Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Angus on April 25, 2007, 08:55:24 AM
-
The "Naturally occuring Global warming" was closed, so, since I had some data to add, here is a new thing, with a new topic.
It's for those who still have a hard time figuring out if there IS a global warming or not.
From the Independent:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2480994.ece
And a picture.
Hope it works.
(http://www.visir.is/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=XZ&Date=20070425&Category=FRETTIR02&ArtNo)
-
Great article, picture didn't come through though.........or at least I wasn't able to pull it up.
-
for those of you who think that the globe stays at the same temp and does not get warmer and colder over the years....
You need to ask yourself why greenland is called greenland.
lazs
-
All I know is with each passing year, the weather continues to get stranger up here.
The norm lows for Jan - Feb are negative 30 to neg 50; this year maybe 2 days of extreme low. Ave. snow fall 64+ inches; barley 21 this year. Generally you see snow on the ground into April. By end March this year our temps were in the 30's during day, april 1 - 15; 40's t 50's, April 15 to now upper 50's to near 70 (70 in April WTF!!). Snow was gone during first week of April :O Unheard of.
So yea, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out something is broke.
-
what would you say is broke? Notice the article did not say "man made" global warming in the title? They pretty much blew that hoax by putting all their eggs in the man made co2 basket.
It may get hotter before it gets cooler but it will get cooler. It is not a huge mystery.. the big yellow ball in the sky that you see when you look up in the daytime is the cause. It has periods where it's activity is high and ones where it is low.
Oddly... when its activity is high for years on end.. we see some global warming... when it is low... we see some global cooling...
or... it could be witches.
lazs
-
Well, Lazs, let me inform you on that. It might make your remark look a little . . uneducated though.
Greenland looks very "green" in the summer, for the contrast with the blue ocean and the white ice on the cap as well as the driftice on the eastern cap is quite stunning. In short, the solid (and often mossy or grassy) ground will look extra green.
Oh, but where did it get its name from? Well, yes, from the Norse-emigrated-Iceland-living-troublemaker-Viking called Eric the Red. He got into trouble and did some double country-hopping, first Norway to Iceland (Eiriksstađir í Dölum) where he lived and raised his family for a good while, then to an exploring mission which delivered him and lots of others on the west coast of a new land, that he dubbed "Greenland".
Now, why was that, since "Iceland" has it's name from ice, and is milder in climate? Well, behold, it was the first big time propoganda advertisment. He wanted people to get over there, then there was the nice green colour.
It however did not change the fact that the climate was somewhat tough, and a few hundred years later (during the little ice age) the population of nordic people either moved off or died out completely, - or both.
So, it was you who needed to ask somebody why. Certainly not yourself :D
(BTW, I have been there)
Anyway, the weather is somewhat broke. How's the wind speed in Texas coming along?
-
I know about iceland and the travel agent theme back then... what about "vinland" or vineland.. whatever.
The globe has changed it's landscape radically over the years and will continue to do so with or without our help.
I am simply saying that adding a few parts per million of co2 is not causing it.
come up with a better theory.
I heard the ones from the 70's about the ice age we were supposed to be in by now tho already... that was going to be a man made ice age by now..
Many places that were bare had ice and snow on em as proof..
then.. they sun activity increased and it got warmer.. we are in that phase now.. it may get a little warmer before it gets cooler... or.. the sun may just decide to fry us all or freeze us all... we can't do squat about it.
And I think that is what drives the lefties who want to make it a man made thing... other than the money and power they can get from it... they hate the fact that we are powerless... that the god of science will not save us from the whim of the sun...
It is arrogant to think we can change the climate of the globe but that is what we are being told.. when in reality...
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
or.. it could be witches..
lazs
-
Here is a link that should give an expandable picture.
You could perhaps use google-earth to see how it looked like recently. Anyway, the diameter of Iceland (across, tip-to-tip) is some 500 km, so this is a good city-sized island.
Link
http://www.visir.is/article/20070425/FRETTIR02/70425029
-
As to this:
"It is arrogant to think we can change the climate of the globe but that is what we are being told.. when in reality...
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
or.. it could be witches..
lazs"
I tend, as you know, to have another opinion. I think it is arrogant and ignorant as well, to think that our combined human impact on the planet and it's atmopspheric components has no effect on the climate.
-
Here, allow me to sum up in two words, this argument that AlGore perpetuates....
Bull ****e!
Al Gore and his idiot sycophants haven't clue one as to what causes global warming, on our planet, let alone on the rest of the planets in the solar syste. (oh my yes, Mars, Saturn, Pluto... all of them are warming up)
Point of fact is this; The Earth is a living, breathing thing that mankind has no possibility of ever beating, let alone breaking. Sure, we can muck up the environment on a local, short term basis. But in the end, Mom Nature wins.
Now I am not saying we should irisponsibly use Nukes, nuclear power, carbon power, water power, poisons, or other toxic things. In fact, I am totally against nukes, and nuke power simply because we cannot detoxify the waste that produces... Wait around for 25k years to enter the salt mines and find those cans that are already leaking radioactive goop into the water table.
BAH! I said my piece. All those liberals like "I invented the internet" bullkahkah artist Al Gore, and others spread are doing is preying on ignorant peoples fears to raise more money while they really do nothing to comply with what it is they are rallying against in the first place.
-
"Point of fact is this; The Earth is a living, breathing thing that mankind has no possibility of ever beating, let alone breaking. Sure, we can muck up the environment on a local, short term basis. But in the end, Mom Nature wins."
Well, we do have the nuclear power to quickly erase any form of intelligent life within a human's lifespan or so, and dump the whole thing into a very rough climate change called an ice age.
Would 50.000 warheads do it? We could easily make a million anyway...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't believe in global warming. The world is very big, and the sun is hot. We humans are very small, therefore it is arrogant to think that we simple humans could have any sort of effect. I am being humble and virtuous, and using common sense when I assert that the sun is hot.
Anyone believing in global warming is not humble, does not believe the sun is hot, and simply wants power over me. They are not virtuous like I am.
This is all I am hearing for you, and it's getting tired.
-
It's arrogance to think that we alone are the biggest contributors to GW and its even more arrogant to think we can change the climate by reducing emissions.
Yes, we may be contributing to global warming, but there are many more factors at play here that meteorology and scientists cannot understand at this point.
-
if the dems get the WH in 08 .. global warming will disappear or be last page news
anyone who thinks it is anything but a political hack move is uniformed and/or naive
-
i will accept that global warming occurs natrually, but sorry folks, there is NO way you can deny human activity has no effect on the rate of climate change.
:noid
-
I went skiiing in Vermont last weekend....If global warming means skiing in April in the NE, then bring er on!
by the way....How many hurricanes made land fall on the US last year? "nooooo....ocean temps are warming! run for high ground"
-
Originally posted by lazs2
for those of you who think that the globe stays at the same temp and does not get warmer and colder over the years....
You need to ask yourself why greenland is called greenland.
lazs
laz the human race may not be big in a singular for but there are 6 billion of us, and we ARE the BIGGEST contributors., i know ppl in the U.S. find the idea hard to concieve and don't like to think it but we really are speeding up the process. it is naive to brush the situation aside and pretend it's not there and take the 'it's not my problem' attitude.
i was once skeptical when the idea 1st came around but now i am 99% certain of it's reality and the fact we have caused the proccess to speed up and be more damaging.
:noid
-
Originally posted by Angus
"Point of fact is this; The Earth is a living, breathing thing that mankind has no possibility of ever beating, let alone breaking. Sure, we can muck up the environment on a local, short term basis. But in the end, Mom Nature wins."
Well, we do have the nuclear power to quickly erase any form of intelligent life within a human's lifespan or so, and dump the whole thing into a very rough climate change called an ice age.
Would 50.000 warheads do it? We could easily make a million anyway...
sorry but i find this opinion total piffle and dumb but you are entitled to it. WE have changed nature, not nature changing us.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
sorry but i find this opinion total piffle and dumb but you are entitled to it. WE have changed nature, not nature changing us.
best grab your tent and head to the hills so you stop destroying the planet eh? LOL
of course we (humans) influence nature. It's just that the world is not in any danger of disappearing anytime soon because of it. It is just a huge scare tactic. Here in the states it is a political scare tactic that seems to be working as the average dumbarse can't see past his next beer or her next oprah show.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
laz the human race may not be big in a singular for but there are 6 billion of us, and we ARE the BIGGEST contributors., i know ppl in the U.S. find the idea hard to concieve and don't like to think it but we really are speeding up the process. it is naive to brush the situation aside and pretend it's not there and take the 'it's not my problem' attitude.
i was once skeptical when the idea 1st came around but now i am 99% certain of it's reality and the fact we have caused the proccess to speed up and be more damaging.
:noid
Laurie: Please tell me exactly what scientic evidence you have reviewed (and appeal to authority or "scientific consensus" is not evidence) that would back up your claim that we are the biggest, let alone a significant, cause of global climate change. I ask this respectfully, as I'm truly curious as to what exactly changed your mind. Thanks in advance.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
laz the human race may not be big in a singular for but there are 6 billion of us, and we ARE the BIGGEST contributors., i know ppl in the U.S. find the idea hard to concieve and don't like to think it but we really are speeding up the process. it is naive to brush the situation aside and pretend it's not there and take the 'it's not my problem' attitude.
i was once skeptical when the idea 1st came around but now i am 99% certain of it's reality and the fact we have caused the proccess to speed up and be more damaging.
