Pub 17]

What we're generating is a lot of hot air here, kids. Nobody's trying to "cool the planet," the idea is to somehow return to a state of not pouring trillions of BTUs and millions of tons of CO² into the atmosphere, and letting the natural cycle of warming and cooling operate unmolested.

[Tom K]

Higher temperatures do not mean more heat. Deserts are hotter during the day and colder during the night because they lack moisture which retains heat. Sand, gravel, concrete, blacktop, rooftops, all actually reject heat from the surface of the earth by absorbing it and re-radiating it. Plants and bodies of water are cooler and actually have more heat content than hot concrete. This is simple physics.

There is no way to be sure of a warming or a cooling trend by simple temperature measurements without regards to the composition of the area, for example an airport with lots of hot tarmac.

We're a lot more likely to get in trouble by deliberately attempting to cool the planet. Reducing carbon dioxide will reduce plant cover and moisture. A concerted effort, a runaway religious crusade to cool the planet, is a lot more likely to actually cause some kind of change and we won't even be able to predict the nature of the change. At best nothing will change, things won't get worse, and the environmentalism religion will take credit for it, like praying for God not to strike us all dead this year.

[Tom K]

Mr. McAllister, I am 100 percent with you.

[Engineer]

CRD
Here's a link to an article "NASA: Solar Cycle May Cause Dangerous Global Cooling In A Few Years Time http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/nasa-solar-cycle-may-cause-dangerous-global-cooling-in-a-few-years-time/.
Therr is also the thought that the sun may have something to do with this: "The Effect Of Solar Variability On Climate: Link http://personal.enut.ft/pp/tilmari/tilmatiS.thn
"The coldest spells during this time period (1830-2003) are before 1870 both in winter and summer. The warmest summers are between 1920 and 1950. Winters are warm in 1920's and again from 1970 onwards. The temperature of summers has slightly rosen since 1970, but not yet achieved the period 1910-1950. Either of these series does not follow the rise of carbon dioxide. The period 1910-1940 is warmer than the period 1940-1980. Taking the summer temperature that period is warmer than any before that during 1830-2003."
If the links don't work just google "Climate Cold Cycle".

[CRD]

Lloyd, now, you know, either you've got the data or you don't.

Come on now -- what's the basis for your "global cooling cycle" claim?

I'll give you some data in graphical format from the NOAA to get you started. It shows our warming trend, and certainly doesn't support your bullhonkey statement about the 1930s:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif

"Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.74°C (plus or minus 0.18°C) since the late-19th century, and the linear trend for the past 50 years of 0.13°C (plus or minus 0.03°C) per decade is nearly twice that for the past 100 years. The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S. and parts of the North Atlantic) have, in fact, cooled slightly over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Lastly, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

[Pub 17]

Speaking as you are, of course, as a layman.

[Engineer]

CRD
There are climatologists on both sides of the issue. If you want your HVAC replaced, an environmental engineer would not be a good choice, any more than most of those signing documents regarding CO2 as the cause of global warming would be as climatologists. As to the current cold cycle, it has been discussed before and you can look those discussions up. We haven't had a record high for some time. And, as you know, the 1930'3 were the warmest decade in North America.

[CRD]

Ovoid: resembling an egg in shape

www.m-w.com

Last I looked, eggs are round. Ha.

I think I'll stick with the climatologists when it comes to climate change issues and call the environmental engineer when I need my HVAC replaced.

As for your "cooling cycle," words are cheap. Put up a link to a source for your contention, Lloyd.

[jack]

During the Cold War I used to say, "We aren't going to blow ourselves up, we are going to drown in our own garbage."

At the time I thought it was funny. Now it looks frightenly true.

THere are too many humans, dumping too much trash and sewage on the earth, NOT to be negatively effecting the global ecosystem.