Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Yknurd on April 11, 2007, 12:47:26 PM
-
It happens.
-
Is global warming the cause of the cold weather that won't go away? It's only 35 degrees F. here and it should be in the 50s or 60s. :furious
-
when does this global warming kick in, i'm starting to lose my tan.
-
it's too slow...
-
Originally posted by Kuhn
Is global warming the cause of the cold weather that won't go away? It's only 35 degrees F. here and it should be in the 50s or 60s. :furious
According to Jackal the ice caps melting is called "Local warming" not global warming.
Logically then what you refer to would be "Local Cooling" and proves nothing.
:)
-
anyone notice that global warming started right after the end of the 'cold war'?
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
anyone notice that global warming started right after the end of the 'cold war'?
:noid
-
Powder 's dry. Scope is sighted in. All set.
Bring it!
-
Originally posted by Curval
According to Jackal the ice caps melting is called "Local warming" not global warming.
Logically then what you refer to would be "Local Cooling" and proves nothing.
:)
:lol GOOD ONE!!
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
It happens.
Sure does. I just crop dusted two cube mates. They're both currently eating beans, I think I detect a mutiny to come soon....
-
anyone notice that global warming started happening right around grant time for all these "scientists" and... the loss of the election by algore and his being out of the spotlight?
lazs
-
ya global warming is all pollitics lol. they always mention that cars and factories are hurtin ghte ozone layer. but what about the valcanoes that have been goin on since the beggining of time? these valcanoes spew millions of chemicals into the air. but we never hear about that.
ohh and didnt in the 50s 60s and 70s complain about global cooling? not sure if this is true or not but it would make sence.
-
speaking of the ozone layer (and the hole they used to whine about all the time)
is it not possible to create ozone? (i'm being serious here)
swimming pools sometimes use an "ozonator" for water treatment
also electric motors and arc welders create it.
if we are creating it why is there a hole?
why don't we make more?
-
Lets just Nuke the Polar Ice caps to see if All Gore was right.
Just a few Nukes, not many.
We need some beachfront in Oklahoma anyways.
:D
Mac
-
Originally posted by Curval
According to Jackal the ice caps melting is called "Local warming" not global warming.
Logically then what you refer to would be "Local Cooling" and proves nothing.
:)
Since you have a little problem with understanding what is posted and and like to misquote due to you getting your wings clipped........I`ll clear it up for you.
I am actualy leaning more to the excessive cow farts theory.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Since you have a little problem with understanding what is posted and and like to misquote due to you getting your wings clipped........I`ll clear it up for you.
I am actualy leaning more to the excessive cow farts theory.
:rofl
LOL You can't answer a few questions I asked...being as you are the EXPERT...and yet you managed to "clip my wings". Hilarious. All you really did was make yourself look silly.
This is what Angus said:
"And Jackal, this is the funniest .... ever....
"The caps melting is proof of nothing in relation to global warming. Ice has been known to melt before."
So, the ice suddenly starts melting at an increased rate without it having anything to do with warming? Looks like you have to go back to physics, - 1st grade "
To which you responded (duly quoting the above with your amazing use of the quote function):
"Might not be so funny to you Angus if you would read what is written. The terms used are global warming . G L O B A L...global.
The ice melts here when we get it. It`s local warming....not global.
Once again ...ice has been known to melt. It was melting even before the flavor of the week was donned global warming."
-
Originally posted by Curval
LOL You can't answer a few questions I asked...being as you are the EXPERT...and yet you managed to "clip my wings". Hilarious. All you really did was make yourself look silly.
This is what Angus said:
"And Jackal, this is the funniest .... ever....
"The caps melting is proof of nothing in relation to global warming. Ice has been known to melt before."
So, the ice suddenly starts melting at an increased rate without it having anything to do with warming? Looks like you have to go back to physics, - 1st grade "
To which you responded (duly quoting the above with your amazing use of the quote function):
"Might not be so funny to you Angus if you would read what is written. The terms used are global warming . G L O B A L...global.
The ice melts here when we get it. It`s local warming....not global.
Once again ...ice has been known to melt. It was melting even before the flavor of the week was donned global warming."
Well Gosh..........I seem to remember that. :rofl
Most others can read the thread also.
Only difference is, most read the whole thread and can see that you started out on a little temper tantrum due to your mental hangup and complex with Laz.
Too funny.
Most here also can see that you are being viewed and treated as a child by me because that is how you have came off.
As a rule I don`t answer questions from those who haven`t answered mine to begin with. That`s a hint.
The answers to your questions are already there if you could understand them.....which I believe you do.
You are just continuing a little tirade in which you got nailed and will be treated as such by me.
Knock yourself out though. It`s hilarious.
Try holding your breath until you turn blue. Maybe that will work for ya.
..........or maybe the old kicking and screaming routine. That`l work. :aok
-
You nailed nothing.
If the answers to my questions are there please use your awesome quoting ability to show me. Fact is they are not.
-
If the total ice mass is about the same then wouldn't thinning in some places be "local"?
And what caused the global cooling from the 40's to the 70's... it was said to be man made pollution... we need to start polluting again I guess to stop the global warming cycle we are in or... we can just wait for another cooling cycle.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
Bismarck ND sees record snowfall year and ND breaks 1945 snowfall record (http://www.bismarcktribune.com/articles/2007/04/12/news/topnews/131842.txt)
Chicago breaks 1957 record (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/338364,CST-NWS-snow12.article)
Heavy crop losses in SE due to severe record-breaking winter (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070412/ap_on_bi_ge/farm_scene_2)
Spring Snowstorm blankets Mid West (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070412/D8OF2QE00.html)
-
Another Idiotic Global Warming Thread Started
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
It happens.
I knew I shouldn't have had that bean burrito.
-
Originally posted by Curval
You nailed nothing.
You are correct. I didn`t have to. You done more than a slam bang job of it all by yourself.
:D
-
When you have answers to my questions I'll be here to read them.
We both know you won't be able to though...why not just admit it?
Man-up....if you are able.
-
Only when I eat beans.
-
Jackal and Curval are so busy with their pissing contest that this thread is about to get flushed.
(http://pic4.picturetrail.com/VOL767/2726312/8668097/245282327.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Curval
When you have answers to my questions I'll be here to read them.
The answer to your questions, if I have to go into first grade mode, are right there . Have been from the start of your getting your butt in a vice.
Answer: There are no answers to the questions as of yet.
Clear enough? You have even answered it over and over and over. To the point of the Ever-Ready Bunny.........but still you claim not to "get it".
One would think that the question would be instead........Why are there no answers? Why isn`t anything that is suggested, proposed, etc. by anyone outside the loop of this fairy tale even considered or studied. Why not have the facts, instead of trying to base something on what ifs, maybes, etc.?
Hope that clears it up for you. You may now continue with your twiddling. :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The answer to your questions, if I have to go into first grade mode, are right there . Have been from the start of your getting your butt in a vice.
Answer: There are no answers to the questions as of yet.
Clear enough? You have even answered it over and over and over. To the point of the Ever-Ready Bunny.........but still you claim not to "get it".
One would think that the question would be instead........Why are there no answers? Why isn`t anything that is suggested, proposed, etc. by anyone outside the loop of this fairy tale even considered or studied. Why not have the facts, instead of trying to base something on what ifs, maybes, etc.?
Hope that clears it up for you. You may now continue with your twiddling. :)
You seem to have lost track of what you are talking about.
In the other thread Angus asked what could be causing the ice caps to melt. You gave the very scientific explanation of "many things" and provided some examples:
"Local weather pattern changes. Chemicals.....or perhaps changes in the sun, undersea volcanic actions."
I then asked for clarification here:
"LOL! Riiiight. [<- Spelling mistake done on purpose] Local weather pattern changes eh? Caused by what...PRECISLEY? Chemicals? WHICH chemicals? Changes in the sun? Can you be any more vague? Undersea volcanic "actions"? You have to do better than that man. Which undersea volcanos? Where are they, under the polar ice caps or elsewhere?"
When I pushed you for these clarifications you stated that to try and explain would be:
"equal to trying to teach a rock about gravity."
You have since steadfastly refused to elaborate, despite the implication that you do know but that I don't have the mental capacity to understand...being so rock-like and all.
Now...there are no answers.
In a round-about way though, I suppose this is your attempt to man-up and say you don't know. It's very round-about, but congrats. Wasn't too hard...was it?