:noid
If it is a problem to you, then you might want to consider cutting back on those Euro Typhoon, and Harrier flights you've been taking. Maybe people in the U.S. will follow your lead and the Gore's, Kerrys, and Striesands will give up their private jets.:aok
-
Well, yes, from the Norse-emigrated-Iceland-living-troublemaker-Viking called Eric the Red.
on history channel they had to fly into eric the reds port.. and they said in erics time it was free of ice and he could safely navigate there with there wooden boats..you could not do that now days.{but looks like we mite be able to again soon} did midevil times produce alot of green house gasses? hehe too many hummers?
i think we dont help. but i really believe the earth does alot on its own. i still remmeber the ozone holes they use to scare me with when i was in school. you never hear about those now. all you hear is about global warming.
-
Greenland is called Greenland for the same reason that Buenos Aires is called Buenos Aires. The air ain't good in Buenos Aires, and early settlers died by the shipload. Greenland wasn't green, but calling it that helped convince people that it wasn't a nasty block of ice where they would die, even if it was the little optimum.
-
You're missing the Greenland point Lazs is trying to make. Namely, that the sun is hot, and that he is afraid that Al Gore will break into his home, rifle through his wallet, take his firearms, and put sugar in his SUVs gas tank.
-
why is eric the reds port is full of ice now days?..and back in medieval times it wasnt..lol some kinda magical warm spot just on his port back then?
-
An Acronym for "Gloabl Warming" is GW.
OH MY GOD. Who is the current neo-con nazi world dominating Presidnet? George W. Bush.
What does global warming effect? BUSHES!
G lobal/ eorge
W warming/ .
B BOOOOOSH!
que iron maiden....
"RUN FOR THE HILLS"!
-
I have a few questions for the "global warming" folks out there.
Is the Earths climate supposed to stay the same year after year forever??
Is the changing climate really a bad thing?
Does anyone honestly think that mankind can control the climate or our planet in general?
My take is this. The reason the climate is changing, is because it always changes. It heats up, then cools down. Are humans making it heat up or cool down any faster? Maybe we are, but the only possible reason humans could even be a contributing factor is because there are too many humans on this rock.
When the climate gets to the point where people start dying off because of it, it will actually be a good thing. Once the worlds population has been culled by a couple of BILLION people, humans won't have as much impact on the planet and things will equalize again.
It's called natural selection folks. People are living far longer than ever before in human history, and there are far more people on this rock than ever before. If man made global warming is a problem, then we have to get rid of the cause and that means people. What this planet needs is anouther MAJOR world war.
That's a twisted thought process isn't it? Thing is the greenies are the same people that think war is bad, and everyone should live in harmony with each other and nature. Too bad it never has or ever will work that way, but they are too stupid to see that.
O'well I'll go on driving my big truck, and burning gas, and smoking cigarettes, and tossing my aluminum cans and plastic bottles in with the rest of the trash and just not care about it. I'm only on this rock for a short period of time, and I'm going to enjoy it as much as I can.
-
Hornet....Good post, but I think its time for you to just accept what I wrote above.
GW-B. Face it. hehe
-
I blame hippies and all their pot smoking.
-
Naw...Bush has nothing to do with it. He's not worried about anything but Iraq, but at least he is doing something to get rid of some people, so in a way he IS helping to take care of the problem.
See GWB is for the enviroment, just in a round about way:aok
-
Phhhhffffffffffffffffffffffff fffffffttttttttttttttttttttt!
The Doomsdayers are missing the boat on more accurate theory.
You won`t have to stand behind the "Sky is falling, GW/GCC, and look silly.
According to the Mayan Prohecies the end of time is upon us in 2012.
That blows the long term GW , instant "I R A GW Scientist" for lunch bunch predictions out of the water.
If I were looking for a good Doomsday theory to go with this would be the one.
Mayan predictions have a lot better track record than any long term "scientific" predictions to date................which seems to be sitting on 0.
Of course since a program delving into this is being aired as of late I`m sure the AlBore , "Pay To Sayers" have been put into high gear and are in the midst of producing scientific papers to dispute this as we speak.
No soup for you Al baby. :)
-
Originally posted by Laurie
i will accept that global warming occurs natrually, but sorry folks, there is NO way you can deny human activity has no effect on the rate of climate change.
:noid
I for one am not denying that humans have an effect on global warming, however the question is how MUCH effect we are having....as compared to naturally occuring events. THAT'S where we differ in opinion.
As I said, its pure arrogance to think that 6 billion of us can have that much affect on global warming.
-
6 billion is such a tiny number, for the most technologically advanced dominant species?
-
Originally posted by Engine
6 billion is such a tiny number, for the most technologically advanced dominant species?
Count the number of cows (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece) and trees (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm) that produce greenhouse gases and calcuate that into your math.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Count the number of cows (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece) and trees (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm) that produce greenhouse gases and calcuate that into your math.
So those scientists are right?
Ya'll are pretty funny when it comes to this subject.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So those scientists are right?
Ya'll are pretty funny when it comes to this subject.
That's the problem, we don't have enough scientific evidence to positively say "this is right" or "that is right". People take sides, kinda like.....politics!
And there you have your bottom line answer of what its all about...
History books will write about this farce in 300 years like when the "elders" wrote that the world is flat.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Count the number of cows (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece) and trees (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4604332.stm) that produce greenhouse gases and calcuate that into your math.
I had no idea cows or trees could produce polychlorinated biphenyls.
Unless you're ignoring technology, and simply comparing the amount of farting done by humans vs. cows. Right.
-
Oddly... when its activity is high for years on end.. we see some global warming... when it is low... we see some global cooling...
I think we can all agree that the earth is warming and the earth climate is changing right?
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif)
Regardless of WHY it is changing, the question is what do we want to do about it.
I personally believe that humans have had an effect on the global climate. Even if this turns out not to be the case, I would rather error on the side of a cleaner way of living than a ,
O'well I'll go on driving my big truck, and burning gas, and smoking cigarettes, and tossing my aluminum cans and plastic bottles in with the rest of the trash and just not care about it. I'm only on this rock for a short period of time, and I'm going to enjoy it as much as I can.
The simple principle being, we should leave this place in the best possible condition for future generations.
Edit: the graphic is from NASA.
-
Five to one, baby
One in five
No one here gets out alive
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Exploding_planet.jpg/120px-Exploding_planet.jpg)
Dear Sacred Cod,
(http://www.vanaqua.org/aquanew/uploads/atlantic_cod_fish_dfo_sm.jpg)
Please give us a break from the heat generated by the global warming threads.
Amen.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
I think we can all agree that the earth is warming and the earth climate is changing right?
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif)
Regardless of WHY it is changing, the question is what do we want to do about it.
I personally believe that humans have had an effect on the global climate. Even if this turns out not to be the case, I would rather error on the side of a cleaner way of living than a ,
The simple principle being, we should leave this place in the best possible condition for future generations.
The time scale of this plot is too short. Try looking at plots showing the temperatures over several hundred or thousands of years. If you measure the temperatures in 5 minutes intervals between 8 AM and 12 AM You'll think you might be fried by 12 PM. Averages are tricky.
If you look at longer time scales you'll notice similar changes in the earth climate in the distant past, way before humans could possibly be to blame.
I agree with you over all guideline of a cleaner living. Ironically, this sometime contradict with the reduction of CO2 emissions. I'd rather emit more CO2 and burn fossils more efficiently (read, less) than burn more fossils and use the extra energy to prevent from the CO2 to reach the atmosphere, creating more pollution of a different kind. We have many reasons to promote cleaner energy and energy saving. Global warming isn't one of them and it only draw resources from more important issues.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
If it is a problem to you, then you might want to consider cutting back on those Euro Typhoon, and Harrier flights you've been taking. Maybe people in the U.S. will follow your lead and the Gore's, Kerrys, and Striesands will give up their private jets.:aok
Preparing to join the armed forces and the army itself is something that has to be there, it's these big skyscrapers tha leave lights on ALL night that needs to be stopped.
-
If you look at longer time scales you'll notice similar changes in the earth climate in the distant past, way before humans could possibly be to blame.
I agree. Ya got me.
Next question:
What is the rate in which the warming is taking place relative to similar historical trends.
Can anyone dig up some graphics/data on this?
I'm going to email noaa and see what they can throw at me.
-
Gents the planet will heat up and it will cool down sooner or later. What is the point of this pissing match between you guys. The planet will change and nothing we can do will stop that short of launching MAD. How about you tards talk about how we will adapt and survive. Who cares if we had a hand in warming it up. It was going to warm or cool down anyway in spite of us. I can just see all of you pissing at each other while standing on top aof the last 5 square yards of dry dirt and then drowning saying "see I told you so....". So freekin what.....Nothing we can do will make it like it was in whatever fantacy you want to go back to. The planet changes...adapt and over come or go extinct.
Fossil Arctic animal tracks point to climate risks
Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:00 AM IST
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent
COAL MINE SEVEN, Svalbard, Norway (Reuters) - Fossils of a hippopotamus-like creature on an Arctic island show the climate was once like that of Florida, giving clues to risks from modern global warming, a scientist said.
Fossil footprints of a pantodont, a plant-eating creature weighing about 400 kg (880 lb), add to evidence of sequoia-type trees and crocodile-like beasts in the Arctic millions of years ago when greenhouse gas concentrations in the air were high.
"The climate here about 55 million years ago was more like that of Florida," Appy Sluijs, an expert in ancient ecology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands, said in Coal Mine Seven on the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard.
"Where we are now was once a temperate rainforest," he said on Tuesday, at the end of a horizontal mine shaft 5 kms (3 miles) inside a mountain and 300 metres (600 feet) below the surface.
He pointed to a row of footprint impressions found in December in the roof of the mine north of Longyearbyen, the main settlement on the barren treeless Norwegian archipelago 1,000 km (600 miles) from the North Pole.
