Man made Global Warming

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus

Oh, and to put this straight:
"The ice melting or sluffing off can be caused by many things."
Such as who apart from...warming?

You have mentioned one yourself...deforestation. Erosion patterns changing due to many things. Population and agriculture increases and changes. Chemicals.
Changes in current. The list could go on and on.
The earth is in a constant state of change.

[Shuffler]

I suggest you look back at the US before man had moved all across the country in numbers. You actually see less trees not more. Where there were grassy plains for miles it is now striped with trees running along fences, put there by man. Gloabal warming is a hoax being pushed along by a "has been" that would otherwise not be heard of again.

Anyone see how the temperatures in the Carribean have been below normal for quite some time now.

Anyone see the poster used by the "look at me I'm fighting global warming" community where 2 polar bears are on a small ice flow..... that is what polar bears do... they swim for miles and eat food from the sea as well. Has nothing to do with "global warming". It only has to do with ignorance of the world we live in puttered along by its weak minded minions.

[Curval]

Originally posted by Jackal1
If I had wished to make a  against the UK on anything I don`t believe their would have been any question in your mind about it.  You can find many examples here on these boards .I`m not
at all PC and don`t beat around the bush. I speak my mind in clear terms that you should even be able to understand.

lol

I am well aware that it wouldn't take me more than five minutes to find a quote where you didn't clearly intend to "slam" the UK.  That is PRECISLEY why I assumed you had done so in your comment above.  You've done it before and you'll no doubt do it many more times in the future.  Your jab above was "cut and dried" when I read it...but apparently I should have known better....even though it took a full paragraph, with even an obsure quote in it, to explain why it wasn't a slam.

But, thanks for proving my point as to why I thought it was.

Anyhoo....I should also thank you for this gem:

"You have mentioned one yourself...deforestation. Erosion patterns changing due to many things. Population and agriculture increases and changes. Chemicals.
Changes in current. The list could go on and on.
The earth is in a constant state of change."

Pray tell...can you please elaborate on "due to many things" in relation to erosion patters that are causing the ice caps to melt.  I'm not a scientist and these techical terms confuse me sometimes.  

Population and agricultural increases and changes....chemicals?  These things are driven by man..no?  I mean, are you suggesting that man actually IS causing the polar caps to melt?  I'm confused, because I've read so many times that it is a natural cyclical occurance that has happened for millions of years.  Please expand on this for me.

Changes in current?  Caused by what?  Is this a natural occurence or did man do this too.  Please clarify.

The earth IS in a constant state of change...I agree with you on that.  That statement would be true with or without any global warming.

[Toad]

For those of you with enough of an open mind to read the other side of the "we're all gonna DIE!!!" global warming argument.

It has three parts,

1. Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe

2. Past predictions of “Global Weather Catastrophe” made by the environmental movement

3. What happened to the Environmental Movements “Population Bomb” crisis of the 1970’s?

and they're all interesting, at least to me.


Scientists respond to Gore’s warnings of climate catastrophe

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

[RASTER]

Certainly the debate can only increase the scientific  knowledge of our planet but for a solution we really need to take some core samples from the moon. The moon geology will tell us the same kind of information that reading a tree ring or a ice core does. The information we desperately need is to know the solar cycles and the moon will give us a good look way back into history. A manned mission is nice but I can't help wonder if a AI mission would be better science.

Mars is good science but we need to get to the moon right away and find out what the sun is doing. We can build a big umbrella at the Lagrange point if the problem is serious. If the chest beating could be put into actually doing something rather than doing the chicken little thing we might put ourselves in a better position for survival.

However, if its just science for the fun of it, I suggest screw the manned missions and build a gigantic space telescope. This would answer one of the biggest questions, whats at the end of the universe and what did the big bang look like. As you know light travels so far so fast and we can see 10 billion years of the 13 or so billion of years of existance. With a new telescope we will be able to see to the 13 billion years and further. As such we will see the creation of the universe and we could be doing that now. Why we havn't replaced Hubble is a big question when the answer is so close.

Someone cited methane as a problem. The plains which were mentioned were once covered with buffalo and farther back the earth had much larger animals. It can't be that much of a problem. However, the amount of CO2 given out in one breath from a human being is frightening. It's so much that human breath is almost toxic. I would not like to think China's answer to population density would be needed. Want to stop global warming, kill somebody is logical. In fact thats a good reason to start a war.

Stop breathing you stupid bastards, you're killing my children. "Won't somebody think of the children".
RASTER

[sgt203]

Originally posted by Curval
Jackal...have you not seen the Great Global Warming Swindle?  It is the scientific basis upon which lazs denies GW.

It's a BBC show....a UK show.

So is Benny Hill, Fawlty Towers and Monte Python and these shows are FUNNY!!!!!!!!

Of course the crys that the Sky is falling from global warming is amusing too but just not in the same vein...

[SteveBailey]

Here's the crux of it all.   I asked some of the global warming people to provide proof, any proof that global warming is caused by man... all I got were crickets.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Jackal1
You have mentioned one yourself...deforestation. Erosion patterns changing due to many things. Population and agriculture increases and changes. Chemicals.
Changes in current. The list could go on and on.
The earth is in a constant state of change.

Don't get lost here. Deforestation is IMHO one of the factor behind warming, while the warming causes the melting.
(Actually, IMHO deforestation properly calculated, probably has a bigger impact than for instance all transport CO2 emissions. That means adding up the CO2 from burning forests down which already is 30% of CO2 emissions, then calculate the effect of the ground emitting some methane while being worked and cropped untill the topsoil is milked dry, and that instead of what was before, binding of charbon. But this does have an influence on coffe, beef and tobacco prices for instance...)

[lazs2]

now see angus...  this is why you look so silly..  do you even read what you write?

