I remember watching a NOVA Episode in the 70's about Global Warming/Green House Effects that actualy made some intresting predictions that have happened.

The Two that seemed to have happened I remember from the show are:

The Climate of the Northwest US would become warmer and dryer during the summer seasons, and colder and damper during the winter seasons. Mountains would lose thier permanent Glaciers in the area. (Both these have happened)

The Deep south US states (Texas was named outright) would become damper during harsher winters, with some minor cooling of the summer tempuratures. Also it would experincing seasonal below freezing temperatures in the winter, where previously these were rare occurances. (This prediction has also seem to have occured)

This was long before GW and Greenhouse Gasses had become the political issue they are these days. However i think it;s intresting that some of the predictions that climatologists made back in the 70's, have happened.

__________________
"There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives" - US Army Demolitions School

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

Odd, given your various comments on it. But, fine.

Please note that I said "public discussion." I was not referring to purely scientific discussions of specific aspects of the subject.

As I've pointed out repeatedly in other threads, public discussion of AGW isn't just the question "does CO2 affect climate?" but the extent to which it does, attempting to predict how climate will change in the future, and what we should or shouldn't do to attempt to affect the climate. Politics certainly comes through loud and clear on BAUT, and I repeat, it is impossible to exclude partisanship in any public discussion of AGW. There are biases on all sides.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Oh, spare me. You were the one who was very eager to discuss Gore instead of global warming. I discretely tried to steer the conversation away from the G-issue several times, but you insisted on coming back to it again and again.

I know where you were heading. But if scientists can discuss global warming rationally, why shouldn't the rest of us do it too -- eventually? You seem to be throwing your hands up in the air before the fat lady even begins to sing. Why?

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

This is the real difficulty in attempting to discuss the issue of global warming rationally and scientifically; there is far too much politics involved. Most of the discussion of the big bang theory, for example, is concerns academic politics rather than world politics. National policy, economic policy, and political ideology are little affected by the arguments or their outcomes. The foods I eat, the car I drive, my income and current job will not be affected whether we live in a universe created by the big bang or one that has existed forever in a steady state.

Unfortunately, answers to the questions surounding global warming stand to effect almost every aspect of our lives from how we live to what we believe to how we view our place in the system that we are a part of. With so much at stake, it is little wonder that answers are wanted quickly and that many are interested in the answers they want to believe rather than the answers that may be true.

I never cease to be amazed by the vitriolic response those two little words can evoke: "Al Gore".

Anyway, I spent considerable time browsing the online editions of the AMS publication "Journal of Climate". I found two issues (Volume 19, issues #17 and #18) that were both published in September 2006. Neither seems to have articles pertinent to Himalayan glaciers. Hmmmmmm.

So I went looking elsewhere and, lo and behold, I came up with this. A fairly recent edition of an article from "Current Science" in association with the Indian Academy of Sciences chronicling a 20% decline in glacier coverage from 1962 to 2001. Scroll down about half way down and you will see the link to the .pdf file of the article under "Research Articles".

My point has been made by others in this thread: "Do the science". Don't come waltzing in here and tell us that "so-and-so thinks that such-and-such is happening" without credible scientific evidence to make the case. End of story.

__________________
"The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest."

-Kilgore Trout

But this is exactly the point. a "20% decline in glacier coverage from 1962 to 2001." is an interesting bit of evidence, but by itself it proves nothing. It must be placed into a context and made part of a larger theory that suggests global warming. In this case, there would be questions such as:
1. Have such reductions occurred before?
2. Is there a cyclic nature?
...

Then I would like to see the evidence placed with other evidence to show a cause/effect between a variety of factors to show global warming.

The money aspect makes it suspect, not unreliable. It could be dead-on accurate, but it could also be pulp fiction designed to help remodel the author's beach house.

Similarly, the lack of an apparent money angle has little to no bearing on the authenticity or validity of information, either, not only because some interests hide their publicity and the money ties behind fronts, but also because there are kooks who're willing to put forth their version of reality for free.

In fact, while money, authenticity, and validity might have some correlation, I strongly believe that it's weak, and that the money aspect is a poor predictor of an article's authenticity or validity.

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol. A human.

Whoever says "perception is reality" is daft. It's merely an abstraction, and often not a very good one.

It proves a whole lot more than Gore's personality. This is the point.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

My comment on Gore was meant to be humorous... I did not place it forward as any sort of logical argument...

3. What are the similarities and differences between current and past reductions?

The latest IPCC working group 1 report is the biggest and most comprehensive stab at that that I've seen. Chapter 6 (pdf link) might be pertinent.

Yes... I am aware of this and I am aware of many who feel that the conclusions here are premature. I have pointed to web pages that contain names and links to work. If you aren't interested in opposing views, that's up to you.

You come up with a report and an organization that support a politically popular point of view and have no time for doubts and concerns of those who disagree... You do not so much argue the aspects of the reports as say that they are important and wise... how could they all be wrong...

If you're talking about that other thread, I read them and gave my responses there. Though if we're going to play the opposing views game, do you have any specific problems with the accounting for paleoclimatic events that's given in stuff like the IPCC report?

Yeah I got lots... but you will give me simplistic responses to those as well... you have not even acknowledged that there were no named hurricanes until somewhere in the 50's and that direct data to categorized storms from years previous to that simiply does not exist. The evidence is secondary through ships logs, the amount of damage done by the storms and other measure.

I thought we were talking about your paleoclimate links; you never posted any sources for tropical weather that I saw.

So, any problems with the answers to your questions 1 and 2 that are given Chapter 6?

And you asked for evidence showing cause/effect for a variety of factors - that's admittedly spread more thinly over the whole report (which I'll admit is going to take me a while to digest - and I'm only reading the specific bits that interest me), but they get to their conclusions on the subject in Chapter 9.

You posted a chard from NOAA that said there were more named storms now than there were 100 years ago. The data to accurately measure the intensity of a storm did not exist until sometime in the 50's. The data for hurricanes before that is based on the secondary measures I meantioned. You have not addressed this issue and how it affects the accuracy of the graph you posted.

Yeah... a lot, but I am tired of making statements and you making superficial responses that you then choose to believe rebut my comments... or (as in the case of the graph) you simply ignore my comments. I have better things to do than continue to present to someone who is not interested in listening...

I didn't really feel one was necessary. I wasn't trying to say that tropical weather has increased, just that as far as I could determine the data didn't support your claim. You responded by suggesting that the data isn't clear enough to support any claim. I took that to mean that we were in agreement on the core of the matter.

Like non-specific claims about ice ages that are provided without the support of any backup data to suggest how they might explain a non-anthropogenic cause for the current climate change? Or repeated attempts to parry requests for specific responses to counter-arguments by attacking the character of the person who asked for them?

Then how about for the sake of others who might be reading this?

I suppose this depends on how you define 'secondary'. It seems to be a bit constrained. But primary data....

Let me see... how about 'MEMORABLE GULF COAST HURRICANES OF THE 20TH CENTURY' (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/mgch.html

My God, they had barometers in 1909! Who'd a thunk it?

Also,

http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/index.html

Atlantic Tropical Storm Tracking by Year

picking a year at random

Jumping Jiminy Cricket! There were wind gauges and barometers in 1852?

__________________
The Devil offered me power. I told him I preferred aperture.