Sluijs said forests grew in the Arctic when carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, was at about 1,000 parts per million in the atmosphere because of natural swings in the climate.
And he said such concentrations point to risks with surging modern emissions stoked by human use of fossil fuels -- greenhouse gas concentrations are at the highest in at least 650,000 years and rising fast.
"It's a worrying scenario for future global warming," he told a group of students studying climate change. The ancient warming was triggered by natural shifts, perhaps linked to volcanic activity and a thaw of frozen methane.
ICE FREE
Sea levels 55 million years ago were about 100 metres higher than now -- Antarctica was free of ice.
"We are starting processes that will last for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years," he said of modern emissions from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars.
When Svalbard was hot -- the islands were also close to the North Pole 55 million years ago -- many parts of the globe near the equator would have been too hot for modern plants and animals that have adapted to a modern climate, he said.
Carbon dioxide levels are now at almost 390 per million in the atmosphere, up from 270 before the Industrial Revolution and rising fast. Sluijs said they could reach 1,000 parts per million by 2100 if not held in check.
The footprints were found by chance by two miners. "As far as we know there are only five pantodonts of this type found in the world," said Steve Torgersen, a mining expert.
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I went skiiing in Vermont last weekend....If global warming means skiing in April in the NE, then bring er on!
by the way....How many hurricanes made land fall on the US last year? "nooooo....ocean temps are warming! run for high ground"
Last year I snowboared in California in July. Thank you global warming.
-
Originally posted by hyena426
on history channel they had to fly into eric the reds port.. and they said in erics time it was free of ice and he could safely navigate there with there wooden boats..you could not do that now days.{but looks like we mite be able to again soon} did midevil times produce alot of green house gasses? hehe too many hummers?
i think we dont help. but i really believe the earth does alot on its own. i still remmeber the ozone holes they use to scare me with when i was in school. you never hear about those now. all you hear is about global warming.
You really don't think that Eric went into those territories in the winter do you? You see, in medieval times there were also seasons.
In that particular period it was actually rather warm, roughly as warm as today. The Greenland glacier is still belived to have been as big as today, while some of the glaciers (at least one) was smaller.
And as for the trees, they only emit co2 when there is no photosyntesis. The existance of the tree itself, - it's mass, is the mass of greenhouse gas binding (carbon) in the trees favour. BTW, new temperature measures also show that forests have a massive cooling effect.
-
"COAL MINE SEVEN, Svalbard, Norway (Reuters) - Fossils of a hippopotamus-like creature on an Arctic island show the climate was once like that of Florida, giving clues to risks from modern global warming, a scientist said."
Guess how old it is.
The oldest parts of my icy country also had big forests once, I have fossilized leaves in my drawer.
The poles do shift around, but this time the ice caps are just leaving.
-
For you who doubt the human impact on this planet, dig up the first color photos taken of earth from the orbit.
Now compare them to photos taken now. You'll notice that the deep blue shade of the oceans has turned to grey or brownish shade of blue. Pollution folks.
If the color of the sea darkens just 1% it probably absorbs more solar energy per day into the sea than the humans produce all in all.
And with fossil findings.. well the continents do move a little.
(http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tecall1_4.gif)
-
Ah, just remembered an argument put forth on the other (now closed thread), which was the impact of the ocean's CO2 bindings. (The poster did indeed bring up some useful and logical points).
Anyway, as much as the life of the sea brings to the balance, our co2 ppm's are still rising fast, and heading for a record.
It was interesting to see what was posted here before, that the SL was once 100 metres higher. That would mean no polar caps at all (?) and unsurvivable conditions on barren land near the middle. It also roughly confirms how high the SL would be without caps. How many of you guys live above 330 feet?
That would put the doomsday theory to rest (Venus atmosphere), however the impact of massive forests is yet to be considered, since they have a great cooling effect.
So, in short, good news. And yet not. For if we keep pumping greenhouse gases, the caps will melt, the methane stored in the permafrost will be released, AND we have an all time low of forests, we will have a setup that hasn't been here for hundreds of millions of years. And back then, things were indeed wild. If you then add the increased solar activity to the equation, - and thereby or as well the natural upswing in temperature that sme claim, it makes things a lot worse. So, worse than bad. Oh my.
You see, polluted oceans as well as deforestation, spiced with greenhouse gases and dressed with raised solar activity adds up to a devil soup. To avoid that sour dinner, more maneuvers have to be made.
-
Question:
If the gawdamned planet is warming, then why are there a hundred or so ships stuck in ice near Nova Scotia?
Why is the Southern Ice pack growing?
Why did it snow in APril in Georgia and the Carolinas?
Man has about as much chance of making lasting environmental changes to this planet as does the dinosaur making a sudden come back. We can do things locally, sure, but globaly...? No way, simply because Earth, and Mom Nature are way to big to take on and be beaten by puny, arrogant, insignificant locust of man.
-
Originally posted by Odee
Question:
If the gawdamned planet is warming, then why are there a hundred or so ships stuck in ice near Nova Scotia?
Why is the Southern Ice pack growing?
Why did it snow in APril in Georgia and the Carolinas?
Man has about as much chance of making lasting environmental changes to this planet as does the dinosaur making a sudden come back. We can do things locally, sure, but globaly...? No way, simply because Earth, and Mom Nature are way to big to take on and be beaten by puny, arrogant, insignificant locust of man.
Freak weather patterns are just typical effect of the shift in balance. Just wait for the next summer and the potential new record of the type 5 tornadoes.
-
dunno about the rest of the world, but here in the states Global Warming is only about politics ... another hack job on this administration & the big business which is setting record high markets here and around the world
-
Global warming is caused by Rush spewing his political nonsense gibberish
-
You really don't think that Eric went into those territories in the winter do you?
either did the history channel ..lol..they stayed the night there in sleeping bags..it was sunny and green...they said it had ice all year long in that port...you couldnt get there by boat anymore...but back in erics day..it was a clear port..that was on in search of with that josh guy..indiana jones wanna be guy:P,,lol
-
Originally posted by Laurie
Preparing to join the armed forces and the army itself is something that has to be there, it's these big skyscrapers tha leave lights on ALL night that needs to be stopped.
This only happens in America?
I agree with you the airplane quip was a cheap shot. I wish you much success in your quest to beome an RAF pilot.:)
-
a change in climate in the North Atlantic led to an increase in sea-ice, making communication with Europe difficult,
When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late 900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle, open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by 1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By 1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and the Vikings did not survive.
Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.
During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.
-
engine... why did you lie about what I said? I think it is because of the hate.. the hate those who have science for a religion and man as god have for anything that says that man is powerless in the universe.
you lie because you are angry and don't want debate. You want only your view to be out there.
The planet was much warmer before.. we may reach that point again.. then again.. it may get very much cooler first.
Of course man has an effect on the weather... putting an ice cube in the back yard has an effect... setting off nukes in volcanoes has an effect... how much? Who frigging knows? It isn't enough tho that we can see any real numbers tho is it? Hell.. we can air condition a building... surely we can control the planets weather... but why stop there? regulate the suns energy!
"significant" that is the number they use.. to some... parts per billion are "significant"... to a lawyer... "soon" can mean 5 years.
Parts of the land that used to be bare are now covered with ice. They may get bare again... then again.. they may not.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
Now... if you handwringers and dooms sayers want to work on a way to regulate the suns activity (so long as I don't have to be involved).... fine with me.
If you want to starve millions of people to death and regulate us all into poverty in the name of the holy scientist "man made global warming" religion tho... You may have a fight on your hands.
The scientists in the documentary "swindle" (available on youtube) seem to be convinced that the evidence is not there for man made global warming in any "significant" amount.. we are a minor player here (sorry to you "man as god" types).
Get over yourselves. You aren't that important and your priests the scientists are not all in agreement... some who are the real experts in the field are honest and say it is a big scam.
You are being duped. I know that is hard to admit but it has happened to all of us...
I almost believed the "man made global ice age" that all the scientists and really cool people were touting in the 70's that was going to happen here.. we made fun of or got mad at anyone who said that the data didn't add up.
So what happened to the ice age that the scientists said would be here by the 1990's? where is it? didn't happen so we just burned the books on that one?
What if we had starved a few million people to save the planet from an ice age back then? would it have been worth it? Must be... hell we don't have an ice age do we?
And that is the point... they need to get the ball rolling soon before the sun activity changes again and everyone forgets about man made global warming.
But.. they are not stupid.. they have shifted to "man made global climate change"
How perfect! no matter what the sun does... they are covered and their religion can't laughed at. They have learned their lesson well and are harvesting the rubes in a much more clever way these days.
You guys might just be too stupid and naive to live at that.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
engine... ... You want only your view to be out there.
...And that is the point... they need to get the ball rolling soon before the sun activity changes again and everyone forgets about man made global warming.
But.. they are not stupid.. they have shifted to "man made global climate change"
How perfect! no matter what the sun does... they are covered and their religion can't laughed at. They have learned their lesson well and are harvesting the rubes in a much more clever way these days.
You guys might just be too stupid and naive to live at that.
lazs
Very well put mate.
MrRipleyH: I am going to hold you to that prediction. then laugh when it turns out wrong.
-
and laurie...
We all have access to the same data.. Yet.. some believe that something has to be done about the "significant" man made global war...er.. "climate change" and others don't.
It seems to go by country with one thing in common.. those who are being told that other countries are to blame and must pay are the ones who's citizens believe in the religion the most.
You must have seen the "swindle" documentary on your bbc... what did you think of it?
How did it compare to the soap opera of algores drama queen "documentary"?
