global warning update.

[Jackal1]

We can chart and graph this thing to death.
Like Skuzzy said..one side says "Yes it does"........the other says "No it doesn`t"
The point.it is not agreed upon by a long shot.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"According to The Leipzig Declaration, "There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. In fact, many climate specialists now agree that actual observations from weather satellites show no global warming whatsoever--in direct contradiction to computer model results." It adds, "based on all the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty actions. For this reason, we consider the drastic emission control policies likely to be endorsed by the Kyoto conference--lacking credible support from the underlying science--to be ill-advised and premature". 1 This would mean that there is a possibility that global warming could happen, but right now there is no real evidence already happening.
 
      Satellite data also undermines the theory of global warming. Most of the data suggesting that there is global warming was collected over the last 140 years from recorded temperatures. Now satellites are used to record temperatures. Satellites, which measure temperatures all over the world, they show no real trend in any direction, in fact in recent decades, they show a global cooling."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So where are there any major glaciers growing??????????????????

Hang around a few years, a few hundred years, possibly a few thousand years and see for yourself.
There has always been cycles and always will be until we find a more ingenius way to destroy ourself and the earth or at which time mother nature takes us out.
There is one thing for certain..and only one thing. No man, animal or computer can predict ,with any resemblence to accuracy , what our climate and weather is going to be on a long range, forecasted prediction. It just can`t be done due to the fact that what mother nature has in store and natural occurences can`t be factored in. As a matter of fact, the weather is not even being predicted with much accuracy on a small scale over very , very short periods of time.
I do remember times though, in days gone past, before all of the wealth of so called high tech gadgets, that local weather for short term was very, very accurate.
I think that global warming, even if it does exist, is the least of our worries. At the paths that mankind is taking in recent years, if left to continue, we will find much more neat ways to destroy ourself before anything such as thsi can take us out.
If not, like I said, such things as major volcanic eruptions and other factors that can`t be predicted accurately will probably change the whole picture.
It just can`t be predicted.......period.

[lazs2]

And... I still challenge all you chicken littles to simply tell the rest of us what you think is the things that need to be done to prevent global warming...

Simply tell us all how many days/hours/seconds these modifications to human life will spare us from the inevitable doom of global warming.

Will we extend the doomsday to 2 decades and 3 hours instead of the two decades predicted if we continue our wicked ways?

Soooo what do we have to do and how much will it help..

or more to the point... what do the rest of us have to do?

lazs

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
And... I still challenge all you chicken littles to simply tell the rest of us what you think is the things that need to be done to prevent global warming...

Lazs, you could start by reading the material to which I have provided links. There are also about 8 films on that BBC website, some of which show glaciers as they were ~30 years ago, and as they are now. One film is presented by a Swiss ski instructor, who shows photographs showing how the glaciers have melted over a period of years. Unfortunately the films on the BBC website are available only in the UK, but I'm sure there is a wealth of information in America. In fact one of the contributors to the BBC programme was Steve Pencala of Princeton University. But Lazs, you have to actually read/listen to what's being said, and give some credence to the fact that the scientists might just be right. I know how hard that is for you when it's not what you want to hear, but at least try.

[Angus]

Jeezz, Jackal.
Firstly your graph shows warming if anything, and over very short period.
Secondly it doesn't show the main mass of temperature, - the Oceans.
And this:
"So where are there any major glaciers growing??????????????????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hang around a few years, a few hundred years, possibly a few thousand years and see for yourself. "

With the same rate the N-Pole will be gone way before that. Even in my or my children's lifespan. But...alas, you couldn't point at anything growing instead of what is getting melted. So  much for that....

[lazs2]

beetle.... no one here disputes that tempreture changes happen on this globe all throughout history and the we are experiancing a global climate change.... I would go so far as to say that we have never had a minute on this planet when we were not in the process of global warming or cooling.

You have not answered the question tho..... How much of the current climate cycle is man made and.... what would you suggest we do to curtail the human contribution?

And lastly... If we follow your suggestions... how much will that effect the natural cycle of changes..

Again... what should we be doing that we are not?  

We have the most stringent pollution controls in the world here in the states....  What could we be doing differently?   How much will it slow the global warming?

and... if the earth suddenly goes into a cooling trend (as was predicted in the 70's)  should we then burn as much fossil fuel as possible to slow the trend?

can we slow global cooling too?  Do we cause that?

lazs

[Skuzzy]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It doesn't really matter if you take a say 500 year look at the carbon cycle, as all the carbon that an oak tree takes up is returned to the cycle when it burns or rots.  A pine tree only sequesters the carbon for a couple of centuries.

