Why is Climatology 101 eliminated from the Global Warming Debate?

Question

Facts:

Man-made pollution cannot take the blame for Global Warming just due to the fact that the warmest period in history, called the Holocene Maximum occurred between 7,500 and 4,000 years ago.

Anthropogenic or man-made CO2 accounts for 0.117%, while other greenhouse gases that are man-made represent 0.163%. This makes the total effect of the industrialization of man on greenhouse gases about 0.28%, or a little more than one quarter of one percent.

We are in a 'Minor Interglacial Period' that will be ending once global warming ends. The last warming trend was 125,000 years ago, (the Eemian Interglacial Period,) which was much shorter that this one.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, leading climate and atmospheric expert from MIT said, "In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."

Answer 1

Why is Logic 101 eliminated from the Global Warming Debate?

Lightening can cause forest fires.

Humans can cause forest fires.

2 completely different things can produce the same effect at different times or in different locations.  So unless you have evidence that the same cause of the Holocene Maximum is now occurring (good luck), your logic is flawed.

It's not the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that matters, it's the effectiveness.  Oxygen and Nitrogen (approximately 99% of the atmosphere) have no warming effect.  Water vapor and CO2 (though both a small percentage of the atmosphere) have a large warming effect (the difference between life and a frozen wasteland).  CO2 (which humans have increased by 30%) is responsible for between 9 & 26% of the entire greenhouse effect.

MIT has more than one "leading climate and atmospheric expert" and Dr. Lindzen is not considered nearly as infallible by other MIT climate scientists as you seem to think.

Answer 2

I wonder why the laws of thermodynanics are removed from the debate.  I have searched for the laws on yahoo, and returned very little.  

Will global warming increase water vapor?

Is water vapor a positive or negative feedback?

If water vapor is increased, won't the internal energy of the earth (or work depending on were you draw your circle) do to evaporation of water and extra winds work as a negative feedback?

Answer 3

Here is a link to ALL the global warming myths!

http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global...

Answer 4

There has always been politics in science, but in global warming, there seems to be nothing but politics.  

Researchers don't seems to be interested in any facts that conflict with the prevailing politics.  The IPCC applauded tree ring data as a scientific breakthrough when they thought it could be used to support a hockey stick climate reconstruction.  When it turns out it can't suddenly it's no longer science - now only data that supports hockey sticks will be asserted as credible.

Answer 5

On the contrary, the study of atmosphere and climatology is imperative in understanding the effects of global climate change.

MIT is doing it's share to contribute to GW research:

http://web.mit.edu/cgcs/www/

Dr. LIndzen is not one of the 3 names listed on the site, so am not familiar with him.

I started researching GW by reading the book below:

http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/10365...

Then I hit the Internet and a few other books and checked out sites, links, and spent some time absorbing what I'd learned.  It was only then that I jumped back into Yahoo Answers to see how the debate was going here.  I was disappointed to see that this site is behind the curve, stuck in the stone ages, as it were.

But I heartily agree.  You must start with the study of air and paleoclimatology to understand the basics of why so many climatologists and scientists from other disciplines support the theory of global climate change.

A few more sites below for you to investigate if time permits.

Answer 6

If you truly have faith, you do not need 'climatology 101'.  The Truth of Global Warming will become manifest to you, in a way which will overwhelm you, and change your life forever.

Answer 7

I agree with you, but I also believe we should reduce pollution and conserve oil use as well for many other reasons.

For our national security, we need to reduce foreign oil usage. Reduction of any pollution, even if not life threatening,  is always good as long as it can be accomplished with reasonable effects to our lifestyle.

Answer 8

Facts:

Man can take credit for heating the atmosphere, we just couldn't see our heat contribution. Climatology 101, meteorologists, environmental sciences, environmental groups, economists, lobbyists, cities, New Orleans, California and the United Nations are all missing some critical temperature data.