The difference was striking to me and others... algore pleading and threatening and crying and the swindle guys showing pure science.
lazs
-
The whole man-made, CO2-induced GW thing has already cost billions, and with questionable (and I'm being generous here) results. From the article here: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.
Isn't it interesting that Al Gore owns stock in just such a carbon-credit trading company? He claims to live a carbon-neutral life, but uses 20 times the energy of your average American. His claim in part is supported by the fact that he buys carbon credits to offset his profligate energy usage...from his own company.:huh So, there's money to made (and lost) in the GW shell game, but that money is being wasted by those those shelling it out in the name of GW. This does not include the billions spent trying to model and prove GW is man-made (and effort that has yielded millions of lines of computer code that no more reflects reality than a superhero comic book.
-
From: http://www.standard-freeholder.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentid=502332&catname=Local%20News&classif=
Global warming debate 'irrational': scientists
Stephanie Stein / Standard-Freeholder
Local News - Thursday, April 26, 2007 @ 10:00
The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.
Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet.
Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century. Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said.
"I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," said Patterson. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
Billions of taxpayers' dollars are spent to control the emissions of this benign gas, in the mistaken belief that they can stop climate change, he said.
"The only constant about climate is change," said Patterson.
Patterson said money could be better spent on places like Africa.
"All the money wasted on Kyoto in a year could provide clean drinking water for Africa," said Patterson. "We're into a new era of science with the discussion of solar forces. Eventually, Kyoto is going to fall by the wayside. In the meantime, I'm worried we're going to spend millions that could have been spent on something better like air pollution."
-
Originally posted by Odee
Very well put mate.
MrRipleyH: I am going to hold you to that prediction. then laugh when it turns out wrong.
Or then again you might find yourself riding a cow in a vortex before that happens. Suit yourself. :D
-
gets a whiff of the stench of ignoance, and sees planet america on the horizon,
can't be bothered to waste time talking to brick walls. i'm no way some left wing, tree hugging green peace activist, i'm quite the opposite actually, but i still see and recognise the effect man is having on the world.
This thread really shows up the culture gap between the two sides of the pond.
:noid
-
Originally posted by Shifty
This only happens in America?
I agree with you the airplane quip was a cheap shot. I wish you much success in your quest to beome an RAF pilot.:)
-
does mowing the grass help or hurt global warming? i just don't want to do the wrong thing.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
gets a whiff of the stench of ignoance, and sees planet america on the horizon,
can't be bothered to waste time talking to brick walls. i'm no way some left wing, tree hugging green peace activist, i'm quite the opposite actually, but i still see and recognise the effect man is having on the world.
This thread really shows up the culture gap between the two sides of the pond.
:noid
With all due respect, Laurie this appears to be the pot calling the kettle black. I respectfully asked you a rational question above, which you did not respond to. I've also provided some counter points to your view via the linked articles. By all appearances your response his been "Old Europe" snobbishness (reference the "stench of ignorance" and "culture gap" remarks above). If some of us appear to be "brick walls", I submit to you that that appearance may simple reflect the fact that the side of the debate you support has failed to make a convincing argument.
-
Originally posted by hyena426
Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.
During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.
Do you have data or graphics that we can compare the rates @ which the temperature went up then and is going up now?
I'm still waiting for data from noaa regarding this.
-
Do you have data or graphics that we can compare the rates @ which the temperature went up then and is going up now?
no..but you cant trust that eric the reds port is full of ice now and back in the 1100's it wasnt? . from what i read...the glacers forced the vikings out of greenland and out of erics port..which is still abandoned today due to ice and climate change. you cant even get a boat close, let alone a wooden one.
i was just replying to angus anser. and he did not ask for a graf. but im sure you could make your own graf on the data that is out there:) and i just gave up data that was from the wallstreet journal's website. but i dout anyone will trust news sources anyways..lol
-
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/warming.jpg)
-
Originally posted by hyena426
no..but you cant trust that eric the reds port is full of ice now and back in the 1100's it wasnt? . from what i read...the glacers forced the vikings out of greenland and out of erics port..which is still abandoned today due to ice and climate change. you cant even get a boat close, let alone a wooden one.
i was just replying to angus anser. and he did not ask for a graf. but im sure you could make your own graf on the data that is out there:) and i just gave up data that was from the wallstreet journal's website. but i dout anyone will trust news sources anyways..lol
I was replying to the second half of your post.
What I am looking for is historical data to compare the rates at which the earth has heated in the past juxtaposed to the rate of heating now. I found some good information from a reliable source.
This is an interesting read from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (http://http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)
(WARNING: Some big words and footnotes are used, this may confuse the unintelligent)
-
laurie.. I find your post offensive and.. just plain stupid. You were asked nicely a few questions and you were given links and data to show the other side of the debate but...
You insist that there be no debate.. it is settled and anyone not bowing to your religion is to be shut up or ignored.
If you have nothing then why get into the thread at all? Just go on burning as much jet fuel as you can and point fingers at the people burning lights to pay the bills.
You do have the worlds 28th largest army to keep going tho so I guess it is ok.
That is the point... I don't like the people on the other side... they all seem to want to limit others but feel that their lifestyles are justified because they... they what? seen algors movie? drive a polluting prenus?
The debate is over so far as they are concerned.. it is all everyone elses fault and they all need to change their lifestyle. Man made global warming is too important to have facts interjected into it.
meanwhile... that pesky ol sun seem to be playing right into the hands of the wasteful suv driving right wingers and matching the climate changes like a shadow.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
lazs
-
The UK... that Socialist country that believes the Gov should take care of everyone... Yeah, there's a plan for you. High taxes, low wages, crappy health care bankrupting the nation. Smart move going to Sov.
Point of fact is, no country other than America, will ever know, or understand our model of Democracy. You didn't have to fight for it in the first place....
Originally posted by Dadano
I was replying to the second half of your post.
What I am looking for is historical data to compare the rates at which the earth has heated in the past juxtaposed to the rate of heating now. I found some good information from a reliable source....
This is something you will never find from aLGore and company. Not that it doesn't exist, rather that the evidence refutes their claims. Same reason they won't discuss this amongst the opposition in a scientific debate, because they cannot prove any of their claims, and the non-Global Warmers can. But you will hardly find the drive-by media showing an unbiased side to this alarmist theory.
And the two facedness of the defenders of Global Warming?!?! Drive the Humvees, and jet around in private airplanes while burning more energy of all types than any 20 family's. Then they have the gall to say they have a "Carbon Credit" by paying into some energy project they don't even use?!? :huh That's like going to McDees and ordering the Tripple-barfburger, extra large fries and a diet soda. Shows you how out of touch with the real world these idiots are.
Get real people. This planet is bigger than all of us together. We can only affect her on a local level, and when we're gone, she'll find something else to play with her for the next few melinnia.
You really want to change something? Try personal responsibility for yourself, and pass that ethic on to family, friends, and neighbors.
You want to "Stop Global Warming"? Get rid of all your tech-toys, cars, houses and go live like the Native Americans of the 1500's and 1600's.
-
Actually, native americans were very hard on the local eco-system, despite the Hollywood (earth-friendly, peace-loving conservationist) myth that replaced the equally overblown earlier Hollywood stereotype (that of "the blood-thirsty savage"). They tended to completely deplete the local wildlife over time due to over hunting, forcing them to relocate, rinse, and repeat somewhere else. Plus, since their energy needs were satisfied almost entirely by burning wood, they would be considered major violators under the current thinking of the enviro-nazis. :D
-
Man made global warming is too important to have facts interjected into it.
Not that it doesn't exist, rather that the evidence refutes their claims. Same reason they won't discuss this amongst the opposition in a scientific debate, because they cannot prove any of their claims, and the non-Global Warmers can. But you will hardly find the drive-by media showing an unbiased side to this alarmist theory.
Here are the lastest Facts that "refute" Gore's claims. (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf)
Understand that I have not seen Al Gore's movie, I do not watch Television and I could give a rat **** about your politics or the way you live.
The linked document above contains enough information for me come to the conclusion that we are in fact having a impact on the Earth's warming.
Please post the scientific evidence that the earth is not warming and humans are having no impact. (I do not consider skiing in May as good enough evidence, I ski year round.)
Thanks.
-
*yawns*
Okay... so what's causing the other planets in our solar system to heat up too?
GOE WITH THE MARTIAN WIND (http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20070426/sc_space/gonewiththemartianwind;_ylt=AqAi6tuezqvQ6iLd8E8U.e7q188F) and the main articls, GLOBAL WARMING ON MARS (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070404_gw_mars.html)
There is not one Scientist listed in that article as contributers. The data they present is halfarsed, halfbaked, and on sided towards the popular "Keep the people in line by scaring them so they won't see what we're really doing" politicians.
They make no mention what so ever that we are still coming out of the last Ice Age.
Greenhouse gases... H2o is one of them. Methane another. (man look out pig farmers, you're next), Co2 is another... Two out of the three I listed are needed for us to exist at all. Man contributes less than 0.001% to greenhouse gases through our life style. SOLAR energy, as in the SUN has far greater impact on our environment than anyone... ANYONE on that board has even thought to give credit to.
Man has, and will continue to have a minimal impact on the Earth's climate. Your *coughs politely* evidence is faulty to the point of laughing. Show me something that goes back a couple million years up to today and I might reconsider my view... if the evidence is strong enough.
So again, if MAN is heating the plane Earth, WHO is heating up the other planets, hmmm?
Now if you want to argue pollution that man creates affecting life on the planet, I'll point you to the salt mines with those thousands of tons of radioactive waste leaking from containers that were supposed to keep us safe from the lethal goop for a thousand years. Imagine what those isotopes are doing to our water tables at this minute... and that's only one of the toxins we use to keep the lights shining.