-
About the Ozone produced by electricity. For some reason I am not absolutely certain, this OZone stays at ground level and sinks. It is in fact produced by electric motors. It is absolutely poisionous. Imagine 1000's of electric cars producing it on the hiways. Could be a problem in some valleys near heavy traffic. Problem can be solved but it wont be.
Could we replenish the Ozone layer. I tend to think so. It is very thin and as such a small volumn would make a difference. In Canada, "the third nation to put a satalite in orbit" we had a unique space program headed by JERRY BULL who was assasinated by Israel for selling arms to Iraq. His idea was to use a very large cannon to shoot stuff into space. His results were very impressive. With his science we could easily and economically shot ozone into the layer at almost no cost. The fact that nobody did anything only proves that nobody really cared and as such did nothing. Is the Ozone problem real, from where I sit, having lost the boys to their hands who were set to do the job, I say **** em and let em dry up in the heat.
That is unless they apologize for having done the dirty deed.
RASTER
-
Originally posted by Curval
You seem to have lost track of what you are talking about.
What, you mean there was a time when he did know what he was talking about?
:rofl
-
""we had a unique space program headed by JERRY BULL who was assasinated by Israel for selling arms to Iraq. His idea was to use a very large cannon to shoot stuff into space. ""
:noid
-
I can lead a horse to water, but I can`t hold his head under until he.................err make him drink.
:rofl
-
Try to teach a strong and stupid bull calf to drink warm milk out of a bucket then. Remeinds me of debating with you guys on these threads. Well, the bull either bends or dies :D
Anyway, the ozone layer was mentioned here, and well, measuers were taken to stop it's declination, and those seem to have worked.
It did not hit the consumers so bad, - the loadout in the spraycans are now different, and all modern cooling devices are a little different (another cooling fluid with a higher pressure, - the joke of it being that the banned Freon 12 was a superb cooling device, just a very naughty one if escaping, which it did from systems always becoming cheaper and more leaky with no penalty), - to cut a long story short:
Man realizes that some chemicals released make ozone layer smaller, ozone layer starts shrinking but there are deniers of that, ozone layer gets holes and is established beyond doubt as shrinking, countermeasures are taken, ozone layer seems to hold it's own now.
Same goes to the "cough" global warming, which is now only "local", since it's only melting ice where there is any (not to mention that ice melts from other reasons than heat, which could anyway secretly be from a newly established chain of underwater volcanoes from underneath the poles), and in other regions it could possibly be a normal fluctuation, or excess heat bouncing from the nearest runway. So, in short, your poles migh be melting, your rivers drying, your habitad filling up with bugs and weeds that once needed a warmer climate, - rest assured, it cannot be because of the atmosphere geting any warmer.
"I can lead a horse to water, but I can`t hold his head under until he.................err make him drink"
You can take the bushman from the bush, but you cannot take the bush from the bushman :D
-
@Angus; I think what most of the folks are saying is go and deal with it, make your corrections but dont step on anyones liberty. Fanaticism is not a good thing.
And if you think it is a serious problem, find out what you can do and then do the right thing. But dont cut the fun out from under yourself or the kids because of some kind of "WE THINK IT COULD BE" kind of science. Just moderate yourself a bit in the positive direction and what more does anyone need to ask of you.
The problems with air are only the beginning. This whole ecological train wreck is only going to get worse. Be advised that the water you drink is going to turn to poision very soon. If you drink anything but rain water, well dont be surpised if you grow breasts and give milk. There are so many drugs going into sewage and dumped into the rivers, lakes, streams and oceans that you are currently being treated for hundreds of diseases and dont even know it. Snort. Tee Hee Heee.
RASTER
-
Originally posted by RASTER
The problems with air are only the beginning. This whole ecological train wreck is only going to get worse. Be advised that the water you drink is going to turn to poision very soon. If you drink anything but rain water, well dont be surpised if you grow breasts and give milk. There are so many drugs going into sewage and dumped into the rivers, lakes, streams and oceans that you are currently being treated for hundreds of diseases and dont even know it. Snort. Tee Hee Heee.
RASTER
That deserves a 4 copter.
:noid :noid :noid :noid
-
Originally posted by RASTER
[B
The problems with air are only the beginning. This whole ecological train wreck is only going to get worse. Be advised that the water you drink is going to turn to poision very soon. If you drink anything but rain water, well dont be surpised if you grow breasts and give milk. There are so many drugs going into sewage and dumped into the rivers, lakes, streams and oceans that you are currently being treated for hundreds of diseases and dont even know it. Snort. Tee Hee Heee.
RASTER [/B]
hey hey , don't forget about the "chem trails".
:noid
-
well.... trace amounts of perscription drugs and cosmetics can be found in all waste water effluent.. it is a bear to remove. Probly can't be done.
There are plenty of things to worry about and no one should pollute if for the fun of it... everyone has a different idea of that tho. The people taking perscription drugs don't feel that they are polluting.. the guys using paper plates or buying disposable stuff or taking pleasure trips in jets or....
Everyone wants to save old mother earth... so long as it is the other guy that they can restrict..... They don't even mind spending 1/2 of 1% of their income on some feel good idea even if doing that comes to 20% of some poor families income... talk about your tipping point! let them eat cake huh?
There is an economic "tipping point" for many people on this planet who are close.. raise "fees" and taxes to cover "man made global warming" and plunge them into mind numbing poverty...
The other thing is... there is plenty to worry about.. our water... the coming comet... plague... it is all due.. but...
There is no money in that.. no control.. no power..
"Man made global warming" now there is a gem... a darling of the left... lots of control over everyone... those who are shunned for their socialist lefty politics are now raised up... everyone being told what to do to.... save the planet...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well.... trace amounts of perscription drugs and cosmetics can be found in all waste water effluent.. it is a bear to remove. Probly can't be done.
it,s true, traces of vitamin C have been found in orange juice.:noid
-
what? you don't believe me?
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Another Idiotic Global Warming Thread Started
Well, we need to do "something" about it. We can't afford to do nothing, and talking about it is good. That's what Al Gore does for a while now.
Sure, he won't give up his polution footprint, but he is willing to buy polution credit.
What an creative solution. Let's all pay the polution credit and problem solved.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Well, we need to do "something" about it.
Find a clean source of energy and buy a good air-conditioner.
-
mietla... I had heard that the entire US carbon footprint could be erased with a 11 billion dollar credit. All we have to do is send algore 11billion and the whole problem goes away. 11 billion is nothing.. just like man made global warming is.
No one here is willing to make any personal sacrafices but the lefties here are all willing (and eager) to see others do so. They are very eager to see people punished.
If it costs some poor peoples half their income... well.. that is tough.. if it drives these poor people to starvation and the stone age.. that is fine too.
If it were to cost them 50% of their income that would most defenitly not be fine.
That is what they don't want to talk about.. what they want us to do.
I have only heard on this board that they want us to make nuke power plants...and.. stop driving suv's... since they don't drive suv's of course.
They won't stop flying around in jets or move into a studio apartment with strangers or pay $50 a gallon for gas tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Try to teach a strong and stupid bull calf to drink warm milk out of a bucket then. Remeinds me of debating with you guys on these threads. Well, the bull either bends or dies :D
B]
Get a bucket with a nipple on it. Let the calf do what comes naturaly. Not a problem if you are smarter than the calf. :)
Raised around 200 of them in 2 years that way about 9-10 years ago. Tidy little profit considering most of the calves were gotten for free.
not to mention that ice melts from other reasons than heat, which could anyway secretly be from a newly established chain of underwater volcanoes from underneath the poles), and in other regions it could possibly be a normal fluctuation, or excess heat bouncing from the nearest runway.
As far a s I have read on the subject of the undersea volcanoes, it has not been mentioned that they were either near the poles or were newly established. Up until very recently, histroicalwise, it was not know that Yellowstone was sitting on top of a very, very large volcano.
Not much is known about them period. They have not been studied to any extent. Why? Why hasn`t anything been allowed in this little fairy tale besides what fits the AlBore bill?
Why is everything else shunned and put down when it is suggested or proposed by someone out of the AlBore loop?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Everyone wants to save old mother earth... so long as it is the other guy that they can restrict..... They don't even mind spending 1/2 of 1% of their income on some feel good idea even if doing that comes to 20% of some poor families income... talk about your tipping point! let them eat cake huh?
The EU wants to cut the pollution by another 20% once again, while alot more pollution is produced in the USA and even more than that in China. Soon we'll have no industry left over here because they've all ran to China where the pollution doesn't matter as much.
Anyway, it'd be a good time for the good ol' USA to start building less polluting factories. Why? Because your factories are getting to be friggin old and has to be rebuilt anyway! Might as well make them cleaner while at it.
