Thread: Global Warming Science isn't Science

Global warming science isn't science...

Take a look at these two articles below:

Tuesday, 12 February, 2002, 18:23 GMT
Warming world 'means longer days'

Blink and you will miss the extra microseconds


</SPAN>By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent
Belgian scientists have identified a hitherto unsuspected benefit of global warming - more time for all of us.
They say increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere will slow the Earth's rotation.
This will make every day a little longer than it is already. But for the next century the increase will be so small that if you blink, you'll miss it.

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Warming world 'means longer days'

and....

Global warming will make Earth spin faster

• 07 April 2007
• Magazine issue

Of all the possible ways in which climate change could affect our planet, this is the most bizarre: as the oceans warm up, Earth will start rotating a wee bit faster, reducing the length of a day.
The time it takes for Earth to complete one rotation is affected by anything that changes the distribution of the planet's mass relative to its axis of rotation.

"Think of an ice skater who is spinning," says Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. "When you stretch your arms out you slow down, and when you bring your arms closer to your body you spin faster." Earth, it seems, will hug itself a little bit tighter because of global warming.

Landerer and his colleagues modelled the changes that would occur if the most realistic estimates made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - a doubling of carbon ...

Global warming will make Earth spin faster - 07 April 2007 - New Scientist Environment

Con:

A perfect example of why people don't take these so-called scientists serious.

So one group is doing models with changes in the atmosphere, and one is doing models with changes in the ocean. What's not to understand? Oh yeah, it's the fucktard reporters who know nothing about the science or how to explain it, so they quote out of context to make a story seem more interesting.

Originally Posted by TenGig

So one group is doing models with changes in the atmosphere, and one is doing models with changes in the ocean. What's not to understand? Oh yeah, it's the fucktard reporters who know nothing about the science or how to explain it, so they quote out of context to make a story seem more interesting.

Dr Olivier de Viron, told BBC News Online: "When you increase the amount of CO2, you perturb the atmosphere's dynamics, the winds and so on.
"We know that globally the wind blowing from West to East will increase, so the Earth's rotation will decrease."

Article-1 direct quote of scientist.

"Think of an ice skater who is spinning," says Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. "When you stretch your arms out you slow down, and when you bring your arms closer to your body you spin faster."

Article-2 direct quote of scientist

Con:

How is that a misinterpretation of the journalist?

Originally Posted by conservative

Global warming science isn't science...

Take a look at these two articles below:

Tuesday, 12 February, 2002, 18:23 GMT
Warming world 'means longer days'


</SPAN>By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent
Belgian scientists have identified a hitherto unsuspected benefit of global warming - more time for all of us.
They say increasing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere will slow the Earth's rotation.
This will make every day a little longer than it is already. But for the next century the increase will be so small that if you blink, you'll miss it.

BBC News | SCI/TECH | Warming world 'means longer days'

and....

Global warming will make Earth spin faster

• 07 April 2007
• Magazine issue

Of all the possible ways in which climate change could affect our planet, this is the most bizarre: as the oceans warm up, Earth will start rotating a wee bit faster, reducing the length of a day.
The time it takes for Earth to complete one rotation is affected by anything that changes the distribution of the planet's mass relative to its axis of rotation.

"Think of an ice skater who is spinning," says Felix Landerer of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany. "When you stretch your arms out you slow down, and when you bring your arms closer to your body you spin faster." Earth, it seems, will hug itself a little bit tighter because of global warming.

Landerer and his colleagues modelled the changes that would occur if the most realistic estimates made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - a doubling of carbon ...

Global warming will make Earth spin faster - 07 April 2007 - New Scientist Environment

Con:

A perfect example of why people don't take these so-called scientists serious.

And yet you believe in the Bible. Two fellas sittin' on a porch watching the full Moon rise over the mountain and one says to the other, "Which do you suppose is farther away, the Moon or Florida?" The other fella looks at him incredulously and says, "Hello? You can't SEE Florida from here!"

Originally Posted by Mare Tranquillity

And yet you believe in the Bible. Two fellas sittin' on a porch watching the full Moon rise over the mountain and one says to the other, "Which do you suppose is farther away, the Moon or Florida?" The other fella looks at him incredulously and says, "Hello? You can't SEE Florida from here!"

Funny, clever, but totally without substance for the discussion. Science, and scientists are often in error, often are motivated by money and fame and not by pure scientific honor. Global Warming is a scam.

Ah yes, the fact that we are not 100% sure of exactly how our altering the chemical makeup of the most complex planet in our solar system will turn out means we should ignore all possible discussion of it. Good idea.

Are there people still who say global warming is not happening? Where? Who?

Does your stance on AGW change the science of CO2? Forget global warming, how about everything else associated with high CO2 levels?

Originally Posted by Luigi

Ah yes, the fact that we are not 100% sure of exactly how our altering the chemical makeup of the most complex planet in our solar system will turn out means we should ignore all possible discussion of it. Good idea.

Are there people still who say global warming is not happening? Where? Who?

Does your stance on AGW change the science of CO2? Forget global warming, how about everything else associated with high CO2 levels?