Speaking of lights. You know what is inside all those cool NOT MADE IN AMERICA energy efficient flourescent bulbs replacing the incandescant? MERCURY!
Know where all that stuff has started accumulate already? You local landfill. Just seeping down into the water table waiting to kill who knows how many million people with well water.
Yeah, your god, the inventer of the internet *bold laughter* He sure has the cures for man made disasters... by setting the stage for even greater ones.
-
Okay... so what's causing the other planets in our solar system to heat up too?
So again, if MAN is heating the plane Earth, WHO is heating up the other planets, hmmm?
What does this have to do with the debate?
There is not one Scientist listed in that article as contributers.
False. Every single contributor is an accomplished academic.
The data they present is halfarsed, halfbaked, and on sided towards the popular "Keep the people in line by scaring them so they won't see what we're really doing" politicians.
In what ways is the data "halfarsed, halfbaked..", please elaborate.
Show me something that goes back a couple million years up to today and I might reconsider my view... if the evidence is strong enough.
What you are looking for is Paeleoclimatic information.Does NOAA suffice? (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/work.html)
An excerpt:As the ice-core data show, the increase in carbon dioxide is unprecedented and well outside the range of natural variations. The recent increase matches the increase calculated from the fossil fuel emissions. There is little doubt that these gases will contribute to global warming, and here too the paleo record provides invaluable evidence regarding how much temperature change accompanied changes in carbon dioxide over the past several hundred thousand years
Now if you want to argue pollution that man creates affecting life on the planet, I'll point you to the salt mines...
I agree, we have not been very good stewards.
eah, your god, the inventer of the internet *bold laughter* He sure has the cures for man made disasters... by setting the stage for even greater ones.
As posted above, I have not seen that movie.
-
Dadano, what IPCC doesn't say is what are these models based on. The truth is that we barely understand the underlying physics. MANY of the parameters in the model are either plugged in (where we have no model to describe them) or are based on very simplified modeling.
For example, CO2 levels are not fully calculated in some of the models. They ASSUME a certain CO2 level and use that for the calculations. Other models do attempt to calculate it more rigorously, but has been shown to be wrong by a factor of 2 or more when compared to test data. Cloud formation is something which have a very significant effect on the energy budget, but we have no real model for. So, yes, these models predict a global warming, but are they really modeling reality? From experience with computer models in astrophysics, I'm very suspicious of their results.
The biggest problem for these models is how to explain the excellent inverse correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. The models do not predict solar activity, and earth is not very likely to affect the sun. Something very big, which we do not understand, is missing from the modeling. Some suggest that it has to do with cosmic radiation which affect cloud formation and some composition of the atmosphere. Solar wind regulate this radiation. Also, our locations in the galaxy is changing. A passage of one of the galactic spiral arms may also have a great effect on the amount of cosmic radiation we get.
-
There you go...
Bozon for saying in far fewer words than I, what needed being said
Originally posted by Dadano
1. What does this have to do with the debate?
2. False. Every single contributor is an accomplished academic.
3. In what ways is the data "halfarsed, halfbaked..", please elaborate.
4. What you are looking for is Paeleoclimatic information.Does NOAA suffice? (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/work.html)
An excerpt:
5. As posted above, I have not seen that movie.
1 Answer the question "Why the other planets are experienceing global warming too, and you can see that man has nothing to do with it. Same as Earth. Man is not the culprit, it's the planet itself.
2 These are all charlatans with no scientific proof! A real scientist would weigh in all the factors, not take a piece of it and say "this is so". What evidence they do show is only miniscule. And... there are not enough computers on this planet yet that can plot all the vagaries involved with accurate weather patterns, and trends for tomorrow. Let alon 25 years in the future.
3 See "2" above as well as absolutely no impirical evidence.
4 Been there read that, interesting theories at the least... but none of this is taken into account in that report. If they had, it would have blown their 'theory' out of the water.
5. What movie? He make a movie about being the father of the internet too? :O
Beh... Most of you hipocrates have already made up your midget minds that Bush started global warming and we are all doomed to drown in 100 feet of water covering NYC, NY (which is pure BS to begin with). These same, self serving hipocrates will never let their luxuries go... their MTV, IPOD, PLASTIC world of goods. Their Tech-toy, SUV, Econocars, nor even the Atomic energy (BTW - Walt Disney did a grand PR job for that one alone. "Electricity for pennies" LOL When they went online, it was dollars for energy, not pennies.)
Ethanol... whooo-buddy is that a scam and a half! Somebody made a fortune in corn futures over that one, and the stuff is dirtier than the gas we used before. Takes twice as much to get the same gas milage. You see any of these Global Warming doom-n-gloomers driving electric hybrids? See any of them questioning the automakers "Why do we need cars that go 160 mph on already crowded highways?"
Hell, I bet not even 1% of the band wagon is willing to give up a thing in the name of making the climate more stable. These people that cry the most about change the world, need to look in their own damn yard first and take care of that before butting in on someone elses turf.
-
Good post Bozon.
Other models do attempt to calculate it more rigorously, but has been shown to be wrong by a factor of 2 or more when compared to test data.
Interesting. Can you point me to some sources?
They ASSUME a certain CO2 level and use that for the calculations.
But what of ice core samples juxtaposed to contemporary data? At what point in the calculation is the assumption?
I apprciate your post Bozon! Good stuff!:aok
Then we have Odee...
Most of you hipocrates have already made up your midget minds that Bush started global warming and we are all doomed to drown in 100 feet of water covering NYC
We need not turn this into a political pissing match. Bozon succeeded in posting his viewpoint without doing so and it is very much appreciated. Follow his lead, do some research, lets debate!
-
I'm not making it politcial... The majority of airheads believein man is heating up the world do that well enough without my help...
Can't have a debate when one side refuses to consider all factors... The GW Band Wagon bases their facts on incomplete and inaccurate tables and models, and when cornered on it, they go "pooh-pooh" and switch the subject.
You have yet to address the "why are the rest of the planets warming when man isn't there yet" question. (discounting our hmvees on Mars which has risen a whole 2 degrees. Unlike Earth's parts tenths of a degree)
If you blieve man is at fault here, then what are you doing personally to stop the affect 'we' are having on the planet? Given up driving, or using electricity, or jacking the credit card up for those luxuries made in countries that haven't a care about the issue? Boycotted any products lately? How about spread the word to your friends to do the same?
Point here is, that all this BS yak is going to do is cost tax dollars to put not even a bandaid on the percieved problem until 'they' can come up with some other kahkamaimy scare plan.
Do your own research, the facts are out there if you set aside bias and look for them.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
Interesting. Can you point me to some sources?
One of the great opposers is Prof. Nir Shaviv. Part of what I mentioned was presented to our physics faculty by him a few months ago. I do not have links to the raw data. A simple google search for "Nir Shaviv global warming" will get you plenty of links to follow.
This one is quite informative and he attacks IPCC report directly:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
As for CO2 models being off, he presented measurements of Carbon 14 during the 60s after nuclear tests. This isotope, that was produced in quantities during the explosions, was a good tracer for what happens to a large amount of CO2 released to the atmosphere. The commonly used numeric codes do not reproduce the exact results and over estimate the amount of CO2 left in the atmosphere. The problem is that the system is highly non-linear. CO2 affect temperatures, that affect the formation of clouds that affect the temperatures that affect the CO2 released from the oceans to the atmosphere. Everything affect everything else.
Now, even what he says you have to take with a grain of salt, especially his alternative theories. They are just that - theories, and are not well established. However, in contrast with man made global warming, they are presented as such.
Finally, I must add that I hate humvee's and SUVs, consumption culture and pollution of the enviroment in the name of economy. With most environmental issues, I'm on the green side. CO2 nonsense must be stopped so we can use the effort and funds where they are needed and not fighting this ghost "just to be on the safe side". In addition, I hate bad science.
-
The simple answer is, the glaciers began receding thousands of years ago. (must've been all that copper smelting during the copper age huh?)
Ice cores prove it's a cycle the earth goes through, the activity of modern man surely has effected this cycle in some way but it's impossible to say how. One group of scientists say one thing & another group of scientists say the polar opposite (pun intended).
I'm surprised this thread got restarted since everything that could possibly be said for & against was said already; plus some things that were neither here nor there.
Oh, I hate to put this spin on the Greenland & Iceland naming discussion, but I heard the explorer responsible for naming them did so to confuse other explorers to buy them time to settle on the more habitable land. I just saw that on a T.V. special about the Vikings & their landfall on North America, that's why it's fresh on the mind. I didn't look anything up.
-
I read up a bit on Prof. Nir Shaviv and his work, which was intriguing. That led me to the documentary that Lazs was speaking of which I found equally as interesting. You can find it here. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle)
Good stuff:aok
-
Oh, I hate to put this spin on the Greenland & Iceland naming discussion, but I heard the explorer responsible for naming them did so to confuse other explorers to buy them time to settle on the more habitable land.
i heard the same thing when i was in grade school 20 years ago. and took it as the truth that they were tring to trick people..im not sure about that info now. there is alot of evidence that says this is wrong. that greenland was much warmer back then. and they were forced out cause of climate change. now i know this has been beatin over and over. it is a fact that his port is full of ice all year long now. and at one time it was a clear and great place for a port. good sized settlement. that cant be reached by boat anymore. atleast thats what they said on the history channel. {i dont allways take as the truth}
but alot of websites support the same idea. archeologist slash historian for the site that took that josh exployer guy out there, camped over night at the site. while she told him all about the place..and how long they lived there. and last time they used the church. and when they were forced out cause of climate change. they even knew the name of the last couple that was married there. i would say they had anuff info to believe in what she was stating. and i would say she proubly had alot more info than we did on the subject. but i have no idea my self. i just happend to watch the show:)
hey there bozon:) i still havent changed my flight suit on my sig!! hehe
-
Bozon, to quote directly from the Shaviv article you linked:
As I try to demonstrate below, the truth is probably somewhere in between, with natural causes probably being more important over the past century, whereas anthropogenic causes will probably be more dominant over the next century. Following empirical evidence I describe below, about 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes.