Carbon sequestration from the cycle happens when carboniferous stuff gets fossilized and put into the rock as coal, chalk, petroleum, and the other stuff we dig up and use.

The issue is what is the result of us taking this fossilized stuff out and put it back into the cycle.

Good point, but carbon, in of itself, is not a problem with the environment, unless there is 100% reclamation by man for use to return it to CO2.
Much of the carbon reclaimed is used in its raw form (how many tires are prodced each year?  They contain a high percentage of carbon) and not as fuel.  Plus, we have no way of reclaiming much of the carbon, right now, due to where it is located.

Or is this just one of those things we cannot figure out due to the sheer number of variables involved?

[lazs2]

If man did not exist then the forests would burn in huge forest fires and release all the fossilized carbon...  

lazs

[Angus]

lazs2:
"no one here disputes that tempreture changes happen on this globe all throughout history and the we are experiancing a global climate change"

Which is warming yes?

And yes, it is being disputed...

[lukster]

One would almost think we were discussing religion.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Jeezz, Jackal.
Firstly your graph shows warming if anything
 

No Angus, as a matter of fact, it shows a rather drastic cooling in the later part. Before that ...cyclic.
Do I put any faith in the chart? Nope.
Do I put any faith in your chart? Nope.
I can give my 3 year old grandkid a crayon and a piece of paper and she can make a graph/chart.
Give me the money some of these cats are being fed by different groups/orgs and I`ll drag up statistics, charts, predictions, etc. to make them show any damn thing they wish it to show.
One side says yea, the other nay. So called top scientists on each side.

With the same rate the N-Pole will be gone way before that. Even in my or my children's lifespan.

You shooting for the newage Notradomus position or what?
There is no way, absolutely no way that that can be accurately predicted or forecasted. Too many unknown factors. Volcanic eruptions, nuclear explosions etc.  Unknowns. Unknown and purely unpredictable by anyone or anything.

But...alas, you couldn't point at anything growing instead of what is getting melted. So  much for that....

You want picture drawings.......maybe a certified letter........past weather cycle history........or what?
Like I said..hang around for a while. The earth`s atmosphere and weather cycles have been constantly changing as far back as recorded history. Ebb/tide........I don`t see what is so difficult about that to understand. Do some research if you don`t beleive it.
Things could drasticaly change today.......tommorow......... ...next week. We could just as easily be thrown into the previous so called prediction of an Iceage. (Which some are still standing by)
As I have said, there is not but one positive you can count on. That being that nobody or nothing can predict what will happen in the future with any degree of accuracy. It just can`t be done.
If you wish to wring your hands and gnash your teeth agonizing over doomsday theories. So be it. There are more than enough out there to keep you busy. What about the acid rain doomsdayers of the past as mentioned in the cow fart post? My belief is the so called global warming theory is way down on the list of things to worry about.
Asteroids on the way to collide with earth..............the sun is exploding......the moon is leaving orbit.........space aliens are going to invade and use us for a food source....................... ........................
OH my! I can`t take it! I`m getting my tinfoil hat now! You can find me under the bed waiting for ............................. ..well maybe not........think I`ll grab a cold one and enjoy life. It`s too short anyway.

[Shuckins]

Lukster's graph showing the Vostok Ice Core Temperature Differences over the last 200,000 years point out a couple of interesting facts.

The graphs show two large spikes in temperatures marking the end of two ice ages.  The heat spike shown at approximately the 140,000 year mark is FAR higher than the one that ended the last ice age and ushered in the relatively warm period allowing the rise of human civilization.

Gee...I wonder how much the continental glaciers receded during that spike at the 140,000 year mark.  Do ya think the level of recession could POSSIBLY match the rate of melt currently being blamed on human environmental impact?  

More importantly...what did our ancient ancestors do to cause that previous global spike in temperatures?

[Angus]

The earth HAS gone through a lot of changes. Hit by meteors. Iceages. Polar rolls. Swift warmings. No debate.
FUY Jackal, the Iced areas on the North has been charted quite a lot for obvious reasons....transport. Look at the decline since 1979!!! The thing has been there for 50 million years, and it schrunk that much since 1979.
Now give some crayons to yer kid

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
beetle.... no one here disputes that tempreture changes happen on this globe all throughout history and the we are experiancing a global climate change.... I would go so far as to say that we have never had a minute on this planet when we were not in the process of global warming or cooling.