-
"@Angus; I think what most of the folks are saying is go and deal with it, make your corrections but dont step on anyones liberty. Fanaticism is not a good thing. "
Whose liberty is it to ruin the atmosphere? There are some things that we earthlings share, whether you like it or not. Those include the atmosphere and the seas. /example N-Atlantic pollution through the Gulf stream (fat solluble chemicals from the paper industry in the USA), Acid rain, killing lakes in Scandinavia by the thousands whose origin is from central Europe and the UK, Mercury in the baltic, making the fish there a rather unhealty food (origin forestrry in the surrounding countries) etc etc. On the receiving end is often a nation that had nothing to do with the whole mess.
When the big industries in several countries poisoned the atmosphere and oceans near and in other countries, was it just for liberty? Is it an untouchable liberty to piss into your neighbours drinking water?
IMHO this is THE job for our newly begun century.
And Jackal, - back to the farming..;)
"Get a bucket with a nipple on it. Let the calf do what comes naturaly. Not a problem if you are smarter than the calf."
I was about the first in the country to completely convert to systems like that some 13 years ago. Today I have a feeding system (machine) where I can program the quantity for each and every calf, and monitor the usage.
So, buckets with nipples come as secondary (they're a pain to deal with if you do long time feeding, so you're dealing with 400 lb's calves :D) Anyway, fun to correspnd with someone that is into those things.
(smilie :D for that one)
As for this:
"As far a s I have read on the subject of the undersea volcanoes, it has not been mentioned that they were either near the poles or were newly established."
It has been mentioned by certain members on these threads as a possible explanation to the ice melting. However, any connection with realism has failed....
Getting to Yellowstone, the whole thing is sitting on top of a highly active area, much like we have where I live. With modern technology and (cough, - government supported scientists even!) and equipment, the mapping of magma pockets and release sites is making good process.
There is no connection between there and global warming, in the real life there should slowly be less and less activity (cooling planet), and anyway, there is NOTHING we can do to stop volcanic activity. We can monitor changes (those darned scientists eating my tax money), we can get to the level of issuing warnings of eruptions some little time before they occure(talking about 100% probability here), and we can try tohold back flowing lava with cooling. This is all opposite to Lazs's philosophy of course, but has however proved itself worthy in countries that deal with high earth activity on a daily basis.
This one:
"Why is everything else shunned and put down when it is suggested or proposed by someone out of the AlBore loop?"
Get this. Al Gore did not invent or spot global warning. He however made a film about it. Oil companies, which have high interests in CO2 connection with warming being hushed, have countered by paying people to speak as supporters to the opposite.
In the meantime, the shunning and putting down happens by itself, for after all, the globe keeps locally warming ;)
-
For the AlBore crowd....this just in.
The correct , PC, term is now "Global Climate Change" instead of the old, out of fashion, global warming thing.
I know you would want to stay hip and all. :)
-
with "global climate change" they are covered if the temps go up or down.
-
Well, to put some clarity to that, some local spots may actually get temporarily cooler, - reasons are changes of ocean currents, and windchanging causing other route for drift ice, etc.
(This includes my country, - possibly)
However, the big sum-up is warming.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
For the AlBore crowd....this just in.
The correct , PC, term is now "Global Climate Change" instead of the old, out of fashion, global warming thing.
I know you would want to stay hip and all. :)
It has been that way for a while now Jackal:
From here (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/global-change.html)
“The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change.”
President George W. Bush
Discussion on Global Climate Change
June 11, 2001
and once again, here is the United States National Policy on climate change:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/policy/index.html
Instead of nattering on about how it doesn't exist and making pithy remarks on a BBS maybe you should educate yourself.
-
They should stop wasting time and money on global warming and start worry about global pollution. CO2 is not pollution btw.
-
Its' finally warming up locally. :D
-
Originally posted by bozon
They should stop wasting time and money on global warming and start worry about global pollution. CO2 is not pollution btw.
Enough of any material is...pollution.
However, the atmosphere can take a lot of co2 before it becomes lethal. Easier to get that level high enough inside a garage :D
Global pollution (You said GLOBAL) would be something that spreads nicely, so again, typically in the atmosphere.
BTW, some things released into the atmosphere in ample quantities before (sulphur, soot etc) had their weight on the scale for global dimming, which causes cooling, - while the material and/or particles are there.
While burning coal for instance, as well as wood, added CO2 gets countered by the effects of the soot and particles. But those fall out eventually, while leaving the CO2.
It has been discussed to use some sulphure combination (launched into the high atmosphere) to dim the solar effect just in case the CO2 is making to much of work in the opposite direction. Crazy stuff.:confused:
-
Originally posted by john9001
with "global climate change" they are covered if the temps go up or down.
Exactly. :aok
In preparation for the next cooling trend. :rofl
-
angus.. in the "swindle" documentary.. Al the scientists in it that were tops in their field who all said man made global warming was a hoax all said that they were not getting a penny from anyone to say that... they also accused the advocates of "man made global warming" of pandering in order to get lucarative grants.
Who are the liars?
lazs
-
Global warming = something being measured
Man made global warming = being debated.
Human link to global warming = being debated (my park)
Scientists of many countries from many fields as well as craftsmen who have come to the conclusion that the climate is gradually warming (ask any farmer, weatherman, carpenter, biologist, oceanologist, botanist or Fisherman up here) are not being paid to cling onto that specific opinion.
Scientists are however being paid by the oil companies to hold forth that specific opinion.
The government sponsored scientists BTW, have no special interest in having that special conclusion, - they can get their sponsors with any conclusion so to speak, - and they do indeed get discovered in both camps.
Capiche? Or too complicated.
(I sure aint getting paid, just wasting my time here. Maybe I should learn about philosophy, join the flat earth society, and apply for the counterjob at Exxon's HQ)
-
Until we are certain,we should take the worst case scenario and act accordingly,but pouring pollutants into the atmoshpere has other downsides beside any possible Global warming.I would like to know who was behind the documentry before I would believe a word of it.Sientists are human with predudices and political views like the rest of us,I would like to know what the consesus is of all interested specialist around the world,befrore I pass judgement.Act now,if we are wrong,well we won't be the worse for it,Don't act,and we are right,God help us.
-
Scientists are however being paid by the oil companies to hold forth that specific opinion.
So called scientists who go in with a preconceived outcome have a much better chance of writing a successful grant than those who perform true open minded science. Whether the grant comes from Greenpeace or Exxon.
It is easier to get a grant to study "The Effects of Man Made Greenhouse Gasses on our Imminent Demise" than it would be to get a grant for a study to "Quantify the Anthropogenic Contribution to Global Climate Change"
-
Where's my grant then? After all, not all that come to a certain conclusion get a grant, and say no more if too many have the same thesis.....
So, I think your argument is flawed.
However, Exxon pays for ONE specific goal in this debate.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
anyone notice that global warming started happening right around grant time for all these "scientists" and... the loss of the election by algore and his being out of the spotlight?
lazs
As early as 1991 there was growing concern about the Ozone layer and how that would lead to global climate change. At the time, the ozone hole over the South pole was only about as big as the United States and fluctuated throughout the year.
With all the target practice you presumably perform, one would think you would grow tired of people constantly shooting holes through your weak arguments and conspiracy theories, or maybe you have a short-term memory.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Where's my grant then? After all, not all that come to a certain conclusion get a grant, and say no more if too many have the same thesis.....
So only those on one side of the debate are influencing science through their purse strings? Or maybe scientists who apply for grants from Greenpeace of the Sierra Club are impervious to corruption?
You have never written a grant proposal have you?
-
Originally posted by Hazzer
Until we are certain,we should take the worst case scenario and act accordingly,but pouring pollutants into the atmoshpere has other downsides beside any possible Global warming.I would like to know who was behind the documentry before I would believe a word of it.
I don't know who is "behind" it, but I know at least one of them (Nir Shaviv) and attended a talk he gave at my faculty (his father is a well known astrophysicist and a professor here). I can't believe he has a secret agenda or on the pay roll of some corporation.
He also addressed the "precautions, just in case" claim. An example he gave was a power plant that emit very little CO2, but work at 40% less efficiency. Is that better? burning a hell of a lot more fossil fuel to cut back on CO2? is that good for the environment? the economy?
Can't you find better uses for funds in other environmental issues?
Precautions are good, but acting in panic and without thought is not.
