Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Sabre on October 22, 2007, 12:06:37 PM
-
Not that it will convince the die-hard Man-Made Global Warming followers, but hey...I can try.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08 (http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08)
He's obviously a paid hack for Big Oil.:rolleyes:
-
nice find thanks :aok
-
What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time tempera-tures are rising? That’s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising.
Are you sure this guys name isn't Laz or something smiliar?...
:D
-
Interesting, you know as the tide turns every so slowly against MMGW and even becomes accepted by the fickle public. I wonder if I'll become uneasy and begin to wonder if there is some man made causation.
Naw, not I'll just be smug and say I told you so. Although, I suspect that in reality if this current spell reverses and we return to the 'norm' of previous years. All the enviro-lemmings will run around slapping each other on the back and issuing Nobel prizes to each other. 'We saved the planet', they will cry. 'But we must not get complacent, continue with reducing emissions by increasing taxes again'.:rolleyes:
-
He's not a climate scientist, he's an electrical engineer.
Edit:
Hell, he's an electrical engineer that has worked on climate change "research" for Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.
-
Thrawn are you referring to the article's author?
If so do you have a source?
I can't back up what he says but being that it's on a college website it looks pretty legit and says this in the first paragraph:
S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Vir-ginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and mono-graphs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.
he sounds a little more qualified than an electrical engineer.....if this is who you are talking about.
-
Well, CO2 isn't all. But it's known how it works.
Methane is however 25 times more powerful. Now look at the graph.
With ups and downs in the global growth rate, the measured outcome is a steady rise.
There used to be a lot more methane about. There was life on the planet as well. But nothing of a condition that a human could live in....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Methane-global-average-2006.jpg/491px-Methane-global-average-2006.jpg)
-
Gun, a few links I found, for what they are worth. I just searched on his name. I havent read them all the way through but theres some info there
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._Fred_Singer
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
http://www.sepp.org/
http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=496
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, CO2 isn't all. But it's known how it works.
Methane is however 25 times more powerful. Now look at the graph.
With ups and downs in the global growth rate, the measured outcome is a steady rise.
There used to be a lot more methane about. There was life on the planet as well. But nothing of a condition that a human could live in....
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/49/Methane-global-average-2006.jpg/491px-Methane-global-average-2006.jpg)
Ok so we will outlaw Bean comsumption.
Problem solved LOL
-
Save the Planet! Kill a Cow!
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Save the Planet! Kill a Cow!
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/800px-Cheeseburger.jpg)
do ya want fries with that cow..:D
-
Originally posted by Sabre
He's obviously a paid hack for Big Oil.:rolleyes:
LOL...it would seem that he is :rofl
shamus
-
Just 20 thousand years ago there were 2km of ice over the place where I sit now. Moscow icing.
Two thousand meters of ice. Right here. I vote for some warming.
-
Hehe, me too! I am sitting on an old pre-Iceage seabed. And it's now getting warmer, nicely and fast.
+10 degs and rainy, that's okay, but I hate 24 m./sec wind EVERY DAY .
And Boroda, - you might not want long dry summers with 40 deg's + all the time like the Euros in the temperate climate are now seeing...
BTW, I read up on Singer's stuff, - the interview alone isn't really worth much
-
(http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/18/Thank_060818105924764_wideweb__300x375.jpg)
...and this proves without a doubt that Global Warming just isn't happening!
-
Originally posted by Sabre
He's obviously a paid hack for Big Oil.:rolleyes:
well gee Sabre, I dunno...would you consider Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association to be big oil?
Its amazing to what lenght some people (meaning you) will go to in order to try to shove their heads deeper into the sand while chanting that there is no global warming.
Meanwhile in the real world...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21423872/
Just a days after the Nobel prize was awarded for global warming work, an alarming new study finds that warming signals are stronger, and happening sooner than expected, due to increased human emissions of carbon dioxide and an Earth less able to absorb them.
Carbon dioxide emissions were 35 percent higher in 2006 than in 1990, a much faster growth rate than anticipated, researchers reported in Tuesday’s edition of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers cited three factors: global economic growth; the global economy becoming more carbon intense — since 2000 more carbon is being emitted to produce each dollar of global wealth, they noted — and a decline in the land and oceans’ ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.
-
Here is one song from this Singer guy:
"Well, there's no question in my mind that humanity is able to affect climate on a local scale. We all know that cities are warmer than the suburbs or surrounding countryside. So there's clear indication that human beings, in producing energy, in just living, generate heat. We're not going to go back to living without energy.
Whether or not human beings can produce a global climate change is an important question. This question is not at all settled. It can only be settled by actual measurements, data. And the data are ambiguous. For example, the data show that the climate warmed between 1900 and 1940, long before humanity used much energy. But then the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975. Then it warmed again for a very short period of time, for about five years. But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming. "
"The surface record continues to go up. But you have to be very careful with the surface record. It is taken with thermometers that are mostly located in or near cities. And as cities expand, they get warmer. And therefore they affect the readings. And it's very difficult to eliminate this--what's called the urban heat island effect. So I personally prefer to trust in weather satellites. "
1. He does say yes to local scale warming from human origin.
2. He sais surface records are not reliable enough. (which are the only records for pre-sattelite times he just mentioned)
3. Then he moves to weather sats as a reliable sort, - not mentioning that they are registering warming.
4. He clames climate cooling since 1979....which is boulderdash. Seems like 2005 is now the king on the hill
5. He gets through the whole interview without naming ocean temps or Glacial melting.
Doesn't hold much water to me, sorry.
Linkie:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html
-
no measurable rise in global temperature in 8 years now... no measure of any increase for two decades in the US according to sat data...
Angus... are you now off co2 as the cause? On to methane? we are not contributing to methane.
And... say that co2 was evil... say that we decided to reduce it by 30%... that would cost the world maybe 100 billion a year or more and... even if everything went just right... and nothing else changed... we would reduce the temp .29 degrees by the year 2100... if we happen to go into a cooling trend anytime before that.. we would simply be making things worse by .29 degrees. Boroda would just be .29 degrees colder.
The global temp will trend downward in the next few years... the acoloytes and high priests of MMGW are in a race... the race is to enact taxation and penalties in time to take credit for nature... they have only a few years before their fraud is expossed.
It is a power grab by the socialists... plain and simple. It is pure greed by the willing grant seeking "scientists" who go along.
lazs
-
See Rule #4
-
In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called “scientific consensus.” There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted “consensus” of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scien-tific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC’s report. The As-sociated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report’s “Summary for Policymakers.”
Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the “consensus statement” on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.
:aok
-
I think many of you on these boards are trying to be too political about this topic. Eventually, man's impact on this planet will be something to be lived with on a daily basis!
-
It already is ;)
-
skyrock.. of course we can affect this planet. It is very easy to affect it locally for instance.. we can pollute a stream or clean up one nature has polluted.
It behooves us to do the best we can but... the co2 BS is a diversion.. it uses up energy and resources and... good will.. that could be better used elsewhere.. even some rabid environmentalists are realizing that it is taking away from real environmental problems that we can do something about. That viking country one with the unpronouncable name for instance, just wrote a book on it.
Co2 is not pollution.. it can't warm the planet in any meaningful way.. it can increase crop production and it is impossible to stop from happening at this point.. and expensive power grab.
Some things we simply can't change at this point....
Hell.. how much c02 is being released by the current forest fires raging in so cal?
WE CAN'T EVEN PUT OUT A FIRE. Do you get it? you want to reduce the level of C02 in the entire globe.. when the temp has not even risen in 8 years... and
WE CAN'T EVEN PUT OUT ONE LITTLE FIRE. I say this because... the MMGW acolytes believe.. and would have us believe.. that we are in control.. that we can change the very climate of the globe.. it is in our hands... we can somehow change the whole atmosphere but we can't put out a fire.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
:aok
Source?
-
Lazs:
"Hell.. how much c02 is being released by the current forest fires raging in so cal?"
Quite a bit. Will have some dimming effect too because of soot particles.
If you have the acrage and a rough biomass, I can make a good guess and calibrate it into it's value of burned diesel....
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Source?
The thumbs up smiley can be located just to the left of the reply text box.
The rest came from the article.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The thumbs up smiley can be located just to the left of the reply text box.
The rest came from the article.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf
Pages 15-39 are the contributors to the report. As you can see, they all have scientific qualifications you lying sack of s hit.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf
Pages 15-39 are the contributors to the report. As you can see, they all have scientific qualifications you lying sack of s hit.
Maybe you had better go practice your reading and comprehension skills.
Also if you are going to go PC Rambo on me and start calling me names.....do it in person. PC warriors hardly impress me.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
LOL...it would seem that he is :rofl
shamus
You missed the point of my bit of sarcasm, which was that the MMGW supplicants would probably just discount Singer (through guilt by association) rather than engage in his arguments. And you did exactly as I expected, i.e. commited the genetic fallacy. That is, you attacked the source of the argument, rather than the argument itself. This is a typical tactic of someone forced to defend a weak position. So, Singer has associations with various thinktanks and policy groups that have received grants from oil companies. What does that have to do with his credentials as a scientist, or with the data he sites? Either the satellite data supports his conclusions or it does not. Same goes for his other arguments and their supporting data. If a scientist gets money from an enviromental group instead, does that mean we should automatically discount his/her conclusions as "tainted" by the anti-capitalist agenda of some enviro groups?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Co2 is not pollution..
I agree with you, it is not a pollution unless at high concentrations. It is however a gas that produces what Joseph Fourier discovered as the greenhouse effect.
Originally posted by lazs2
it can't warm the planet in any meaningful way..
This is simply a false statement. "When" CO2 levels reach a certain point, they will have a direct effect on the amount of heat that is witheld in the atmosphere. The argument lately is if we are to that point yet or not.
Originally posted by lazs2
Some things we simply can't change at this point....lazs
I do not believe we can change the outcome too much either!:aok
-
Originally posted by Sabre
If a scientist gets money from an enviromental group instead, does that mean we should automatically discount his/her conclusions as "tainted" by the anti-capitalist agenda of some enviro groups?
Yes we should.
I was trained to, and still do "follow the money".
When ever I see so called independent studies it's the first thing I do, and you know something?, it can be applied to campaign contributions as well.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Annexes.pdf
Pages 15-39 are the contributors to the report. As you can see, they all have scientific qualifications you lying sack of s hit.
Ad hominen attacks are another tool used to defend a weak position. And if you'll note from the source Hortland sites, it only lists where they work, not what their qualifications are. So, if I clean the bathrooms at Sandia National Laboratories, does that make me a physicist? I have to doubt Hortland has looked up each contributing member to see what their actual qualifications are in the climate science field, though I could be wrong.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Yes we should.
I was trained to, and still do "follow the money".
When ever I see so called independent studies it's the first thing I do, and you know something?, it can be applied to campaign contributions as well.
shamus
No, we shouldn't, elsewise anyone who gets any money for scientific work must be ignored by your standards. In a debate this important, you have to address the arguments (which you still haven't done), not the argue-er. That's because very few can be said to have no personal stake in the conclusions and implications. The problem is, you appear to be applying your "follow the money" mantra in a one-sided fasion in this case. As an example, Al Gore has financial interest in a carbon-trading company, gets $175,000 to deliver his "Inconvenient Truth" slide show in person, and has received literally a $100 million or more in support of his "crusade." None of that has an iota of bering on whether the CO2 ice core data supports his conclusion that CO2 is driving global temperatures (it appear it does not). If the data does not support the conclusion, following the money can only help you infer why it does not. Engage the argument, not the source.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
No, we shouldn't, elsewise anyone who gets any money for scientific work must be ignored by your standards. In a debate this important, you have to address the arguments (which you still haven't done), not the argue-er. That's because very few can be said to have no personal stake in the conclusions and implications. The problem is, you appear to be applying your "follow the money" mantra in a one-sided fasion in this case. As an example, Al Gore has financial interest in a carbon-trading company, gets $175,000 to deliver his "Inconvenient Truth" slide show in person, and has received literally a $100 million or more in support of his "crusade." None of that has an iota of bering on whether the CO2 ice core data supports his conclusion that CO2 is driving global temperatures (it appear it does not). If the data does not support the conclusion, following the money can only help you infer why it does not. Engage the argument, not the source.
You see you are changing your own words now. You have gone from "discounted" to "ignored", it's a common practice, make the other guy look radical.
You are gonna have a real hard time finding any posts by me supporting Al Gore on anything.
There are plenty of scientist's with gold plated credentials who do not take cash from either side in this debate, I think I will put more credence in what they have to say if you don't mind.
But if you want to search for an expert to validate your position and then hard sell it, be my guest, I see it done with "experts" in court all the time.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Sabre
You missed the point of my bit of sarcasm, which was that the MMGW supplicants would probably just discount Singer (through guilt by association) rather than engage in his arguments. And you did exactly as I expected, i.e. commited the genetic fallacy. That is, you attacked the source of the argument, rather than the argument itself. This is a typical tactic of someone forced to defend a weak position. So, Singer has associations with various thinktanks and policy groups that have received grants from oil companies. What does that have to do with his credentials as a scientist, or with the data he sites? Either the satellite data supports his conclusions or it does not. Same goes for his other arguments and their supporting data. If a scientist gets money from an enviromental group instead, does that mean we should automatically discount his/her conclusions as "tainted" by the anti-capitalist agenda of some enviro groups?
I attacked his choice of what he promoted as well as the correctness of some statement(s). Didn't know he was oil related. But now I do :D
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Ad hominen attacks are another tool used to defend a weak position.
So is the fallacy of appeal to authority, which you committed by referring to the guy as a "climate scientist".
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just a days after the Nobel prize was awarded for global warming work, an alarming new study finds that warming signals are stronger, and happening sooner than expected, due to increased human emissions of carbon dioxide and an Earth less able to absorb them.
Carbon dioxide emissions were 35 percent higher in 2006 than in 1990, a much faster growth rate than anticipated, researchers reported in Tuesday’s edition of the peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The researchers cited three factors: global economic growth; the global economy becoming more carbon intense — since 2000 more carbon is being emitted to produce each dollar of global wealth, they noted — and a decline in the land and oceans’ ability to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.
Omigod:O An even MORE alarming study, MORE alarming than the last alarming study has finds that the warming signals are stronger, and happening sooner than expected. I'm alarmed all right, alarmed that in the face of criticism of MMGW an attempt is being made to alarm people even further in an attempt to get their viewpoint accepted.
There is nothing new in this type of report. Next week there will be another one further emphasising the potential for calamity. Everything is treated in a tabloid style for the consumption of the general public.
As for Singer, so what if he was funded by an oil company. Does that make him wrong? Is he a liar? Is he ignoring the obvious and 'inconvenient truth' for the sake of a few dollars?
The constant criticism from all GW enthusiasts is that we critics and unbelievers are all ignoring the obvious. We're all right wingers, dupes of oil companies, pilots, car nuts etc with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Some might be but I think most of us are simply the kind of people who are suspicious of attempts to influence the the mass of people to accept a 'truth' that has yet to be proven. A truth that has more holes in it than the Titanic. What I find disturbing in particular is the number of people out there making a lot of money out of MMGW. They won't want that particular fire hose turned off.
The more apocalyptic the predictions. The less I believe it.
-
You might want to know that Gore shared his nobel with a branch from the UN that has 2000 scientists working on research about GW.
I don't really see UN as a special camp, at least not as clearly as those working directly for the oil companies.
That is a direct paralell to what the tobacco companies tried in the 60's after the link between smoking and lungcancer etc was discovered.
Guess what, - with every research the data manifested itself better, and as more extreme.
Now we know, and the Marlborough man smoked himself to death. We now laugh at their "results".....
-
So on a side note whatever happened to that ozone hole thing that was talked about in the late 80's and early 90's? Is it still getting bigger as was predicted or did we pass some new laws that saved us?
-
Originally posted by soda72
So on a side note whatever happened to that ozone hole thing that was talked about in the late 80's and early 90's? Is it still getting bigger as was predicted or did we pass some new laws that saved us?
funny you should ask...
I heard a report on TV the other day about this:
http://www.todaysthv.com/news/news.aspx?storyid=55006
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90781/90876/6288940.html
both recent, 1 posted today
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
I think many of you on these boards are trying to be too political about this topic. Eventually, man's impact on this planet will be something to be lived with on a daily basis!
All our hydrogen bombs, CO2 release and other huge things are no more then a mosquito bite for Nature.
The level of Caspian sea raised and felt back for 60-70m in last 1500 years. Now that's the real power. Not even speaking of Ice Ages, it's almost impossible to imagine.
-
Originally posted by soda72
So on a side note whatever happened to that ozone hole thing that was talked about in the late 80's and early 90's? Is it still getting bigger as was predicted or did we pass some new laws that saved us?
""Warmer weather and more storms this year are the reason the hole is slightly smaller, said NASA atmospheric scientist Paul Newman.""
so "climate change" (global warming) is closing up the ozone hole.
very interesting.
-
It just keeps getting better and better.. as cpxx points out.. the alarmists will say anything at this point...
Any time anyone brings up anything they go into a fit... look at horlund.. he almost came unglued when his heros were attacked.. The truth is that there really are very few "scientists" in the UN panel that have anything to do with climate.. it is a relatively new science... hortlands implosion proves how insane the whole thing is.
skyrock.. sorry.. but you need to understand how co2 and greenhouse gas works.. a doubling does a certain amount of wave retention... a further doubling does almost nothing.. we are about 85% to a doubling at this point and it has added almost nothing to global temperature... It just isn't that big of a factor. almost no one still thinks co2 is that big of a player except maybe hortlund and you.
pretty silly in any case... we can't even put out a simple forest fire... we think we can stop the planet from heating and cooling? we can't predict next weeks weather.. we think we know what it will be in 50 or 100 years?
really... how gullible are you guys?
lazs
-
Originally posted by john9001
""Warmer weather and more storms this year are the reason the hole is slightly smaller, said NASA atmospheric scientist Paul Newman.""
so "climate change" (global warming) is closing up the ozone hole.
very interesting.
Now lets not rush to judgement, the UN would need to vote on that first.
;)
-
LOL
This is the same Singer who worked as a shill for the tobacco companies to spread lies about tobaccos dangers? Meaning he claimed there arent any.
This guy has been refuted by 99% of the worlds "experts".
:lol
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no measurable rise in global temperature in 8 years now... no measure of any increase for two decades in the US according to sat data...
Angus... are you now off co2 as the cause? On to methane? we are not contributing to methane.
And... say that co2 was evil... say that we decided to reduce it by 30%... that would cost the world maybe 100 billion a year or more and... even if everything went just right... and nothing else changed... we would reduce the temp .29 degrees by the year 2100... if we happen to go into a cooling trend anytime before that.. we would simply be making things worse by .29 degrees. Boroda would just be .29 degrees colder.
The global temp will trend downward in the next few years... the acoloytes and high priests of MMGW are in a race... the race is to enact taxation and penalties in time to take credit for nature... they have only a few years before their fraud is expossed.
It is a power grab by the socialists... plain and simple. It is pure greed by the willing grant seeking "scientists" who go along.
lazs
Every study I read says that global temps have been rising Laz. Could you provide the link that say says otherwise?
-
You see you are changing your own words now. You have gone from "discounted" to "ignored", it's a common practice, make the other guy look radical.
I find it not at all necessary to try to make the MMGW crowd look like radicals. However, from an English thesaurus…
Discount (verb): Disregard, overlook, ignore, disbelieve, pass over, write off
You are gonna have a real hard time finding any posts by me supporting Al Gore on anything.
Nor did I say you have. I have never tried to hide my own disdain for Gore. My point is that I do not disbelieve him on this issue because of my personal feelings about his character, but rather because after careful consideration of the evidence I find his arguments and conclusions unjustified. Singer and other dissenting scientists have made counter arguments that I find more in sync with the evidence.
There are plenty of scientist's with gold plated credentials who do not take cash from either side in this debate, I think I will put more credence in what they have to say if you don't mind.
No, I don’t mind; however, you state this as fact, but provide no evidence. The most recent study (discussed in previous GW threads), which shows that belief in MMGW is not in fact the majority opinion among climate scientists does not disclose funding sources. So, who are these gold-plated climate scientists, from whom and how do they receive funding, and what are their conclusions. And what crystal ball do we use to determine their motive and agendas? You see, everyone has an agenda, and it is not always to make money. The former president of France once stated (paraphrasing here) that whether CO2 was truly causing global warming, he supported Kyoto because it was the first step towards a true global government. So you see, we’re back to examining the evidence and arguments, rather then the source. Is it okay to be skeptical, to question motives and agendas? Of course. It is not a reason by itself to a priori discount what they say.
But if you want to search for an expert to validate your position and then hard sell it, be my guest, I see it done with "experts" in court all the time.
I agree. Which is why we should always look first to the evidence. The problems is, a majority of people (in and out of government) don’t bother.
I have been accused above of making the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy. I find that rather humorous considering that the GW alarmists like Al Gore and the IPCC are doing exactly that when they speak of the “consensus view” and declare that the debate is over. Singer’s views (and others like Gray of the National Hurricane Centers) is offered here not as a stand alone appeal to authority, but to highlight that there are reputable scientists who do not support the concept of man-made global warming.
Let me ask the MMGW believers a simple question (well, three, really): Why do you believe man is causing global warming, what do you believe is/are the mechanism(s), and why do you believe these things?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
He's not a climate scientist, he's an electrical engineer.
Edit:
Hell, he's an electrical engineer that has worked on climate change "research" for Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.
Oh no. You're gonna get humped on now! ;)
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Ad hominen attacks are another tool used to defend a weak position.
Keep that in mind. Thank you. :)
-
Around and around Lazs....
"pretty silly in any case... we can't even put out a simple forest fire... we think we can stop the planet from heating and cooling? we can't predict next weeks weather.. we think we know what it will be in 50 or 100 years?
really... how gullible are you guys?"
A globalwise effort with a plan could probably squelch the fires that you are now "locally" dealing with.
As for heating and cooling, we can, of course. We could actually have created a mini-iseage in a couple of hours some years back. And we could of course create forest fires that we could not stop.....we could also, if we wanted, deforest the whole globe in some 10 years....simple effort, just big.
("We" also could put a man on the moon)
And dear Lazs, - if you look at co2 output, deforestation, urbanization etc (Human impact) since...say 1857 (150 years) and draw the graph upwards, - tell me there are not going to be changes somewhere on the line.
Nothing of the scale we have been doing for the last 150 years can carry on straight for another good lenght of some 1000 years (Which is nothing compared to earths time). Nope. We're going to hit some wall when Gaia gets coughing....
My point is, that if you analyze a problem, and as a whole team deal with it, there is a lot that can be done. And if it is any comfort to you, I think the CO2 emission part is somewhat overrated, so it shades some quite important issues. And yet, it crosses other fields as well....
