General Climate Discussion

[lazs2]

hortlund shows surface temps that are affected by the weather stations that now in urban areas... some on asphalt or near heat sources.

http://www.surfacestations.org/

Nasa satalite data for the US.. shows no real warming.   Then.. we see a chart that goes to 2004 in 200 year increments...  it doesn't show the temp going down from 98 like the some of the other charts THEY showed but that only went to 2000   as do... the computer models.. who is being dishonest?

here is the article from newsweek..

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Here is one on cooling...

http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp

"The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005."

we may be causing global cooling yet again!

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/

 
As wrag pointed out... charts can show different things.. hortlunds were pretty dishonest tho.. but.. in his defense.. that's all he could find.. for those who like charts.. here is one in a scale more easy to see (what I am saying) and more honest.. it is average global temp (if such a thing exists)

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

lazs

[lazs2]

hortlund...  I think that it would not be a good idea for us to meet in person.  I find your tantrums music to my ears here but in person... I might have to teach you some manners.

but....but we are getting off track here... how is co2 causing global warming?  man made c02 that is?    laughable... the math doesn't work... now co2 leads global warming when always...ALWAYS in the past it has led?   So it has to be something else..  the math doesn't work for co2

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

So what is it?  we have always had warm and cold cycles.. this one is no different... so what is it?   some say that now.. it is methane from cattle and their care.. the numbers do work better than the co2 ones I will admit but...

Who is willing to stop eating meat here?  hortlund?  angus?   nope... they want to restrict co2 still even tho.. they don't even care about the biggest source that is controllable..   coal fires underground.

And so what if it does get a degree warmer in a century than it would have before the INEVITABLE cooling trend?

Who here has been hurt by this decades long warming trend?   we have more food... milder winters... far more people freeze than fry every year so less people are killed by the climate.. what is so bad?

Oh but wait.. it is in the future that we will suffer... sure.. it seems fine now but just you wait!!!  wait for what?  they won't give predictions for next year.. or 5 years... every time they do they are wrong...as we all know.. they have moderated their predictions every year.

We expect a colder than "normal" winter here.   would that is was warmer.

lazs

[john9001]

Originally posted by Angus
In Greenland they didn't manage to grow anything special apart from grass in the era, but now they do cabbage, turnips and potatoes....

greenland is growing food, and this is bad how?

[MajIssue]

Originally posted by Hortlund

See previous comment about shallow end in the IQ-pool.


 

Nope, doesnt work that way. We have all the evidence we need. And by doing nothing, we are making the problem worse. You are about as smart right now as a guy sitting on the third floor of a burning building going "relax, the fire has only reached the first and second floors, I dont need to worry about burning up until it has reached this floor". Of cource, what he (you) fails to understand is that by then it is too late. [/B]

It is clear that you can't have an honest discussion without name calling and personal insults!

Like all dedicated believers of the religon of global warming you pick and choose your data and leave the rest to FAITH, Ignoring inconvenient FACTS!

The truth is that the earths climate is a self regulating system and we have little if any chance to CHANGE any of the mesoeffects that are cited by the true believers.

We have all the evidence we need... the earth is FLAT Capitan Columbus! We will not fund your dubious journey west and off the edge of the Earth.
Our best scientist conclude that there is no way that the earth can be a sphere!

Scientific consensus... P L E A S E...

BTW wouldn't you think that having an atmosphere 100 times as dense and being 40 million miles closer to the sun MIGHT be a reason why the surface temperature on venus is 285 degrees celcius?

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund...  I think that it would not be a good idea for us to meet in person.  I find your tantrums music to my ears here but in person... I might have to teach you some manners.

[/b]
You are right, If we ever met in person I might have to teach you some basic physics and chemistry...and judging by your amazing lack of intelligence, that would be a herculean task indeed..

 we have always had warm and cold cycles.. this one is no different...

Of all the retarded arguments the anti-environment crowd presents, and lets face it, they are legion, this one is the dumbest of them all. Basically they look at this graph and go "yes? that seems normal to me.."

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by MajIssue
It is clear that you can't have an honest discussion without name calling and personal insults!

[/b]
LOL, and it took you all this time to understand that? See the shallow end of the IQ-pool comment above. Read it ten times and ponder over its ramifications.

You were never looking for an "honest discussion". You came here with an agenda, and you copy/pasted some stuff from retards-r-us or wherever, and now you are here whining that you cant have a honest discussion? Priceless.

Like all dedicated believers of the religon of global warming you pick and choose your data and leave the rest to FAITH, Ignoring inconvenient FACTS!

The truth is that the earths climate is a self regulating system and we have little if any chance to CHANGE any of the mesoeffects that are cited by the true believers.

We have all the evidence we need... the earth is FLAT Capitan Columbus! We will not fund your dubious journey west and off the edge of the Earth.
Our best scientist conclude that there is no way that the earth can be a sphere!

Scientific consensus... P L E A S E...

Here we go again. Another one staring at these two charts, thinking "yes, that looks quite normal to me".





If it wasnt so tragic it would be funny. But hey, maybe you could sue your highschool teacher or something.

[MajIssue]

Originally posted by Hortlund

LOL, and it took you all this time to understand that? See the shallow end of the IQ-pool comment above. Read it ten times and ponder over its ramifications.

You were never looking for an "honest discussion". You came here with an agenda, and you copy/pasted some stuff from retards-r-us or wherever, and now you are here whining that you cant have a honest discussion? Priceless.

 

Here we go again. Another one staring at these two charts, thinking "yes, that looks quite normal to me".

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

If it wasnt so tragic it would be funny. But hey, maybe you could sue your highschool teacher or something. [/B]

 Nice... Wikipedia!!!! LMAO Go back to your 6th grade teacher and tell him or her you've failed!