-
Originally posted by bozon
I don't know who is "behind" it, but I know at least one of them (Nir Shaviv) and attended a talk he gave at my faculty (his father is a well known astrophysicist and a professor here). I can't believe he has a secret agenda or on the pay roll of some corporation.
was he paid to give that talk?
-
$2,000,000 says no.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So only those on one side of the debate are influencing science through their purse strings? Or maybe scientists who apply for grants from Greenpeace of the Sierra Club are impervious to corruption?
You have never written a grant proposal have you?
Not really. So, I guess I have a personal and independed conclusion.
BTW, once it comes to whether people belive whether the climate is warming, I never met anyone eye-to-eye from the opposite camp, neither have I heard of any in my country! (well, there have to be some). The ones on the "globe not warming" that I have exhanged words with online have some 90%+ probability of being from the USA. Why the heck?
Since through my life and profession I had to deal with many an expert in many a field, I must say that while their opinion on our terra firma being warming up now is in perfect harmony, none of tham has aquired a grant. At all probably.
Actually, since the European educational society is somewhat different from the USA, - grants are not essential, not even to get to the top league. My cousin is a doctor in maritime biology (his wife is also a biologist), I'll put my $$$ and $'es on their warming opinion, and a double $$$ that they don't run on grants....
The blueball is bigger than the USA, and in continents such as Europe, or at least many countries therefrom, the "Grant" does not format your opinion inforehand....
-
Since through my life and profession I had to deal with many an expert in many a field, I must say that while their opinion on our terra firma being warming up now is in perfect harmony, none of tham has aquired a grant. At all probably.
But these experts have to rely on scientific inquiry to achieve global perspective... otherwise they are an expert only on local climate. To make a living by drilling ice cores and writing papers requires that you ask somebody to be your sugar daddy. If one is honest in an opinion that the identity of the money source skews the results, it must hold for all sides of the debate.
By the way, has anyone in AH OC claimed "the globe isn't warming?"
Or does your opposition argue the possibility that:
1. the globe has been warming without human interference since the glaciers covered Chicago and sabre tooth tigers were being caught in the La Brea Tar Pits or that
2. the global temperature trend is still within statistical noise?
-
If "global warming" is a modern problem, then why has "global warming" & "global cooling" been going on in cycles for thousands of millennium? :confused:
Why was that Mastodon found with fresh buttercups in his mouth fast frozen?
Why was the year 1816 known as "the year without a summer" or also known as "Eighteen hundred and froze to death"?
Why is it that large volcanoes are blamed & scientists say "see" but they have to show graphs where the global temp dropped an entire degree because no one feels any difference? (remember Mt.St.Helens? I didn't notice a difference in the temperatures & it was supposedly a big eruption as eruptions go)
Why can't all the scientists agree if there is all this "proof" of modern man causing "global warming" with pollution?
It's a natural occurrence, it happened before & it'll happen again. Maybe as in the case of the mastodon it'll be sudden & catastrophic but I doubt it'll be caused by my old Dodge or Arnold's Hummer. It'll probably be an impact from space or a solar anomaly that either heats us way up or cools us way down....I'd prefer the cooler one, I hate the heat.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
Lets just Nuke the Polar Ice caps to see if All Gore was right.
Just a few Nukes, not many.
We need some beachfront in Oklahoma anyways.
:D
Mac
OMG dude your so right. We need one here in Oklahoma and then we can sail on Texas ugly face. Texas is whats causing global warming. They don't stop building in Dallas, Austin, Houston, San Antonio, and all the suburbs of those larger towns.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But these experts have to rely on scientific inquiry to achieve global perspective... otherwise they are an expert only on local climate. To make a living by drilling ice cores and writing papers requires that you ask somebody to be your sugar daddy. If one is honest in an opinion that the identity of the money source skews the results, it must hold for all sides of the debate.
By the way, has anyone in AH OC claimed "the globe isn't warming?"
Or does your opposition argue the possibility that:
1. the globe has been warming without human interference since the glaciers covered Chicago and sabre tooth tigers were being caught in the La Brea Tar Pits or that
2. the global temperature trend is still within statistical noise?
Call it local if you like, well global adds up with lots of locals. Okay, I'll stick to my little local(s), Iceland-Greenland and the N-Atlantic to the N-Pole, which is our climatic territory. It's by no means a small slab of the globe.
The Metreologists whose eyes roll from the Gulf of Mexico to Norway notice an increase in temperature and "funny" numbers. Metreological records are being put at a faster rate. The Farmers, well they grow things now that didn't thrive before, and crops of various sorts are going up, - a lot. Fields are being worked at all seasons (ploughing in December was headline news some 15 years ago) and there are new enemies in the form of insects and fungus that didn't survive here before. The biologists notice that factor as well, and the terminators profit from it. The Oceanologists notice ricing temperatures in the seas, changes in currents, and changes in the habits of the fish. So, many pieces of the puzzle coming together right under our noses. But the glaceologists have the high score, for what they are seeing right under their noses is absolutely stunning. The Northern Icecap is disappearing (been there for what, 20 MILLION YEARS), and the land based glaciers, which have been recorded smaller, are retreating at extremely high speeds, so heading for a long-time record.
The politicians try to analyze this lot, - in our case, a little warmer climate is just nice, and it was anticipated, just not at that speed. It is now a part of the routine when foreign high caliber politicans show up here, to fly them to a nearby glacier, or even to Greenland and let them have a look by themselves, - usually causes quite some gasping and sentences like "I had no idea that it was so much" etc. If Bush shows up, thet's where we'd take him ;)
Anyway, to the speculations:
1. the globe has been warming without human interference since the glaciers covered Chicago and sabre tooth tigers were being caught in the La Brea Tar Pits or that .
- Not really, it had reached quite cosy temperatures thousands of years ago, then fluctuating up and down, - nice examples are the warm period in the Viking times, and the "little" iseage some few hundred years later.
2. the global temperature trend is still within statistical noise?
- good question. If it still is, it's heading out very fast.
So, maybe I get my grant now. "The combined evidence of global warming", how's that for a title?
:p
-
Next chapter, - Brenjen. Subject: Volcanoes.
Good thing to bring up the subject of volcanoes, and their effect on global climate. BTW, there are members of this board that have claimed that volcanoes are to blame for warming, there are also members that claim that warming isn't happening.
Anyway, your elephant frose to death, so it must have cooled quickly. Like it did in 1816, which was, by the way, the direct result of the massive volcanic explosion & eruption on Mt. Tambora in Indonesia a year before.
Now, the Mt.Helens eruption is by no means a huge event, and is dwarfed by bouth Mt-Tambora and another really big one, Laki in my neighbourhood 1783 to 1786. Laki cooled the atmosphere all the way down to Egypt, caused death through poison and famine through cold and bad crops in most of the N-Hemisphere in the following years. What was released:
An estimated 122 Tg (120 Million tons) of sulphur dioxide was emitted into the atmosphere: approximately equivalent to three times the total annual European industrial output in 2006, and also equivalent to a Mount Pinatubo-1991 eruption every three days. (This causes cooling, and the quantity was actually enough to kill people outside some thousands of Km's away),it produced about 15 km³ (3.6 mi³) of basalt lava (some rough 500 sq km if I remember right), and the total volume of tephra emitted was 0.91 km3, fluorine was some 800 million tonnes.
Tambora was a big kaboom, easily heard 2.600 kilometres, the mountain basically blew up and got thrown away. While being the largest observed eruption in history, Laki probably holds the cards for released lava and perhaps other material, - these are two kinds of eruptions you see.
By comparison to both, St. Helens isn't really much.
So, they did cool, and that very quickly, but beware, it doesn't calculate into the N-Hemisphere temp numbers with high numbers. This is what Benjamin Franklin wrote of the summer after Laki:
"During several of the summer months of the year 1783, when the effect of the sun's rays to heat the earth in these northern regions should have been greater, there existed a constant fog over all Europe, and a great part of North America. This fog was of a permanent nature; it was dry, and the rays of the sun seemed to have little effect towards dissipating it, as they easily do a moist fog, arising from water. They were indeed rendered so faint in passing through it, that when collected in the focus of a burning glass they would scarce kindle brown paper. Of course, their summer effect in heating the Earth was exceedingly diminished. Hence the surface was early frozen. Hence the first snows remained on it unmelted, and received continual additions. Hence the air was more chilled, and the winds more severely cold. Hence perhaps the winter of 1783-4 was more severe than any that had happened for many years. "
In England and N-Europe the cooling was even more severe, and some go as far to say that this was what kindled the French revolution in 1789, - it was after all related to famine.