Did I say we should have no discussion? It is infact the global warming fanatics who are trying to silence opposition. Professors who don't agree lose positions. Some babe at the weather channel thinks that those who don't believe as they do should lose their positions.

The common debate tactic of the global warming alarmists is to set up the strawman...Are you denying global warming? Except for a small handful of idiots...those who are agaist the alarmists are taking the position that some evidence of warming is occuring...but that the earth goes through normal warming and cooling cycles...and there is no scientific evidence proving that the current warming period is man-made. Additionally, they are not keen on the prescriptions of these fear-mongers to fix it....i.e. the USA sending large ammounts of money to developing nations...while large thirdworld polluters get a pass. It is nothing more than an international income re-distribution scam.

Originally Posted by conservative

Funny, clever, but totally without substance for the discussion. Science, and scientists are often in error, often are motivated by money and fame and not by pure scientific honor. Global Warming is a scam.

What I posted was indeed germane. The Bible which you accept is full of errors, inconsistencies, insane violence, disgusting behavior which would get a person put in jail today, but you never question it. This is the book supposedly put out by GOD, it should be perfect. But you give it a pass, you defend it's shortcomings, and you have been an apologist for Christian behavior.

Yet science, which is just men who have never claimed to be gods or infallible, is given short shrift. You demand that they be 100% accurate, they can't make mistakes, and you condemn all of them as whores sold out to special interests. Your sweeping judgments are idiotic, you haven't met all the scientists in the world and you have no proof that they have all sold out.

Global warming is happening, if you don't know that then you are not paying attention--even that twit in the White House has grudgingly admitted that it IS happening. Unless you are willing to accept the idea that ice is melting at a lower temperature than ever before, then global warming is happening. Unless there is a conspiracy of global proportions that is using trick photography to show that glaciers all over the planet are retreating, that corals are conspiring too, by dying in the warming ocieans, animals and insects are involved because they are changing their migratory habits, that the oceans are involved because they are changing their circulatory patterns, then global warming is happening.

WHY it's happening is the question.

Any scientist that demands the results of all scientific inquiry to be infallible can not be considered a scientist at all. Science is a malleable work in progress to which there are no absolutes. Claiming that any scientific finding is a certainty is an insult to all in the community. Don't get me wrong, my faith lies in the scientific method. I do not feel there is enough evidence to refute either claim as far as global warming is concerned.

I think the argument at hand is whether or not the increasing temperature of the planet, retreating glaciers, dying corals, and changing migratory patterns are caused by human interference with the environment, or as part of a natural climate change cycle. The term "global warming" itself is unspecific to this debate.

The planet on which we live does not provide a constant environment. Basing an argument for human caused global warming on the fact that it is changing is absurd. I think most can agree on the observations that you mentioned, but the evidence we need is that those observations are the effect of human civilization, or at least refute the claim that they are not part of a general warming trend that is a natural phenomenon. So YES, WHY is indeed the question...

Originally Posted by conservative

Did I say we should have no discussion? It is infact the global warming fanatics who are trying to silence opposition. Professors who don't agree lose positions. Some babe at the weather channel thinks that those who don't believe as they do should lose their positions.

The common debate tactic of the global warming alarmists is to set up the strawman...Are you denying global warming? Except for a small handful of idiots...those who are agaist the alarmists are taking the position that some evidence of warming is occuring...but that the earth goes through normal warming and cooling cycles...and there is no scientific evidence proving that the current warming period is man-made. Additionally, they are not keen on the prescriptions of these fear-mongers to fix it....i.e. the USA sending large ammounts of money to developing nations...while large thirdworld polluters get a pass. It is nothing more than an international income re-distribution scam.

There is plenty of evidence to support the Earth warming is partly our fault, there is evidence it is mainly our fault. Overwhelming, unchallenged, law-of-gravity type evidence, no. As you point out, a lot of the problems with it is differing end results using the same information. Some say the world will bake like a convection oven, some say it will bake for long enough to melt glaciers and reverse the north Atlantic current, triggering a new ice age, some say (a very few FYI) that we will grow wheat in Siberia and it will never be better.

And yes, if some moron says the Earth is not warming, the babe at the weather channel has my permission to smack him the nuts with a science book, and they should be removed from the meateorlogical society. That is akin to a history professor claiming the Earth is 6,000 years old (Sorry about that one:whistling

One thing though about your OP. You have two studies, done independently centering on different things. One found what they were studying would be effected by warming and slow the Earth. The other found what they were studying would be effected by warming by speeding up. No stiudy has been done to determine what the net result would be if you put the two phenomenom together.

I could tell you what the net effect would be, they are measuring different things, but one link is only the headlines, you have to buy the article, so it has no actual numbers.

My point being this- Did you honestly put these two headlines together without reading or understanding them, hoping to prove what idiots scientists are? Or did you see this somewhere, perhaps Orielly.net or something? I'm not being smug, Im serious because I thought at first you were just being obnoxious and intentionally not presenting the whole picture, but I've read some more of your posts and you seem to be a good guy, perhaps a bit lacking in science:whistling:, but a good guy.