I appreciate his reasonable tone and estimated margin of error. But by his own admission, man could be responsible for 2/3 of the observed global warming.
This does not sound like an opposition view to me.
-
"Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2°C out of the observed 0.6±0.2°C global warming (Shaviv, 2005).
Fig. 5: Solar activity over the past several centuries can be reconstructed using different proxies. These reconstructions demonstrate that 20th century activity is unparalleled over the past 600 years (previously high solar activity took place around 1000 years ago, and 8000 yrs ago). Specifically, we see sunspots and 10Be. The latter is formed in the atmosphere by ~1GeV cosmic rays, which are modulated by the solar wind (stronger solar wind → less galactic cosmic rays → less 10Be production). Note that both proxies do not capture the decrease in the high energy cosmic rays that took place since the 1970's, but which the ion chamber data does (see fig. 6). (image source: Wikipedia)
Fig. 6: The flux of cosmic rays reaching Earth, as measured by ion chambers. Red line - annual averages, Blue line - 11 yr moving average. Note that ion chambers are sensitive to particles at relatively high energy (several 10's of GeV, which is higher than the energies responsible for the atmospheric ionization [~10 GeV], and much higher than the energies responsible for the 10Be production [~1 GeV]). Plot redrawn using data from Ahluwalia (1997). Moreover, the decrease in high energy cosmic rays since the 1970's is less pronounced in low energy proxies of solar activity, implying that cosmogenic isotopes (such as 10Be) or direct solar activity proxies (e.g., sun spots, aa index, etc) are less accurate in quantifying the solar → cosmic ray → climate link and its contribution to 20th century global warming.
Summary
As explained above, there is no real direct evidence which can be used to incriminate anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the being the main factor responsible for the observed global warming. The reason these gases were blamed are primarily because (1) we expect them to warm and indeed the global temperature increased, and (2) there is no other mechanism which can explain the warming."
The short version for all you drama queens is......
ITS THE SUN STUPID
Lots of nice charts there for all you guys who think nothing is proven till someone makes a chart too.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Freak weather patterns are just typical effect of the shift in balance. Just wait for the next summer and the potential new record of the type 5 tornadoes.
Just like the potential new record of hurricanes that happened last year?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
for those of you who think that the globe stays at the same temp and does not get warmer and colder over the years....
You need to ask yourself why greenland is called greenland.
lazs
Greenland is called Greenland because because Erik the Red, banished from his homeland, founded a colony there and named it Greenland, to entice his fellow Scandinavians to bypass Iceland and sail straight for Greenland...
Others believe Greenland is a derivation of Ground-Land...so named for its bays and ports on its souther tip...either way...
The ice sheet that has covered Greenland, and still does, formed over 100,000 years ago...Greenland has never been Green.
And for the record...
Man's impact on the planet in terms of climate change is so minute as to be laughable. The enviro-wackos pushing the Global Warming BS are also for the most part atheist or agnostic...and attributing something as massive as planetary cooling and warming cycles to 'man' and not a god...fits their agenda.
It is necessary and pleasing for these nut balls to exist in a homo-centric universe...where man is god...man is all.
The planet has oscillated between temperature extremes both hot and cold for Million's OF YEARS...
DONT BUY THE 'MAN CAUSED' GLOBAL WARMING CRAP...
-
Good stuff!
I'm going to most definitely look farther into the solar theories. Also the lack of knowledge we have in regard to aerosols and cloud formation. Super interesting stuff!
"ITS THE SUN STUPID."-Lazs2
“Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”- Nietzsche
-
here is a site full of grafs{for dano} hehe just joking. but it has some interesting scientific data on this very subject
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/determining_climate_record.html
according to documents the water was allmost warm anuff to survive a swim. lol i think when eric showed up. alot of the southern end of greenland was quite green and good anuff to have crops and farms.but it got so cold they couldnt even get to greenland for 80 to 100 years to see what happend to everyone.. alot of records point to a much warmer greenland then we have ever seen to this day.
-
Originally posted by bozon
...The biggest problem for these models is how to explain the excellent inverse correlation between solar activity and global temperatures...
Bozon, can you elaborate on the INVERSE relationship between solar activity and global temperatures? I'm pretty sure those who want to blame solar radiation for global warming are assuming a DIRECT relationship, not an inverse one. At least, that would make sense to me.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Man made global warming is caused by one thing and one thing only. MAN.
In 1950 there were only 2.5 Billion people on this rock. In 2006 there were over 6.5 Billion people on this rock. In just over 50 years we've tripled the amount of people on this planet. People that drive cars, use electricity, you name it.
I can clearly see what the problem is. It isn't everyones lifestyle that's to blame. It's the shear number of people that's to blame. The ONLY way to combat global warming and the depletion of our natural resorces is to get rid of the initial problem in the first place, and that means people.
It's very simple really. People on this rock breed like rabbits, and one day there will not be enough room for everyone. Cars aren't the problem. Neither is buring oil, or coal, or anything else. You want to cut down on polution, get rid of the poluters.
Mother nature will take care of the problem on her own eventually. Once the planet is streched to the breaking point, there will be a major climate shift and people will die by the billions. Here's the kicker.......NO ONE WILL BE ABLE TO STOP IT!!!!!
-
Hornet.. while I would always like to see less people...
What countries are overpopulated and what resources have we run out of or are in danger of running out of?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dadano
False. Every single contributor is an accomplished academic
Academic does not equal scientist.
An english literature professor can be an accomplished academic.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hornet.. while I would always like to see less people...
What countries are overpopulated and what resources have we run out of or are in danger of running out of?
lazs
China and India come to mind as being over populated. Those countries have more people than they can economically sustain. Most of the African continent is in the same boat. It's not so much about space, but being able to provide basic living conditions for the amount of people. Look at the energy crisis California has been having over the last couple of years. To many people and not enough infastructure to handle it, and new infastructure can't be built fast enough, not to mention the shear cost involved.
As far as depleted natural resources, just how much oil do you think is sitting under our feet? It's become harder and harder to find and with the population growing out of control the way it is, it's only going to get worse as demand for oil increases. It will run out. Also as the polulation grows those people have to go somewhere. More and more people are building new communities and expanding established communities in what used to be farmland. With more people and less land to produce crops, what's the eventual outcome going to be? Too many people to feed with what's available.
Also for every person on this rock, that one person generates on average over 2 tons of watse a year, that's plastics, bio waste, and polution.
In addition take a good hard look at human nature. The more people you have crammed into an area the higher the likely hood for violence comes into play. Do you think that the increase in world violence has anything to do with increase in the worlds population? I do. You can't have this many people crowded together without someone loosing their cool and lashing out for whatever reason they choose, be it religion or just the desire for more personal space.
What it boils down to is this. People are in fact hurting this planet just by our mere exsistance. It wouldn't matter if everyone gave up their cars and lived in an eco friendly way, there are just too many people, or there will soon be too many people, for the planet to sustain everyone.
Make love not war? Yeah that got us real far didn't it. Bring more people into the world with no way to support them. What do you end up with? Take a look around you and then you tell me.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Academic does not equal scientist.
An english literature professor can be an accomplished academic.
This is true, but irrelevant.
Google a name or three and find the English teacher:)
Julie Arblaster, Guy Brasseur, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Kenneth Denman, David W. Fahey, Piers Forster, Eystein Jansen,
Philip D. Jones, Reto Knutti, Hervé Le Treut, Peter Lemke, Gerald Meehl, Philip Mote, David Randall, Dáithí A. Stone, Kevin E.
Trenberth, Jürgen Willebrand, Francis Zwiers
-
Originally posted by Dadano
This is true, but irrelevant.
Google a name or three and find the English teacher:)
Julie Arblaster, Guy Brasseur, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Kenneth Denman, David W. Fahey, Piers Forster, Eystein Jansen,
Philip D. Jones, Reto Knutti, Hervé Le Treut, Peter Lemke, Gerald Meehl, Philip Mote, David Randall, Dáithí A. Stone, Kevin E.
Trenberth, Jürgen Willebrand, Francis Zwiers
But you did not defend them as scientists... you defended them as academics, which is irrelevant, and therefore academic...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But you did not defend them as scientists... you defended them as academics, which is irrelevant, and therefore academic...
Wold you consider those I was defending scientists?
-
sorry hornet but when were china and india not "overpopulated" as you say? Your defeninition of overpopulated seems to be unsustainable population. Most countries are losing population.
When countries that don't control their population reach a certain point... nature takes over... famine or plague take over and everything is balanced again..
As for oil... who says we are running out? we are probly running out of the stuff that is easy to get at but... there are most likely bigger reserves of oil yet to be found than all the oil we have burned so far and.... your "scientists" no longer believe it is dino juice..
Nope.. they are not sure what it is but... more is being made as we speak.
Scientists told me that we would all be starving and shoulder to shoulder by 1990 and... in an ice age and... out of dino juice by now. none of those things happened or... are in any real danger of happening...
Now they tell me that the ice caps will melt and we will all drown in 40 years (a pet time frame for doomsayers... not to short to be proven wrong easily but not too long to ignore.)