-
scientists are predicting the worst hurricane season ever.
Hurricane Season 2007—Predictions
Experts predict that the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season, which begins June 1 and ends November 30, has a 75% chance of being above normal in activity. "NOAA scientists predict 13 to 17 named storms, with seven to 10 becoming hurricanes, of which three to five could become major hurricanes of Category 3 strength or higher," said a NOAA official. An average season sees 11 named storms, with six becoming hurricanes, including two major hurricanes.
only 4 hurricanes so far, only 2 at category 3, only 4 weeks left.
Dude, where's my hurricanes?
-
Ok, this conversation is getting rather circular.
In your quote below you refer to the evidence, I would assume that you arrive at your conclusions based on the opinions expressed by the various experts in the field, is this the evidence you are referring to?
Originally posted by Sabre
I agree. Which is why we should always look first to the evidence. The problems is, a majority of people (in and out of government) don’t bother.
If so I find it incredible that the possible motive of the person issuing the opinion would not be a primary concern in establishing validity to you.
shamus
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It just keeps getting better and better.. as cpxx points out.. the alarmists will say anything at this point...
Any time anyone brings up anything they go into a fit... look at horlund.. he almost came unglued when his heros were attacked.. The truth is that there really are very few "scientists" in the UN panel that have anything to do with climate.. it is a relatively new science... hortlands implosion proves how insane the whole thing is.
skyrock.. sorry.. but you need to understand how co2 and greenhouse gas works.. a doubling does a certain amount of wave retention... a further doubling does almost nothing.. we are about 85% to a doubling at this point and it has added almost nothing to global temperature... It just isn't that big of a factor. almost no one still thinks co2 is that big of a player except maybe hortlund and you.
pretty silly in any case... we can't even put out a simple forest fire... we think we can stop the planet from heating and cooling? we can't predict next weeks weather.. we think we know what it will be in 50 or 100 years?
really... how gullible are you guys?
lazs
Lazs many of your posts to me are insulting, I simply stated that co2 does matter, it is part of our atmosphere that directly affects solar heat retention and I don't believe in the "change the way you live" strategy for studying the growing problem. Yet you somehow categorize me into some "the sky is falling" type. If you refuse to accept factual knowlege about chemistry and the atmosphere, fine, just don't pigeonhole me on the subject. :aok
-
Global warming is no longer our greatest concern.
Nibiru! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O96ZMPXuv1A)
2012 beyotches:noid
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Ok, this conversation is getting rather circular.
In your quote below you refer to the evidence, I would assume that you arrive at your conclusions based on the opinions expressed by the various experts in the field, is this the evidence you are referring to?
If so I find it incredible that the possible motive of the person issuing the opinion would not be a primary concern in establishing validity to you.
shamus
I agree Shamus. Every scientists motive should be questioned. Especially the ones that want us to change something.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The constant criticism from all GW enthusiasts is that we critics and unbelievers are all ignoring the obvious. We're all right wingers, dupes of oil companies, pilots, car nuts etc with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Some might be but I think most of us are simply the kind of people who are suspicious of attempts to influence the the mass of people to accept a 'truth' that has yet to be proven. A truth that has more holes in it than the Titanic. What I find disturbing in particular is the number of people out there making a lot of money out of MMGW. They won't want that particular fire hose turned off.
The more apocalyptic the predictions. The less I believe it.
Hear! Hear! Give this man a cigar!
Mark
-
OK Im not going to pretend I've read every post in this thread.
I havent.
But based on my experience here Its pretty easy to guess how it went.
At the risk of pointing out what my or may not have already been mentioned.
The climate is warming. I dont think anyone is disagreeing on that,
Thing is its reaching the point where the big question. At least as much as how and why it is happening is.
What we are going to do about it to adapt to it.
Natural occurrence or not
Its more then just cars and pollution we have to concern ourselves with.
Lets assume for a moment what I think may be the worst case scenario.
That it is natural.
Yes Im saying that its natural might be a worst case scenario. because then we dont know for certain how long it will last. It could literally last thousands of years.
We are looking at a complete redistribution of our climate and weather systems
and with it crop production. Something we all kinda need.
Think it wont have a great effect?
Look at what happened during the last mini ice age.
And that was just a change of a few degrees.
Land masses will change, Once fertile and prosperous land will become barren as the heat evaporates the water form the earth.
Think it cant happen? All one has to do is look at the spreading deserts in Africa to see that once fertile and prosperous land can indeed dry up.
Now some may say. "Fine, The rain will then redistribute to other areas making those areas more prosperous."
Course your counting on that redistribution of rainfall to occur over land and not the ocean.
Considering the earth is 3/4 covered in water. That gives it a one in four chance that the rainfall redistribution will occur over land and not the ocean.
Point is there is a whole host of unpleasant things that can and probably will along with this phenomenon be it natural or man made.
The question. and real argument.
Should be Not whats causing it.
But how to adapt to it.
And wouldn't it be better to assume the worst case scenario and assume that it may very well be natural And we dont know how long it will last?
course even if it isnt. We still dont know for sure how long it will take for the warming to stop and for the earth to correct itself again
-
Its all hype! every damn bit of it on both sides!
in the 60's it was vietnam
in the 70's it was an oil crisis
in the 80's it was aids
in the 90's it was the upcoming dreaded Y2K (yeah that was a joke) and loosing the rain forests
in the first decade of the 21'st century its global warming
The next decade or so it will be some crisis, and people on both sides will be arguing about out how bad things will get or that it isnt that bad.
Regardless BILLIONS will be spent and wasted.
Just another excuse to spend and waste money.
Atleast back in the 50's there was a legitimate scare with global thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union. thats probably where it all started. People need to have some cause or some terrifying end of the world dilemma happening to get on a soap box and the NEED for more money to throw at some issue
-
Originally posted by WilldCrd
Its all hype! every damn bit of it on both sides!
in the 60's it was vietnam
in the 70's it was an oil crisis
in the 80's it was aids
in the 90's it was the upcoming dreaded Y2K (yeah that was a joke) and loosing the rain forests
in the first decade of the 21'st century its global warming
The next decade or so it will be some crisis, and people on both sides will be arguing about out how bad things will get or that it isnt that bad.
Regardless BILLIONS will be spent and wasted.
Just another excuse to spend and waste money.
Atleast back in the 50's there was a legitimate scare with global thermonuclear war with the Soviet Union. thats probably where it all started. People need to have some cause or some terrifying end of the world dilemma happening to get on a soap box and the NEED for more money to throw at some issue
Some people see things before they happen, and they let people know about it, it may take some time, but the exaust/pollution thing will catch up to us......for real! It will not be in our lifetime, and it is inevitable, just as the sun dying someday!
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
(Edit)...It will not be in our lifetime, and it is inevitable, just as the sun dying someday!
This is the part of what you wrote that I agree with. I also beleive the exhaust/pollution thing and the sun dying will come to a head at the same instant.
Mark
-
Another GW thread....?
I won't waste my time.
to the Army of Inept Wisdom Laz has mobilized, all with blindfolds and conspiracy theories in hand. Another 3 billion dollars went to Iraq today and you see conspiracy in Global Warming.... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by WilldCrd
Its all hype! every damn bit of it on both sides!
in the 60's it was vietnam
in the 70's it was an oil crisis
in the 80's it was aids
in the 90's it was the upcoming dreaded Y2K (yeah that was a joke) and loosing the rain forests
in the first decade of the 21'st century its global warming
Hmmmm... can anyone remember how many people died in Vietnam? I'm sure they thought it was hype too. (I'm sure the vets on here love your post there, as well. to them for not hunting you down and shoving your words into other orifices. You defile their service with "hype")
Aids? A pandemic that has spread across the entire planet... and has been causally related to millions of deaths... Hype?
You really have a funny way of looking at things, my friend.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
We still dont know for sure how long it will take for the warming to stop and for the earth to correct itself again
I usually stay out of these threads, but this comment kind of irked me. Correct itself? How do we know what the "correct" climate is? And besides, climate is always in flux, always changing, be it warming or cooling.
I just don't see how we are supposed to correct something we are only starting to comprehend.
Sure we have an effect on our climate. I don't doubt we have something to do with the warming of the earth. But how much? Can we really be sure? Should we recklessly damage our economy and standard of living in this current wave of hysteria? Even the UN report said drastic measures would only have limited effect. Maybe we should temper it down until we really can be sure of what we are doing, and what effect we can have.
Every doomsday prophecy for the last couple hundred years, from Malthus on, has been so far invalidated. Every generation it seems has its own end of the world paranoia. Being a student of history, this current doomsday scenario has me at face value skeptical.
However, an unbiased and reasoned approach to the issue that has some concrete answers will immediately have my attention. So far, I have yet to see that report.
-
The globe has a way with stabilizing itself from a catastrophy into somewhat friendlier environment. I think that's what he means.
Nice text Drediock.
"The question. and real argument.
Should be Not whats causing it.
But how to adapt to it."
Here's the twist IMHO. Because what is causing it will eventually influence how to adapt to it.
Anyway, we can't carry on like we do for a long time, so there is already something to adapt to. Will it be fast or will it be slow?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
we can't even put out a simple forest fire... we think we can stop the planet from heating and cooling? we can't predict next weeks weather.. we think we know what it will be in 50 or 100 years?
lazs
So true.
The really funny thing to me is the climate change for lunch bunch, in most cases, have not a clue or an idea about what they wish to be done about this theory when asked.
Those that do ask for change ask for alternative fuels, less pollution, etc. etc.
All of which are being done and have been for some time and will continue to be.
And this is without putting your head on the chopping block......or in this case, your finances and well being.
The really good ideas usualy come from the small, unheard of people people.
Also some of the development and research for things such as alternative fuel are being done and have been for a long , long time by the.............yep, you guessed it........The Evil Oil Companies.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The climate is warming. I dont think anyone is disagreeing on that
Except Lazs of course, who earlier said no measurable rise in global temperature in 8 years now... The global temp will trend downward in the next few years...
Yeah right. That "cooling" is why all the arctic ice is melting right now. :rolleyes: Looks like Moray was right about those blindfolds. Seems like Laz takes the Hitler stance, which was that people would believe the BIG lie. It was the little white lies they didn't believe. So, take a big lie and repeat it 500 times...
Originally posted by WilldCrd
Its all hype! every damn bit of it on both sides! in the 90's it was the upcoming dreaded Y2K (yeah that was a joke)
Glad you brought that up because I believe there are parallels between that and global warming. In the 90s, people were scaremongering about 1/1/2000 - cars not starting, TV sets blowing up, electric kettles not working - you name it! People in IT were accused of "lining their pockets" for doing Y2K related work. And, on January 1st, 2000 - nothing happened. And the naysayers proclaimed "See! it was all a scam!".
Ah, not quite. Some of it was - kettles/cars/TV were never at risk. But the reason there was no apocalypse on 1/1/2000 was BECAUSE of the work undertaken to modify IT systems - the application programs, the database management systems, operating systems, and the data itself and the way it was stored. Had this work not been undertaken, there would indeed have been major crashes - just as there were within the safety of testbed scenarios.
Same thing again now. The GW Naysayers cling to the "it's a scam" argument. But man made greenhouse gas output WILL be reduced. New aircraft will be built that are 15% more fuel efficient than those operating before 2005 - already happening. New "greener" fuels will be developed to power cars - already happening. Later generations will have got over the Chernobyl/TMI paranoia and will make a commitment to nuclear (and other) sources of energy - already happening. Major commitments will be made to tech advancements such as low energy lighting - already happening.....
I believe that like Y2K, measures being taken now will see off the apocalypse of GW. And then the naysayers (or rather their descendants) will be able to gloat and say "See! it was all a scam!".
-
Hehe, my tax-software crashed at the turn of the millenium. Had to plough through all my papers and make it from scratch.
I hadn't updated the thing. Because a friend told me this was a scam....
-
moray.. you said you wouldn't then you did.
skyrock..sorry you are insulted.. I merely explained that c02 does not do what you think it does. We are very close to a doubling... bout 85% and we have not had much of a temperature rise.. further doubling will not increase it's (c02) ability to absorb waves. this is short version... look it up.
silat... nope.. no increase globally for the last 8 years.. show me the data that says it has increased. Sat/NASA data shows that the US has not increased in temp in two decades.
no predictions they have made have been right.. the temp predicitions and charts were all made years after the events. the computer models are being adjusted to predict the past... show me the computer model for the next 5 years. there is none.. none you can see anyway.. the ones they publish stop at around 2002..
They can't even get the past right... they have just now "discovered" that 1934 was the hottest year this century... they certainly can't get next week right or next year... as I said... How gullible are you guys?
And nooo... they can't even put out a fire. Never have put one out of any size.. OOOOOH the horror!!!! all that co2!!! nope.. they can't stop it.
Which brings us tooooooo... what do you alarmists want us to do? what would stop this so called MMGW? should we do anything? I mean.. if we have to destroy most of the worlds economy to reduce co2 by say...10%.. or maybe... a tenth of a degree in a century... is that worth it?? or... should we maybe just screw in some of those flourecent bulbs and call it good?
something in between? which of you can tell me? Maybe just send money to algore and hope for the best? wring our hands?
We are in a warming trend... show me how that is bad. What bad things have happened? who is being hurt? during the last cold spell.. there were parts of africa in drought...biggest ever.. now.. not so much... our crop yeild is up 15% due to co2... what bad is happening?
How much worse would it be if we were in a cold phase? we will see... cause.. we can't stop the next ice age. Any more than we can (or should) stop this warming time. Temp is not increasing... it is staying nice and warm.
lazs
-
"We are in a warming trend" and "1934 was the hottest year"?
Eat this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png)
And this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
And this:
(http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.gif)
And these linkies:
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0925-nasa.html
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2798.htm
And this one you know:
(http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/images/fcons5.jpg)
Interactive:
http://www.everybodysweather.com/Static_Media/Polar_Ice_Cap_Melter/index.htm
-
The charts are wrong.. it has been explained that the highest years were not 98 but 34-35. I have seen those charts before and they are several years old.. the "dicovery" was made only months ago... the "computer models" have now been adjusted to show that the early bump fit... just like after el nino... they adjusted the computer "prediction" (LOL) to show they knew it was gonna happen.
Note also that the temp is leveling off and dropping in all those charts at about 2000... thank you for proving my point. Most real scientists feel that we are going into a slight cooling trend that we will be able to do nothing about with temps falling in the next 3 years... I don't know but I do know that there is nothing we can (or should try to) do about it anyway.
The only thing that they can predict is yesterdays weather.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, my tax-software crashed at the turn of the millenium. Had to plough through all my papers and make it from scratch.
I hadn't updated the thing. Because a friend told me this was a scam....
:rofl Pwnage!
I broke my toe last year.
It had nothing to do with global warm....eeeerrrr climate change, millenium bug...or racism. :)
(Threw the last one in just in case Leadpig decides to join in) :)
-
In my case I lost my bookkeeping due to a millenium bug. And just because I didn't belive it would happen. Capiche?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The charts are wrong.. it has been explained that the highest years were not 98 but 34-35. I have seen those charts before and they are several years old.. the "dicovery" was made only months ago... the "computer models" have now been adjusted to show that the early bump fit... just like after el nino... they adjusted the computer "prediction" (LOL) to show they knew it was gonna happen.
Note also that the temp is leveling off and dropping in all those charts at about 2000... thank you for proving my point. Most real scientists feel that we are going into a slight cooling trend that we will be able to do nothing about with temps falling in the next 3 years... I don't know but I do know that there is nothing we can (or should try to) do about it anyway.
The only thing that they can predict is yesterdays weather.
lazs
Newest data from Nasa gives 2005 sharing the top with the Nino year of 1998 AFAIK. Now that is not old data, and the measurements globalwise are vastly more dense and accurate than in 1934.
And the Icechart needs an update, since the record year in shrinking is probably NOW.
-
Originally posted by Angus
In my case I lost my bookkeeping due to a millenium bug. And just because I didn't belive it would happen. Capiche?
All to well. You pawned yourself.
Wanting to do it again?
-
Originally posted by Stang
How do we know what the "correct" climate is? And besides, climate is always in flux, always changing, be it warming or cooling.
I just don't see how we are supposed to correct something we are only starting to comprehend.
Sure we have an effect on our climate. I don't doubt we have something to do with the warming of the earth. But how much? Can we really be sure? Should we recklessly damage our economy and standard of living in this current wave of hysteria? Even the UN report said drastic measures would only have limited effect.
Very, very close to exactly how I feel about it!!!:aok I just thinks these people that act like CO2 doesn't matter or that we do not have any affect on our climate, are just showing how stupid humanity can be sometimes! It's that mentality that will cause the greatest threat to longterm existent on this planet!:aok
-
angus.. the ice is growing in the south.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/EDITORIAL/108150004
there are hundreds of articles like the above on the 1934 heat. simply do a search.
All charts that go to present tho show that we are in a cooling trend... that is why the alarmists are so desperate. just as global warming closed the ozone hole... that they took credit for... they want to take credit for the cooling that is inevitable.
Angus.. the ocean is warming... more than air temps would allow. it is something else.. the ice in the water is melting but the ice on land is growing (globally)
your whole take on global warming is focused on some little patch of land... what you can see.
lazs
-
http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2003/climate-dec-9-2003.html
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303525,00.html
though it is an opinion piece, if there is truth to the judges ruling about the film thats kind of cool :aok
-
Maybe Gore can redistribute the film as science fiction and then it can run on the SciFi channel double feature with "MegaVolcano"
and someone here said someting like "no one is here to make money from Global Warming/End of the World....
"An Inconvenient Truth" grossed about $50 million at the box office and millions more in DVD and book sales. Gore charges as much as $175,000 for an in-person presentation of his slide show that forms the basis for the film.
-
Ahh Lazs:
"Angus.. the ocean is warming... more than air temps would allow. it is something else.. the ice in the water is melting but the ice on land is growing (globally)"
That energy is vastly more than some degree in the atmosphere.
As for the Ice on land growing globally, - ehh, - no.
The S-Pole is tougher to measure, but since SL is rising, the outcome is rather simple. More melts from land than gets bound. After all, the N-Pole can melt without raising SL, since it's in the sea after all.
Melting ice should actually cool the sea, but it doesn't. It still keeps warming.
Maybe you will try to comprehend the vicious circle, and I am sure you will quote (correctly) that such occured before mankind.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Maybe Gore can redistribute the film as science fiction and then it can run on the SciFi channel double feature with "MegaVolcano"
They could add Mega-Iceage, Imminent Nuclear Disaster, Mega-Asteroid and few others to have one of those weekend marathons.
It could closed with a grand showing of Chicken Little in HD. :)
-
Quotable quotes from Lazs - all in this thread in this order
no measurable rise in global temperature in 8 years now...
The global temp will trend downward in the next few years...
We are in a warming trend...
[/b]
Well, which is it? Is the earth warming, cooling, or staying the same? You've said all three in this thread.
:rolleyes:
-
Lazs:
"angus.. the ice is growing in the south.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps...ORIAL/108150004"
Why is SL rising if atmosphere is cooling and the main earth's Icecap is growing?
Now think...
Since the N-polar area which is melting fast is already in the water it doesn't add. So either th SL rising is due to
a) increased heat in the water which will cause it to expand
b) more melting of ice than binding
c) both
-
Originally posted by Angus
The globe has a way with stabilizing itself from a catastrophy into somewhat friendlier environment. I think that's what he means.
Nice text Drediock.
"The question. and real argument.
Should be Not whats causing it.
But how to adapt to it."
Here's the twist IMHO. Because what is causing it will eventually influence how to adapt to it.
Anyway, we can't carry on like we do for a long time, so there is already something to adapt to. Will it be fast or will it be slow?
Exactly. and thank you.
I agree. we cant keep on the way we are.
Even if it isnt the cause of GW.
The world is just a much nicer place to live without all the man made pollutants griming things up.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Exactly. and thank you.
I agree. we cant keep on the way we are.
Even if it isnt the cause of GW.
The world is just a much nicer place to live without all the man made pollutants griming things up.
High Five :aok
-
louie... nothing contradictory in any of those statements. The earth goes through warm and cool trends.. if you take a median and anything above that is "warming trend" and anything below it "cooling trend" then you will see that we are (fortunately) in a warming rather than a cooling trend.
Now.. within those trends.. the temp may rise and fall... if it falls too much for instance.. it becomes an ice age... the current temp is a warming trend.. within that trend... it has not risen in the last 8 years. the high from 34 and 98 is the high.
angus.. sooooo... we can't even measure the ice in the south and you are telling me that we are losing ice? which is it? I am surprised old lefty louie isn't taking you to task...
I say it is thicker... you say it is impossible to measure but you know it isn't.
The list of scientists that jumped ship on MMGW is growing.. the list was used by our congress to defeat draconian global warming legeslation lately
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
lazs
-
Lazs:
"angus.. sooooo... we can't even measure the ice in the south and you are telling me that we are losing ice? which is it? I am surprised old lefty louie isn't taking you to task..."
Why is the SL rising?
-
so, how much has it risen? the 20 feet that was predicted? the sea rises and falls without any aid of melting ice all the time... the sea floor changes.. land masses sink.
Why does it have to be co2 that is making the oceans rise? when ever has co2 made the oceans rise? Like you I will play at this.. I say that it is very difficult to measure the global sea rise within a margin of error of an inch or so... which is what you are claiming.
Why do all the alarmists back off from the 30' rise predicted for 2050? cause it aint gonna happen.. not from any change in temp that is. Where is the "worst hurricane season on record"? where is the continued rising of global temp? show me the data.
Where is the rise in temp? we are 85% of the doubling of c02 this century that was supposed to make for a 5 degree increase in temp yet... it is like 1.5 plus or minus... at this rate a doubling will mean nothing and... no one says that a further doubling will cause much more greenhouse effect.. co2 can only stop certain waves and only so much... at some point more and more does less and less.
lazs
-
Sea rises and fall with the aid of the moon. You know that.
BTW, the fallbback of glaciers make landmasses RISE. Yet the SL at coasts like Greenland (who has the fastest fallout of creeping glaciers of any landmass in the world) is ....rising.
It's basically rising,,,globally.
As for the global alarmists in the 30's, well, they didn't have much data to build on. The same goes for the temperature records from the era....
As for the rise in temp, - it is both in air and water, - globally. It's manifesting itself with decreasing ice and a raise in SL while the ocean still gets warmer.
If your whisky still heats up even if you have dumped an icecube into it, just check if it's not standing on the stove....
-
I like George Carlin's comedy most of the time, but almost never agree with his politics....
in one of his bits he mentioned how he can't believe we as humans have the arrogance to think we are that significant in the grand scheme of the planet to harm it, especially to the degree some "scientists" claim.