Academia is an amazing thing to behold as we teach students to run the world in a sustainable manner so we don't kill our children's future. Academia assumes all professions are doing their jobs and hence the argument about Co2.

Make no mistake about it, weather is changing and the severity of it is alarming. The ramifications of global warming will affect our food and water so you can appreciate how serious the issue is.

We develop everything on the surface of the planet with the atmosphere in mind. The crappy part is that Architects, Engineers, Trades People, developers, city inspectors and the entire construction industry is designed with temperature that can't be seen. We calculate temperature considerations to 6 decimal points except the information is performed in a calculator and depending on the inputted information being correct.

Part of my education is designing buildings in a calculator based on temperature criteria passed on by meteorologists. Building Codes speak of solar radiation but qualifying solar impact wasn't done. 100% of the multi-trillion dollar construction industry is signed off as compliant, insured but never verified.

It is thought that buildings and development absorb heat from the sun and emit that heat atmospherically where greenhouse gases are trapping the heat. The science or lack of is argued because every professional assumes other professionals are doing their job. Meteorologists and climate change scientists expect the information they get is accurate.

Thermografix Consulting Corporation in Canada completed several years of research qualifying building design criteria and solar radiation interaction with buildings. The reason they did years of research on the issue was to follow buildings through several seasons and document the information.

The results of the research showed solar radiation and the same UV that burns our skin causing building exteriors to generate extreme heat the building isn't designed or insulated for. As a rule we are reacting to the heat symptoms with ozone depleting refrigerants in almost 100% of our buildings. The electrical waste is knocking California off the electrical grid and producing more emissions including mercury. Go to the link and see what academia is missing in their calculators and what Thermografix is reporting as an unprecedente environmental emergency. http://www.thermoguy.com/global warming-heatgain.html

I haven't met Dr. Lindzen but his statement is 100% correct. Al Gore brought forward the most important threat to our existence and now he is s******g science up by reporting the Co2 theory instead of just reporting the urgency as the good administrator he is. Al Gore has zero science background and has the ear of the world while experts like myself can't buy an audience. I design the world and the emissions associated with that design. I have over 20 years experience in emission production but the economists and politicians ignore the science opinions in favor of an economic policy. Trouble with that is that the policy guys don't understand the cancers, autism and h**l on earth that is coming for what we are doing.

If litigation or advocacy took over NASA while they ignored the engineers or scientists, we would not have space flight. We have weakened the professional gene pool when we need strong leadership. The bright side about the work of Thermografix is they plan for academia to have the sight of temperature they need.

Answer 9

Dr. Lindzen was talking about the language used by the energy industry and the Bush administration.

Bottom line, the argument that man cannot change his environment is post 1600's and if global warming is such a "scam" aren't we better off geopolitically and environmentally without the use of petroleum?

What do we have to lose?  If we do nothing and climate change becomes as bad or worse than predicted, then maybe the Earth can shed herself of almost 6 billion people.  

If we were totally wrong about global warming but do every thing we can to make the air is clean and the oceans acidity decline, we will be better off.

Answer 10

Very well said.  Thank you.

Answer 11

Wow, QED'ed right of the bat.

Dr Lindzen's statement was in his 1997 testimony to the Senate committee on Environment and public works, specifically on AGW.

In it's full context regarding Bert Bolin's ( former head of the IPCC) denial that he agreed with Al Gore's assessment of climate and weather.

"In saying this, Bolin parts company with normative science which recognizes the virtual impossibility of disproving unverifiable assertions and sticks to statements that are capable of ‘falsification.’ ‘Consistency,’ in this context merely means that the situation is so unclear that virtually anything will ‘be consistent.’ In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."

Why someone would have the belief or make the assertion that this was a statement made regarding an administration ( the Clinton administration was in at the time of the testimony) not seat elected, makes me wonder what kind of misinformation is being produced to promote the AGW hypothesis.

"I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

Abraham Lincoln

Answer 12

Our sun is growing! - And one day will envelop Mercury, Venus, and the Earth!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hba...

=====================================