So, here ya go, - big volcanic eruptions have a fast cooling factor, and once the fallout has cleared the effect is going away. We can expect this, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, maybe I get my grant now. "The combined evidence of global warming", how's that for a title?
You still keep missing the point Holden and others are making. There's very little argue about global temperatures rising (since recent history - it was warmer in the distant past). The debate with whether humanity had anything to do with it.
-
Well, excuse me, but any GLOBAL rise has been hotly debated on these threads.
As for the human interference, look at the other side of the coin, - do you really belive that our drastic changes on our terra firma in the past few hundred years as well as our changes to varius elements of the atmosphere, have NO impact on global climate??????
-
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, to the speculations:
1. the globe has been warming without human interference since the glaciers covered Chicago and sabre tooth tigers were being caught in the La Brea Tar Pits or that .
- Not really, it had reached quite cosy temperatures thousands of years ago, then fluctuating up and down, - nice examples are the warm period in the Viking times, and the "little" ice age some few hundred years later.
So you use the natural fluctuations of the medieval warm period and little ice age as a proof that todays fluctuation is not natural? I don't know what the term is for that specific logical fallacy, but I know it when I see it.
2. the global temperature trend is still within statistical noise?
- good question. If it still is, it's heading out very fast.
So, maybe I get my grant now. "The combined evidence of global warming", how's that for a title?
[/B]
It's a great title... an shows a predjudice to the outcome of your study, although it would have a better chance of funding if you titled it "The combined evidence of anthropogenic [/i]global warming"
-
"So you use the natural fluctuations of the medieval warm period and little ice age as a proof that todays fluctuation is not natural?"
I mentioned them as an example of natural fluctuations. They didn't come close to melting the North Pole at the speeds we see today, so if it just carries on another 40 years or so, we have to go millions of years back to find anything as great.
Look at the whole pond please.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I mentioned them as an example of natural fluctuations. They didn't come close to melting the North Pole at the speeds we see today, so if it just carries on another 40 years or so, we have to go millions of years back to find anything as great.
So you have scientific evidence of the extent and rate of change of the north polar ice cap during the medeival warm period? I would like to read the report...
-
as i have stated before, the earth was nice and stable under miles of ice caps during the ice age, then some caveman, er, i mean a caveperson invented fire and it has been downhill ever since.
-
North pole is what, 20 MILLION years old. The shrinking is now very obvious from 1979, it has now been sailed over, and it is estimated that it will mostly be gone in some 40 years or so with the current development.
As for the "report", maybe you shouldn't make fun of those who drill and explore ice cores, - as you said:
"To make a living by drilling ice cores and writing papers requires that you ask somebody to be your sugar daddy."
For there is the data from ancient ice, all the way back to 700.000 years ago. Maybe you should ask google and Wikipedia for the results of their work? Or would the debate be more comfortable if the data was less?
-
Originally posted by Angus
I mentioned them as an example of natural fluctuations. They didn't come close to melting the North Pole at the speeds we see today, so if it just carries on another 40 years or so, we have to go millions of years back to find anything as great.
Look at the whole pond please.
Wasn't greenland a whole lot greener when the vikings got there? Where are the vines in vinland?
Anyway, lets assume there really is a drastic global warming. Why do you think humans are responsible for that?
-
All I can say Angus is "Bah" All estimates & hearsay. The dramatic climate shifts have occurred throughout history & will continue to do so. Those Volcanic eruptions did zilch - zero - nothing. One degree is nothing, all these facts & still none of it has been proven.
You said; Anyway, your elephant frose to death, so it must have cooled quickly. Like it did in 1816, which was, by the way, the direct result of the massive volcanic explosion & eruption on Mt. Tambora in Indonesia a year before.
LOL, no absolutely NOT like it did in 1816, an animal used to living in freezing temperatures being quick frozen with spring greens in it's mouth is so far from what happened in 1816 that it's nothing alike at all. And the theory that a volcanic eruption caused the cooling in 1816 is just that; a theory & nothing more. It can't be proven. In fact the eruption of Mt. St. Helens (that you say wasn't really much) was called "a massive eruption" by volcanologists. Some scientists bring out numbers that it cooled the earth by this or that much; but just as many or more that have the same education & information say "Bull-s***"
It's a naturally occurring cycle & nothing more.
-
Global warming is nothin but a bunch of apple pie hooey. The earth freezes and then it thaws out again. You dont need to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
-
I didn't make fun of ice core drillers... It's just that there is no profit in it, and funding needs to come from somewhere.
North pole is what, 20 MILLION years old. .<....> For there is the data from ancient ice, all the way back to 700.000 years ago.
If it is 20 million years old, where is the 20 million year old ice core? You would think some doctoral thesis is begging to get data that old.
-
So, is the world perhaps 6000 years old?
The deepest icecores yet are 700.000 years old or so. Since the poles have been shifting, their location was not always the same, - but heavy glaciers and polar caps do leave quite some evidence.
So, lets assume they are "only" 700.000 years old, since nothing older is caught. Melting them off in a span of 350 years is still...stunning. in 0.5 promills of the established existance, - tell me its no news please.
As fore the funding of these researches, they don't give profit, and they give discomfort, for they underline what i.e. some oil companies don't want to get into the spotlight. On that side, there is absolute short time profit vs what gives nothing but trouble to even the "sponsors". So.....rather troublesome indeed.
And Brenjen, maybe it's time to turn the tables and YOU get some data. Or maybe read what I posted:
"All I can say Angus is "Bah" All estimates & hearsay. The dramatic climate shifts have occurred throughout history & will continue to do so. Those Volcanic eruptions did zilch - zero - nothing. One degree is nothing, all these facts & still none of it has been proven"
Bah and Bah as you like. We are watching in our lifespan watching something happening that did not occure in human intelligent times. I do not know how much back you have to go to have no polar caps, but maybe google will be your friend now and you make me an essay that I can "Bah" on.
The volcanic eruptions I posted about should have been enough a read to a normal person to understand that their effect (such as the summer that never arrived) is way more than zilch, - something like the Laki event would in our times cause incredible catastrophy. Proven? yes. As well established as your existence. After all, you posted some links to it yourself.
What are you going to say next? That the night has no effect on temperature?
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, is the world perhaps 6000 years old?
where'd you get that? not from me...
The deepest icecores yet are 700.000 years old or so. Since the poles have been shifting, their location was not always the same, - but heavy glaciers and polar caps do leave quite some evidence.
So your 20 million number was pdooya?
So, lets assume they are "only" 700.000 years old, since nothing older is caught. Melting them off in a span of 350 years is still...stunning.
You sure?
link (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-04k.html) For example, Morrill explained, there was a 14 degree Fahrenheit rise at the end of a period called the Younger Dryas -- a climate period that occurred nearly 12,000 years ago, just after the last ice age ended. While scientists are worried about the potential impact of a 2 degree or 3 degree F. global increase over the next century, the 14 degree rise occurred "in a period of decades," she said. "Future climate change probably won't be gradual."
-
And Brenjen, maybe it's time to turn the tables and YOU get some data. Or maybe read what I posted:"All I can say Angus is "Bah" All estimates & hearsay. The dramatic climate shifts have occurred throughout history & will continue to do so. Those Volcanic eruptions did zilch - zero - nothing. One degree is nothing, all these facts & still none of it has been proven"
Bah and Bah as you like. We are watching in our lifespan watching something happening that did not occure in human intelligent times. I do not know how much back you have to go to have no polar caps, but maybe google will be your friend now and you make me an essay that I can "Bah" on.
The volcanic eruptions I posted about should have been enough a read to a normal person to understand that their effect (such as the summer that never arrived) is way more than zilch, - something like the Laki event would in our times cause incredible catastrophy. Proven? yes. As well established as your existence. After all, you posted some links to it yourself.
What are you going to say next? That the night has no effect on temperature?
I read what you said & none of what you quoted as fact has been proven, all theories. The volcanic eruption you quoted as the cause of the 1816 cold snap is a theory, the scientists who put forth that theory even call it a theory lol. As well established as my existence? "bah" You sort of trail off into babble there at the end so I won't comment on the derogatory comments meant to extricate an angry response from me.
The proof is out there, read it yourself. This is a naturally occurring shift, it's happened before & it'll happen again. Just because your seeing part of it happen doesn't mean it's a first brother Angus.
-
There is also the theory of Gravity.
While it works, it is yet not explained.