I have to agree with that completely, especially the word "arrogance".
-
Well, it is well within our power to nuke the planet into an iceage.
So, is it arrogance to think that we have no influence on the planet and the atmosphere?
So is it arrogance to think that we may be able to soften our total impact on the planet?
-
angus.. if your drink is not getting colder even with an ice cube in it and even if the air is too cold for the drink to heat... you might very well look at other reasons... the sea has gotten much hotter than air temp could have made it.
sooo.. how much has the sea risen in the last decade? how much will it rise next year? 5 years? or will you, like your heros... wait till that time to make the "prediction"
They have been wrong every single time... they can't get next month right or next year.. what makes you think they got this right?
When have we had a winter caused by nukes? are you sure we are capable? how do you know this?
lazs
-
I guess you hate the weathermen Lazs. If you study their science though, you might appreciate and understand their task.
Then on to the SL. You have yet no explanation for it's rise? Or are you just avoiding the question??
Then on to the Nuke winter. Not sure if your answer is a ducking attempt or just ignorance, but this was promoted as a result from a total nuclear war, of which the human's arsenal is fully capable of, and was on standby in USA-USSR mode for many a year, - just in case you missed it.
-
how many nukes do we have to set off to offset global warming and save the planet?
-
what makes you think I hate weathermen? I am simply telling you that they know enough to know that anything over a few days is a crapshoot. Most scientists with any integrity will tell you that there are far too many complex and unknowns to accurately computer model the global climate after about 7 days...unlikely even at that.
the sea levels have risen? OK.. we are in a warming period.. that is to be expected. how much? how much have they risen? I was hearing 30' by 2050... couple of feet by next year.. don't see anything like that.. nothing to worry about so far as I can see.
The nuke winter? well.. my point was.. we never had one so we don't really know if it is even possible.. every prediction for the effect of say... iraq oil fires or mount st helens or say.. the yellowstone fire.. all have been wrong.. and wrong to the side of being way less of an effect than was predicted. I simply have a healthy doubt about the nuke winter thing. Not something I would like to test but... probly, like everything else... much exaggerated.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus.. the ice is growing in the south.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070815/EDITORIAL/108150004
Heard bout this the other day. Was wondering if anybody else had heard. Guess we'll have to worry bout running out of room down south cause the south pole is getting bigger.
Does that also mean the balance of the Earth is going to get thrown off and we'll have to create the grand plan as humans to rebalance the earth in the north so it isnt bottom heavy?
:noid
-
I said it and I meant it, ... Most of you are in serious need of a basic science class. That is all I will speak of on these issues anymore. Most of your arguments lack even the most vague comprehension of scientific principle, nor of even the subject you are quoting.... you simply take some op-ed piece that happens to agree with your own personal opinion, and use it for a source. But, then again, this is america, you don't have to be informed to spout off at the mouth.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
But, then again, this is america, you don't have to be informed to spout off at the mouth.
:aok
-
Lazs:
"the sea levels have risen? OK.. we are in a warming period.. that is to be expected. how much? how much have they risen? I was hearing 30' by 2050... couple of feet by next year.. don't see anything like that.. nothing to worry about so far as I can see.
The nuke winter? well.. my point was.. we never had one so we don't really know if it is even possible.. every prediction for the effect of say... iraq oil fires or mount st helens or say.. the yellowstone fire.. all have been wrong.. and wrong to the side of being way less of an effect than was predicted. I simply have a healthy doubt about the nuke winter thing. Not something I would like to test but... probly, like everything else... much exaggerated.
lazs"
Okay, here we go.
The SL rises because more landbased ice melts than gathers again AND/OR the sea is heating up. The S-Pole could be growing, but less than the N-LANDBASED ice is melting. Either way, there are enormous powers at work, and as a twist to this, - co2 is more concentrated in the N-Hemisphere.
This is being checked now on numerous places on the globe. What a waste of gov. funds :p
The nuke winter...yes. Well a NUKE winter is something that you don't want to test, although variants of it have already happened. If you dim the sun through the atmosphere, you will have very fast cooling. This has been demonstrated in big volcanic eruptions, and I'll be more than happy to provide you with the information about it if you need it, but Ithink you actually chose not to mention those.
Anyway, the Iraqi oil fires are like a candlelight compared to a proper NUKE situation.
-
Originally posted by JB73
in one of his bits he mentioned how he can't believe we as humans have the arrogance to think we are that significant in the grand scheme of the planet to harm it, especially to the degree some "scientists" claim.
What a ridiculous idea Just because Carlin arbitrarily decides that a situation or idea is arrogant doesn't change it's supporting evidence one iota. Some people probably thought it was arrogant to think that man would ever fly, or go to the moon....therefore what, we didn't do those things?
especially to the degree some "scientists" claim.
That's pretty cute how you put scientists in quotes. What are you implying, that their years of education, degrees, skills and experience don't meet your qualifications? If so why should we take your judgment over the that of the universities and peer review systems?
-
Well, I recall some one this board/topic expressing his opinion about how the governments were wasting money on useless things like ice-core/glacial research.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I said it and I meant it, ... Most of you are in serious need of a basic science class. That is all I will speak of on these issues anymore. Most of your arguments lack even the most vague comprehension of scientific principle, nor of even the subject you are quoting.... you simply take some op-ed piece that happens to agree with your own personal opinion, and use it for a source. But, then again, this is america, you don't have to be informed to spout off at the mouth.
So true, Moray. I feel your pain/frustration. Thanks for the sigmat :aok
-
moray pontificated to louie...
"I said it and I meant it, ... Most of you are in serious need of a basic science class. That is all I will speak of on these issues anymore. Most of your arguments lack even the most vague comprehension of scientific principle, nor of even the subject you are quoting... blah blah blah... you are not as smart or educated as me blah blah blah... you are mean..blah blah blah."
This is all well and good until you realize that moray is simply an ocean science guy... in the top ten? nope. climate science? nope.. just a windbag really...or... at best.. a tenth rate scientist.
But... maybe.. still smarter than say.... me. But he is not arguing with me. It matters not how smart I am. The persons I am quoting are all scientists...real sceintists... one... is the top in the field moray is in...moray is a flea on this guys butt and this guy says that moray is full of it.
The list of scientists that are jumping the whole MMGW ship are legion. Are they all smarter than moray and me? maybe... but one thing for sure... they have a lot more experiance in the field than both of us combined.
moray is basically saying that he is smarter than all the scientists who have come to the conclussion that MMGW is a hoax or... at the least a huge exaggeration.
morays arrogance is worthless here. he gives no data.. he simply says... "believe me because you are not as smart as me and wouldn't understand"
No one really "understands" there are plenty of theories to go around and for every one.. there is some doubt.
hell moray can't even keep his word.. what is this? like the 4th time he has said that he won't reply to any threads like this because we are beneath him?
lazs
-
and friend angus.. you still have not said...
due to "MMGW"... how much have the ocean risen... what is the number. I want a number. the margin of error is about an inch or so by the way.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray pontificated to louie...
"I said it and I meant it, ... Most of you are in serious need of a basic science class. That is all I will speak of on these issues anymore. Most of your arguments lack even the most vague comprehension of scientific principle, nor of even the subject you are quoting... blah blah blah... you are not as smart or educated as me blah blah blah... you are mean..blah blah blah."
This is all well and good until you realize that moray is simply an ocean science guy... in the top ten? nope. climate science? nope.. just a windbag really...or... at best.. a tenth rate scientist.
But... maybe.. still smarter than say.... me. But he is not arguing with me. It matters not how smart I am. The persons I am quoting are all scientists...real sceintists... one... is the top in the field moray is in...moray is a flea on this guys butt and this guy says that moray is full of it.
The list of scientists that are jumping the whole MMGW ship are legion. Are they all smarter than moray and me? maybe... but one thing for sure... they have a lot more experiance in the field than both of us combined.
moray is basically saying that he is smarter than all the scientists who have come to the conclussion that MMGW is a hoax or... at the least a huge exaggeration.
morays arrogance is worthless here. he gives no data.. he simply says... "believe me because you are not as smart as me and wouldn't understand"
No one really "understands" there are plenty of theories to go around and for every one.. there is some doubt.
hell moray can't even keep his word.. what is this? like the 4th time he has said that he won't reply to any threads like this because we are beneath him?
lazs
I love when I can get a Laz wall of text, from one post.
No, laz, the problem here is I am no smarter than anyone in the field. We all look at and interpret data. Sir, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that warming is occuring. What little, and I do mean little, debate occuring is proving a causal relationship to man and said event, at least to a scientific case. The system involved is fluid, and it is trying to balance itself.... so up and down swings occur. It is the overall long term trend that is the underlying factor. Take that into account and also that we should be sliding into a glaciation period, due to our orbital inclination swinging out a tenth of a degree or so... and you sir, should be a little worried.
The question is and always should be, not that "what climate is right for the planet", rather, what climate is "right for humanity". A warmer climate is not good for us as a species, sir.
And the global sea rise is pretty much exactly at 1/10 of 1 inch per year. I've measured it sir, and it is real. To have a MEASURABLE change per year on such a scale..... you need to be stupid or truly ignorant of the topic not to realize what that means.
My ocean doesn't change without your climate changing.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and friend angus.. you still have not said...
due to "MMGW"... how much have the ocean risen... what is the number. I want a number. the margin of error is about an inch or so by the way.
lazs
Who gives that margin of error sir?
-
hmmm... love it when I can get moray to not only reply with a wall of text but... once again... reply when he said he would not be.
Again. there are plenty of scientists.. even ones in your field.. who feel that we are not causing any global warming or that the effect is negligable. Many more feel that even if we were having an effect it is far from a bad thing and more believe that we can't do anything about it in any case.
your idea that warmer is worse than colder is not shared by any scientist that I am aware of.
The ocean is rising a tenth of an inch a year? even if every single bit of that was due to man... we are talking a couple of inches... if nothing changes.. in what half a decade... we may be able to... if everything goes right and we are willing to spend billions and nothing else changes.... stop the sea from rising an inch in a century?
question tho.. do you feel that it is man made co2 that has caused the global warming? Oh wait... you have said you would never reply to these threads anymore...
nevermind.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
your idea that warmer is worse than colder is not shared by any scientist that I am aware of.
How many scientists do you know then?
And why is warmer "better"? Are you thinking of it in terms of what might be "more pleasant for the human race in the northern US"? If that's all you have, then you have failed to take into account the deeper issues of how warming can/will affect micro-organisms lower down the food chain which are responsible for sustaining life on earth. You probably think like some guy who's an idiot or a Big Oil man or a politician (or all three, given the current govt administration) that if we get too much sun (stupid) that all we need do is put on sunglasses - an option not available to those organisms lower down the food chain. But hey... what do you care about those "insignificant" micro organisms. After all, the oceans are just dustbins to soak up unwanted CO2, in your book.
Your homework assignment for tonight - look up "food chain".
-
i personally have seen the ocean rise more than a foot, and then recede when the tide changes.
-
your homework is to look up "ice age" and then explain to us which is better.. warmer or colder.
We are in a warming period.. it is a time of great prosperity and comfort for most on this planet. things would be worse in a cold period. more people die from the cold than the heat. crops grow better in warm weather than cold weather.
we are by no means in an extreme hot spell.. there is no evidence that it will either be colder or hotter by the end of the century. we have no way of knowing.
climate science is a young science. as such... it has made great strides in predicting weather out to about 7 days.. pretty fuzzy even at that tho... over about seven days? what do you think? truth is... they haven't a clue. There simply are too many factors that we know nothing about. we can't say for sure that anything causes anything... we can see the results... and sure... we do know that increased sun activity does increase temp and release co2 but... much more than that? who knows.
lazs
-
LOL, compare Venus and Iceage, and I'll pick Iceage.
(However, in my business and where I am, some warming is good for the business, - providing it won't go too far :t ..... I am very happy for a softer climate, I can feel it and I am already benefitting from it, so telling me that it isn't happening is kind of....hopeless)
Anyway Lazs, - the sea level
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png)
-
8" in 130 years, that's great, in another 200 years i can sail over that sand bar off pinellas point in tampa bay.
-
angus...we have never had "venus" nor is there any proof that we will ever..
We have had ice ages and warm periods... this warm period is not even the hottest. it is simply a warm period... sooo.. compare an ice age.. the coldest it has been here with today and tell me which you would rather have?
say the alarmists are right tho and man can make the temp go up (all other natural factors not changing) say... 2 degrees.. in the next century... how bad will that be? Ice age better?
your chart...lets say it is accurate. I think 20 cm in 125 years... I think we can live with that... hell.. by your reasoning.. we have about melted all the ice that is gonna melt anyway.. gonna be hard for us to feed rise...
unless of course it is something else.. like sea floor spreading or sinking of continents.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
He's not a climate scientist, he's an electrical engineer.
Edit:
Hell, he's an electrical engineer that has worked on climate change "research" for Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association.
I was staying out of this topic, because I know where it will lead. However that's way too funny if it's true. :rofl
Remember kids smoking is healthy for you.
-
Agnus: Couple things.....
Sea levels have been rising at a more or less consistant rate since at least 1900? How does MMGW explain that, given that modern CO2 emmisions are supposed to be the cause.
This data is extrapolated from a mere 23 tide stations? Where are they located?
And lastly...it is from Wikpedia, after all.
-
Here is a linkie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise#Glacier_contribution
And then think that after the Iceage there was landrise. So again, the N-Hemisphere Glacier-loaded countries were a good indicator, - there was severe rising of land when the glaciers retreated. I for example live on an old seabed (under 10 feet of soil) while being some 100 feet above the current SL. The land is still rising while the SL stays rougly the same. So what does that tell you?
(More than 10% of the country is under glacier with very great thickness, - the closest (< 70 km) has a some 2000 feet on ice resting on an active volcanoe.)
Anyway, land is rising still from the weight of the last iceage. Makes things a bit more complicated. But SL is now catching up.
Look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostatic_depression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raised_beach
Moray might know more about this from maritime biology. As well as how the measurements are made, - what is the aiming point. Anyway, with landrise still ongoing while SL is rising it points into the same conclusion, - there's more water around.
BTW, I am not a scientist! But I (had to so I..) did study quite a bit of Metreology, Geology and Biology, then agriculture. I am grateful for it, and it pisses me of when some hillbillies boo on the weathermen for not being able to make completely accurate forecasts. The one who does that has obviously no knowledge of the fluid problems they face. I should perhaps be frustrated, for in my line of work, I make the stakes after looking at the forecasts.
Moray, are you a maritime biologist? May I ask what is your field and area??
-
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html
so singer went from disproving cigarettes causing cancer on behalf of tobacco interests (wrong) to disproving global warming on behalf of big oil interests (majority of scientists say he's wrong here too)
this guys out to make money, not help anyone. the problem is greed.
-
Originally posted by Shaky
Agnus: Couple things.....
Sea levels have been rising at a more or less consistant rate since at least 1900? How does MMGW explain that, given that modern CO2 emmisions are supposed to be the cause.
This data is extrapolated from a mere 23 tide stations? Where are they located?
And lastly...it is from Wikpedia, after all.
Counter question, - why is SL rising? Where does the water come from if the S-cap is gaining such an icemass suddenly?
BTW I am on the point of warming occuring, not the "just" co2 thing which I remain sceptic about. But human impact, - definately. So IMHO it is warming and SL is rising. But the Anti-camp will debate that even with the charts in their face.
And Lazs:
"angus...we have never had "venus" nor is there any proof that we will ever..
We have had ice ages and warm periods... this warm period is not even the hottest. it is simply a warm period... sooo.. compare an ice age.. the coldest it has been here with today and tell me which you would rather have?"
We did not have Venus pos, but we did have long periods which we could not thrive in as a civization at all. There were times in earths atmosphere that would have choked you right away. And heats that provoked enormously extreme weathers. All the hot periods did not spawn civilizations, but the slow melting stable iceage to post iceage did.
Co-insidence or subtler climate?
As for the polar caps (there were reptiles on Antarctica ones and forests on Greenland) you must bear in mind that at the time those places were on the equador...
-
Originally posted by bongaroo
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html
so singer went from disproving cigarettes causing cancer on behalf of tobacco interests (wrong) to disproving global warming on behalf of big oil interests (majority of scientists say he's wrong here too)
this guys out to make money, not help anyone. the problem is greed.
Wonder if he smokes :D
-
What goes around, comes around. Circle of life and all that
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/namK100a.jpg)
-
Originally posted by bongaroo
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/video.html
so singer went from disproving cigarettes causing cancer on behalf of tobacco interests (wrong) to disproving global warming on behalf of big oil interests (majority of scientists say he's wrong here too)
this guys out to make money, not help anyone. the problem is greed.
:rofl Yes I noticed that as well. After my post, curiosity got the better of me so I looked him up.
It's like the blind leading the blind in here.. In this case it's more like a blind giving walking lessons to the blind. Then leading them into a traffic and telling them if they get ran over it's the liberals fault.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
What goes around, comes around. Circle of life and all that
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/namK100a.jpg)
Personally I think its an improvement asthetically.
Look at all that new beachfront property.
And the fishing thats sure to result.
Make a hell of a nice AH MA map too LOL
-
I guess I should have added thats a map of North America approximatly 250 Million years ago... give or take a year or two
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I guess I should have added thats a map of North America approximatly 250 Million years ago... give or take a year or two
You said what goes around comes around, circle of life etc
that to me would indicate that you were saying that is how it would look once again.
I still think its an improvement
And look! Hardly any Mexico! :aok
Now if we could only think of a way to make it happen very very quickly before then can migrate north
-
Originally posted by Angus
Counter question, -
Huh? No answers, just another question?
-
Sometimes a question is the answer. You just need some processing.
The thread is in the state of some camp stating that the S-pole is gathering ice. At the same time there is still an ongoing landrise while SL follows and more than that.
-
Yep. If I ever have a cartoon frog that needs rescuing.......Al`s my boy.
-
Nature does not need protection from man, but man does need protection from nature.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I guess I should have added thats a map of North America approximatly 250 Million years ago... give or take a year or two
I was wondering why the Rocky Mountains hadn't reached Colorado yet. I figured it had something to do with Boston.:mad: Not to mention Cheyenne, WY (elev. 6000+ ft) is under water and Denver (elev. 5280) is beach front.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Nature does not need protection from man, but man does need protection from nature.
word.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
[B
The ocean is rising a tenth of an inch a year? even if every single bit of that was due to man... we are talking a couple of inches... if nothing changes.. in what half a decade... we may be able to... if everything goes right and we are willing to spend billions and nothing else changes.... stop the sea from rising an inch in a century?
question tho.. do you feel that it is man made co2 that has caused the global warming? .
lazs [/B]
#1. Your math, not unexpectedly, is a little fuzzy. A mean sea level rise of 1/10 of 1 inch per year as an average, would equal out to 1 foot every 10 years. Which would be 10 feet every century, there, Mr. Wizard. Perhaps I should add a basic math course involving fractions to your courseload. A 5 foot increase would flood the Lower East Side of Manhattan at least twice a day, being that most of the east coast is semi diurnal.
#2. Yes, I do feel that CO2 emmissions have demonstrated a direct causal relationship to the problem. I will readily agree that Co2 is definately not a major greenhouse gas.... but I am very wary of it as a gateway to worse climate issues. CH4 and pure water vapor are both much more powerful and effective greenhouse gases, and both will rise in concentration if this shift continues.
#3. Climate, my dear Watson, is not WEATHER. Quit trying to tie the two together. You keep saying, they can't predict the weather out 7 days...CLIMATE and WEATHER are two DIFFERENT things. PLEASE get your facts straight.
It's like mental boxing with Corky, talking with you.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
#1. Your math, not unexpectedly, is a little fuzzy. A mean sea level rise of 1/10 of 1 inch per year as an average, would equal out to 1 foot every 10 years. Which would be 10 feet every century, there, Mr. Wizard.
Wrong, 1/10 of an inch over ten years would be one inch!:aok
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
#1. Your math, not unexpectedly, is a little fuzzy. A mean sea level rise of 1/10 of 1 inch per year as an average, would equal out to 1 foot every 10 years. Which would be 10 feet every century, there, Mr. Wizard. Perhaps I should add a basic math course involving fractions to your courseload. A 5 foot increase would flood the Lower East Side of Manhattan at least twice a day, being that most of the east coast is semi diurnal.
#2. Yes, I do feel that CO2 emmissions have demonstrated a direct causal relationship to the problem. I will readily agree that Co2 is definately not a major greenhouse gas.... but I am very wary of it as a gateway to worse climate issues. CH4 and pure water vapor are both much more powerful and effective greenhouse gases, and both will rise in concentration if this shift continues.
#3. Climate, my dear Watson, is not WEATHER. Quit trying to tie the two together. You keep saying, they can't predict the weather out 7 days...CLIMATE and WEATHER are two DIFFERENT things. PLEASE get your facts straight.
It's like mental boxing with Corky, talking with you.
Huh? 1/10th an inch per year would equal 1 inch in 10 years, not a foot. Perhaps there's something mysterious in the way sea livel rises are calculated that defy the math I learned in the second grade?
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Wrong, 1/10 of an inch over ten years would be one inch!:aok
Admittedly... coffee is good prior to posting. I was most certainly wrong.
-
Egg, meet face. :p
-
sheesh.. you should have kept your word and not posted again moray.
So we do agree that co2 gas is not a major player.. I don't know what you consider "gateway" to mean tho.. it seems nebulous like pot being a "gateway" drug. If co2 is driving warming... why is co2 going up but not temp? why has co2 always lagged warmer temps in the past but now.. the alarmists are claiming it leads?
climate and weather are linked... in fact... the so called "models" use weather predicting factors to get their results. sooo.. let me put it another way.. we can't use those factors to predict the climate of next month.. how can we reasonably expect them to have it down for a century? Why do they not predict the future on the charts.. only the past?
Why? because every time they have made a prediction they have had to retract it or tone it down.
Angus.. even moray will tell you that many things can make sea level rise or fall compared to dry land mass. If he is honest.. he will tell you that there is a margin of error... it is not an exact science. an inch in 10 years is about within the margin of error.
No "30' rise" as was predicted earlier by the alarmists.. no "billions will drown".... an inch or two at best.. and then... within the margin of error.
lazs
-
It's still almost a foot in 100 years. With the same speed, which is not the case, as well as I have never seen landrise added to the equation.
My hunch is that the SL raising will be much more noteable nearer to the equador, - in areas thet were not pressed by the Iceage.
-
It's almost a foot in 100 years if nothing else changes. and.. we don't factor in the margin of error.
Truth is.. the climate will, unfortunately, go into a normal and natural cooling trend long before that... just as it always has done.