You have not answered the question tho..... How much of the current climate cycle is man made and.... what would you suggest we do to curtail the human contribution?

And lastly... If we follow your suggestions... how much will that effect the natural cycle of changes..

Again... what should we be doing that we are not?    

Oh come on, Lazs! Don't make me type it all out yet again!! I've told you before. Yes I know that the earth's temperature has fluctuated over the millennia. I have already told you that one way to reduce global warming would be to crank up the nuclear programme. Granted, it's not cheap and there's the problem of nuclear waste products, but Finland is doing just that - and boosting the proportion of electricity generated by nuclear power from 26% to 36%. I provided a link to the story last time, but you clearly didn't read it and I'm not going to go hunting for it all over again. I don't know what proportion of the total global warming is man-made and what is natural, but the point if irrelevant. The predictions that I have seen are based on the continued emission of man-made CO2 at the current rate, which is set to increase dramatically over the next 25 years. You're still clinging to the Category-1 counter-argument, which is to say that if there's ANY natural global warming, the entire problem can be blamed on that, and we needn't worry about the ~trillion tonnes of CO2 that man will pump into the atmosphere in the next ~40 years. Refer to my earlier posts ^^ it's all there, Lazs.

We have the most stringent pollution controls in the world here in the states....  What could we be doing differently?   How much will it slow the global warming?

Oh no, not this AGAIN! LAZS!!! Pay attention!! I've told you about five times already that your "pollution controls" do not address the problem of global warming. Your cars used to emit oxides of sulphur, carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of Nitrogen, all of which are poisonous to humans but none of which is a greenhouse gas. Your pollution controls have dealt with the direct threat to humans, and the 3-way cat on your car exhaust converts these toxins to CO2, water vapour and nitrogen - none of which is poisonous to humans, but all of which are greenhouse gases.

Now Lazs, I want you to READ this. I want you to assimilate and inwardly digest. This is absolutely the last time I'm going to type all this out for you.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
The earth HAS gone through a lot of changes. Hit by meteors. Iceages. Polar rolls. Swift warmings. No debate.
FUY Jackal, the Iced areas on the North has been charted quite a lot for obvious reasons....transport. Look at the decline since 1979!!! The thing has been there for 50 million years, and it schrunk that much since 1979.
Now give some crayons to yer kid

It`s grandkid angus.
Thanks for making my point. So the ice has shrunk........cyclic thing, huh? Earth is changing. Weather patterns are changing. Atmosphere is changing.........going through cycles ....just as it always has.
You, I or no scientists or group of scientists, no matter how much they are paid can predict with any accuracy what is going to happen. It`s just an unkown because there are too many unknowns that can`t be factored in.
One nuclear explosion, one major volcanic eruption, one collision with earth or any number of things can and very well will change the course of things. At least it has been that way in the past recorded history.
You seem hung up on the ice melting aspect . Any of the above could increase ice masses in a very short time. I`m willing to bet you would be one of the first to agonize and lament over such an event. It would do you just about as much good as lamenting, agonizing and gnashing teeth over the global warming theory.
What about an iceage? Would that suit you more....or less?

There are so many unknowns and so many things that cannot be factored in that it is impossible to say what is going to happen in the future.
For all I know, or anyone else for that matter, someone could come up with a way to manipulate weather, earth cycles, atmosphere, reduce pollution, stop wars, supply free beer......................... ......who knows/
Impossible??? That`s what they told the Wright brothers.

P.S.: Beet seems not to want to go into the ridiculousness of the contribution of cow farts to the so called global warming issue any longer. I wonder why............

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Good point, but carbon, in of itself, is not a problem with the environment, unless there is 100% reclamation by man for use to return it to CO2.
Much of the carbon reclaimed is used in its raw form (how many tires are prodced each year?  They contain a high percentage of carbon) and not as fuel.  Plus, we have no way of reclaiming much of the carbon, right now, due to where it is located.

Or is this just one of those things we cannot figure out due to the sheer number of variables involved?

Oh no... if you have a supercomputer, you put all this data in and the irrefutable truth comes out.

The latest models have anti GIGO buffer technology.