Now Brenjen, give me the better explanation of that coolness in 1816 (similar occurance after Krakatau as far as I remember). Then excercise your mind on the radius of fallout (thickness and distance) and tell me it had no effect. Funny that those scientists ever brought up terms like "global dimming" and the cooling effects therefrom. Funny that the shade of the night cools the air. And while at it, please discard the effects of the Laki eruption, and the funny N-Hemisphere cooling occuring swiftly after and lasting for some years. The fog, the sulphur...nothing, yes?
In your world, if you shade your room from the sun, it probably doesn't cool.
And if you open the curtains, it doesn't warm?
And if you replace the window glass with a mirror, then what?
And if you buy a special "K" glass for your window, then what?
All theories of course :rolleyes:
Except the truth of global warming, from your source, - or theory:
"This is a naturally occurring shift". In your own words. So I know your park.
A natural occuring shift, thereby no human impact. A little off the cycle perhaps? Or is it a 20 million years swing?
Anyway, in my readings, this all becomes more interesting. From my friend W:
"[edit] Ice shelf disruption
In the last several decades, glaciologists have observed consistent decreases in ice shelf extent through melt, calving, and complete disintegration of some shelves.
The Ellesmere ice shelf reduced by 90 percent in the twentieth century, leaving the separate Alfred Ernest, Ayles, Milne, Ward Hunt, and Markham Ice Shelves. A 1986 survey of Canadian ice shelves found that 48 square km (3.3 cubic kilometers) of ice calved from the Milne and Ayles ice shelves between 1959 and 1974.[1] The Ayles Ice Shelf calved entirely on August 13, 2005. The Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, the largest remaining section of thick (>10 m) landfast sea ice along the northern coastline of Ellesmere Island, lost 600 square km of ice in a massive calving in 1961-1962.[2] It further decreased by 27% in thickness (13 m) between 1967 and 1999.[3] In summer 2002, the Ward Ice Shelf experienced another major breakup. [4]
Two sections of Antarctica's Larsen Ice Shelf broke apart into hundreds of unusually small fragments (100's of meters wide or less) in 1995 and 2002.
The breakup events are linked the dramatic polar warming trends that are part of global warming. The leading ideas involve enhanced ice fracturing due to surface meltwater and enhanced bottom melting due to warmer ocean water circulating under the floating ice."
This is this century from the polar areas. Notice the words "dramatic polar warming".
And the counter...the dimming, from W:
"Global dimming
Main article: Global dimming
Scientists have stated with 66-90% confidence that the effects of volcanic and human-caused aerosols have offset some of global warming, and that greenhouse gases would have resulted in more warming than observed if not for this effect.[1]"
I trust W better than Brenjen. W also has that nice one:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Glacier_Mass_Balance.png)
Here is more from W:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
Pic:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Grinnell_Glacier2.jpg)
Tough to call it a theory when the measures come that close, as well as the old photos and the tales of your great-grandfather....
So, what proof is there for me? Maybe you can get a grant for proving the 2 items for me:
1: Globe is not warming
2: If it is, it's such a normal cycle that any human factor is eliminated.
-
Angus,
to you points:
1. There is very little argument in the scientific community that the world is getting warmer in recent history. However, it has been warmer before.
2. Why, if there is a change, do you automatically assume that human activity is responsible for that and ask for it to be disproved?
The only thing that links human activity to global warming (as far as I know) are the computer models. Leaving aside the problematics of modeling the heating/cooling physics, human influence is not modeled directly into them. In order to tulips human activity influence, they assume the effects on environment variables such as the CO2 levels. That's their weakest part of the anthropogenic global warming theory and the source to all the "we must cut back on CO2 emission" issue.
The simple fact is that they don't CALCULATE what the CO2 levels will be in 100 years. It is usually an input variable or an extremely simplified phenomenological model. The scientists that attack these models claim that CO2 levels are mostly an effect of the temperature and not the cause of it. Most of the world CO2 is dissolved in the oceans. Like any chemical reaction balance, the ratio between the dissolved phase and the gas phase is a function of temperature. By their claims, most of the CO2 you emit to the atmosphere will dissolve into the oceans on a time scale of 10 years. Since the amount of CO2 you will emit in the next 100 years, even according the the worst estimates, will be a negligible fraction of the total dissolved oceanic CO2, you are left without any significant human influence on atmospheric CO2 levels.
Next we need to prove that it is not cell-phones and genetic-engineered food that cause it. Scientists also have not disproved any relation to abortions.
-
red bottom.. are you saying that the ozone layer and co2 caused man made warming are the same? that in 1991 all these scientists were on the co2 kick? How many "documentaries" were made?
angus... I am not getting paid either... the only people getting paid are the scientists who study the thing with a slant toward man made global warming.
lazs
-
Angus your post was too long to quote but I'll say this; gravity was a theory but has been proven. You don't have to prove how gravity works to prove it does indeed work. What we are discussing here is something that, not only have scientists not proven how it works, but even if it has a significant effect.
There is no doubt that human habitation on this planet effect it's atmosphere & there is also no doubt that natural occurrences do too such as volcanic eruptions. I feel you, like the doom sayers in the global warming community, are painting with a very wide brush. No one has proven there is a significant effect, I can't stress that enough.
The people like myself who believe that; Yes indeed the earth is warming, it's not strictly because of human habits or volcano's or any other single cause....not even cow farts as some fringe "scientists" have claimed. It's natural process, we may be accelerating the process with pollution & farming (basically just overpopulation) etc. but it would happen regardless even if humans were not present. How much we are accelerating this process, if any is the big question mark.
I say again, scientists have proven that the earth warms & cools in cycles. If it wasn't then there would still be glaciers covering North America....& those have been gone long before mankind began to pollute. Don't get so worked up about it; it causes you to come across as sarcastic & makes me less inclined to take you seriously. All the fringe global warming nut cases get worked up like that instead of calmly discussing what can be proven, what's probable & what isn't. My opinion (yes OPINION) is that the gloom & doom is all hooey. Look at pictures of the "dustbowl" in the 30's...it looked like the Gobi desert, then look at the same area today. Changes like that happen, always have, always will.
No hard feelings, we just have differing opinions.
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, what proof is there for me? Maybe you can get a grant for proving the 2 items for me:
1: Globe is not warming
2: If it is, it's such a normal cycle that any human factor is eliminated.
That`s the point. You would play Billy Hell getting a grant or even being recognized or published any findings, intent to study or anything that might possibly shed some light on the subject that would in any way be contradictory to the fairy tale.
Those that have suggested alternative theories or even their possibilities have been quickly buried.
There is too much money invested to let this happen if it can be avoid at all costs.
As an added little bonus for the mining of global warming profiteers, the media was a natural addition for free. Why? Sensationalism sales. Big time.
The hilarious thing is that the same media will be "breaking the news" when the wind swings the other way. :)
Wake up and smell the coffee. :)
-
ur so silly. Global warming does not instantly cause deserts across the world. It changes weather conditions. Warm areas might become cold. Dry areas might become wet. It changes the climate of the world, and not always for the warmer. In fact, an ice age is one of the hypothesized effects of global warming
Global warming is happening, and is accepted by 95% of scientists. now the question is, what's causing it?
If you ask me, I say lets limit polution. Polution is bad, every1 knows that, so lets limit it.
-
Originally posted by jtoups
ur so silly.
:D
Global warming is happening, and is accepted by 95% of scientists. now the question is, what's causing it?
Which has no answer. The 95% is a long stretch also.
Polution is bad, every1 knows that, so lets limit it.
Well that settles it. Problem solved.
:rofl
Where do they come from? roflmao
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Which has no answer. The 95% is a long stretch also.
Global warming is pretty much accepted, but the cause is unknown. That is why some governments refuse to limit polution. I didnt background my statements because I assumed everybody knew the background, i guess i was wrong.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Yes indeed the earth is warming, it's not strictly because of human habits or volcano's or any other single cause....not even cow farts as some fringe "scientists" have claimed. It's natural process, we may be accelerating the process with pollution & farming (basically just overpopulation) etc. but it would happen regardless even if humans were not present. How much we are accelerating this process, if any is the big question mark.
Well, I think I can agree with that. There are natural warming and cooling cycles, but the current warming cycle might be made much more severe because of man made carbon emissions and water vapor emissions (from aircraft exhaust etc.) The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small at around 0.05%, but plays a vital role in keeping the planet warm. Without it, the earth would be about 18°C cooler on average. But with too much CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth will overheat. And at the current rate of output, man is set to release as much CO2 into the atmosphere in the next 60 years as is currently out there right now. Still waiting for Lazs - or anyone - to explain to me why this will not have an effect on the warming of the earth.