Chances are.. long before 100 years are up.. the alarmists will be asking for grants and bigger government to combat man made global cooling and the horror of the oceans sinking a tent of an inch a year.
you may or may not be so gullible next time.
lazs
-
And while the alarmists get oppeosed by deniers who do not want research, the SL is going to rise, and perhaps me and Lazs will live to see the Nothern icecap disappear while Lazs will deny to his/hers dying day that it is happening.
At that time, the pre planned oil drilling plans of many a big company that always denied GW, is going into new heights because of open grounds that used to be covered with ice.
When me and Lazs have been dead some 200 years the CO2 PPM will be where???????????????????????????????????????????????????
And the SL?????????????????????????????????????????????
Lazs, - give a guess :D
-
I gave a guess.. just like they are doing. I have told you.. we will go into a natural cooling cycle long before your disaster scenario hits.. I can only hope that we don't go too far into an ice age. If we do tho... there will be nothing we can do about it.
I am not at all opposed to research. I think that it should be equally funded tho. that it should be pure research with no agenda. No matter what. I think that those who hold that it is not man made should be funded equally with those who do.
Why? I don't think any scientist today can be unaffected by money and politics sooo.. we need to fund both sides the same and let the best theory win.
Lets get over the hysteria and see both sides.. there are thousands and thousands of scientists, and more every day that are jumping the MMGW ship... yet.. the alarmists and true believers are getting even more shrill.
Look at moray.. he himself is not a climate scientist at all.. he has no background but.. he looks down his nose at the "stupid" people here who doubt.. even tho.. it is not us he is looking down at but the thousands of scientists with better backgrounds than his that he is putting down.. we are just quoting them. It matters not if we swim in the ocean and play with sealife or not.
as for singer.... Yep.. he made the outlandish claim that second hand smoke was not worse for you than first hand smoke.. I happen to believe he is right. I have seen no proof that he is wrong..
lazs
-
And if your guess is wrong?
As for supported research, I recall you being all for the Oil-company supported campaign. Is it my memory?
-
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom
of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
Maybe an update is needed...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or of climate science, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances
:D
-
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt0 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlbvJEZA_4)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt1 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt2 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8&NR=1)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt3 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yoyqFNCoDRY)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt4 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=y5gUd6y3zKU)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt5 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsX5I6mVWo)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt6 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_RY_qEyHbj0)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt7 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YRnyHIheR0I)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt8 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=I24QOvMUUyw)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I gave a guess.. just like they are doing. I have told you.. we will go into a natural cooling cycle long before your disaster scenario hits.. I can only hope that we don't go too far into an ice age. If we do tho... there will be nothing we can do about it.
I am not at all opposed to research. I think that it should be equally funded tho. that it should be pure research with no agenda. No matter what. I think that those who hold that it is not man made should be funded equally with those who do.
Why? I don't think any scientist today can be unaffected by money and politics sooo.. we need to fund both sides the same and let the best theory win.
Lets get over the hysteria and see both sides.. there are thousands and thousands of scientists, and more every day that are jumping the MMGW ship... yet.. the alarmists and true believers are getting even more shrill.
Look at moray.. he himself is not a climate scientist at all.. he has no background but.. he looks down his nose at the "stupid" people here who doubt.. even tho.. it is not us he is looking down at but the thousands of scientists with better backgrounds than his that he is putting down.. we are just quoting them. It matters not if we swim in the ocean and play with sealife or not.
as for singer.... Yep.. he made the outlandish claim that second hand smoke was not worse for you than first hand smoke.. I happen to believe he is right. I have seen no proof that he is wrong..
lazs
Sir, you don't know my background and don't know me. Take that for what it is, and STFU. My posts have been skuzzified for saying less than what you just did.
I simply say understand the basic science before you call it blasphemous.
-
To put things in perspective, we had a minor volcanic eruption in NZ a few weeks ago. The propellor-heads reckon it put out more "greenhouse gases" in that one tiny eruption than the entire population of NZ does in a year.
-
Originally posted by AKH
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt0 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlbvJEZA_4)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt1 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt2 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8&NR=1)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt3 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yoyqFNCoDRY)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt4 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=y5gUd6y3zKU)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt5 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=SIsX5I6mVWo)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt6 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_RY_qEyHbj0)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt7 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YRnyHIheR0I)
The Great Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt8 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=I24QOvMUUyw)
I highly recommend anyone check these out, who might not have otherwise.
-
WOW! What a scam, LOL.
TY for the tip.
-
LOL... I love the way the alarmists all "provide some balance" whenever anyone challenges MMGW... where was the "balace" on algores drama/documentary ?
even tho there was probly not one fact in the thing... no one said a word.. the media loved it and even gave it an academy award.
moray... my point with you is that you are not one of the worlds leading climatoligists... you are probly not the leader in your field... god help us if you are...
The point is that scientists with a lot more credentials all doubt that co2 and man is causing the globe to warm at all.. even more think that if we are it is negligable.. You aren't telling us to STFU.. you are telling them..
recently a petition was circulated and 17,000 men with advanced degrees all signed it saying that they thought MMGW was a hoax. Are you gonna tell all of them to STFU (as you so daintily put it)
What did I say to you that was so bad? you get skuzzyfied because you explode like a child.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL... I love the way the alarmists all "provide some balance" whenever anyone challenges MMGW... where was the "balace" on algores drama/documentary ?
lazs
It`s the saving of the cartoon frog I tell ya. Very emotional moment that was.
-
Oh yeah.. show that co2 lags not leads temp and they say "well.. this time is different it is now leading."
say that the co2 is going up but for 8 years the temp has not (20 for the US) and they say... "give it time.. nothing happens instantly"
say the suns activity leads global temp and they say "but look.. for two years the activity was not as strong and the temp still went up" no, "give it time" stuff there.
algore presents a weepy mocumentary and it is praised and even some scientists (at first) praised the science... of course now... england will not allow it to be shown at schools as fact.
The "swindle" documentary? real scientists saying that it is a hoax the MMGW thing.. the media and alarmists come unglued.. even their attempt to discredit (add balance) is weak.. the basics have not been discredited at all. co2 can't be doing it.
We are indeed being swindled by the alarmists and the socialists.
lazs
-
If I recall right, Moray pointed out the big part of CO2 and warming, which was the sea. It holds less CO2 when warmer, just like your coca-cola when it's warmer.
Anyway, you cannot discard the sea (which is warming) nor the SL. The forces at work there are simply huge.
I was actually quite surprized that the arctic areas and the sea didn't come much into the discussion, however not sao surpried to see the selectiveness of the data.
Very nice claim that we suddenly lost the ability to measure temperature in the last 20 years.....
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh yeah.. show that co2 lags not leads temp and they say "well.. this time is different it is now leading."
say that the co2 is going up but for 8 years the temp has not (20 for the US) and they say... "give it time.. nothing happens instantly"
say the suns activity leads global temp and they say "but look.. for two years the activity was not as strong and the temp still went up" no, "give it time" stuff there.
algore presents a weepy mocumentary and it is praised and even some scientists (at first) praised the science... of course now... england will not allow it to be shown at schools as fact.
The "swindle" documentary? real scientists saying that it is a hoax the MMGW thing.. the media and alarmists come unglued.. even their attempt to discredit (add balance) is weak.. the basics have not been discredited at all. co2 can't be doing it.
We are indeed being swindled by the alarmists and the socialists.
lazs
Why can't CO2 be doing it?
Laz, solar forcing isn't doing it. If it was, then all levels of the atmosphere would be warming, in particular, the stratosphere. The stratosphere does not hold any CO2, and it is actually cooling. As a matter of fact, all levels of the atmosphere are cooling, except for one, the troposphere. I'll give you one guess where that is, and another guess as to what makes it special.
(a: we live there and it holds pretty much all the CO2)
Personally attacking me and trying to make me look stupid won't fly. My credentials are just fine, thank you, and suit me. I have plenty of scientific papers out there published in peer reviewed literature. Try and discredit me all you want, it won't change the consensus and scientific evidence.
Also, actually, for 17 years the sun's activity went down,(and still is, BTW) as measured by flare and sunspot activity, and temperature still went up, Laz. Please get your facts straight.
I am not a fan of Al Gore's film. He made a film that presents outlying scenarios, statistically, and presents them as what is certain. The only good thing about it is it's "wake up call" potential.
Laz, there is a reason that 65 million years ago there were dinosaurs walking around Antartica... coincidentally CO2 was 300 times higher then. The planet locked all that carbon up in coal and oil. We, as a species, are taking that all out again and putting it back in the atmosphere. It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out what comes next.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Laz, there is a reason that 65 million years ago there were dinosaurs walking around Antartica... coincidentally CO2 was 300 times higher then. The planet locked all that carbon up in coal and oil. We, as a species, are taking that all out again and putting it back in the atmosphere. It doesn't take a whole lot to figure out what comes next.
dinosaurs walking around Antartica...
:eek:
-
Yes.
However the Pole was at the today's equador. There were forests in Greenland too.
What was the CO2 ppm?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
recently a petition was circulated and 17,000 men with advanced degrees all signed it saying that they thought MMGW was a hoax.
So no significant increase over the 1998 incarnation of the Oregon petition. That's strange given your previous statements on how the scientific community is catching on to the swindle.
And for your information, a B.Sc. (B.S.) is not an advanced degree.
-
moray... I am not questioning your ability in science only pointing out that many more scientists with even more experiance do not agree with you.
rather than answer your questions about c02 I will point you to a site.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
written by people who understand it a lot better than either of us. if you have a problem with any of the data and the way short and long wave radiation works or doesn't work... feel free to correct the site.
your statement that algores movie was valuable as a "wake up call" even tho it was false... smacks of... "the end justifies the means" to me.
I also might point out that earlier, in maybe another thread... you said that you felt that co2 was probly not the major cause of warming. Are you now saying that it is?
how did dino's lock up the carbon?
If we did not exist.. there would be fires to unlock the carbon in any case. fires that would burn for decades in coal fields and forests.
lazs
-
Originally posted by john9001
dinosaurs walking around Antartica...
:eek:
Yes, Dinosaurs were in Antarctica.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray... I am not questioning your ability in science only pointing out that many more scientists with even more experiance do not agree with you.
rather than answer your questions about c02 I will point you to a site.
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
written by people who understand it a lot better than either of us. if you have a problem with any of the data and the way short and long wave radiation works or doesn't work... feel free to correct the site.
your statement that algores movie was valuable as a "wake up call" even tho it was false... smacks of... "the end justifies the means" to me.
I also might point out that earlier, in maybe another thread... you said that you felt that co2 was probly not the major cause of warming. Are you now saying that it is?
how did dino's lock up the carbon?
If we did not exist.. there would be fires to unlock the carbon in any case. fires that would burn for decades in coal fields and forests.
lazs
Experience, you meant.
1: Yes, you were calling into question my credentials sir. Please don't attempt to portray it as otherwise. What's your advanced degree in again, by the way? I have two and working on a third.... 2 MS and on my doctoral dissertation. I'm dumb enough to know when someone is knocking on my credentials.
2. As usual, you misrepresent what I have said previous. I stated this, "That CO2 by itself, is not a comparatively major greenhouse gas. Water vapor and CH4 are many times more viable and increasingly more consistent at retention of thermal energy." I pointed out that CO2 represents a window that could be used to open up a more radical expression of warming, through water vapor and methane.
3. The Dino's locked up that carbon by DYING . That point should not be lost upon you sir. The Cretaceaous exctinction basically took the world's ecosystems, pushed the restart button, and sealed up all that carbon (carbon, as you know is what ALL life on the planet is based on) under the ground. The atmospheric CO2 concentration of the time was 300x heavier than now. Amazingly, the temperature was also 20 degrees warmer then, worldwide. I guess you don't see a correlation. (CH4 concentration was also much greater, and that also got locked up, under the sea and in permafrost.) Bottom line.... CO2 is a stepping stone to release of methane hydrate, which in turn will cause higher H2Ov concentrations.
4. Please feel free to include viable forms of citation. Junkscience.com, is not one of those.
-
Still baffles me that people are still debating whether there is any warming occuring. Just look at the glacial areas on the N-Hemisphere...
But again, it's being debated by GW denialists, and they cut away from both the Ocean warming as well as the N-Cap as much as they can, while if anything, pull up the increased snowfall on Antarctica.
BTW, that should give a bit of a ting on the bell, for it is one of the dryest areas in the world. Or used to be.....
And BTW, Lazs, - how do you expect a natural fire in a coalfield? Would that be a lightning into the shaft?
-
Been wondering that myself.... how do you get coal on fire underground... without, that is, having a mine?(laz said we wouldn't be there) Yes, I know about the underground coal fires in Pennsylvania, caused by a mine incident (and supplied by oxygen in that shaft) and burning for the past 35 years... Underground is naturally anaerobic...fire needs oxygen.... That argument is pretty vague.
-
yet... you claim that the reset button was hit.. and.. man was not even here.. we had nothing to do with it.
Show me some proof that the GLOBAL temp has gone up in the last 7 years.. that the US temp has in the last few decades... How can this be?
If co2.. if man made co2 is heating the earth.. then why is it not doing so like the models predicted? we are at almost 80% of a doubling this century but no ten degrees warmer. how can that be?
Suns activity is not just solar flares.. it is solar winds.. It has always led the temp changes while co2 lagged the changes. co2 is not leading temp change now. solar wind is at a high now but sunspot activity has calmed.. still higher than the 40's and 50's tho when we had a global cooling..
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/wind.html
Our universe is heating... mars is heating.. what is causing that? why would not the same things that cause that cause us to heat?
moray... get over yourself.. the fact remains that you are not the most credentialed person on either side of the debate... certainly I am not either.. nor is angus.. but.. we don't claim to be.
There are people who know more about it than you with better credentials who think you are wrong.
coal fires are both natural and man made.
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~prakash/coalfires/coalfires.html
just one countries coal fires are more co2 than all the cars and trucks in the US
http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro4p4.asp
sooooo.. if co2 is the problem then why even care about anything till we can put out the coal fires? should be simple enough for a race who can control nature eh?
lazs
-
Coal fires = industry. In China, yes, a LOT. And they are really crude about it. But it gives us westeners very cheap products.
Natural (underground) coal fires in huge quantities however challenge one important law of Physics....
As for the last 7 years, watch the debunking of the debunking (the 8 links here above) It's actually quite clear about it, there is only ONE particular form of analyzing sattellite data that does not speak out in the order of warming, - i.e. rather still in the S-Hemisphere, slightly warming in the N-Hemisphere.
Ocean temps however go up, and bear in mind that those are 70% of earths surface. SL rises slightly, which means either or both of more landbased ice melting than gathering, as well as water slightly expanding due to heating.
And in the N-Hemisphere nearer to the arctic circle the warming is more detectable. Greenland is probably the clearest place to look at.
BTW they were on our news today. They are now successfully growing potatoes and some cabbage, - outside, - in the S-Area. That has not been possible before now.
Then you have to look at the animal lifes as well, since they can tell you a lot about climate. Migrating birds in N-territories are now leaving later and arriving earlier in the spring. The difference is very marked.
It's not all about JUST one interpretion and the surface-none-urban temps JUST in the USA, this is much bigger than that.
-
* Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
* Lockwood 2007 concludes "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
* Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
* Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
* Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
* Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
* Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
* Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
* Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
* Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
* Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"
All practising research scientists.
The Mars argument has been debunked repeatedly, so I'm surprised that you're dragging it up again.
The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere.
Albedo of the south pole on Mars determined by topographic forcing of atmosphere dynamics (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7039/full/nature03561.html)
As Moray pointed out, the vast majority of coal fires are man-made, since they occur most often in mines and waste tips. China's coal fires, which consume an estimated 20 – 200 million tons of coal a year, make up as much as 1 percent of the global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
As Fred Singer says, "It would be hilarious, actually, if it weren't so sad."
I could agree with him on that point.
-
Originally posted by Angus
BTW they were on our news today. They are now successfully growing potatoes and some cabbage, - outside, - in the S-Area. That has not been possible before now.
yes, growing food is a bad thing,:rolleyes:
<>
but the shrinkage of the arctic is not regional but global?
-
You are obviously smarter than everyone else. :rolleyes:
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) (http://amap.no/acia/)
-
Originally posted by AKH
You are obviously smarter than everyone else.
if that was for me , thank you, you are very perceptive. :D
-
Originally posted by john9001
yes, growing food is a bad thing,:rolleyes:
<>
but the shrinkage of the arctic is not regional but global?
Now I know. You live on Mars.
BTW, Martian atmosphere is mostly co2. Our knowledge however of atmospheric fluctuations there is very little. But we know that without the co2 it would be colder. But the atmosphere is just very very thin....
We do know the solar activity though (the part skipped in the "global warming swindle" were the last years, which are low in solar activity), and we do have quite some measurements in our stratosphere, which is above greenhouse effect. So, in short, the stratosphere is cold(er?), the solar activity is lower, our CO2 rises and so do our temps.
How about you moving to Venus John? Interesting greenhouse effects there...
(Although I will leave you to ponder on one other possible reason for Venus being hotter than Mercury, which is closer to the sun)
-
recent history will show that periods of warming have been good for civilization and periods of cold were bad, i realize you hate the warming because your igloo is melting, but you must adapt, build a mud and wattle hut with a thatched roof.
and plant some potatoes.
-
Originally posted by john9001
recent history will show that periods of warming have been good for civilization and periods of cold were bad, i realize you hate the warming because your igloo is melting, but you must adapt, build a mud and wattle hut with a thatched roof.
and plant some potatoes.
The seaweed is always greener
In somebody else's lake
You dream about going up there
But that is a big mistake
Just look at the world around you
Right here on the ocean floor
Such wonderful things surround you
What more is you lookin' for?
Under the sea, under the sea
Darlin' it's better down where it's wetter
Take it from me.
Up on the shore they work all day
Out in the sun they slave away
While we devoting full time to floating
Under the sea
Down here all the fish is happy
As off through the waves they roll
The fish on the land ain't happy
They sad 'cause they in the bowl
But fish in the bowl is lucky
They in for a worser fate
One day when the boss get hungry
Guess who's gon'be on the plate
Under the sea, under the sea
Nobody beat us, fry us
And eat us in fricassee
We what the land folks loves to cook
Under the sea we off the hook
We got no troubles, like is the bubbles
Under the sea, under the sea
Under the sea, under the sea
Since life is sweet here
We got the beat here naturally
Even the sturgeon and the ray
They get the urge 'n' start to play
We got the spirit, you got to hear it
Under the sea
The newt play the flute
The carp play the harp
The plaice play the bass
And they soundin' sharp
The bass play the brass
The chub play the tub
The fluke is the duke of soul
The ray he can play
The lings on the strings
The trout rockin' out
The blackfish, she sings
The smelt and the sprat
They know where it's at
And oh, that blowfish blow
Under the sea, under the sea
Under the sea, under the sea
When the sardine begin the beguine
It's music to me
What do they got, a lot of sand
We got a hot crustaceuan band
Each little clam here
Know how to jam here
Under the sea
Each little slug here
Cutting a rug here
Under the sea
Each little snail here
Know how to wail here
That's why it's hotter
Under the water
Ya, we in luck here
Down in the muck here
Under the sea
-
yes arlo, the answer to everything is a song, because songwriters have the answers to everything.
-
Originally posted by john9001
yes arlo, the answer to everything is a song, because songwriters have the answers to everything.
Of course you don't get it. What answer you got other than sticking your head in the sand and flipping off the world? :D
Are you one of those who have a thing against PBS because it falls outside your agenda? If so you missed a recent show which documented a trip to Alaska by a group comprised of evangelical Christians bent on proving there was no global warming crisis and scientists providing up-close physical evidence.
I was surprised. I expected those who were convinced to stay that way no matter what. But when the evangelicals saw the glacier mass that receeded 3 miles in a year's time (it had no appreciable recession in thousands of years before) and watched a house fall into the ocean before their very eyes (an entire village is now having to be relocated to an entirely different climate at the cost of millions) they actually decided that global warming was indeed a crisis that required not denial and bleeting about the scientific community going all anti-capitalistic and all but any and everything they could do to help.
Go figure. Damned socialists. :p
-
arlo, at one time the glacial ice cape covered half of north america, yeah it's a bad thing it receded.
warm is good. cold is bad.
-
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, at one time the glacial ice cape covered half of north america, yeah it's a bad thing it receded.
warm is good. cold is bad.
We're not talking millennial changes, John. (That's never been a good agenda argument.) We're talking major recent and destructive climate changes.
Methinks you need to make the trip to Alaska. Or watch PBS while setting aside agenda for awhile. :aok
-
Originally posted by john9001
recent history will show that periods of warming have been good for civilization and periods of cold were bad, i realize you hate the warming because your igloo is melting, but you must adapt, build a mud and wattle hut with a thatched roof.
and plant some potatoes.
Not sure where you're getting here, but in the hot and carbon-infested times of earth's history there was NO CIVILIZATION. There was hardly any intelligent life as well.
Civilization starts at the end of last iceage. But the globe wasn't covered in Ice at the time, - there were some very nice places.
And FYI, I don't hate the warming. In my place it's actually a nice thing, since we are not dependant upon the ice, and have our own agriculture.
FYI, Iceland is an old culture from Viking origin, with a large connection with the sea (both exploring and fishing). We never lived in igloos, and when our ancestors sailed to America more than 1000 years ago they found no human architecture except tents or such like, where the inhabitants were half naked anyway......
And we do indeed grow potatoes, as well as barley and beef, cabbage and turnips, carrots and so on. Since we adapt very quickly, we already figured out the warming instead of squibbling about it, and are now trying on with wheat for instance, - which would never grow before. Rhye would do so as well, but more arid climate along with several weeks every autumn of 20 m/s windspeed however put our limit. Corn would now grow for the sake of the temperature (for silage) but the wind will shred it.
So, please get real, and skip your igloo jokes will you.It only exposes ignorance about Northern territories. Or are you going to ask me if I am sulking because the iceberg from my per penguin melted away ?
:D
-
history shows that times of warming have been times of growth, prosperity, abundant crops and peace, periods of cold were times of failed crops, famine, war, disease.
the climate is changing, i my opinion for the good, you can adapt or you can cry about it.
but you can't change it.
edit, Angus, the igloo thing was a joke, don't take it serously.
:D
-
Originally posted by john9001
history shows that times of warming have been times of growth, prosperity, abundant crops and peace, periods of cold were times of failed crops, famine, war, disease.
the climate is changing, i my opinion for the good, you can adapt or you can cry about it.
but you can't change it.
As long as you're comfortable* you'll sing the same song (what were we saying `bout songs, earlier?). ;)
Lemmings are lemmings. Sometimes they just get so bored being crowded by other lemmings they just run off a cliff .... along with similarly minded lemmings. And they're due their opinions, I reckon. The human species does things (sometimes for good - sometimes for bad - sometimes they even change their mind when the evidence is unvoidable). They may even help make changes for the betterment of the lemmings. Go figure. You're, personally, off the hook, I suppose. Your children may not be. They'll doubtlessly praise your foresight and unselfish nature. :D
*Some living things take longer for their central nervous system to register.