[wrag]

Originally posted by Hortlund

See previous comment about shallow end in the IQ-pool.


 

Nope, doesnt work that way. We have all the evidence we need. And by doing nothing, we are making the problem worse. You are about as smart right now as a guy sitting on the third floor of a burning building going "relax, the fire has only reached the first and second floors, I dont need to worry about burning up until it has reached this floor". Of cource, what he (you) fails to understand is that by then it is too late. [/B]

Hmmm..................

I.Q. IIRC it's right around 138 here.........  (which IMHO most often don't mean squat)

Guess yours must be WAY HIGHER huh..........( should I repeat myself? or can you look within the "(" and the ")" just above)

Sadly you sound more like a fanatic then someone that can discuss something in a mature and reasonable fashion.

BTW YOUR statement  "We have all the evidence we need" is IMHO EXTREMELY inaccurate!  In the place of the we it should have said "I" >>> (as in Hortland)  has all the evidence "he" needs.  

So I'm figuring any further discussion with you Hortland is just a waste of my time.

Weeellll I Guess seeing as we are being insulting and abusive this SHOULD be politically correct????  And in keeping with the nature of what this discussion has SEEMED to become.  Let's see how does that go............... ahhhh  Think I remember it now goes like this>>>>>>>          Never try to teach a Hortland to sing, it is a waste of your time and it annoys the Hortland?

[lazs2]

hortlunds cartoon charts are no more "official" than the ones I presented...  he has no proof that any of the warming we are seeing is anything but a natural occurance..   further.. he has no math or proof that co2 could be causing any warming worth mentioning.

The margin of error is greater than the spikes his graphs show..

And.. again.. what bad things have happened?   what bad things will happen next year?  5 years from now?  how would reducing our co2 by even 30% (LOL) have anything more than at best...  a twentieth of a degree difference?  How can anyone say that we won't go into a global cooling trend long before that?

lazs

[john9001]

what is "reconstructed temperature"?

[Angus]

Possibly calibrated numbers because of urban area effect?
Bear in mind that the film, "The great global warming Swindle" does not take any numbers into account from recent years. Their graphs end some 17 years ago.
The recent numbers include sattelite data, and are about the best mankind has, while the "IDONTWANNABELIVETHATGWISHAPPE NING" camp now claims we are no more able to measure temperature.
And while you ponder on this John, also try to break the equation why a lot of carbon with little oxygen cannot make a whole lot of CarbonDioxide

[john9001]

reconstructed temperature

Abstract
Examination of large-scale millennial-long temperature reconstructions reveals a wide range of datasets and methods used for calibration. Proxy time series are commonly calibrated against overlapping instrumental records, representing different seasons, Northern Hemisphere latitudinal bands, and including or excluding sea surface temperature data. Methodological differences include, using scaling or regression, the calibration time period, and smoothing data before calibration. We find that these various approaches alone can result in differences in the reconstructed temperature amplitude of about 0.5°C. This magnitude is equivalent to the mean annual temperature change for the Northern Hemisphere reported in the last IPCC report for the 1000–1998 period. A more precise assessment of absolute reconstructed temperature amplitudes is necessary to help quantify the relative influences of forcing mechanisms in climate models.

Received 10 August 2004; accepted 8 February 2005; published 15 April 2005

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021236.shtml

[Louis XVII]

I recently watched David Attenborough's Planet Earth series (or part of it). Something I didn't realise, until DA explained it, was that algae in the oceans are responsible for generating around 70% of the oxygen found in the atmosphere.  Clearly it would be a very bad thing for CO2 emissions to be allowed to rise, unchecked, and then to expect the oceans to somehow soak it all up. That risks tampering with the earth's delicate ecosystem, and the habitat of many microorganisms responsible for sustaining all life on earth including the algae that generate 70% of the atmosphere's oxygen. Of course, not everyone here would believe Attenborough's explanation of the effect of algae on our atmosphere....  

Originally posted by wrag
you have LOST this discussion, if for no other reason then a lack of manners.

.... but he explained it in a polite tone of voice, so it must be true.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by john9001
greenland is growing food, and this is bad how?

Because the desertification of the middle latitudes is experiencing logarithmic expansion, much faster than any increase in local productivity on Greenland.  

Sorry to burst your happy bubble, john.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by Louis XVII
I recently watched David Attenborough's Planet Earth series (or part of it). Something I didn't realise, until DA explained it, was that algae in the oceans are responsible for generating around 70% of the oxygen found in the atmosphere.  Clearly it would be a very bad thing for CO2 emissions to be allowed to rise, unchecked, and then to expect the oceans to somehow soak it all up. That risks tampering with the earth's delicate ecosystem, and the habitat of many microorganisms responsible for sustaining all life on earth including the algae that generate 70% of the atmosphere's oxygen. Of course, not everyone here would believe Attenborough's explanation of the effect of algae on our atmosphere....   .... but he explained it in a polite tone of voice, so it must be true.

My GOD MAN.  Someone FINALLY gets it!  It is a fine day on this board indeed....and that is....

Exactly WHY the CO2 is an issue.... and any anthropogenic warming is secondary.  Simply put....for those that need easy understanding...

MORE CO2......EQUALS.....  Lower pH (higher acidity) in the ocean.
 (anyone that needs help with this concept, i will re-explain it if needed)

Algae... and plants in general, NOT GOOD WITH ACID.

ALGAE dies.  FOOD WEB falls apart.... and that is marine and terrestrial web, as the terrestrial web relies upon the marine environment for nutrient upsourcing.  

Louis your status of king.... intact.