-
neither you nor anyone else knows how much c02 we will add in the next 60 years. neither you nor anyone else knows how much co2 will be absorbed by the oceans or used by plants. Neither you nor anyone else knows how much the percentage of co2 has to rise before we get one degree of increase in temp.
We do know that global climate changes are the only constant with or without man even being on the planet. We do know that sun activity matches rises and falls in global temp.
lazs
-
Just some food for thought:
source (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/disasters/001177chris_landsea_on_new.html)
Chris Landsea PhD, NOAA
Today a new paper by Gabe Vecchi and Brian Soden has been published:
Vecchi G. A., B. J. Soden (2007), Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear in model projections of global warming, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L08702, doi:10.1029/2006GL028905. (PDF)
My reading of the paper by Vecchi and Soden is that this is a very important contribution to the understanding of how global warming is affecting hurricane activity. The study thoroughly examines how the wind shear and other parameters that can alter the number and intensity of hurricanes because of manmade global warming. What they found - surprisingly - is that in the Atlantic that the wind shear should increase significantly over a large portion of where hurricanes occur - making it more difficult for hurricanes to form and grow. This was identified in all of the 18 global climate models they examined. (Perhaps it's not that surprising given that Knutson/Tuleya 2004 showed some of the same signal for the more reliable models back then. Now the signal is in ALL of the CGCMs.) Even the MPI changes in the Atlantic appear mixed, due to the smaller SST increases there (with more uniform upper trop temp changes) compared with the rest of the global tropics/subtropics.
One implication to me is that this further provides evidence that the busy period we've seen in the Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to natural cycles, rather than manmade causes. We've seen a big reduction in wind shear in the last thirteen hurricane seasons, which is OPPOSITE to the signal that Vecchi and Soden have linked to manmade global warming changes. Another implication is that this paper reconfirms earlier work that suggests that global warming will cause very small changes to Atlantic hurricanes, even several decades from now.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
neither you nor anyone else knows how much c02 we will add in the next 60 years.
Worldwide, we release 25bn tonnes a year. At the current rate of output (which is what I said in my previous post) that equates to 1,500,000,000,000 tonnes in the next 60 years. neither you nor anyone else knows how much co2 will be absorbed by the oceans or used by plants.
There must come a point when the oceans and plants are maxed out on CO2 and can absorb no more. I feel confident that this is a known quantity. Neither you nor anyone else knows how much the percentage of co2 has to rise before we get one degree of increase in temp.
We know that if that 0.05% of CO2 was not there in the atmosphere, we would have a temperature drop of 18°. Therefore a 1° change would be made if the CO2 concentration changed by 0.0028% of the total atmosphere.
STILL waiting for you to tell me why the release of 1,500,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 in the next 60 years will have "no effect" on global temperatures. Oh, and by the way, I realise some of that might be absorbed by plants/ocean, but the level of man made CO2 output is set to increase dramatically in the next ~15 years.
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
At the current rate of output [...] There must come a point when [...] I feel confident that this is a known quantity. [...]
-
fastfwd... so you really don't know anything about it do you? You are using a very simple model that takes nothing but co2 into account and assuming that no strides in science will be made in the next 60 years. great.
and who is it that you trust? why... scientists.. not just any scientists but the ones who think man is causing the normal global climate changes... the ones who told you last year or so that we would have lots of hurricanes cause...
well... their model said so... you bought it..
Now they are telling you that man is making for less hurricanes... are you buying it this time?
Will you buy what they say next year?
or will you just admit....
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
Here is a scientist who says the Sun is to blame for global warming (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html)
If you read the story though, you'll learn Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.
and alsoDr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming. He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.
-
well... at least they are admitting that the sun has "significant" impact this week...
They got angry when co2 was dismissed and claimed the sun had no part... now.. they are retreating.
maybe even admitting equal parts or... that they can't tell which has more effect...
How can this be? they were so sure last year. They had the computer models... what happened to the models?
maybe... just maybe.. the debate it good. maybe shutting up those who disagree is a bad thing and that once the whole sun activity thing got out of their control they had to admit to it?
I believe that if algore and company could make the whole sun part of the equation just go away... just supress it... they would.
You have to drag every admission out of the hand wringers.. they have too much at stake.
The world will go into a cooling cycle soon... the alarmists know that they have to push as hard as they can before that happens if any money and fame is to be made.
sheep.
lazs
-
I am not against science.. the people that make sense to me on the subject are renown in the fields they talk about..
no... I think science is a brave and interesting world.. for instance.. Have all the theories about black holes you want... the more the better..
Hell... I don't even care if "hundreds" of scientists all agree on what black holes are... it is interesting to me.. and.. I don't get upset when a couple of years from now they all change their minds and black holes are revisited by new scientists debunking the old..
And why is that? the black hole theories don't really affect me other than maybe funding the research.. they aren't asking millions of people to starve or lower their income over the damn theory.
They are not social activists first and scientists second. or... if they are.. they don't have a hook. They are just brilliant eccentric kooks.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
...maybe... just maybe.. the debate it good. maybe shutting up those who disagree is a bad thing and that once the whole sun activity thing got out of their control they had to admit to it?
I believe that if algore and company could make the whole sun part of the equation just go away... just supress it... they would.
If you think shutting up those who disagree is a bad thing, why would you end so many of your global warming posts with "ITS THE SUN, STUPID!". That seems more like a tactic to get in the last word and stifle debate to me.
I think Al Gore basically did what you suggest in his film, unfortunately, by ignoring to convey the important fact that temperature rise precedes CO2 rise, not vice versa. Perhaps he was just trying to dumb down the theory to make it easier for simple minds to understand and accept, but I think it was a disservice to science. I can see that omission causing many people to doubt the film's conclusion and accuse him of propagandizing.
btw, NASA's James Hansen said in a piece recently that the IPCC's report didn't include projections of the Antarctic Ice Sheet melting, and if it did, the ocean's rise would be 16-19', not a few inches as the IPCC report suggested. I'd heard that criticism of the report previously but never with a reference to such a large rise in sea level. That WOULD be disastrous.
-
oboe.. I have listened to the doom and gloomer "scientists" say outrageous things for decades.. they have an unblemished record of not only being wrong but... hugely wrong.
fastfwd loves carl frigging sagan for instance.. thought he was a science god..
so did cnn of course... during the first gulf war I watched as sagan predicted a winter that would kill tens of millions from famine if the sadman even lit half the kuwait oil fields on fire. Of course... not only did that not happen but... nothing bad at all happened.. nature corrected almost at once.
the "scientists" of the 70's told me that I would be butt deep in ice here in northern kalifornia bu the year 2000 from the ice age that man was creating with pollution at the time.
The scientists of around the same time talked of the man made "population bomb" that would cause the end of the world by the 2000's but.. we see population dropping in white nations.. your-op is decaying and dying from lack of a vibrant population.
These things all have a common thread... just like algores co2 crap.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
is a way to get the debate started not ended. There is no debate.. do you hear debate on NPR? yeah... on what we should do about the co2 and how much we should all pay... not if it is even happening.. debate is over for them.. the terms "man made global warming" and "man made global climate change" roll off their tounges like some great truth not to be even thought about.
Where is the "swindle" documentary? It was very well done and for the most part.. no one can dispute the claims.. why is it not given equal time in the U.S.
I have shown it to people and they all say how fascinating and informative it is but.... they all say that they now want some debate.. their faith in the whole man made thing has been shaken.
Why not show it here? I bet it would get really good ratings.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
fastfwd... so you really don't know anything about it do you?
.
.
.
and who is it that you trust? why... scientists.. not just any scientists but the ones who think man is causing the normal global climate changes... the ones who told you last year or so that we would have lots of hurricanes cause...
Lazs - you said I didn't know how much CO2 man would release in the next 60 years. I told you that at the current rate of output (25bn tonnes a year according to US Deopartment of Energy) that in 60 years, man would have released as much CO2 as is currently in the atmosphere right now, using the figures given by your fellow global warming denialist, Mace2004. I've also posted a link which explains why some CO2 in the atmosphere is vital and acts like a blanket, without which the earth would be inhospitably cooler. The converse is also true - too much CO2 and it becomes inhospitably warmer. You are using a very simple model that takes nothing but co2 into account and assuming that no strides in science will be made in the next 60 years. great.
Which part of "at the current rate of output" don't you understand? And LOL! - you go off panning scientists like all the other denialists, but then you place faith in "strides in science" that you're expecting in the next 60 years.