-
BTW, the Icecaps are older than mankind. As a phenomen, but some of the ice still there is still mucholder than Homo sapiens, Cromagnon and even Neanderthal.
Strikes me odd to maybe see the N-cap disappearing within a generation.
-
Originally posted by john9001
history shows that times of warming have been times of growth, prosperity, abundant crops and peace, periods of cold were times of failed crops, famine, war, disease.
the climate is changing, i my opinion for the good, you can adapt or you can cry about it.
but you can't change it.
edit, Angus, the igloo thing was a joke, don't take it serously.
:D
I'm looking forward to 70-80's year long up here in Michigan, we shall be dancing in the streets, cuz we got water:)
Now those Florida folk sweltering in 100 degree minimums will not cry about it i'm sure.
shamus
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yet... you claim that the reset button was hit.. and.. man was not even here.. we had nothing to do with it.
Show me some proof that the GLOBAL temp has gone up in the last 7 years.. that the US temp has in the last few decades... How can this be?
If co2.. if man made co2 is heating the earth.. then why is it not doing so like the models predicted? we are at almost 80% of a doubling this century but no ten degrees warmer. how can that be?
Suns activity is not just solar flares.. it is solar winds.. It has always led the temp changes while co2 lagged the changes. co2 is not leading temp change now. solar wind is at a high now but sunspot activity has calmed.. still higher than the 40's and 50's tho when we had a global cooling..
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/wind.html
Our universe is heating... mars is heating.. what is causing that? why would not the same things that cause that cause us to heat?
moray... get over yourself.. the fact remains that you are not the most credentialed person on either side of the debate... certainly I am not either.. nor is angus.. but.. we don't claim to be.
There are people who know more about it than you with better credentials who think you are wrong.
coal fires are both natural and man made.
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~prakash/coalfires/coalfires.html
just one countries coal fires are more co2 than all the cars and trucks in the US
http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro4p4.asp
sooooo.. if co2 is the problem then why even care about anything till we can put out the coal fires? should be simple enough for a race who can control nature eh?
lazs
#1. Yep the reset button was hit. It was hit in the form of a 2 mile wide asteroid running into what is now the Yucatan peninsula at approximately 17,500 miles per hour. You want to hit that button again?
#2...Lockwood and Frölich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures".
3#...darkening of the Martian surface may have slowly warmed the planet over the past 20 years. Based on a model of the Red Planet's climate, researchers report that the brightness or darkness of its sands have a strong effect on its atmospheric temperature. They found that the heat absorbed by dark rock kicks up winds that blow away shiny dust, leaving behind even darker rock. But the predicted warming is hard to confirm, researchers say, and could shift with the sands at any time. - Scientific American
Also... show me any climate shift on Venus, which is half again as close as Mars....receives about 250% more solar energy.. and has a thick atmosphere, thereby reacting much faster to any solar forcing... I'll give you a headstart... there is no climate shift on Venus in progress.... still just how it's been for the past 35 or so years.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
[B still just how it's been for the past 35 or so years. [/B]
That we've been closely watching... that is. It seems to me that it would make sense if the sun's getting hotter... a planet closer to the sun would too. Venus is not.
-
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, at one time the glacial ice cape covered half of north america, yeah it's a bad thing it receded.
warm is good. cold is bad.
No, sir. Warm and WET is good. (see Brazil....Congo..)(shrinking)
Warm and DRY.....BAD! (see Sub Saharan Africa...Australian outback) (growing)
-
Has anyone here heard of the temperate belts of the globe, being split up in cool-temperate and warm-temperate, which then get subcategorized into continental and oceanic climates within the temperate frame?
(Moray, I know you know)
Anyway, MOVING those northwards and southwards will only give you any proper landmass as temperate in the former USSR and Canada, - both cool and up to permafrost.
The permafrost will start off as a rotting bog or swamp with rapidly changing vegetation.
On latitudes nearer to the middle, you will see increased heats eventually, and where land is barren it might go the desert way. The belt would then move both north and south.
So, a slight warming may be good for the northern territories. It won't be good much above that.
And at one point, there is bound to be a change of entire weathersystems as well as ocean currents. There you're talking big stuff.
-
ah..so you do admit that the sun affects the other planets.. the closer ones more. I don't think we fully understand the suns activity.. certainly not any more than we understand co2 affects.. yet.. the alarmists seem to be willing to dismiss the suns activity.. they seem willing to dismiss all activity that is not co2 or man related.
the reset button will be hit again and there isn't a thing we can do about it. we will have new ice ages again and there is not a thing we can do about it... volcanoes will erupt.. the sea floor will spread... oil will bubble out of the sea and the axis and core will shift... not a thing we can do about it. sooo... in our pitiful little screechings and arrogance.. we blame the co2 we are adding saying not only that man can cause significant global warming but... as temps cool or don't go as predicted (they don't even predict anymore) we now say man causes "global climate change"
So why was the planet so hot before the reset anyway? all the cars the dinos were driving? all the co2 they were making? nooo... the co2 was released because the planet was hot.. the suns activity was high.. the core was in a different state.. all kinds of natural events and the co2 was just along for the ride.. and the animals and plants did fine at that co2 level anyway.
yeah... that's the ticket! global climate change... no matter what happens then it can be "see... climate changed... mans fault"
lazs
-
Of course the sun affects planets!. However that is not the full explanation behind it being warmer in the house than outside now is it.
Nor on Venus, which is farther from the sun than Mercury, and yet warmer :D
-
And as for C (as well as CO2), - where do you think it comes from? Your car? Just a minute, are we dealing with a Lazs that does not have a clue of chemistry?
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
No, sir. Warm and WET is good. (see Brazil....Congo..)(shrinking)
Warm and DRY.....BAD! (see Sub Saharan Africa...Australian outback) (growing)
Warm air holds more moisture than cold air. Might'n that compensate for a rising sea level and carry more moisture from the sea to land? Lots of variables in the earth's climate.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ah..so you do admit that the sun affects the other planets.. the closer ones more.
I love oversimplification as a means of declaring intellectual victory. Ahem. ;)
-
Originally posted by Shamus
I'm looking forward to 70-80's year long up here in Michigan, we shall be dancing in the streets, cuz we got water:)
Now those Florida folk sweltering in 100 degree minimums will not cry about it i'm sure.
shamus
If it keeps up in Georgia there will not be anyone left in that state. They sound like they are almost out of fresh water.
-
Well, with home heating oil closing in on three bucks a gallon, I hope it stays warm til January
-
global warming will destroy the big oil companies, who will buy heating oil when it's 80 degrees in Milwaukee in feb.
-
Firstly, you still need energy for just about anything else. Cooling also needs energy BTW.
Secondly, there are many more places on the planet than Milwaukee.
Thirdly, many of the corporate money-maker's don't care squat about what happens in 20-30 years. So do some on this forum. Make it 50-70 years if you like.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Warm air holds more moisture than cold air. Might'n that compensate for a rising sea level and carry more moisture from the sea to land? Lots of variables in the earth's climate.
Moisture, - like the air on the N-African coasts?
A tip here, - the weight of the atmosphere at sl is equal to 760 mm hg. That is actually the weight of 76 cm x the mass of Hg of water, - if you see what I mean. The atmosphere does not weight much in relation of what we have of sea.
And then the final thing. Water vapour is a very powerful greenhouse gas.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Moisture, - like the air on the N-African coasts?
A tip here, - the weight of the atmosphere at sl is equal to 760 mm hg. That is actually the weight of 76 cm x the mass of Hg of water, - if you see what I mean. The atmosphere does not weight much in relation of what we have of sea.
And then the final thing. Water vapour is a very powerful greenhouse gas.
Well, I was answering his comment about warm "dry" land more than anything. Clouds are also reflective and it isn't known what the overall effect would be with more clouds.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Well, I was answering his comment about warm "dry" land more than anything. Clouds are also reflective and it isn't known what the overall effect would be with more clouds.
I wouldn't rush to that conclusion if I were you. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I wouldn't rush to that conclusion if I were you. ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
If I did anything it wasn't rushing to a conclusion except that clouds do in fact reflect at least some of the sun's energy.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If I did anything it wasn't rushing to a conclusion except that clouds do in fact reflect at least some of the sun's energy.
"it isn't known what the overall effect would be with more clouds."
It's pretty well known. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
"it isn't known what the overall effect would be with more clouds."
It's pretty well known. :D
I disagree. There are a lot of variables and the total effect of more clouds due to warmer air simply isn't known.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I disagree. There are a lot of variables and the total effect of more clouds due to warmer air simply isn't known.
I'm sorry. How silly of me. I forgot. My providing a link explaining how that specific variable is actually a known is trumped by your repeating over and over that it isn't .... because you disagree.
My bad. Carry on. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm sorry. How silly of me. I forgot. My providing a link explaining how that specific variable is actually a known is trumped by your repeating over and over that it isn't .... because you disagree.
My bad. Carry on. :D
I'm familiar with the link you posted but I'm not sure that you are. Perhaps you'd care to explain how an increase in clouds due to warmer air will play out over time exactly? Then perhaps you could quote something from the article you linked backing up your claim of this knowledge?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm familiar with the link you posted but I'm not sure that you are. Perhaps you'd care to explain how an increase in clouds due to warmer air will play out over time exactly? Then perhaps you could quote something from the article you linked backing up your claim of this knowledge?
Sure, I'll help you. Glad you asked.
"The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. It is also thought that the water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles. Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the earth's surface."
Therefore if the increased reflectivity of one cloud (or group) can produce a significant masking effect on global warming (known as "global dimming") then, ergo, more clouds (increased reflectivity or not) would add to said, noted, monitored and documented effect.
Your "unknown" variable isn't as much a mystery as you would have it.
You're very welcome. I see this a a progressive step for the community here. :D
-
it's a good thing that the hysteria generated over man made global warming has got the ball rolling for lower pollution levels.
you don't have to be a scientist to understand the growing and more frequent smog lines we see everyday.
where i go camping up north you can't eat the liver from the deer due to acid rain. acid rain is taking a visible toll in some other areas as well. new york states got tired of the epa and is suing private power corporations over the acid rain problems there.
the issue also seems to be good therapy for those duped on iraq.
so what's the downside?
-
Scandinavia got quite some of that too. Several thousands of "dead" lakes.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Sure, I'll help you. Glad you asked.
"The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. It is also thought that the water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles. Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the earth's surface."
Therefore if the increased reflectivity of one cloud (or group) can produce a significant masking effect on global warming (known as "global dimming") then, ergo, more clouds (increased reflectivity or not) would add to said, noted, monitored and documented effect.
Your "unknown" variable isn't as much a mystery as you would have it.
You're very welcome. I see this a a progressive step for the community here. :D
That's about clouds formed based on pollutants. Even your quote mentions smaller droplets (than normally formed) being more reflective. Perhaps you weren't clear on my comment? We do not know what the cumulative effect will be from moister air due to air warming.
-
arlo.. good to have you back... I had forgotten how worthless your posts always are.
torque.. what does it hurt? well... it is like bad laws. you make a lot of bad laws and people start ignoring all laws...
You make up a lot of bad science with political agendas and full of lies and people start not believing in scientists.
The point, to get back to the original article is that more than half the meteoroligists no longer believe in significant MMGW. that more and more are jumping ship all the time.
The left is playing a risky game here.. they have to get the taxation and social engineering in place before they are expossed.. before the whole house of cards falls apart. the companies making profits on "carbon credits" and such need to get going now.. a few years will be too late.. the fraud will be exposed.
the game is dangerous... last time they tried this faud with "the coming ice age"... no one listened to em for 30 years.
lazs
-
MMGW is one thing, GW is another, and that's where some 90%+ of the scientists share the same camp.
You, Lazs, are not a scientists, and neither am I. However, I have an edge on you, for I live where GW is very detectable as well as touching my profession, - and my educational background. You however (as well as some others here) seem to flush at very simple physics.
As for the "debunking", I haven't seen a debunk that wasn't already debunked yet. Like that Singer guy, or the film. Crap both of them, and uptosuch a level that one sees that there are desperate forces at work, who want us to belive that we should just carry on as we are, everything is just fine.
And as for water vapour, that is a very powerful greenhouse gas.
Anf finally, FYI, I am not in the "just the co2 emission camp".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You make up a lot of bad science with political agendas and full of lies and people start not believing in scientists.
That is a such a perfect description of your approach to the whole topic that it sounds like a confession. Freudian slip?
The point, to get back to the original article is that more than half the meteoroligists no longer believe in significant MMGW. that more and more are jumping ship all the time.
You can't prove this statement though, can you. Furthermore, as has been pointed out to you several times, meteorology and climatology are different disciplines.
the game is dangerous... last time they tried this faud with "the coming ice age"... no one listened to em for 30 years.
There you go again. Repeat a lie enough times...
-
Originally posted by AKH
You can't prove this statement though, can you. Furthermore, as has been pointed out to you several times, meteorology and climatology are different disciplines.
Of cource he cant, its made up. I proved it to him a few months back before I decided not to waste my time on him anymore. He ignored it/didnt understand what I said, and just went on rambling. Like he always does.
There is a huge consensus in the scientific community that global warming is happening. That is the bottom line, and that is the fact lazs and his ilk are trying to ignore. The latest method of disinformation they are using is claims that the IPCC is not made up of scientists (wrong) and that a majority of scientists do not believe global warming is happening (also wrong).
What they are left with right now is "more and more scientists doubt the global warming consensus", and while that might be true, it is not really an impressive argument since the number of doubters have gone from something like 2 to 5. And while that is a growth of sorts, it is still dwarfed by the rest of the scientific community and it is probably more an indication on how much money the polluting industry is using to buy scientists with than anything else. Like the guy in the original post of this article, who is in the pocket of big oil. Naturally scum like laz who dont understand the first thing of the science behind global warming tries to jump on that bandwaggon. Its as dishonest as it is stupid. But it is what one has come to expect from certain american posters.
-
except that the "scum" doesnt deny GW. He just denies that mankind is the decisive component in GW.
I find it quite ironic how lazs manages to get all those would-be experts with all their grades and qualifications into an ad-hominem rampage.
You'd think their case is solid enough to beat him with facts?
-
Originally posted by moot
http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/releases2003/climate-dec-9-2003.html
Hmm, the headline reads..."HUMANS BEGAN ALTERING GLOBAL CLIMATE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO, STUDY SHOWS".
Then the first line of the article is..." A new hypothesis suggests...".
I find the role of the media in all of this to be 'funny'. A bold headline (in red) that proclaims the sky is falling!!! Followed by a small bit of text say that, in fact, we think it might be.
While I believe that being environmentally responsible is a good thing. It would appear that some people have decided that it 'sells papers' to try and scare the crap out of people.
-
angus... I have an advantage over you... I live in an area where we can see that it is not a problem.. there has been no warming for 20 years by nasa data and.. no matter what... all the attacks asside.. there really hasn't been any global average warming for the last 7 years or so.
hortlund and hoopy.. nooo... you miss the point.. there are no more scientists in any field that believe in MMGW than there are that don't.
There simply is no majority as you claim. What is a climatologist? how many are there and what has the poll of them shown? it is a relatively new science .. they are simply an offshoot of metoroligists and use most of the same tools for their flawed computer models.
You can't say that there is a consensus of scientists that believe in MMGW... just saying there is does not make it so.. just pointing to some left wing site that says there is does not make it so... the big UN deal ended up with only 50 scientists signing on to the final document...
no one has ever polled the scientific community but... of the last 500 peer reviewed documents... only a fraction.. something like 6% say that man is causing significant global warming... most say that we may or may not but it is not possible to say for sure... another percent say our contribution is there but insignificant.. the rest say that even if we were.. there would be nothing we could do about it.
lazs
-
Hehe, half of the media has to be taken with a grain of salt, since writing style weights more than knowledge.
And "scaring crap out of people" also makes good selling.
However, we ARE dealing with Global Warming, and on the flip side there are powerful forces at work who don't want too much word about that and are willing to pay a lot of money for distortion of facts.
Then we have (as always in cases of a disaster to come, no matter how slowly, - just like New Orleans was definately bound to be flooded...etc)..people who will stick their heads in the sand and defend that position untill they get washed away. Then there still will be no remorse. This I know very very well from personal business, and it came to me as a shock when I realized how remote people could be from reality which was staring them in the face. And then, reality hit, and did so quite hard.
-
JB73 mentioned the "arrogance" in this debate (btw, Hiya 73 :D), the arrogance comes into play when someone that tries and fails to tell you what the weather will be like tomorrow, reaches out and states definitively how it will be years or decades in the future. Now THAT is arrogant.
-
"angus... I have an advantage over you... I live in an area where we can see that it is not a problem.. there has been no warming for 20 years by nasa data and.. no matter what... all the attacks asside.. there really hasn't been any global average warming for the last 7 years or so. "
No you don't. Because a single degree on a continental, air warming measure over your area has completely no weight towards what is happening on the cold-temerate to cold areas on the N-Hemisphere.
As for the last 7 years, you sound like Hitler talking about the "final victory", - since all data except one compilation points to a higher temperature, 2005 being the last compiled record year WITHOUT the aid of El Nino.
"hortlund and hoopy.. nooo... you miss the point.. there are no more scientists in any field that believe in MMGW than there are that don't."
Really? I think you are wrong. How about proving your point.
(Bear in mind while at it that while I belive in a human contribution, I'm yet not all for JUST the CO2 emission)
Anyway, I'm not a scientist, - more of a thinking observer. And what I see is quite stunning.
-
global warming and cooling is natural. The earth has been experiencing climate changes since its' development. It's a fact.
To bad no one was around to measure the effect of Dinosaur flatulance during the Jurassic period.
Sheeeesh The sky is falling! Ya the earth is warming.......has it done so in the past? Er.....yes it has. Has the Earth also experienced Ice Ages? Yup.....done those too!
Let's all jump on the various political band wagons together and forget about the facts that Geological History has already proven.
-
Originally posted by leitwolf
I find it quite ironic how lazs manages to get all those would-be experts with all their grades and qualifications into an ad-hominem rampage.
You'd think their case is solid enough to beat him with facts?
Well LOL - it's nothing to do with that. It has more to do with the fact that the facts have been presented to him over and over again, but he still keeps singing from the same old hymn sheet and chanting the same big lie, over and over and over and over.... It would drive the Dalai Lama to drink.
-
Originally posted by Hajo
Sheeeesh The sky is falling! Ya the earth is warming.......has it done so in the past? Er.....yes it has. Has the Earth also experienced Ice Ages? Yup.....done those too!
I am hiring two guys for research and development of my soon to be released product, The Sky Umbrella.
I have bought two lab coats for these two so that I may have pictures of both on the retail site and the mail order catalog. I have labeled both of them as "sky scientists".
This should be a real seller judging by some here.
The Sky Umbrella will come in two styles, "Chicken Little" and "Tweetlydum".
-
Originally posted by AKIron
That's about clouds formed based on pollutants. Even your quote mentions smaller droplets (than normally formed) being more reflective. Perhaps you weren't clear on my comment? We do not know what the cumulative effect will be from moister air due to air warming.
I'm clearer on it than you are, presently. Your comment was:
"Clouds are also reflective and it isn't known what the overall effect would be with more clouds."
Yes, it is known. Feel free to concede that point when you're up to it. Then we can go on to discuss cumulative effects. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. good to have you back... I had forgotten how worthless your posts always are.
(Followed by non sequitur flatulation.)
Likewise, Lucy. :D
-
Originally posted by Hajo
To bad no one was around to measure the effect of Dinosaur flatulance during the Jurassic period.
We could build a model based on Laz alone. :D
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I am hiring two guys for research and development of my soon to be released product, The Sky Umbrella.
I have bought two lab coats for these two so that I may have pictures of both on the retail site and the mail order catalog. I have labeled both of them as "sky scientists".
This should be a real seller judging by some here.
The Sky Umbrella will come in two styles, "Chicken Little" and "Tweetlydum".
Do you also have a GWOT division? ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
There simply is no majority as you claim.
[...]
no one has ever polled the scientific community but... of the last 500 peer reviewed documents... only a fraction.. something like 6% say that man is causing significant global warming... most say that we may or may not but it is not possible to say for sure... another percent say our contribution is there but insignificant.. the rest say that even if we were.. there would be nothing we could do about it.
lazs
Im going to take the time here to answer this post one more time, just to show everyone just what a piece of dishonest scum you are.
There has been two studies made looking at all scientific papers written that somehow deal with climate change. The studies have looked at the abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals and how the autors position themselves in the global warming debate. The first study was for the 1993-2003 period, the second was for the 2004-2007 period.
Here are the results. Now, remember that this is the base for lasz's ludicrous claim that there is no consensus in the scientific community.
In the 1993-2003 period
928 papes published. Not a single one disagreed with the consensus, 25% were "neutral", while 75% shared the consensus view.
In the 2004 - 2007 period
528 papers published. 6% disagreed with the consensus, 45% share the consensus view, 48% are "neutral".
So, we have 32 papers who disagree with the consensus. 32 of 1456.
We have 934 who agree with the consensus. 934 of 1456.
And we have 485 who are "neutral".
And lets remember that by "neutral" it just means that the author does not state an opinion either way, it doesnt count as pro or con for either side. This is something to be expected if it is a paper about something very technical btw. Just as you dont state in every paper about astrophysics that you believe in general relativity.
32 of 1456 are against, 934 of 1456 agree.
So...we have a new study that shows that 6 % of the papers reject the consensus. 6%.
And now note how lazs has spun this. Suddenly the 6 % figure has switched sides, from being 6% that reject the consensus...suddenly in lazs sick mind this has changed to becoming 6% that say man is causing global warming. Its beyond pathetic. Its nothing but an outright lie. A lie that he repeats over and over again in the vain hope that repeating the lie will make it true.
-
You know Hortlund ... Your problem is not that you don't make sense, you do, but that you use too many big words like "astrophysics" or "scientific". Lazs won't understand half of what you just wrote.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
... consensus ... consensus ... consensus ... consensus ... consensus ... consensus ... consensus... consensus...
At one point in time, the "consensus" was that the world was flat and everything revolved around it. The fact that there is a consensus does not mean that the premise is correct.
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
At one point in time, the "consensus" was that the world was flat and everything revolved around it. The fact that there is a consensus does not mean that the premise is correct.
Nor should a consensus among the scientific community be taken as an indication that the premise is incorrect...which seems to be what you are implying.
And there was no scientific method back in the "earth is flat"-days. So I suppose you and lasz must long for those days. Burn the heretics eh?