Fool me once.... shame on you.... fool me a dozen times...
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
No, I don't want to end debate but I would like to point out that sometimes... the most obvious answer is the correct one.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
for those of you who think that the globe stays at the same temp and does not get warmer and colder over the years....
You need to ask yourself why greenland is called greenland.
lazs
Greenland is called greenland because it was named by the vikings, who wanted it to be colonized. Since Travelocity wasnt available back then, people assumed if it was called 'Greenland', it was green. Iceland was the same, they wanted it to themselves and thus named it something forbiding. Norway was called wineland. Or so a norweigan has told me :D
-
Didn't see this posted yet, so here's a link regarding global warming...on Mars.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
It's quite interesting to read the responses below the article. Looks like Lazs is not the only one using the "It's the sun, stupid" line.
Okay, let's hear the rebuttals from the man-made global warming bunch. Will they deny the evidence that Mars and other planets in our solar system are experiencing parallel warming trends? Will that make them "global warming deniers"?:huh
-
I don't think you need to be a man-made global warming whatever to have a problem comparing the global warming on Mars to what's going on here.
The article even states The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.
I'm not sure what you think this proves regarding the apparent warming of our planet, Sabre. I guess I'm not so much interested in rebuttals as I am hearing how you think this relates to our situation.
btw, this article refers only to Mars, not "and other planets" as you state.
-
()/-/ /|/|¬ą (_+[]|) $/-\\/3 teh P[]|_@R B/\3R
Arctic melt faster than forecast (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6610125.stm)
-
The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
It`s the truth. I witnessed it firsthand today. Was hell on the nose though. :)
-
Oboe:
The point of posting this is that the warming on Mars is tracking nicely with the warming on Earth, suggesting a common dominator. From the article...
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.
Note this sentence:
The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth.
(emphasis added by me)
While the article (which is short on data) talks about the mechanism, i.e. how is an atmosphere as thin as Mars' managing to build up heat, it curiously does not even speculate on why the warming cycle began. It also doesn't address the issue of the obvious common denominator, i.e. the Sun. It does however back up those scientists that believe that the Sun is the primary driver of temperature change on Earth.
A theory is only as good as it's predictive power. A logical prediction based on the Sun-driven global warming hypothesis is that other planets in our solar system would also experience parallel changes in temperature. The hypothesis that man is the cause of Earth's global warming would predict just the opposite. Since the evidence is in, it would appear that the predictive power of the former makes it the superior theory.
-
Regardless of the primary cause of the Earth's global warming, the more I think about the Mars' story the more fascinating it is. I mean, it seems to me very unlikely that both the Earth and Mars would've experienced similiar average temperature increases over the same time period.
Here's my thinking - although Mars and the Earth are roughly the same size, they have markedly different characters as far as the composition of their atmosphere and amount of liquid water on their surfaces. Mars is basically bone dry, with a much thinner atmosphere available for trapping solar radiation. Also, with no liquid water and no cloud cover, Mars could be expected to have a different albedo (ratio of reflected vs absorbed solar radiation) from Earth. So even if the two planets were at the exact same distance from the sun, I wouldn't expect them to have an matching increase in temperature over a period of years.
Here's the kicker: Mars is half-again further away from the Sun than Earth, so by the Inverse-Square Law receives just a little more than 2/5s of the solar radiation than the Earth receives.
So how can these two planets have experienced an identical temperature increase?
[EDIT] Ok, after a little research it seems the Earth's and Mars' albedos are similar - .29 for Mars, and .30 for the Earth. I found that surprising. So Mars receives about 44% less solar radiation than the Earth, but absorbs it 1% more of what it gets than the Earth does. It seems to me that Mars should be way, way behind us in terms of an absolute temperature increase over time, if due only to solar radiation increases.
Some mechanism in the Martian system must be working a vast amount of overtime to make up for that deficiency, right? In the article you linked, researchers suggest that solar radiation is causing high winds that stir up dust and trap heat.
There may be another, more obvious explanation, however.
It turns out the Martian atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide. (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Marsatmos.html)
Had to do a double-take when I read that fact. I developed this post over 1/2 hour or so, perhaps my logic or methods are faulty - I invite a critique of my logic to see if it's sensible.
-
If mars and earth are within 1% of each other in terms of absorbing radiation from the sun then it would seem that the amount of c02 in the atmosphere would not be making any difference.
If they are increasing at the same rates and the earth has had an increasing amount of c02 while mars has stayed at a constant 95% then it would seem that c02 plays little or no part in why the suns energy is converted to warming of the planets.
Unless you are saying that mars had the same percent increase in c02 as we have had.
It seems far more likely that the winds and particulate matter are helping to absorb the suns energy in somewhat of a stable manner.
It would seem that c02 has little effect on earth or mars and that the sun is causing almost all of the change and... in a very predictable and logical manner. It is affecting both planets and their makeups in almost identical manners despite the fact that their atmospheres are so different.
lazs
-
No Laz, you are misunderstanding. Think of it this way:
For every 100 units of solar radiation that reach the Earth, only 44 units reach Mars (because Mars is farther away from the Sun and solar radiation dissipates according to the inverse of the square of the distance from the source...this is the Inverse-Square Law)
Now factoring in albedo: Of the 100 units that the Earth receives, 30%, (30 units) are reflected and 70 units are absorbed. Of the 44 that Mars receives, 29% (12.8 units), are reflected, leaving 31.2 units absorbed.
So the Earth is absorbing more than TWICE as much solar radiation as Mars is, yet since the 70s, Mars has been able to match the increase in the Earth's temperature.
I think it is fact, not theory, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. With Mars' atmosphere being 95% CO2, I'm real surprised the researchers looked past that as the warming mechanism and came up with the dust storm theory - even if the dust storms reduced the Martian albedo to 0, so the planet absorbed 100% of the solar radiation it received it would still only be about 60% of the solar radiation the Earth received.
I'm no expert but this Fenton gal's theory seems ridiculous to me. Might be a good idea to find out who funded her research.
[EDIT]Lori Fenton is a planetary geologist with the SETI Institute's Carl Sagan Center in Mountain View, CA.
Hmmm, a Carl Sagan disciple. Still don't know who funded the research though, it appears NASA researchers are involved too.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/05/MNG78P2SPV1.DTL&type=science (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/05/MNG78P2SPV1.DTL&type=science)
-
I don't think I missunderstood. I think I am making an observation.
If the earth and mars heated up at the same rate and mars has a stable 95% co2 atmosphere and earth has an atmosphere where the C02 is increasing..
And... both planets are showing the same increase in temp..
That would seem to point out that more energy is reaching them both and that c02 has little or no effect or... at the very least.. that it affects them differently.
If more c02 traps more of the suns energy then.. it would make sense that mars would be affected more by increased solar activity than earth... any tiny increase in solar activity would translate to a huge rise in temp on mars compared to earth with it's tiny little bit of co2.
or... think of it this way... if our rising co2 causes a rise in the greenhouse effect and a jump in temp... then mars... with a very high co2 level would have a proportionately higher rise... maybe double or more increase over us.
If this is not the case... then we need not fear c02 since we can go to 95% or so and see no change in the increase.
The sun seem to be the main driving factor and reacting equally on both planets despite the co2 levels
And... that is why you don't hear much on it... that is why dust and such is being touted. If the sacred cow co2 doesn't drive the increase then... well.. then..
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
I don't think that it is coincidence that both are rising at the same rate.... I don't think that co2 has much to do with it other than being one small factor of many that make up the way the suns energy is retained. It seems to me that mars proves that co2 is such a minor greenhouse gas that you can increase the atmosphere to 95% co2 and the suns energy will still act in a predictable way with small and predictable increases and decreases in temp to go along with the small increases and decreases in the suns activity.
That is why it is probly not talked about much.
lazs
-
reading that.. I guess I can simplify.
If our co2 level is twice what it once was and mars is a stable 95%.. and if c02 is such an important greenhouse gas that we can't see even a tiny percent increase without melting all the ice caps...
How is it that our temp has not shown a huge increase over that of mars? with our 50% increase in co2 shouldn't we be outpacing mars in temp rise?
Why are both planets rising the same amount (which coincides nicely with sun activity) if one planet had a huge jump in co2?
lazs
-
Originally posted by oboe
Here's the kicker: Mars is half-again further away from the Sun than Earth, so by the Inverse-Square Law receives just a little more than 2/5s of the solar radiation than the Earth receives.
If you are trying to connect global warming to solar activity, it is NOT due to a change in the solar energy flux. The energy flux from the sun is constant to within a small fraction of a percent. Solar activity is reflected mostly in UV and soft X-ray emitted from the corona. In terms of energy flux, the corona is 10^-6 of the flux emitted from the photosphere. The important effect, according to the theory, is blocking of cosmic radiation due to solar wind, which increase during high activity epochs (reducing cosmic radiation flux).
Cosmic rays affect the ionization degree of the upper atmosphere and can affect the cloud formation for example.
-
You've made some large assumptions, there Lazs.
Another huge factor to consider is the density of the Martian atmosphere - its practically non-existent compared to Earth's. The atmospheric pressure on the surface of Mars is apparently only about 1% of the atmospheric pressure on Earth. So even though its 95% CO2, its very very thin compared to Earth's.
Where did you get the idea that our CO2 level has increased 50%? I've heard its now about 380 ppm, which is about 80 ppm higher than historic highs.
The question for me is not why our planet has not shown a huge increase in temp compared to Mars, but how the heck did Mars keep pace with us despite receiving so much less solar radiation than we do?