If co2 is for some really strange reason...  Your's and algores idea of why you are getting some warmer temps in your area and...

If, as you and the other scientist algore say, burning forests are 30% of all co2 production...  If man accounts for only 3% of co2 production...

If we stop the burning of forests we will need to make up a co2 deficiet of double diggets... we will have to double our co2 production to simply supply the food chain!

Here is the kicker tho.. the doomsday scientists have a perfect record.   They have been right.. or even close.. exactly... 0.0000% of the time even tho they have predicted imminent global disasters dozens if not hundreds of times.

You are looking at things from a very narrow perspective.. if you were in the carribean and they told you this was man made global cooling instead of warming you would be pointing to how the temp in your area was colder and had dropped faster than at any time in history... you have a very local view of the whole thing.

ITS THE SUN STUPID

so relax... don't let the algores get you worked up... the sun will go back to less activity any time now and we will all forget this whole silly mess...

till next time... at which time you will be laughing at the kids all worked up and point back to this silly scam..

They will ignore you of course and defend the "scientists" who are making the latest doomsday predictions because....  well... young people and women love to imagine the end of the world.

gives em a reason to be depressed and wring their hands.

lazs

[lazs2]

you might recognize some of these "scientists" and if you are old enough.. their  "predictions".

Keep in mind the following past statements of the environmental movement during their current campaign against “Global Warming:”

- The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. — Reid Bryson, “Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man”, (1971) -

- This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century — Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976 -

- There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every
nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. — Newsweek, April 28, (1975) -

- This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976 -

- If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. — Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970) -

- In “The Cooling World,” April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek proclaimed that scientists are “almost unanimous” in their concern that an “ominous” cooling trend “will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century” and the world might be heading into another “little ice age.” -

lazs

[Angus]

30% of man made emissions, don't twist around, for you know perfectly well what I mean.
As for man being the cause of only 3%, please back that up, I have seen that figure nowhere. And what do the other 97% consist of?
As for this:
"If we stop the burning of forests we will need to make up a co2 deficiet of double diggets... we will have to double our co2 production to simply supply the food chain!"
Please explain. Looks like absolute rubbish to me, since :
a) Lots of forests are NOT burned down to supply the food chain
b)There are other ways to supply or improve the food chain than burning forests!
Then here:
"Here is the kicker tho.. the doomsday scientists have a perfect record. They have been right.. or even close.. exactly... 0.0000% of the time even tho they have predicted imminent global disasters dozens if not hundreds of times."
The scientists were right with many things, such as the Ozone layer. The doomsday sayers have luckily not proved right except in the "what-if" scenario, - the typical forecast from the 80's being a nuclear doomsday.
Only a part of global warming scientists are doomsday sayers, since there can be only one way to wipe out mankind through global warming, and that is if the warming enteres a vivious circle strong enough to copy Venus'es atmospherical conditions. If these theories are wrong (Which I hope they are), global warming will cause drastic changes globally, but not wipe out mankind. (Iceland might become an orchyard, while Texas will be unbearable).

Then here:
"You are looking at things from a very narrow perspective.. if you were in the carribean and they told you this was man made global cooling instead of warming you would be pointing to how the temp in your area was colder and had dropped faster than at any time in history... you have a very local view of the whole thing."

Am I? I am taking very big areas where the warming effect is detectable in a very clear way. And Antarctica is closer to your place than mine....

So, maybe it's after all, MAN, STUPID. MAybe I will be telling my grandchildren how hopeless the fight was against greed and stupitity, and how large areas of the globe became uninhabitable, and whole economies collapsed, just because no measure was taken in time.....

[cpxxx]

Actually Lazs,  laugh ye not. Maybe global cooling is what is happening only disguised by the sun's current state.

I remember years ago, an early sceptical global warming programme, the BBC again so no references. It was the programme that got me thinking rationally about global warming.

They showed that, indeed there is a rise in overall temperatures when you collate all the results of met stations for the last so many years. However, when you eliminate all the results of met stations based at airports. There was in fact global cooling. Airports, it concluded are hot places with large areas of concrete which increase the local ambient temperatures.  The results were skewed because of course there are a lot more airports around in modern times.

It occurs to me that if the premise that the sun is currently causing the warming effect is true. As soon as it reduce, we could in fact be facing an ice age!:O

Of course, for both Iceland and Ireland it is academic. According to the global warming pundits, the gulf stream which keeps both of us relatively warm, will change direction and Iceland will suddenly be well named and Ireland the new ski destination for all those Europeans looking for skiing after the Alps melt:lol

[Angus]

The Gulf stream split up last year for the first time known. And yes, without it, we'd be a tundra.
Actually, warming is belived to screw up the Gulstream (those predictions are some 10 years old, so they might be coming true) as well as causing an increase in westerly winds in our area, - that pushes drift ice to our coasts, causing cooling. This is happening, but the melting has been so fast that the drift ice is nothing but little chunks once it arrives.
As for the measurements being twisted because of the relative amounts of data gathered from the "hot" airfields, that does not explane things like melting caps, and altered habitats of plants, animals and diseases, which advance from hotter areas into what used to be colder areas.
Smoking gun + dead body = ?

[lazs2]

angus.. you said..

"It still brings up some clear stats, and some go along with many things I have been posting, such as forests being burned down being a pretty naughty thing (30% of CO2 emissions only due to forest-burndowns), etc etc"

Maybe I read you and your scientist algore wrong but you seem to be saying that 30% of Co2 is because of burning forests... I think that is wrong but...

lazs

[lazs2]

also...

Indy said...

"Mans environmental impacts locally are far worse than they are globally. We still don't even account for 3.4% of annual atmospheric co2... and co2 is a rather important trace element... if you enjoy having a food chain."

Now this does seem about right to me.

lazs