Leaving all that aside, what lasz claimed was that there is no consensus, alternatively that the scientific community is divided on the issue. I proved him wrong. Again.
-
Hmmm.. hortund is proving my point and the point of this thread... he shows how that up till 2003 most of the scientists were going along and not speaking up but.. the period of 2003 till present... well.. different story
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=B35C36A3-802A-23AD-46EC-6880767E7966
Of those.. he is correct... 48% say they can't say one way or the other... that is not 48% saying it is happening... 48% say they simply can't see it.. not see it like hortlund or angus... just don't see it. 6% say it is bunk..
ONLY ONE... yep, one paper says it is a problem.. that man is causing catastrophic warming. If 54% of the latest papers say that it is either bunk or that there is not enough evidence... and... only one supports hortlund and angus and moray... then... of course it is easy for anyone to see that the tide has shifted from the earlier studies.
do a search on global warming today and it is much different than even 3 or four years ago... there is no consensus except that very few if any believe we are causing a significant amount of warming.
around the water cooler more and more people are starting to realize it is a scam. on this board... more and more speak out.
You can't just scream "consensus" and then have no proof.. is 40% or so saying we have an effect and 7% saying it is the end of the world is not a consensus. and.. their numbers shrink every year... just as co2 goes up but temp does not.
The significant thing is that not only is there no consensus but.. that the alarmists numbers are shrinking.. just as the thread stated in the beggining.
Do a search for the "528 peer reviewed papers on mmgw" and look at the people all speaking out.
It is healthy... we are finally starting to laugh at the arrogant alarmists.
lazs
-
How can these scientists be neutral in the face of all this obvious data that hortlund has read? they must be stupid eh?
It simply means that they are unwilling to go along with the alarmists. they are saying that the proof is not good enough.. that is what neutral means.
I doubt that anyone who is neutral for instance would recommend a carbon credit ponzie scheme or tell us we must all turn into vegetarians..
Put simply so that viking/sclotzie and hortlund can understand... they are not saying the end is near.
5 years ago.. it was almost impossible to find a scientist who didn't say the sky was falling and it was all our fault. the alarmists are simply losing ground no matter how you look at it. the debate is far from over.. the beggining of the debate is not even over...
no matter how you look at it.. more and more are jumping the MMGW ship every year.. and speaking out... less and less are intimidated every year.
maybe now we will see some real research with no agenda.
only 7% say that it is us and there is no debate.. about the same say it is not us and there is no debate. there is no consensus and more and more doubt the alarmists every year...
lazs
-
Nah, thats not really how it works lazs. You dont get to pick a time period and then claim that during that time period there is a majority on either side. If there has been 2000 papers published over 10 years, and of those 2000 papers, 3 are "against", you dont get to look at the specific month those papers were published and say "during this month, more papers were against than pro". You need to look at the big picture to get the truth.
But that is all your side is good at. Trying to spin the truth, trying to flood any discussion with missinformation, half-truths and distorted facts pulled from context. Isnt it sad lasz, to be on the side that has to make stuff up or pervert the truto have an argument?
And its funny in a sad and pathetic way that you are using the same link and the same arguments now as the latest time I debunked your BS about the consensus among scientists that global warming is real.
Over to the "how can these scientists be neutral".
First we must consider the source for that piece of information. The study we are discussing have only done one thing. Gone over the abstracts of printed, peer-reviewed articles. That means that we cannot say whether the scientist is neutral or not. All we can say that he has not taken a stand for or against global warming in the abstracts of his paper. Unless the author expressly states in his abstract whether he/his research is pro or against, we cant know his position.
So all your claims about what they have or have not said is completely made up. You are just sitting there, like the dishonest scum you are, making s hit up. "It means they are unwilling to go with the alarmists blah blah". Another lie. Isnt it sad lasz, to have to lie in every single f ucking post to try to build an argument?
Second, big oil is spending millions right now to try to buy junk scientists. Just like the guy in the first post of this thread. Here is a guy who has willingly let himself be bought by pretty much every big anti-environment or anti-health corporation there is.
-
yeah.. you do get to pick the time period.. if.. the subject is "more and more are jumping ship"
What you do then is show how many used to buy into the scam and then show how it has changed... the time periods would be... say 5 years ago and then today.
what is happening is.. more and more are changing from your radical and unsupported view of MMGW to become either neutral.. or outright saying it is a scam.
your numbers are shrinking.. that is what "more and more" means.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yeah.. you do get to pick the time period.. if.. the subject is "more and more are jumping ship"
[/b]
Fine. I pick the time period Aug 2007, and note that of the three papers published during this time period, all of them were pro global warming. Thus, no one is "jumping ship" and everyone is agreeing that global warming is a fact.
-
By the way, do you remember those "neutral" papers from the first study? The study of 928 papers.
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.
This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.
So, it would seem that upon further study, we find that the consensus in the first study is 100%. Eat that you lying sack of s hit.
-
Some serious animosity there, Hortlund. Why do you take his opinion so personally?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Some serious animosity there, Hortlund. Why do you take his opinion so personally?
Because his identity is so wrapped up in his "causes" that any attack on his cause seems to be a personal attack to him, and he responds in kind.
Hortlund, can you make your point without the profanity or personal attacks?
-
why do you insist on making my point? are you simply a potty mouthed masochiost? maybe trying to get the thread closed because you are doing so badly?
If you picked the last three papers tho (not quite like a 4 year period eh?) and said... "look.. they all say that MMGW is real... "
that would not prove much if those same people had always said that.. no change... If even one of em changed one way or the other... all you could say was "of the last three.."
you are proving my point tho... 5 years ago, as you say (thanks) about 100% of the papers all felt we had some significant effect..
As has been shown.. in the last 4 years... and even worse in the last year... more and more are coming off the adamant alarmist view.. they are either changing to "I don't know now" or "it ain't happening"
that trend does not bode well for you.. soon you will be sitting by yourself in the corner foaming at the mouth and calling everyone a ... what was that you called me again?
I would say that given how you are now avoiding the facts that you are either not too bright or... let face it... dishonest.
lazs
-
I think Hortland missed his nap time...
-
I think he's just frustrated by the wall of stupidity in front of him :D
-
published papers=tenure=grant money=academic career.
-
Ostidge+Lion+Sandheap=?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
why do you insist on making my point?
The only point I have been making right now is that you lie almost constantly when you are discussing these things.
This discussion is absurd. I have argued that there is a wide scientific consensus on global warming. You claim there is no such consensus.
To support your view you claim that only 6% of published papers were pro global warming in the latest study. I showed that you are wrong, and that only 6% was against global warming. Somehow you twist this information around to mean that you were right and I was wrong. "Thanks for making my point" you say. What possible point could you be trying to make? That you are incapable of understanding? That you are insane?
I think this demonstrates nicely just how detached from reality you are and just how pointless it is to try to talk to you.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
#1. Your math, not unexpectedly, is a little fuzzy. A mean sea level rise of 1/10 of 1 inch per year as an average, would equal out to 1 foot every 10 years. Which would be 10 feet every century, there, Mr. Wizard. Perhaps I should add a basic math course involving fractions to your courseload. A 5 foot increase would flood the Lower East Side of Manhattan at least twice a day, being that most of the east coast is semi
Moray,
I am not being argumentative in any way so please do not take any offense and I just might not be reading your math correctly, but wouldn't 1/10 of an inch per year mean after ten years the sea level would rise 1 inch not 1 foot as you mention above. At that rate wouldn't it then take 120 years to rise 1 foot and then approximately 600 years to reach the 5 foot mark that would flood lower east side of Manhatten twice a day. Again I am not an expert and will not claim to be, I am probably just reading your post incorrectly. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards,
Spazz
-
So neutrality is now a form of implicit rejection? Interesting.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
you lying sack of s hit.
just to show everyone just what a piece of dishonest scum you are.
Isnt it sad lasz, to have to lie in every single f ucking post to try to build an argument?
Eat that you lying sack of s hit.
There is some warming going on here. As a matter of fact, a total melt down.
At least he is good for showing what the "Chicken Little For Lunch Bunch" mindset is.
But...but ..but......
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
There is some warming going on here. As a matter of fact, a total melt down.
At least he is good for showing what the "Chicken Little For Lunch Bunch" mindset is.
And this post of yours would be different how exactly? An ad hom is an ad hom, regardless of the exact wordings of said ad hom you know.
But hey, at least I can present some real arguments inbetween my outbursts of frustration that comes from trying to argue facts with morons lacking the mental capacity required to understand said facts...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
But hey, at least I can present some real arguments inbetween my outbursts of frustration that comes from trying to argue facts with morons lacking the mental capacity required to understand said facts...
Well, so far, I have seen no facts from you other than of someone who has no business getting involved in a discussion if they can`t control their tantrums.
Pretty well missed the boat all the way around IMO.
By page 2 you had pretty well blown a fuse with.........................
they all have scientific qualifications you lying sack of s hit.
You did not take the time to understand that the quote was from the very article listed on the first page, not me.
You have pretty well went into meltdown and gone off on some mystical journey since then as shown above.
If you have something to say about GW, say it after you cool down and can get a grip in exactly what you are not comprehending.
-
Does any of this have any bearing on my ability get a car with a high-performance v8 or v12?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Well, so far, I have seen no facts from you other than of someone who has no business getting involved in a discussion if they can`t control their tantrums.
Pretty well missed the boat all the way around IMO.
I see. And the post where I went over the peer-reviewed articles and showed just how massive the consensus is in the scientific community about global warming?
Let me guess, you just skipped right over those pesky facts and chose to pretend they dont exist? Its not like thats an uncommon tactic among the anti-environment crowd...heck, its pretty much the only tactic you guys have. :aok
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Does any of this have any bearing on my ability get a car with a high-performance v8 or v12?
Yeah, when oil prices hit $100/barrel and above, you'll wish you had bought something else. Other than that...nope.
-
The Koenigsegg CCX actually has higher output when burning vegetable oil, according to the good people at Top Gear. Over 900HP.
A guy can dream, right?
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Does any of this have any bearing on my ability get a car with a high-performance v8 or v12?
Build it and they will come.
Light em if you got em.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
my outbursts of frustration that comes from trying to argue facts with morons lacking the mental capacity required to understand said facts...
bork bork
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Nor should a consensus among the scientific community be taken as an indication that the premise is incorrect...which seems to be what you are implying.
And there was no scientific method back in the "earth is flat"-days. So I suppose you and lasz must long for those days. Burn the heretics eh?
The consensus is that you are incorrect about what I was implying :). Perhaps I should have said that consensus doesn't mean that the subject in question is correct or incorrect, only that a group agrees that it is correct. You made a judgment on me based on inaccurate data. Then, you compound your error with your following statement.
In point of fact, I view "nature" as a chaotic system and find it arrogant in the extreme that people can look at a system so large and complex and then tell me they can predict what will happen with it 100 years in the future. Heck, they can't even accurately forecast what will happen tomorrow.
As for Lazs and I longing for "those days", it would appear that you are the one longing for the dark ages to return. The view that you support would have us headed back to the horse and buggy days. I'm quite sure you could find employment shoveling meadow muffins, you've gotten enough experience here. :)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
But hey, at least I can present some real arguments inbetween my outbursts of frustration that comes from trying to argue facts with morons lacking the mental capacity required to understand said facts...
Theory and conjecture don't equal facts. That is what has been presented here and you haven't tried to "argue" anything. You have attempted to demand recognition of these theories as fact and resorted to insulting and demeaning anyone with the audacity to question you or them.
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Theory and conjecture don't equal facts. That is what has been presented here and you haven't tried to "argue" anything.
Dear God what has happened to the US educational system?
Is this a fact?
In the 1993-2007 period 32 of 1456 published peer-reviewed papers disagreed with the global warming consensus.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Dear God what has happened to the US educational system?
Is this a fact?
In the 1993-2007 period 32 of 1456 published peer-reviewed papers disagreed with the global warming consensus.
It may be fact but that doesnt make it right. As long as even one disagrees and can show a reasonable explaination for the disagreement then there is always room for doubt
-
I guess that I have to make it even simpler.
If... for 4 years... 100 people believe that the world is flat. That is a consensus.
If.. for the next for years... 6% continue to believe the world is flat and 6% decide that it is for certain not flat... and... 48% change their mind and say that they now don't know if it is flat or not...
It means that the flat earth'ers have lost ground.
hortlund is either stupid or dishonest...
lazs
-
Talk about reading between the lines...
Stating that the neutrals have changed their minds or are undecided is a gross assumption. Neutral simply means that those papers made no explicit or implicit statements of endorsement or rejection.
-
Basically, this is lasz:
(http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2008/images/20030425007100510.jpg)
I triple guarantee you, there is no global warming.
-
Hehehe, and "What tanks? They will burn in their tanks!!!"
An ostridge sense of realism.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm clearer on it than you are, presently. Your comment was:
"Clouds are also reflective and it isn't known what the overall effect would be with more clouds."
Yes, it is known. Feel free to concede that point when you're up to it. Then we can go on to discuss cumulative effects. ;)
If you read ALL of that article you'll find that there are many different types of clouds, each with different reflective properties. Of course it's gets more complex when you also consider that while clouds reflect the sun's energy during the day, they also keep the earth warm at night. If you're right that all clouds on average will have a net result of cooling the earth then we shouldn't fear global warming. The earth will self-regulate it's temperature when the warmer, moister, air has a cooling effect. I think we don't know what might happen.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Basically, this is lasz:
(http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2008/images/20030425007100510.jpg)
I triple guarantee you, there is no global warming.
(http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-Hitler11cx.jpg)
Ve must take control and eliminate the energy users! It vill be our final solution!
-
zere iz no global varming!!!
-
Originally posted by Sabre
he supported Kyoto because it was the first step towards a true global government
Now THERE's an interesting agenda! The New World Order! Run for your lives!
That huge fire in SoCal?
Drop a nuke right in the middle of it, the shockwave will snuff it out in an instant. Fire crews in radiation suits can mop up the remaining spot fires in a day:rofl
-
Here is Attenborough on the subject of GW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
-
And what's going on in Greenland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF2l9A9AqHs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjsoXlZjUfQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmPLIA13QT8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWWfoqd4Qao
(treehugger warning, but nice images, and pretty much the reaction most people have when they go there)
Have a look at the pole in the autumn...now...and tell me it's cooling :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onWoah881JQ
-
and Boosh :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5r6TqpOQGc
-
Hortlund - thanks for your input to this topic! Someone posted a picture of Hitler further up, and as I said earlier, it was he who first said that "the people" would be willing to believe a BIG lie - it was the small little white lies thay would not believe. So those trying to deny GW trot out the same rhetoric again and again, while all the time ignoring the facts, in the hope that the one BIG lie will some day be believed.
I notice that others have become exasperated arguing with this brick wall - Moray & AKH for example - and I have pretty much given up trying to have a sensible discussion about it.
My prediction for this thread is that Lazs will keep on repeating the big lie, interspersed with "facts" cherry picked from his one source of info on this matter, which was of gourse the global warming swindle tv programme. Others chortle from the side lines with mindless remarks like "bork bork", whatever that is supposed to mean.
This is how I expect this thread to end up, assuming it isn't locked: Those with any grip on the realities of the situation - people like Moray, AKH, Angus and yourself - will tire of banging your head against the brick wall. Lazs will go on cherry picking, repeating the same lie, and occasionally repeating his "sun stupid" mantra. It will go on and on like that until all the brain cells abandon the thread, and the only people left are Lazs/jack etc. They will have the last word, and will in their own twisted minds believe that they have "won the argument". LOL A lie that he repeats over and over again in the vain hope that repeating the lie will make it true.
Yep - that pretty much sums them up 100% :aok
-
Cool...Global warming bullies, who would have thunk it...
It is interesting how they snap when one disagree's with an opinion...
Heretic
-
They tried enter enter enter..........but forgot to open the chute.
Sort of like the pay for sayers of GW.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
Cool...Global warming bullies, who would have thunk it...
It is interesting how they snap when one disagree's with an opinion...
Heretic
I, having had my coffee on this fine saturday...unlike last week...will comment and restart lazs's weekly upswing in post count. (I'm currently involved in a little experiment, results will be posted sometime soon :)
Anyway... I can only respond from my point of view to this particular post, about peeps snapping on this subject, and it all comes down to baseline understanding.
In order to have a meaningful discussion on a subject, the participants must have a groundrule understanding of the subject. The problem with this particular debate, is that there is no base... no shared understanding of even the most basic fact involved.
I can understand someone snapping over someone else holding their fingers in their ears and screaming "I can't hear you!!!!", over and over.
Lazs, in particular, comments on CO2 constantly, yet if approached and asked, couldn't identify its' proper bond structure out of two pictures. He picks info typed in my posts and uses them retroactively somehow to make his position stronger, whilst never fully understanding my post in the first place. Somehow, last time I posted, it was a win for him, that I "admitted" being closer to the sun allowed for more solar irradiation.....a basic scientific fact. He failed to actually look at my post, and realize I was talking in relation to Venus...and that Venus is not warming, ala solar forcing.
Why would anyone get frustrated when dealing with children who bury their heads in the sand, only to raise up after you're done and scream "YOU'RE WRONG!" without even understanding what you said??
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Why would anyone get frustrated when dealing with children who bury their heads in the sand, only to raise up after you're done and scream "YOU'RE WRONG!" without even understanding what you said??
I guess it's a matter of perspective but this comment seems to characterize the global warmings alarmists from mine.
-
Originally posted by Spazzter
Moray,
I am not being argumentative in any way so please do not take any offense and I just might not be reading your math correctly, but wouldn't 1/10 of an inch per year mean after ten years the sea level would rise 1 inch not 1 foot as you mention above. At that rate wouldn't it then take 120 years to rise 1 foot and then approximately 600 years to reach the 5 foot mark that would flood lower east side of Manhatten twice a day. Again I am not an expert and will not claim to be, I am probably just reading your post incorrectly. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards,
Spazz
No offense... I was walking dead when I posted that one...I had had a very long night the night before and had no coffee..... Made for fuzzy math that was plain wrong.
Everyone's allowed a post or two that's bunk... look at Lazs. 85% DUH rating, and we still read.
-
"85% DUH rating, and we still read"
hehe.
:D
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
No offense... I was walking dead when I posted that one...I had had a very long night the night before and had no coffee..... Made for fuzzy math that was plain wrong.
Everyone's allowed a post or two that's bunk... look at Lazs. 85% DUH rating, and we still read.
Everyone makes mistakes or talks out their bellybutton from time to time. Some of us more than others. Still, your flawed response to lazs made me wonder how much you've actually considered the potential for a rise in sea level?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I guess it's a matter of perspective but this comment seems to characterize the global warmings alarmists from mine.
I am by no means, an alarmist. I simply approach the gathered data with analytical means. No matter what happens, I'll be long dead before any of the really big things happen. No alarm here... though I don't have children who's futures I must address. If you do, I would suggest you wrap your mind around the problem with a clear understanding, of what both sides say, and make an informed opinion OF YOUR OWN.
People like Lazs, they go backwards. They form an opinion FIRST, then attempt to find supporting evidence for their ideology.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I am by no means, an alarmist. I simply approach the gathered data with analytical means. No matter what happens, I'll be long dead before any of the really big things happen. No alarm here... though I don't have children who's futures I must address. If you do, I would suggest you wrap your mind around the problem with a clear understanding, of what both sides say, and make an informed opinion OF YOUR OWN.
People like Lazs, they go backwards. They form an opinion FIRST, then attempt to find supporting evidence for their ideology.
I have an opinion of my own. All the evidence I've seen presented indicates that an increase in c02 follows warming, not preceeds it. I have also observed that most people need a cause and a threat of disasterous global warming satifies this need for many.
-
I think you alarmists are not getting it.. It is not me that you are vilifying.. it is all the scientists that I am quoting..
All the scientists with bigger IQ's and better credentials than you have that say it is a hoax.. it is the ranks of said scientists who are deserting the cause.
I just quote em.
I understand your frustration... people are catching on... you guys had a good run tho.. at one point it was hard to find a scientist who would speak up against the hoax.. The UN had it made.. people almost believed em... algore's fairtail was accepted without question (even got awards...big ones)... NPR had a weekly program that told us what we could do to stop global warming.... It was hard to even get a hit on google when you used MMGW and hoax in the same sentence. Newsweek devoted a last ditch drama cover to try to bury the "deniers"... there were moves to take away credentials of scientists who didn't go with the party line...
now... more and more... scientists are dropping from the ranks and only a few are hard core "MMGW and it is a catastrophe" types... only 6% of the papers instead of 100% are sure this is true.
The UN paper has been sued by some of the scientists to get their name off it... algores movie has been declared fiction and drama by english schools... NPR dropped their series and doesn't mention MMGW at all.. it is MMglobal climate change if it is anything.. and then.. only in passing.. not as a subject anymore..
newsweeks drama was over before it started.. a retraction followed before the week was out. The article was pretty much a hate and spew filled hortlund deal with moray arrogance thrown in... No on is asking for the heads of scientists who go against the alarmists. and.. when you do a google for info now... it is childs play to get both sides. The US senate heard testimony and shot down the alarmists yet again.
But.. most of all... a discussion now on a BB such as this is not one guy against a crapload of alarmists and parrots... it is about 50/50 saying "the end is nigh" and "the numbers don't add up" with a whole big majority saying... "I don't know.. I will wait and see but they better not do anything to ruin my life till they prove it is happening and there is something we can do about it."
The reason they are so angry is not because I quote people smarter and with better credentials than them... it is because they are losing ground every day.
lazs
-
On this new "clouds" postulate that was back in the thread a bit....
Clouds, as of now, DO reflect a portion of solar irradiance. It all depends on what the clouds are made of... look at Venus...clouds there tend to reflect a small percentage and hold the rest IN. Can anyone tell me what clouds on Venus are made from? Bonus question... Titan, moon of Saturn, come up with atmospheric composition and deviation from expectected surface temperature....
On solar forcing of global warming.... and Mars....
Mars is warming, currently. Earth is warming currently. Posters have drawn these two events and tried to tie them together. If solar forcing was truly doing this... wouldn't the other planets.... in particular VENUS be showing the same...considering it's closer to the sun than either of the other two????? Venus isn't warming. Mars and Earth's events are not tied together..... and can be further refuted by the fact they are warming at different RATES...if the same variable was working upon all three, all three would be showing the SAME RESPONSE to the VARIABLE, at least in rate response to external forcing.
-
Venus is already pretty hot, a lot hotter than Earth or Mars. Even hotter than Mercury which is closer to the sun. Rather than focus on one planet, what's happening to the rest?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I have an opinion of my own. All the evidence I've seen presented indicates that an increase in c02 follows warming, not preceeds it. I have also observed that most people need a cause and a threat of disasterous global warming satifies this need for many.