It's like this. Most people have the mental faculties to see that global warming isn't just a "liberal concept to extort cash for a political agenda or religion" but is a meteorological fact that is happening, right now, which even you now concede. And because most people accept this, countries around the world are now taking steps to avert the disaster that would occur if no changes were made. In your own parlance, "strides in science" are being made.
- Several countries around the world (Australia, Britain, plus the US state of California) are to phase out incandescent light bulbs in favor of high efficiency neon types which use about 80% less electricity.
- Finland was one of the first countries to announce that it was increasing its proportion of electricity generated by nuclear power by 10%.
- Brazil is now a world leader in producing "carbon neutral" fuel for road vehicles from crops - other countries will follow
- Britain is enacting legislation to reduce carbon emissions by 60% by 2050.
- And California recently announced legislation (http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/4111/) to cut carbon emissions by 25% by 2020.
IT'S THE SUN STUPID
But Lazs, the sun has been there for millions of years - at least as long as the earth has existed. Can you tell us why global warming is now occurring at an unprecedented rate? Or do you deny this, just as you used to deny that the earth was warming at all?
I have listed ^ some of the changes that have already been announced, and it's only 2007. It is not an exhaustive list but a few examples. New measures taken will add to that list. I believe we will see more electricity being generated by nuclear power.
In 60 years time when these strides in science have been taken, and ecological disaster has been averted, you'll be able to look back as you rock back and forth in the rocker on your stoop, with a cat in your lap, and claim you were right all along.
And your epitaph will be "it's the sun stupid"! :D
-
fstfwd... so even with the normal increases in tech that we experiance... you admit that using any model for what will happen in 60 years so far as co2 is silly.
computer controlled fuel injection was not possible in the 50's or, more importantly, in the 70's when the worst smog legeslation was passed... they made things worse not better.. cars ran worse and got worse milage and put out more smog... when tech caught up... computer controlled fuel injection solved the problem without even going after the smog problem.
nuke plants will happen cause we need the power and oil is getting to expensive. Not because we want to get rid of co2.
The suns activity has fluctuated for all of time.. it mirrors the heating and cooling of the globe... co2 trails the heating.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
Global Warming is a theory and only that. If there is a hole in our ozone layer, please point it out to me on a Golly-geen map, because I can't find it.
It makes me laugh to hear scientists saying that even smoking cigarettes are causing this global warming to happen.
-
I just saw a little ditty on the boob tube about wind generated electricity.
At the closing it stated "100% Pollution Free".
Right. I suppose you have to wait for the Mothership to land in the middle of the night, bringing the components for this from another planet.
Money money money.....................Mon ey!
:D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
fstfwd... so even with the normal increases in tech that we experiance... you admit that using any model for what will happen in 60 years so far as co2 is silly.
No, not silly. Shows what will happen if the status quo remains unchanged and carbon emissions are allowed to continue unabated, and thereby provides a justification for the measures being taken. Some countries, and parts of America, are enacting legislation to cap carbon emissions. But as fast as we can do that, the Chinese economy is growing (already 4th largest in the world) and counteracting our efforts. When the Chinese economy goes to first place, pushing America into second place, don't expect me to act surprised. computer controlled fuel injection was not possible in the 50's or, more importantly, in the 70's when the worst smog legeslation was passed... they made things worse not better.. cars ran worse and got worse milage and put out more smog... when tech caught up... computer controlled fuel injection solved the problem without even going after the smog problem.
Cars account for only about 20% of carbon emissions nationwide, depending on which country is being talked about of course. And, like I said, China... Not so long ago, China had one car for every 300,000 people. Expect that to change in the years to come. Rapidly. Remember, carbon emission is a global problem, not an American one. Although America is responsible for 25%...
Mak333 said
Global Warming is a theory and only that.
No it's not. Haven't you been following Angus's posts? Haven't you seen the pictures he has posted about polar ice cap meltdown? The north pole is now open to shipping because of this meltdown. Most of the ice will be gone in the next 40 years.
If there is a hole in our ozone layer, please point it out to me on a Golly-geen map, because I can't find it.
Different topic, but happy to oblige. There are plenty of maps on the NASA website, created from data sent to earth from NASA's Aura satellite. Didn't you check? Are you just trolling?
Start here - http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/aura/ozone/index.html
-
Global warming IS true but we are blaming the wrong people.
-
again... you say that the polar ice cap will be gone in the next 40 years. I say we will enter a natural cooling cycle (lower sun activity) in the next few years... what would happen to your theory then?
We could have much lower sun activity in the next decade and then I will have to listen to all the moaning about global cooling..
ITS THE SUN STUPID
But nooooo... now it is "man made global climate change" because they realize that it is going to get cooler and they will look foolish with their almost completely discredited co2 theory of "man made global warming"
In any case... they need to act fast so that they can take credit for whatever the sun does and get those big grants and power grabs.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
again... you say that the polar ice cap will be gone in the next 40 years. I say we will enter a natural cooling cycle (lower sun activity) in the next few years... what would happen to your theory then?
Too late! The North Pole is already navigable by ocean going vessels because so much of the ice has melted. I hope you're right and we DO have some global cooling. And it's not "my" theory. Your own state of California has enacted legislation to cap carbon emissions. I had nothing to do with that!
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Too late! The North Pole is already navigable by ocean going vessels because so much of the ice has melted.
the north west passage is open, that will reduce shipping costs right?
-
Originally posted by john9001
the north west passage is open, that will reduce shipping costs right?
Yup! But Florida will experience reductions aswell;)
Lazs, can you point me to your source of this "global cooling" information?
I found this on wiki, but it doesnt help your argument:) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)
Here are a few climate change sources I'm picking from
Das Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)
The good ol' EPA (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/)
The EU's site (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/home_en.htm)
Methinks it is time to pull the heads out of the arses and get real.
What are you people afraid of?
-
Originally posted by FastFwd
Your own state of California has enacted legislation to cap carbon emissions.
you really want to use a decision by some nincompoops in Sacramento as a proof of anything?
Those cretins gave us MTBE for f*s sake. It cost us 8+ billion to put it in, now we are paying another 8+ billion to get it out. Not to mention the damage to the environment.
-
"Ice conditions are some of the most severe we've seen in 25 to 30 years," said Frank Pinhorn, executive director of the Canadian Sealers Association. "I've talked to a lot of sealers and they've got holes punched in their new boats and they're taking on water."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18185276/
-
Originally posted by john9001
"Ice conditions are some of the most severe we've seen in 25 to 30 years," said Frank Pinhorn, executive director of the Canadian Sealers Association. "I've talked to a lot of sealers and they've got holes punched in their new boats and they're taking on water."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18185276/
Not sure whether this was meant to point out that the weather isn't warming up, but colder than usually. Eitherways, a strong wind is the cause for this one.
-
so unseasonably cold weather is only local, but warming is global. ok?
-
Originally posted by john9001
so unseasonably cold weather is only local, but warming is global. ok?
Let's put it the other way around: Temperature changes had nothing to do with the bad ice conditions, but the strong winds.
The thick, moving ice poses the danger of sandwiching and cracking the boats.
"There's an onshore wind that is compacting the ice," Jenkins said. "These boats are on their way back from sealing and then got stuck in the ice. --
The wind is pushing ice against the ships, they get stuck and finally their hull will be breached by several tons of ice compacting around them.
Little more or less ice doesn't matter much when there is more than enough ice to squeeze the lil' boats.
-
daddano... try watching the documentary "swindle" that was on the BBC instead of a user based encyclopedia or the EPA (who gave us the carter device for smog and MTBE)
The video is available on youtube and I have linked it in the past.
The vid explains why we are afraid of giving these boobs power over us.
Millions could die and economies could collapse if they have their way. More pollution could be created like the infamous MTBE deal.
Do you really trust liberal politicians to make your life better? are you very young?
lazs
-
fastfwd.. the liberal politicians are chomping at the bit to get more power and money.. they are a bit afraid still of the backlash tho..
Laws will be passed that give lip service to "man made global whatever" With luck tho... we can drag our feet long enough for the normal sun activity to swing and a cooling cycle to begin and then they will all go back in their holes and plot a new "crisis" to solve.
With luck.. they won't make much "progress" before it all blows over and everyone will forget how these guys swindled us in a few decades.
Hell... dadano forgot how they swindled us allready on the "man made ice age of the 1990's" that was predicted in the 70's.
They just have a better machine for getting out the propoganda now and more willing liberal media stooges.
The "scientists" who are pushing this.....?? I don't think any of em are any more honest or smart than your hero carl frigging sagan and we all know what a lying buffoon he was.
lazs