I'm real surprised with all the talk of CO2 and global warming, that a study of global warming on Mars would ignore the fact that its atm. is 95% CO2.
-
Arguing about global warming is like lesbians blaming men for all their problems.
-
Originally posted by bozon
If you are trying to connect global warming to solar activity, it is NOT due to a change in the solar energy flux. The energy flux from the sun is constant to within a small fraction of a percent. Solar activity is reflected mostly in UV and soft X-ray emitted from the corona. In terms of energy flux, the corona is 10^-6 of the flux emitted from the photosphere. The important effect, according to the theory, is blocking of cosmic radiation due to solar wind, which increase during high activity epochs (reducing cosmic radiation flux).
Cosmic rays affect the ionization degree of the upper atmosphere and can affect the cloud formation for example.
I think Laz is the one trying to connect global warming to solar activity. At least that's the way I interpret his "ITS THE SUN STUPID" tagline.
Bozon I wish I could've followed more closely what you tried to explain.
What do you mean by 'flux'?
And by 'cosmic', do you mean having an origin outside our solar system?
-
Neuron Stars, Quasars, Super Novas (novea) and other objects in the galaxy and beyond eject protons which hit the earth and are called cosmic rays, (like 90% of CR are protons anyway..) although the Sun blows protons our way too, most cosmic rays come from stuff other than the Sun.
A recently published paper linked cosmic rays to cloud formation, and clouds reflect a lot of solar energy so cluods reduce the Earth's absorption tof the Suns energy.
-
to me... solar wind is solar activity.
oboe... large assumptions? the whole idea of "man made global warming" is nothing but large assumptions... I am just playing the game as they do.
also.. I am not talking about a 50% increase over historic highs (whatever that means) I am talking about a 50% increase (about) over the last 50 years or so.. didn't we go from like 240 to 380 or some such?
My point being that with such a large increase... If co2 was the main driving aspect then... we should have had a much higher temp increase than mars did with it's stable c02 level. If c02 had any effect at all it would appear to be miniscule compared to suns activity.
Think of it this way... mars has a stable c02 percentage.. during the same period... earth has a rapidly rising one...
Both recieve the same amount of solar activity and both have the same rise in temp.
Again... your car is overheating... you ignore the radiator...you ignore the thermostat and the timing and engine and drive line condition and instead...
you concentrate on one of the left rear wheels lug nuts..
That is what blaming co2 is like.
probly.. you could get 100 shops to agree with you too if they all did only lug nut repair work exclusively.
lazs
-
Lug nut being Al Gore. :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
My point being that with such a large increase... If co2 was the main driving aspect then... we should have had a much higher temp increase than mars did with it's stable c02 level. If c02 had any effect at all it would appear to be miniscule compared to suns activity.
All things being equal, perhaps. But there are so many differences between Mars and Earth that I think your comparison is not valid. I think your assumptions are too simplified.
I don't think you can state with certainty that we should've experienced a much higher temp increase than Mars, or even whether Mars has had a stable CO2 level for the past 30 years.
-
maybe you can't....
But if you pin the whole "man made" global warming boogieman on co2 then you have to back it up. You have to say that increases in co2 will bring corresponding increases in temp no matter what else happens otherwise....
you have to admit that in at least in some scenarios... the amount of co2 has nothing at all to do with the amount the global temp rises.
That other factors as yet unknown (what is that big yellow ball?) may make co2 an non player.
lazs
-
I'm not pinnning anything on anything. I'm just saying I'm surprised the researchers ignored the obvious implication between CO2 and global warming when doing their Mars study. NOt sure I'm qualified to go any deeper than that. It just sounds suspicious to me.
-
Probly shouldn't have said "you" when I really meant "those who believe in man made global warming".
The man made global warming acolytes pin everything on co2... they got nothing else..
lazs
-
LOL, this goes on for ever.
I guess Lazs probably doesn't understand the greenhouse effect anyway. Maybe I try to explain:
It works like your car on a sunny day. close all the windows, and behold, it gets hot. Shield the windows with a reflecting film on the outside, it is much cooler. It makes it hotter if the panels are dark inside. etc etc.
So, we have CO2 at somewhat high height and it has been rising due to our human activities. It's being monitored and pondered upon, and the worry is that it's heading for a record, - say 600 ppm.
Anyway, Methane is much more powerful, and there's the worry, - with the permafrost in Siberia releasing it's stock of it, the CO2 effect will be laughable.
So, we wonder and ponder upon whether we are switching the devil on, with a relay.
Well, good news. Another global warming conference in Bankok now states that there is something us humans can do about it, and it has to do a lot with vegetation, not just exhaust. So, in short, the most optimistic ones say that we can actually end the vicious circle of ever increasing CO2.
That brings some hope. Maybe they were reading my posts ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, good news. Another global warming conference in Bankok now states that there is something us humans can do about it, and it has to do a lot with vegetation, not just exhaust. So, in short, the most optimistic ones say that we can actually end the vicious circle of ever increasing CO2.
That brings some hope.
Oh for joy. I expect you will see more and more jumping on this bandwagon from the Fantasy Island crew. It`s called covering your tracks.
I understand that they are already taking up a collection for an automatic back patting machine in preparation for the next cooling trend. Then they will be able to turn it on and say......."Whoohoo! Looky what we did. You didn`t mind living in a tent and giving up most of your earnings and comforts for this now did ya?."
-
yeah.. they have to hurry before a natural global cooling cycle occurs and they don't get credit.
Glad to see that they aren't pinning everything on co2 now tho.
As angus says... maybe I don't understand the greenhouse effect... I guess if I got into a hot car and added opened a can of coke the few hundreds of a percent of co2 would cause me to fry.
In the meantime I guess I could ignore the fact that as it got latter in the day and the sun got got higher in the sky and heated up the car... well.. that would be nothing... it would be the fizz from the coke can that did me in.
I will give him this tho... his model is every bit as scientific as his heroes.
And.. he may be correct that they are listening to him... he has every bit as much scientific training as 9 out of ten of the "scientists" do on global climate who are saying it is man made.
I'm glad that they think we can plant a tree now tho and fix everything.
I mean... I was really really worried there for a sec.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
it would be the fizz from the coke can that did me in.
lazs
:lol
-
Arguing about global warming is about as exciting as watch two ugly lesbians make out.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Arguing about global warming is about as exciting as watch two ugly lesbians make out.
Ummm....I kinda agree with that statement, but when they started fighting things did get exciting. Until Bubba, real name is Bubba, broke it all up and made them go home.
Has anybody factored in volcanos and the stuff they tend to spew higher up in the atmosphere than what we put out? The stuff they push up there tends to hang around a good bit longer than the other stuff that gets broken down and dissapates to varying degrees.
And guys I kinda have to side with Laz in some aspects. People tend to forget history or they like to make it up as they go along. Those guys who go out and dig in the dirt for hours on end who alot of folks think are crazy, do tend to find evidence that way back in the day, the earth has gone through these cycles before in worse ways, wayyyy before man or polution came into effect. Course back then it could be said that polution was generated by dinasaur farts, valcanos, witches (old ones), and warming/ cooling cycles of the sun.
But alas, my good dear friends of the earth, due to technology available at the time, none of it was ever recorded. Now maybe if we are lucky and all can learn to get along, those space aliens who came and visited this rock back then, will feel safe enough to at some point share their atmosphereic data with us to shed some light on how things really werew back then.
What yall dont think they wouldnt have took atmosphereic data?
We're all looking for somewhere else to live arent we?
and the witches help it all to.
:)
-
How is it that at the peak of industrial activity, 1940-1975... we experianced global cooling on a scale that was so bad that these same "scientists" all told us we would be in an ice age by now?
during the recession the climate got hotter... oddly... both these events had nothing at all to do with co2 but followed decreased and then increased solar activity like a shadow... co2 on the other hand has followed the suns activity and warming and cooling like a shadow.
ITS THE SUN STUPID
you know.. the big yellow ball you liberals can't control?
I don't care if it is discussed or not. I don't care what people believe or don't..
I only care when they come up with "solutions" that cost me.
The latest "council" is opptomistic that we can "make a difference" for as little as an increase of 50 cents a gallon in gas that we give to them... and of course the drop in productivity and spending and all... maybe a couple of grand loss for each person in the U.S. a year...
others, it is reported, are not so opptomistic and feel that the price will be several times that... they don't want to frieghten us tho..
My prediction? we will go into a global cooling cycle and 15 or twenty years from now... the "scientists" will note that there has been a "drastic" cooling of the planet for a decade and predict a "man made global ice age" and suggest all kinds of ways that we can fund relief from freezing to death.
we are a gullible people. we don't learn from history... perhaps we deserve to be fleeced.
lazs
-
what I am saying is that in the 70's there was a "consensus" of hundreds of scientists that did this same bs crapola with "man made global ice age"
What happened to them? no one knows... they just faded back into the background till now.
They should have been drug out into the street and publicly flogged for all the anxiety and panic they caused but they weren't.. at the least they should have been investigated for fraud and lost any credentials they had.
It will happen again with this... the "man made global warming" hand wringers will fade away when the first frost of the normal cooling cycle becomes apparent to even the angus's of the world.
lazs
-
Apparently they've figured out the cause of the supposed problem in Arkansas:
Daylight Exacerbates Warming (http://olcvblog.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/23/time_change.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Apparently they've figured out the cause of the supposed problem in Arkansas:
Daylight Exacerbates Warming (http://olcvblog.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/04/23/time_change.jpg)
:rofl :aok
An instant classic.
-
LOL, They surely had to be joking (or high). No one is that dumb in real life....are they? :rofl
Edit:...I'm from Arkansas myself :eek: