Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[lazs2]

angus...you need to realize that air temp could not be melting ice in the water and air temp (man made global warming) could not be affecting the oceans yet..

If the oceans are heating... it is not man made.

read moots link... you will see the computer model predictions...  you will note that while real data continues.. computer model data stops at 2001... as soon as they tweak the parameters to explain the leveling off and cooling they will publish the "predictions"

Note how well the computer model "predicted" the el nino spike in 98.. how did it do that?   that was amazing.. they did it by waiting till 2000 to predict it.. they added an el nino and got the spike..

So far.. all they can do is adjust the model to match what has already happened.

Don't believe me???  where is the computer model prediction for next month?  show me the link?  next year? the next 10 years month by month?  

You won't find it cause they won't publish it.  They simply can't predict anything because...  their are too many variables.... water vapor and clouds and aerosol effect are all huge and they admit that they know little or nothing about these things.

The average American doesn't really care... the weather is fine but it is getting on toward winter... we will be wanting a few degrees... and... wait till the socialists tell Americans they want a half a buck tax on gas to fund the evil "man made global warming"

then people will care... then the alarmists will be called to task on their junk science... probly lynch the buggers.

Truth is ... co2 is not a pollutant and a few more degrees in temp is infinitely better for us and the planet than a few less... we are fortunate to live in a period of warming instead of cooling.

No bad things have happened nor... will they with a few more degrees or a few more ppm of co2  we will simply be warmer and have more food.

lazs

[Angus]

Well, the Icecaps seem to be at historics low (since mankind), 2005 without el Nino levelled the Nino year of 1998, Sl is rising and has risen while ocean temp has gone up....what do you need?
Does atmospheric warm increase suffice to melt ice in water? Make a test, put a cube in a glass of whisky in a darkroom and wait....

Anyway, the so named countermeasures are something I see as a good thing in general.
1. Since we cannot use fossil fuels forever, not even for a fraction of the time we have been around as Homo SAPIENS, all efforts to find alternative sources of energy are a good thing.
2. Same goes to saving and increasing efficiency.
3. Pollution reducing, - well, I say yes.
4. Land management? oh my!
5. Ladies rights. see other thread

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
So, roll up sleeves and off to the job!

Be more like open your wallet and prepare to be boarded...................or simply put, bend over.

[Angus]

What fossil fuel is it that your descendants are going to buy in decades to come?
I bet that they're muttering something about them stupid ancestors while paddling their bikes 20 miles to work

(at best)

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2


Truth is ... co2 is not a pollutant and a few more degrees in temp is infinitely better for us and the planet than a few less... we are fortunate to live in a period of warming instead of cooling.

No bad things have happened nor... will they with a few more degrees or a few more ppm of co2  we will simply be warmer and have more food.

lazs

Hmmm...so there it is.  The admission it is warming from Laz.  

Now Laz... go look up orbital mechanics and cross reference it with global climate change.  You will find that our planet's orbit swings out every ten thousand or so years, ever so slightly, and the global climate cools down.
Our last ice age ended roughly 11,000 years ago... we should be sliding into a cooling period as of now, not a warming period.

Also, find me anything that says warmer=more food, on any scale.  Usable land may go up slightly, but so would aridity, which would balance it.  Also, in the oceans, warmer temperature would DECREASE productivity, as warmer water holds less oxygen.  This fact is something I know an aweful lot about.  Cold water is 1000x more productive than warm.   I would postulate that there may be a small initial rise in global productivity, then a drastic drop off as the seas lost the ability to quickly produce base organics, due to warming

[Angus]

I should be happy with a slight warming, which BTW has manifested itself within my lifespan, mainly with peaking summer temps and short winters. My country in seeing increased crops and more possibilities in the flora.
However, if you go down to the warm-temperate climates, that is not the case.
And for the productive cooler seas, - yuppy. Hard to understand maybe (we are not fishes), - but as a fisherman I will verify this. The grounds on the northern seas are rich for instance. Heck, I spent the best part of a month fishing above the polar circle, and was amazed by the catch and it's variety. Still big codfish, and a very impressive catch at great depths (we went down to 900 fathoms).
As a sidenote for you WW2 geeks, there are many wrecks in our area, and HMS HOOD was on our charts. Normally the trawlers try not to go too nearm - lots of steel down there that will shred or destroy nets, as well as active explosives.
I lates went on another ship on the southern grounds. My skipper once fished a 500 lbs aircraft bomb, which was defused and later blown up on land. Standard routine. It was some 50-60 years old, and had rolled along with the nets and catch for enough time to look polished!

[lazs2]

moray... I am well aware of that.   give it a minute fer chrisakes... the global temp has not gone up and is actually cooling for the last 7 years or so... what do you want, a huge jump?  we will go into a cooling trend and there is nothing man can do about it.

Other factors may slow or speed it up... seafloor spreading... core shifts... el nino/lanina and yes... solar activity.   it is not something that you can predict to the decade or even century.

But... what of those predictions?   look at the computer models... nothing since 2001 (those were made in 2006 after adjustments to the model) and nothing till 2050 or so... nothing for next year or the year after or the year after...  and why not?   because... it hasn't happened yet... they only predict after the event of long into the future.

every time they try to predict next year they get burned.    Easy to say why it was the way it was 10 years ago with a model.. just tweak the parameters till the data comes out matching the real numbers.   Try to use those parameters for next year tho and....

and angus... how much has the ocean risen?   30- feet?   the dreaded planet killing 30 feet?  or... is it the 2" that is... oddly enough.. right at the margin of error?  

So what is so bad about co2?   it has increased crop production by as much as 15%   how is that pollution?    Why is the ocean heating more than the air could possibly cause?    

lazs

[Angus]

2005 very hot. If you would add Nno on top of it, you have something quite interesting.
Ice meltings: all record breaking.
Ocean temps: warming.

Wait and see yes.

[lazs2]

who has been hurt?   food production up 15%..  the only effect of more co2 that I can see.

went to the beach... high tide water mark was the same as it was 100 years ago... if the the oceans were rising 2 inches... wouldn't every town at sea level be under 2 inches of water?   wouldn't all of the 2 inch tall people who are too dumb to take a step back be drowned already?

If we are supposed to be in an ice age by now... shouldn't we be thanking every industrial nation on earth for keeping us out of it?

and.. what does it matter?  it is not too hot now... could even be hotter and things would be better..  and.. since man controls the climate of the planet...

if it gets too hot... we will simply increase the aerosol effect and cool it down.

Why all the panic?

lazs

[Angus]

You have been claiming that we do not affect and have not the power for warming the atmosphere. Now you take for granted that we can cool it down just like that?
It has taken us hundreds of year to enter the debateable man-made warming. You don't just switch off like that...


Your tidemarks will not tell you much. Well the tide is not as visible in all the world, - where the difference is very big, you will see this earlier.
Anyway, bottom line is that Sl has gone up. In some places it is more evident than others.

As for the Ice age, - well it didn't kill mankind, but you would not live on Venus....

[Mister Fork]

How hot will it be next week?  What? Can't tell within 90% accuracy yet you claim that our temperature will rise a couple of degrees within the next 50 years? Where can I get that computer model? I want to go fishing next week damit!

Angus - I'm a member of the green party. I'm greener than most tree huggers yet I've come to the realization that most 'green organizations' promoting this global warming crap are just after our money.  That graph you posted -ummm... how accurate was our temperature recording back 150 years ago? Couple of degrees off perhaps? (almost a certainty)

The green party is split between chasing CO2 vs the unsustainable mass consumption of our natural resources.  If it was up to me, I'd be after the consumption because China and India are adding just as many people to the middle class (the biggest consumers) each year than the entire middle class populations of Canada and the USA (Canada has one of the worlds largest middle class).  Think our garbage problems are big? Imagine their waste of products and resources in 20-30 years!

Being concerned for our environment  does not mean chasing down CO2 (correlation) versus the unsustainable destruction of our planets natural resources and wildlife habitat (causation).  I can prove the destruction within 99.9999% accuracy. With CO2, it's easily discounted, smashable, and deniable.  Even the Kyoto accord is nothing more than a aid package for poor nations wrapped up in CO2 credits.

Perhaps this whole correlation CO2 stuff is the tail wagging the dog. It's not what we really want as green-minded environmentalists.  

Anyway Angus - your intentions are valid vet the data is too easily disproved.  I think perhaps if we could move away from CO2 and onto more sustainable resource management, efficient and effective recycling programs, and hold companies that have a negative environmental footprint accountable with taxes and incentives to clean up is the way to go.

[Getback]

I'm willing to bet that no one can agree on what the middle class is alone the temperature and man created the middle class.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Mister Fork
Anyway Angus - your intentions are valid vet the data is too easily disproved.  I think perhaps if we could move away from CO2 and onto more sustainable resource management, efficient and effective recycling programs, and hold companies that have a negative environmental footprint accountable with taxes and incentives to clean up is the way to go.

Yea, that`s the ticket. If one scam don`t work, go for another.
Who do you think the cost of those tax dollars will be passed down to?

[Mister Fork]

Jackal1 - In the long run? Your children, your children s children, and so on.  Companies are psychopathic to begin with. So you have to:
a) hold them accountable for their environmental impacts
b) provide them incentives to clean up.  

It costs a lot of money to do so and the last thing you want them doing is just to move shop to a country where there are no environmental laws (which a lot have already done).  

Getback - I have no idea what you just said.

[Angus]

Huh?
Someone said this:
"How hot will it be next week? What? Can't tell within 90% accuracy yet you claim that our temperature will rise a couple of degrees within the next 50 years? Where can I get that computer model? I want to go fishing next week damit! "

hehe, you have to study metreology to be able to understand your...confusion.