I am in that camp as well.... that many people need a cause, on both sides of the issue. GW isn't mine... I just present the data as I see it, and as it pertains to my work.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Venus is already pretty hot, a lot hotter than Earth or Mars. Even hotter than Mercury which is closer to the sun. Rather than focus on one planet, what's happening to the rest?
Isn't that EXACTLY what I said.... to compare what's happening to the rest?
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Isn't that EXACTLY what I said.... to compare what's happening to the rest?
I dunno, did you say what was happening to the rest? I musta missed it. What's happening on Saturn, Jupiter, Mercury...?
-
Hmmm, this site has some info on our system's various planets. Looks like some warming going on. Of course I haven't yet verified the accuracy of any of these.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I have an opinion of my own. All the evidence I've seen presented indicates that an increase in c02 follows warming, not preceeds it. I have also observed that most people need a cause and a threat of disasterous global warming satifies this need for many.
Yes I heard that too - in the global warming swindle programme! So therefore it must be true :rofl
Even if it's true, I don't think the current warming can be compared with previous warmings. And that's because never before has warming occurred at the current unprecedented rate. And also you need to bear in mind that never before in the history of the earth has one species ever emitted as much CO2 as has been emitted by mankind in the last 200 years.
You should also consider the following. - CO2 is not the only gas generated by the burning of fossil fuels.
- Water vapor has a much greater greenhouse effect than CO2.
- Burning fossil fuels like oil produces BOTH of these greenhouse gases.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If you're right that all clouds on average will have a net result of cooling the earth then we shouldn't fear global warming. The earth will self-regulate it's temperature when the warmer, moister, air has a cooling effect.
I didn't make that conclusion. You are. If YOU read the entire article it describes global dimming as masking the full effect of global warming ... not that it provides an effective long term solution. :aok
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I didn't make that conclusion. You are. If YOU read the entire article it describes global dimming as masking the full effect of global warming ... not that it provides an effective long term solution. :aok
Global dimming as addressed in that article is the result of increased clouds due to pollutants, not increased clouds due to warmer air. You seem to have claimed that the end result is known yet you've never said what you believe it will be. I think you don't have a clue and are tap dancing.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Global dimming as addressed in that article is the result of increased clouds due to pollutants, not increased clouds due to warmer air. You seem to have claimed that the end result is known yet you've never said what you believe it will be. I think you don't have a clue and are tap dancing.
Hmmmm .... I'm tap dancing. Let's see:
Where in that article does it claim that pollutants increase cloud production?
I certainly didn't say that. You seem to think so.
"Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have caused droughts in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming."
You think I claimed to know the end result of all variables. I didn't. I said the effect of the variable of increased cloud cover is known regarding solar reflection/temp. You seemed to beleive otherwise.
One variable. One effect. Known. Yes?
Got tap dance?
:D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hmmmm .... I'm tap dancing. Let's see:
Where in that article does it claim that pollutants increase cloud production?
I certainly didn't say that. You seem to think so.
"Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have caused droughts in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming."
Got tap dance?
:D
You're not a very good tap dancer. This is from the article you posted.
"It is thought that global dimming was probably due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action. Aerosols and other particulates absorb solar energy and reflect sunlight back into space. The pollutants can also become nuclei for cloud droplets. It is also thought that the water droplets in clouds coalesce around the particles. Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the earth's surface."
-
Originally posted by AKIron
"Increased pollution causes more particulates and thereby creates clouds consisting of a greater number of smaller droplets (that is, the same amount of water is spread over more droplets). The smaller droplets make clouds more reflective, so that more incoming sunlight is reflected back into space and less reaches the earth's surface."
Better give that another ..... closer .... read. It's not saying it increases cloud production. It's saying it increases the number of droplets per cloud.
Can't concede one single point? Got yer mind made up?
Not my taps, Fred. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Better give that another ..... closer .... read. It's not saying it increases cloud production. It's saying it increases the number of droplets per cloud.
Can't concede one single point? Got yer mind made up?
Not my taps, Fred. :D
I'll concede that it's pointless to discuss this any further.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll concede that it's pointless to discuss this any further.
Then that's not discussion, anyway. That's acting petulant. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Then that's not discussion, anyway. That's acting petulant. :D
I enjoy a little repartee on occassion. It's been a long week.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I enjoy a little repartee on occassion. It's been a long week.
Understood. Then I'm guessing/hoping we're good on this - aka agree to disagree but we'll talk more ... later .... some. :)
-
:aok
-
GW is a question that science could take years to answer. Looking at history or remembering past brilliant failures in regards to trumping the natural course of science + time by political types and clergy leaders is a mistake we continue to repeat as a world goup.
I am more certain that any of us on either side of this battle over GW really don't know for certain %100 the cause of GW, or rather that its not natural, to say otherwise is arrogance and immature.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Not that it will convince the die-hard Man-Made Global Warming followers, but hey...I can try.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08
He's obviously a paid hack for Big Oil.:rolleyes:
Yeah, it would actually be funny if all those tree huggers were right, cause once the planit is used up our great grand children will just leave and go to ................. oh wait..........we don't have another planit.
oh well i guess they'll have to figure it out, we'll just keep on useing the fossil fuels which we don't need so companys like exxon can stay as rich as they are and milk us for every penny they can.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
now... more and more... scientists are dropping from the ranks and only a few are hard core "MMGW and it is a catastrophe" types... only 6% of the papers instead of 100% are sure this is true.
Here we have that 6% figure again, and again it is on the wrong side of the argument. Isnt it amazing that he keeps repeating the same lie, merely a handful of posts after I have proved him wrong?
Isnt it sad lasz, to have to lie in order to have a point? Isnt it a bit depressing to be forced to make s hit up in order to have an argument?
Isnt it embarrassing to be caught with the same lie over and over again? Have you no shame?
You disgust me.
-
Last time I checked, there were 8% of climate related scientists that debated GW.
And the debunk film, - just browsed over it again. What a heap of crap, having graphs of GW ending 17 years ago (in order not to show uncomfortable things) as well as quoting people as "sattelite survey managers" or such, when it happened to contact a brief period in a career, - what was it for Singer, - 1962-1964?
It's a propoganda scam, and probably paid by people who make short term profits from "inconvenient truths" NOT coming to the surface.
Hello Hitler!
-
louis.. can you show me the data that says we are producing water vapor?
Last I looked man is not adding to the water vapor. Perhaps you can link me to a site that shows man made global warming due to man made water vapor?
Moray.. are you saying that you agree that co2 trails global warming and not leads it? that's a start.
The whole thing is.. if man made co2 is not causing any significant warming then what is? what man made thing is causing the warming? The latest says that methane from men eating meat is the problem.. even tho... man produces only a tiny fraction of the globes methane...
Co2.. if you still insist on it.. put out a few coal fires... just one in china is producing more co2 than all the cars and trucks in the USA... there are coal fires burning unchecked all over the world. Start there... go ahead.. put em out.. then make it illegal to have a forest fire.. just ban em... if nature starts one... put it out instantly..
These seem much easier to achieve than changing the climate of the entire globe by co2 or dimming.
As for clouds...aerosols ... the most fervent alarmists admit that they don't understand em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
louis.. can you show me the data that says we are producing water vapor?
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/Rockport.jpg)
-
Laz - Which expert are you quoting now? It seems that your "facts" don't concur with reality.
-
(http://www.burkhardworks.com/RESOURCES/TEAKETTLE1.jpg)
Its those English Bastids.
Save the Earth, give up tea!
:t ,
Wab
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/Rockport.jpg)
Wonder what produces more?(http://www.mtritter.org/Mauna_Kea/images/Lava_Steam_320.jpg)
-
I think we generate more steam and hot air on this bbs.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/Rockport.jpg)
I mean you were joking right?
-
Raised atmospheric temperature increases the capacity to carry water in the vapourised form. Nothing new there....
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Wonder what produces more?(http://www.mtritter.org/Mauna_Kea/images/Lava_Steam_320.jpg)
In a delicate ecobalance all it takes is extra. But, I've said this before and those that don't want to change lifestyle for the sake of the coming generations just don't want to understand it. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
In a delicate ecobalance all it takes is extra. But, I've said this before and those that don't want to change lifestyle for the sake of the coming generations just don't want to understand it. :D
It is your contention that our ecobalance is delicate. Not everyone agrees.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It is your contention that our ecobalance is delicate. Not everyone agrees.
You state the obvious. But a conservative person always "errs" on the side that provides the better safety margin. Believing that flooring the accelerator because you don't believe the cliff ends ahead, even when you realize it's a foggy night, leads me to believe you're not qualified to select the car's driver, much less drive it yourself.
I advocate caution while unknowns exist. You, yourself, admit unknowns exist, right?
That's our political difference on the subject, I reckon. No offense. *ShruG*
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You state the obvious. But a conservative person always "errs" on the side that provides the better safety margin. Believing that flooring the accelerator because you don't believe the cliff ends ahead, even when you realize it's a foggy night, leads me to believe you're not qualified to select the car's driver, much less drive it yourself.
I advocate caution while unknowns exist. You, yourself, admit unknowns exist, right?
That's our political difference on the subject, I reckon. No offense. *ShruG*
You advocate what exactly?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You advocate what exactly?
Emission reduction while we continue to study effect. Simple. :)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Emission reduction limiting Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while we continue to study effect. Simple.
fixed
-
Originally posted by soda72
fixed
You spelled reinterpreted (to justify feeling threatened) wrong. :aok
Sup? :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You spelled reinterpreted (to justify feeling threatened) wrong. :aok
Sup? :D
Just catching up on the bbs....
I see you've been busy....
:D
-
Just practicing my skills at impressing, influencing and winning over. ;)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Emission reduction while we continue to study effect. Simple. :)
Who isn't for emission reduction? Study is good if you aren't trying to further a political agenda with the results.
Have you taken any steps to reduce emissions personally?
-
hortlund... what data are you using that says that we are a major..or even minor.. contributor to water vapor in the atmosphere?
And even more telling.. are you now off of co2 and onto man made water vapor as the cause of this so called "MMGW"?
lazs
-
Seems to me that many of the ones claiming the US is responsible for all the ills in the middle east and elsewere due to our meddling are the same ones wanting to restrict the c02 producers. Can anyone imagine the results if the UN attempted to restrict China in this regard? China in comparison makes the middle east look like a sand box. Can anyone say irony?
-
So now the next "big lie" in the GW denialists' quiver of arrows is to deny that man generates water vapor :lol
Lazs, ever wonder why the catalytic converter on a car is sometimes known as a "three-way cat"? It's because the output from the exhaust is broken down into three main compounds - CO2, pure Nitrogen, and (you guessed it) - water vapor! But don't tell anyone. We don't want the govt to know that cars output water vapor, else the girly men of the socialist left would want to ban cars. :D
Oh and have you ever looked up into the sky at a passing jet airliner? Ever see those white trails coming from the engine exhaust? Well 85% DUH - it's not cotton wool you know. I'll let you figure it out. :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund... what data are you using that says that we are a major..or even minor.. contributor to water vapor in the atmosphere?
And even more telling.. are you now off of co2 and onto man made water vapor as the cause of this so called "MMGW"?
lazs
I'll give you a poser Lazs. What is your force of contribution when you turn on your stove under a pot of water?
-
Some of you are turning the water vapor thing into a red herring. Clouds both reflect the sun's energy and keep the earth's energy in at night. My original statement (which has been sorely abused) was that warming air due to global warming would probably result in more clouds. However, since different types of clouds have different effects on overall temperature I said that the end result of the increase in clouds due to the warmer, moister air really isn't known. Arlo jumped in and said it is known and posted a link which clearly says that it isn't.
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
So now the next "big lie" in the GW denialists' quiver of arrows is to deny that man generates water vapor :lol
Lazs, ever wonder why the catalytic converter on a car is sometimes known as a "three-way cat"? It's because the output from the exhaust is broken down into three main compounds - CO2, pure Nitrogen, and (you guessed it) - water vapor! But don't tell anyone. We don't want the govt to know that cars output water vapor, else the girly men of the socialist left would want to ban cars. :D
Oh and have you ever looked up into the sky at a passing jet airliner? Ever see those white trails coming from the engine exhaust? Well 85% DUH - it's not cotton wool you know. I'll let you figure it out. :aok
Contrails are not "manufactured"by the airliner I'm afraid. And you don't even need a jet engine for the job. Nor Kerosene, - petrol will do.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Who isn't for emission reduction? Study is good if you aren't trying to further a political agenda with the results.
I've read thread after thread of people here claiming MMGW is a myth and then state they they fully intend to go out to their gas guzzling 4 X 4 (their words not mine) and rev it up a bit.
I've seen the same people actually advocate GW is a good thing.
Those guys are the ones who aren't for emission control...and there is a whole bunch of 'em in this thread and many others.
FWIW My stance on the subject is identical to Arlo's.
-
When I talk about wanting to reduce emissions I mean pollutants and not c02.
-
Still waiting on those numbers for the amount of aerosols (water vapor) that we add to the greenhouse gas.
It should be easy. Everything I have read says that it is natural and nothing we can do about it.
This is the first time I have heard that man made water vapor is the cause.
this seems desperate to me.. like rats deserting a sinking co2 ship.
But go ahead... explain about the tons of water vapor we put into the air every year from... OMG... catalytic converters????
not water droplets that don't aerosol.. but real water vapor.
lazs
-
You don't need to add water vapour since most of the planets surface is already covered with water in the first place...
(BTW, wasn't it you that once emphazised that water vapour was a powerful greenhouse gas?)
What you need is increased temperature. If you can raise temperature by a greenhouse gas that you can't even see, like co2 and methane, it is like swithching on your stove.
So, if you want a damp kitchen, you don't have to jump around throwing water about, - you just put the kettle on :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Who isn't for emission reduction? Study is good if you aren't trying to further a political agenda with the results.
Have you taken any steps to reduce emissions personally?
Sure. I take advantage of mass transit. I don't waste energy. I maintain my car and it's on the lower end of emission production and it's used only for necessity which MT doesn't provide. I recycle. And I've changed my diet in order to fart less. :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Seems to me that many of the ones claiming the US is responsible for all the ills in the middle east and elsewere due to our meddling are the same ones wanting to restrict the c02 producers. Can anyone imagine the results if the UN attempted to restrict China in this regard? China in comparison makes the middle east look like a sand box. Can anyone say irony?
I doubt those you catagorize in your first sentence sit at the UN. I'm all for sanctions on China to deal with emissions globally. :)
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
So now the next "big lie" in the GW denialists' quiver of arrows is to deny that man generates water vapor :lol
Quotes to back? :D
-
yes angus it was me.. well.. not me.. but me who linked the articles that said that most of the greenhouse gas is water vapor.. that we can do nothing about btw.
So what are the numbers again for man made water vapor? will we have to wait till co2 is completely debunked for the scientists to try to foist this one off on us... complete with terrifiying movie and charts and graphs and such?
for now, alas.... they just aren't as ahead of it as you are. they obviously have never boiled water for tea.
In fact.. most of their highly scientific computer models don't even include water vapor or clouds. ruins the co2 effect ya see.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Arlo jumped in and said it is known and posted a link which clearly says that it isn't.
Arlo posted a link which shows the effect of clouds is known. The effect of clouds with higher pollutant particles is known. That specific factor is known. What I'd hoped you'd do at that point is concede that much in order to explore the bigger pic. Especially since it offered you an opening with the gobal dimming vs global warming factors. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Arlo posted a link which shows the effect of clouds is known. The effect of clouds with higher pollutant particles is known. That specific factor is known. What I'd hoped you'd do at that point is concede that much in order to explore the bigger pic. Especially since it offered you an opening with the gobal dimming vs global warming factors. :D
I'll concede you didn't bother to read and understand my post and answered rashly. I'll concede you either don't understand your mistake or are unwilling to admit it. There ya go, two concessions for the price of one.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll concede you didn't bother to read and understand my post and answered rashly. I'll concede you either don't understand your mistake or are unwilling to admit it. There ya go, two concessions for the price of one.
That sounds like the PeeWee Herman "I know you are but what am I?"
approach. Not a very good one. ;)
Nor is projecting concession upon the one who you debate with rather than creating an argument that forces a concession.
If you want to doggedly cling to your claim that the single event of increased cloud cover and it's effect on clobal climate is entirely unknown (the only claim of yours I challenged), by all means. But denying what I backed my challenge with by accusing me of not understanding it is not a strong debate stance when you're unable to prove so or when you, yourself quote the subject material but show you took it out of context.
I concede all the time ... when someone's argument merits it. Not before. And certainly not just because they want me to. IF this is your stance step away from the silly and proceed with presentation. :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
In fact.. most of their highly scientific computer models don't even include water vapor or clouds. ruins the co2 effect ya see.
There you go again - spreading misinformation as though it's fact.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
I doubt those you catagorize in your first sentence sit at the UN. I'm all for sanctions on China to deal with emissions globally. :)
Many of them vote in this country and the typical liberal here seems anxious to relinquish our autonomy to the UN. It wasn't a hollow statement. I see you're ready to start meddling in China's affairs. I bet you're one of the ones who thinks the problems in the middle east are the result of US meddling?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Many of them vote in this country and the typical liberal here seems anxious to relinquish our autonomy to the UN. It wasn't a hollow statement. I see you're ready to start meddling in China's affairs. I bet you're one of the ones who thinks the problems in the middle east are the result of US meddling?
That's some convoluted reasoning. What in the world has international cooperation in reducing emissions globally got to do with "relinquishing autonomy?" Do you somehow believe that international cooperation in nuclear non-proliferation is also "relinquishing autonomy?" Meddling in China's affairs? Since when is global climate China's affair and China's alone?
I bet you're one of the "ones" that let agenda do your thinking for you. (See how well relying on rhetoric works?) :aok :D
-
We just got our quarterly power bill, it's over $700!
Our carbon footprint is huge! something like 4.35tonnes per 1/4. The world certainly knows we're here. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Arlo
That's some convoluted reasoning. What in the world has international cooperation in reducing emissions globally got to do with "relinquishing autonomy?" Do you somehow believe that international cooperation in nuclear non-proliferation is also "relinquishing autonomy?" Meddling in China's affairs? Since when is global climate China's affair and China's alone?
I bet you're one of the "ones" that let agenda do your thinking for you. (See how well relying on rhetoric works?) :aok :D
I think anyone who claims the US is responsible for the middle east mess and believes we have no right to meddle there is a hypocrite if they want us attempting to influence any other country's industrial programs.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think anyone who claims the US is responsible for the middle east mess and believes we have no right to meddle there is a hypocrite if they want us attempting to influence any other country's industrial programs.
Actually, it's obvious we see things 180' on that, as well. I'd say the hypocricy lays with anyone who denies the U.S. bears any responsibility for it's long term policies in the Middle East and shares no liability for the current state of affairs there (even though you're adding that red herring to the subject at hand to apparently "make a point" or sumpin'. ;))
I never said there was no place for influence. I do say there's a right and wrong way to do it.
Hypocricy never comes from owning up and having standards .... it always comes from denial and double standards.
And, ironically enough, a major part of what you live in denial about revolves around meddling in other country's industry and resources. But don't confuse global cooperation over climate change as such. I'm sure you've seen countries discussing sharing industrial technology.
:)
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Actually, it's obvious we see things 180' on that, as well. I'd say the hypocricy lays with anyone who denies the U.S. bears no responsibility for it's long term policies in the Middle East and shares no liability for the current state of affairs there (even though you're adding that red herring to the subject at hand to apparently "make a point" or sumpin'. ;))
Hypocricy never comes from owning up and having standards .... it always comes from denial and double standards.
And, ironically enough, a major part of what you live in denial about revolves around meddling in other country's industry and resources. But don't confuse global cooperation over climate change as such. I'm sure you've seen countries discussing sharing industrial technology.
:)
So, it's ok to tell China or whoever what they can and can't do with their industry in the name of your religion or cause but it's not ok to influence a middle eastern country to help secure needed oil supplies. I see how it is.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So, it's ok to tell China or whoever what they can and can't do with their industry in the name of your religion or cause but it's not ok to influence a middle eastern country to help secure needed oil supplies. I see how it is.
Sadly, no, you don't. And I explained my position as carefully as I could. Please, don't play obtuse with the rhetoric and think it's either putting others in their place or being insightful (or is it designed to be inciteful? - heh). Thanks. :aok :)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund... what data are you using that says that we are a major..or even minor.. contributor to water vapor in the atmosphere?
[/b]
Basic chemistry. When any sort of fossil fuel is burned, part of the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water vapor. This is third grade chemistry stuff lasz...which Im sure is why you didnt know about it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So what are the numbers again for man made water vapor?
Well gee lasz, back to basic chemistry again.
Fossil fuels are burned witht "normal" air (instead of with pure oxygen). Air contains about 79% nitrogen. This nitrogen is not consumed/combusted in the process. This means that the smoke from most fossil fuel fires is unburned nitrogen. Then comes CO2, which is 10-15% or more of the smoke. Then comes water vapor created by the combustion of the hydrogen in the fuel with atmospheric oxygen. Much of the smoke seen pouring into the air is those water vapors forming a cloud as it contacts cool air.
So, look around you, at all the coal burned, or natural gas burned power plants. Look at the smoke, there is your man made water vapor.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Basic chemistry. When any sort of fossil fuel is burned, part of the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water vapor. This is third grade chemistry stuff lasz...which Im sure is why you didnt know about it. [/B]
It is also quite basic that the 7/10 of the earth's surface is water, and much of that which remains is covered with some sorth of growth that transpires water vapor.
Well over 99% of water vapor comes from natural sources. There is an argument that the increasing surface temperature causes the ocean to evaporate more water into the atmosphere, but still the vast majority, still over 99% if you take into account the recent warming, is natural.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is also quite basic that the 7/10 of the earth's surface is water, and much of that which remains is covered with some sorth of growth that transpires water vapor.
Well over 99% of water vapor comes from natural sources. There is an argument that the increasing surface temperature causes the ocean to evaporate more water into the atmosphere, but still the vast majority, still over 99% if you take into account the recent warming, is natural.
So? When are you guys going to understand that the atmosphere consists of a mix of gasses, the balance of these gasses determines how much heat from the sun that will be trapped in the atmosphere. The amount of clouds and ice also determines how much heat from the sun that will bounce back into space.
What we are doing is changing the balance of gas in the atmosphere, this change causes more heat to be trapped, and the temperature rises. As the temperature rises, the oceans emit more water vapor into the atmosphere, changing the balance yet more. As the temperature rises the ices melt, making the reflective surface smaller, thus letting more heat get trapped in the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, areas that were once frozen melts, and these melting areas release more gas into the atmosphere, methane, which is a very very evil greenhouse gas...causing yet more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere.
All of this is basic science, and it is plain for everyone with half a brain to see. Yet you guys sit there, trying to shove your heads deeper into the sand (did I say sand? I meant "your a ss").
It is completely irrelevant what the vast majority of the atmosphere consists of, it is completely irrelevant that the oceans send huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, those are all part of the natural cycle. What IS relevant is that MAN is changing the balance of those gasses in the atmosphere, and because of that, we are changing the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.
But you wont understand that, because you dont WANT to understand that. How difficult it is to make a man understand something, when his salary or his percieved lifestyle depends on him not understanding it.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
It is completely irrelevant what the vast majority of the atmosphere consists of, it is completely irrelevant that the oceans send huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, those are all part of the natural cycle.
What IS relevant is that MAN is changing the balance of those gasses in the atmosphere, and because of that, we are changing the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.
How do you know we are upsetting the balance if the natural cycle and it's mechanisms are completely irrelevant?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
How do you know we are upsetting the balance if the natural cycle and it's mechanisms are completely irrelevant?
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/Rockport.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
(http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y145/Hortlund/Rockport.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png)
But that line before 1800 is the natural cycle and it's mechanisms, and by your own testimony, that is irrelevant. So once again, how do you know that we are changing anything?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But that line before 100 years ago is the natural cycle and it's mechanisms, and by your own testimony, that is irrelevant. So once again, how do you know that we are changing anything?
Notice any difference in that line? Spot the difference between pre-industrial age and now?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Notice any difference in that line? Spot the difference between pre-industrial age and now?
As soon as you admit that we must compare the data to a relevant baseline I will.
But as you say, "It is completely irrelevant what the vast majority of the atmosphere consists of, it is completely irrelevant that the oceans send huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, those are all part of the natural cycle." so by your definition, the line before 1800, which is the line of natural cycle, cannot be used in our discussion.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As soon as you admit that we must compare the data to a relevant baseline I will.
But as you say, "It is completely irrelevant what the vast majority of the atmosphere consists of, it is completely irrelevant that the oceans send huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, those are all part of the natural cycle." so by your definition, the line before 1800, which is the line of natural cycle, cannot be used in our discussion.
:aok
-
So does :aok mean we can discuss natural data or is it still irrelevant?
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Ok so we will outlaw Bean comsumption.
Problem solved LOL
Lightning strikes too?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Lightning strikes too?
Ban em.
Make a law against them.
-
Light spirited as it is, you can't.
But it's possible to lock you up though :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Light spirited as it is, you can't.
I don`t know why you would say that. You can ban and make laws against anything. Just because it won`t work has never stood in the way before.
If you are going to back something that will screw yourself, you might as well go for the gold.
Old saying: Anyone can pee on the floor, but it takes a real hero to take a crap on the ceiling. :)
-
oh.. now this is getting rich!!!
do a search for water vapor and greenhouse gas.. all the articles will tell you that water vapor is the biggest and that it is not affected by man. the lefty ones will tell you how much more important co2 is.
Not one of these scientists.. not the UN report... nada.. say that man is changing water vapor... if you do a search you will find only one article by one scientist that says that we may be changing water vapor you will find hundreds that say we can't... it balances itself. You will even find a couple that say that the meteorite in russia in 1906 changed the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere.
So where are the numbers and charts to dazzle us peasants hortlund? Do you really think that we are changing water vapor?
May be.... so far tho.. no one is saying that or providing data on how much...
But say we are.. What would we have to do to stop it? Water vapor credits? Maybe a movie? get the UN to dummy up the old report or just say......
"never mind.. we were wrong on the co2 thing... it is water vapor but it is still your fault"
LOL... no matter what.. it is our fault I guess. but so far.. we have no solutions do we? If we all slit our throats.. the earth would still heat and cool.. another meteorite could hit a week after we all suicided...
So what is the solution to the whole "man made water vapor" catastrohe?
and.. have you finally given up on the c02 as the world ender scenario?
It was getting kinda worn and silly.
lazs
-
When you start your biggest bike Lazs, it is not the force of your hand that does it really, but turning the key or slamming down the pedal is enough to get other and much stronger things going. That is the theory behind CO2's effect. If it works itself into accelerated warming then you enter the doomsday zone. Not what I belive in, but I rather put my money on quite a naughty climate. Anyway, the doomsday scene, In one culture, opening Pandora's box. In another releasing the wolf named Fenrir.
-
An interesting take on the genesis of the MMGW scare...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml;jsessionid=0GN3K55AD1OR1QFIQMFSFFWAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/earth/2007/11/04/eaclimate104.xml
BTW, I think this thread has set a personal record for the most replies to one started by me.:aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Maybe a movie?
lazs
LMAO
Gore`s next option.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Do you really think that we are changing water vapor?
Wtf, just how stupid are you anyway? I just explained to you how water vapor is created during fossil fuel combustion, and here you are completely ignoring that post and asking me again to explain how man is creating water vapor? You are one stupid mother f ucker.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.. have you finally given up on the c02 as the world ender scenario?
It was getting kinda worn and silly.
lazs
The atmosphere consists of a mix of gasses, the balance of these gasses determines how much heat from the sun that will be trapped in the atmosphere. The amount of clouds and ice also determines how much heat from the sun that will bounce back into space.
What we are doing is changing the balance of gas in the atmosphere, this change causes more heat to be trapped, and the temperature rises. As the temperature rises, the oceans emit more water vapor into the atmosphere, changing the balance yet more. As the temperature rises the ices melt, making the reflective surface smaller, thus letting more heat get trapped in the atmosphere. As the temperature rises, areas that were once frozen melts, and these melting areas release more gas into the atmosphere, methane, which is a very very evil greenhouse gas...causing yet more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere.
All of this is basic science, and it is plain for everyone with half a brain to see. Yet you guys sit there, trying to shove your heads deeper into the sand (did I say sand? I meant "your a ss").
It is completely irrelevant what the vast majority of the atmosphere consists of, it is completely irrelevant that the oceans send huge amounts of water vapor into the atmosphere, those are all part of the natural cycle. What IS relevant is that MAN is changing the balance of those gasses in the atmosphere, and because of that, we are changing the amount of heat trapped in the atmosphere.
[/color]
But you wont understand that, because you dont WANT to understand that. How difficult it is to make a man understand something, when his salary or his percieved lifestyle depends on him not understanding it.
-
LOL.. you get better and better with every implosion hortlund...
for a long time now I have heard you cry and rant and pout about man made co2...you show all kinds of charts and graphs and we do have something to talk about... Not once do you ever mention man made water vapor.
now.. that c02 is losing credibility... you dodge to water vapor... everything I read says we have little or no effect on the amount of water vapor in the air..
I ask you to show me where anyone is saying what you are saying.
You tell me about catalytic converters and tea pots.
I ask you to show me the numbers.. you call me names.
I ask you to tell me what to do about water vapor.. you ignore the question.
This whole man made water vapor thing is interesting... I will admit... It is just that in the years of looking at the whole global climate cause debate...
I have always heard.. from both sides.. that water vapor is not affected by man.
If you have real evidence that this is wrong.. some explanation or numbers for the amount of water vapor that is added to the atmosphere by man..
I would be interested in seeing it...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOL.. you get better and better with every implosion hortlund...
for a long time now I have heard you cry and rant and pout about man made co2...you show all kinds of charts and graphs and we do have something to talk about... Not once do you ever mention man made water vapor.
now.. that c02 is losing credibility... you dodge to water vapor... everything I read says we have little or no effect on the amount of water vapor in the air..
I ask you to show me where anyone is saying what you are saying.
You tell me about catalytic converters and tea pots.
I ask you to show me the numbers.. you call me names.
I ask you to tell me what to do about water vapor.. you ignore the question.
This whole man made water vapor thing is interesting... I will admit... It is just that in the years of looking at the whole global climate cause debate...
I have always heard.. from both sides.. that water vapor is not affected by man.
If you have real evidence that this is wrong.. some explanation or numbers for the amount of water vapor that is added to the atmosphere by man..
I would be interested in seeing it...
lazs
Laz's version of implosion (rhetorical self-impressed nonsensical expression) is way cooler ^. Just ask him. ;) :aok
-
LOL Arlo.
-
More water vapor released into the atmosphere generates more cloud cover, cooling the planet and allowing the oceans to absorb more water vapor, thereby...etc, etc, etc. In other words, the planetary climate is self-regulating (an amazing design, from an engineering standpoint).
So, please answer me this:
1) Why do the ice cores, which Al Gore and others tout as evidence that rising CO2 causes increased global temperatures, show that CO2 levels LAG changes in temperature by 800 to 1000 years?
2) Why did the most of the warming recorded in the previous century take place before man-produced CO2 output began to rise significantly?
I understand the postitive feedback argument, that CO2 is a forcing function that throws the system out of balance. But that does not explain the ice core data, which shows the correlation between temps and CO2 is the opposite of what is claimed by MMGW apostates. The fact is, solar activity appears to map more precisely to global temperature changes than CO2, and with the correct cause-effect relationship.
-
hmm.. still no data? I am finding nothing that says that water vapor is not self balancing... that if we get too much... it rains.
show me the figures for man made water vapor.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
"Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.
Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate."
maybe arlo has some numbers on water vapor for us? No?
lazs
-
akh... finds arlo amusing.. do you also now abandon your previous co2 theory and now think it is man made water vapor that causes global warming?
This seems odd because in the years I have been reading the alarmists and the links provided by the acolytes here...
Not one mentioned man made water vapor as a problem till just a few days ago.
You got to admit...you guys are starting to sound desperate. like..
"ok... maybe it isn't so much co2 but it is man made water vapor... just think of all the tea kettles man uses!"
lazs
-
Increased water vapour is a normal result of a warmer air. And BTW, cloudforming will take more available water vapur to be equal to what it was at a lower temperature. A hotter climate means more carrying capability from the atmosphere. So, increased vapour is a result of atmospheric warming.
And although CO2 is reported to be lagging (from the icecores), CO2 and warmer climate hold hands up and down the curves like a couple in highschool. Warming over a certain level will also tend to increase CO2, - sort of a ping-pong effect.
-
thats the story you are sticking too this time?
link me to the charts on man made water vapor and it's affect on global warming.
There are some simple facts.. co2...
There are coal fires burning underground all around the world... just one in china puts out more co2 than all of the cars and trucks in America.. if you really think co2 is the boogey man... put out the fires.
increased co2 has increased crop yeilds up to 15% more land is available not less.. the warming so far has been nothing but benificial.
co2 lags not leads. it has been higher in the past following natural warming cycles. Then things cooled.
The nasa data available for the last 18 years.. the only data.. for the US shows that north America has not had an average gain in temp.. in fact.. it has cooled ever so slightly.
man contributes very little to greenhouse gas.. about 0.28% of all greenhouse gas.. including water vapor. if we reduced that by a draconian 30% it would be an insignificant amount reduction on an insignificant amount.
relax angus.. you are living in the good times.. warmer climate is better... we will get colder soon enough.. in the meantime...enjoy the milder winters.
lazs
-
When CO2 was at it's peak, nature did not prompt any intelligent life, as well as the climate at those time would be devastative to mankind today.
And as for the underground coal fires, I will ask you 2 1/2 question, that you can surely answer
1. Where does an enclosed underground fire get oxygen?
2. Can you promote a source of your claim?
2 1/2. What happens to a coal fire that gets no oxygen?
And, BTW, Lazs, nothing personal, but:
I think I am beginning to understand why Hortlund pounds at you like he does, and furthermore, why it didn'd get him PNG's so far.....
-
Lazs, thinking back over this ongoing debate, I can't recall one single occasion when you have substantiated any of your wild claims with anything that remotely approaches credible evidence.
Conversely, many have demonstrated that the "expert opinions" you repeat are nothing more than blatant fallacies, yet you continue to regurgitate them as though a denial of reality and sheer bloody-mindedness will win you the argument. It won't, but if you feel that you must resort to such cheap tricks in order to be seen to win, so be it.
I find Arlo's comment amusing because he hit the nail squarely on the head.
-
underground coal fires are a fact of life. some of the fires have been burning for 40 years.
Fire in the Hole
Picture an abandoned coal mine—there are thousands of them in Pennsylvania. Although much of the coal has been removed, plenty still remains—perhaps just not in a configuration that’s easily extractable. Miles of tunnels, their ceilings shored up with columns of unexcavated coal, lie empty. Though the entrance to the mine may have been sealed, that seal was by no means complete or airtight. And suppose some of the coal lies very close to the surface—or is even visible in an exposed seam. Now something happens to ignite the coal. It may be a natural cause—lightning, for instance, or even spontaneous combustion given the right conditions. Or maybe a forest fire, or someone burning garbage.
Once the coal begins burning, it feeds off the air in the tunnels and the ventilation shafts that were used to supply air to the miners. Still more air seeps through natural cracks in the rock. Coal burns very easily, requiring only a tiny amount of oxygen—and with millions of tons of fuel handy, it soon spreads beyond the existing tunnels and into the thick strata of coal that lie under immense tracts of land. When enough of the coal burns through, the ground above it collapses—an effect known as subsidence. The newly formed cracks or pits allow more air in, accelerating the fire’s spread. Meanwhile, carbon dioxide, smoke, and steam escape, killing plants and making the area’s air unsafe for humans and wildlife.
http://itotd.com/articles/346/pennsylvania-coal-fires/
-
Excuse me, but do you realize that for CO2 you need 2 atoms of oxygen for one of charbon?
C+O+O, or rather C + O2???????????
There is no way to explain this as a contribution to CO2 emissions in any measure without that much flow of Oxygen INTO the fire. I guess old mine-vent shaft suck you straight in. And better still, with such humongous underground fires, there is no reason that mineworkers suffocate so quickly in case of fire in the shaft, - but they do!
Then in case this is the case, - this adds to man-made CO2.
-
i was just posting facts, and i have no idea what you just said.
-
OK. You posted, and I'll take the "fact" part of it with a teaspoon of salt, as well as a tablespoon, since there is no data promoted.
As for you not understanding the simple physics I posted, which are something I had to go through in school when I was just a kid, - well maybe you should read up a bit. This is really simple. If a coal fire like that only needs a tiny amount of oxygen, it CANNOT contribute much for CO2. Capiche?
-
angus, there are old coal mines burning in Pennsylvania. You can believe it or not.
-
akh.. I have linked everything I have ever said... but looking back.. I can't recall you ever giving a source for anything you have claimed.. I have asked you repeatedly to prove the water vapor theory and how much man is contributing.
where are the sources?
angus.. maybe hortlund doesn't get PNG'ed because I don't care.. I don't whine like a little girl when people call me names... I think everyones reaction to his hissy fit was punishment enough..
on the coal fires....
http://itotd.com/articles/346/pennsylvania-coal-fires/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mine_fire
http://www.offroaders.com/album/centralia/centralia.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro4p4.asp
"The Chinese fires also make a big, hidden contribution to global warming through the greenhouse effect, scientists said. Each year they release 360 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as much as all the cars and light trucks in the United States.
Soot from the fires in China, India and other Asian countries are a source of the "Asian Brown Haze." It's a 2-mile thick cloud of soot, acid droplets and other material that sometimes stretches across South Asia from Afghanistan to Sri Lanka."
but hey.... feel free to ask me to link anything I have ever said about global warming scam... after all.. I am not a scientist.. I just read what they say.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
akh... finds arlo amusing.. do you also now abandon your previous co2 theory and now think it is man made water vapor that causes global warming?
Ahh, you're confused (as usual). I challenged AKIron's claim that the singular effect of increased cloud cover is a completely unfathomable mystery. (We've agreed to disagree on that - which is fine.) If you want to actually argue with me (and not be just the target of my amusement) you'll have to argue with what I post (not what you imagine you think you wanted me to post). Then I may be tempted to take you as seriously as you take yourself. Good luck with that. :D
-
Well, there is also a candle in my livingroom, and it takes very little oxygen to burn.
You don't seem to understand this, - I hardly belive it.
OK, I go down to a 10 year old level, and say that if the fires take very little oxygen, it means they deliver very little co2 as well. Can you understand why?
-
More water vapor released into the atmosphere generates more cloud cover, cooling the planet and allowing the oceans to absorb more water vapor, thereby...etc, etc, etc. In other words, the planetary climate is self-regulating (an amazing design, from an engineering standpoint).
"Recent reversal of the trend
Sun-blocking aerosols around the world steadily declined (red line) since the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, according to satellite estimates. Credit: Michael Mishchenko, NASAWild et al. using measurements over land report brightening since 1990.[27][9][28] and Pinker et al.[29] found that slight dimming continued over land while brightening occurred over the ocean.[30] Hence, over the land surface, Wild et al and Pinker et al disagree. A 2007 NASA sponsored satellite-based study sheds light on the puzzling observations by other scientists that the amount of sunlight reaching Earth's surface had been steadily declining in recent decades, suddenly started to rebound around 1990. This switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline.[31][26]
It is likely that at least some of this change, particularly over Europe, is due to decreases in pollution. Most governments of developed nations have done more to reduce aerosols released into the atmosphere, which helps reduce global dimming, than to reduce CO2 emissions.
Sulfate aerosols have declined significantly since 1970 with the Clean Air Act in the United States and similar policies in Europe. The Clean Air Act was strengthened in 1977 and 1990. According to the EPA, from 1970 to 2005, total emissions of the six principal air pollutants, including PM’s, dropped by 53 percent in the US. In 1975, the masked effects of trapped greenhouse gases finally started to emerge and have dominated ever since.[32]
The Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN) has been collecting surface measurements. BSRN was started in the early 1990s and updated the archives in this time. Analysis of recent data reveals that the surface of the planet has brightened by about 4% in the past decade. The brightening trend is corroborated by other data, including satellite analyses."
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Aerosol_dimming.jpg)
Relationship to hydrological cycle
This figure shows the level of agreement between a climate model driven by five factors and the historical temperature record. The negative component identified as "sulfate" is associated with the aerosol emissions blamed for global dimming.Further information: Hydrological cycle
Pollution produced by humans may be seriously weakening the Earth's water cycle - reducing rainfall and threatening fresh water supplies. A 2001 study by researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography suggests that tiny particles of soot and other pollutants have a significant effect on the hydrological cycle. "The energy for the hydrological cycle comes from sunlight. As sunlight heats the ocean, water escapes into the atmosphere and falls out as rain. So as aerosols cut down sunlight by large amounts, they may be spinning down the hydrological cycle of the planet." according to prof. V. Ramanathan.[33]
Large scale changes in weather patterns may also have been caused by global dimming. Climate models speculatively suggest that this reduction in sunshine at the surface may have led to the failure of the monsoon in sub-Saharan Africa during the 1970s and 1980s, together with the associated famines such as the Sahel drought, caused by Northern hemisphere pollution cooling the Atlantic.[34] Because of this, the Tropical rain belt may not have risen to its northern latitudes, thus causing an absence of seasonal rains. This claim is not universally accepted and is very difficult to test.
It is also concluded that the imbalance between global dimming and global warming at the surface leads to weaker turbulent heat fluxes to the atmosphere. This means globally reduced evaporation and hence precipitation occur in a dimmer and warmer world, which could ultimately lead to a more humid atmosphere in which it rains less.[35]
A natural form of large scale environmental shading/dimming has been identified that affected the 2006 northern hemisphere hurricane season. The NASA study found that several major dust storms in June and July in the Sahara desert sent dust drifting over the Atlantic Ocean and through several effects caused cooling of the waters - and thus deadening the development of hurricanes.[36][37]
Possible use to mitigate global warming
Some scientists have suggested using aerosols to stave off the effects of global warming as an emergency measure. Russian expert Mikhail Budyko understood this relationship very early on. In 1974, he suggested that if global warming became a problem, we could cool down the planet by burning sulfur in the stratosphere, which would create a haze.[42][43][44] According to Ramanathan (1988), an increase in planetary albedo of just 0.5 percent is sufficient to halve the effect of a CO2 doubling.[45]
However, we would still face many problems, such as:
*Using sulfates causes environmental problems such as acid rain[46]
*Using carbon black causes human health problems[46]
*Dimming causes ecological problems such as changes in evaporation and rainfall patterns[46]
*Droughts and/or increased rainfall cause problems for agriculture[46]
Aerosol has a relatively short lifetime
"Ideas that we should increase aerosol emissions to counteract global warming have been described as a 'Faustian bargain' because that would imply an ever increasing amount of emissions in order to match the accumulated greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, with ever increasing monetary and health costs."[47] In essence, the sources of both greenhouse gases and air particulates must be addressed."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
(If anyone thinks this material strengthens their argument - no matter what your argument is - then by all means thank me instead of inventing a reason to get defensive. Thank you.) :D
-
I have read an article on the Sulphure emergency method and some kinds of promoted application, such as using ballons!
Anyway, one must bear in mind that here is also a gang on the thread that prompts statements as "it isn't warming", as well as "It ain't CO2", and I find it hard to belive that they would buy the fact that we have any force to cool the planet :t
-
Originally posted by Angus
I have read an article on the Sulphure emergency method and some kinds of promoted application, such as using ballons!
Anyway, one must bear in mind that here is also a gang on the thread that prompts statements as "it isn't warming", as well as "It ain't CO2", and I find it hard to belive that they would buy the fact that we have any force to cool the planet :t
Yeah, I see a lot of conflicting arguments from individuals, at times. I also see them attempt to berate who they're arguing with for not presenting a logical argument. I even see the argument they claim to be illogical something they projected upon someone else. Then if they can't come up with anything better they just rattle off presumtuous accusations and claim victory while throwing in the towel. Then they often grab the towel back and start all over.
It's a right regular pattern and reveals more than most seem aware of.
:D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Increased water vapour is a normal result of a warmer air. And BTW, cloudforming will take more available water vapur to be equal to what it was at a lower temperature. A hotter climate means more carrying capability from the atmosphere. So, increased vapour is a result of atmospheric warming.
And although CO2 is reported to be lagging (from the icecores), CO2 and warmer climate hold hands up and down the curves like a couple in highschool. Warming over a certain level will also tend to increase CO2, - sort of a ping-pong effect.
I'm not sure I follow you, Angus. Are you saying you don't believe that the data shows CO2 lagging temperature? Or are you saying that warming causes an increase in CO2? I'm honestly just trying to understand your position here. If CO2 levels lag temperature, than CO2 levels can not be driving the temperature changes. This is fundamental to the debate. So draconian efforts to reduce human-produced CO2 are useless at best, harmful at worse, and in either case take focus away from planetary problems that we can truly influence, like world poverty, violence and oppression.
-
Hehe, sad, but true.
-
Oh, Sabre:
Warmer climate and raised ocean temperature unleashes CO2 from the biggest buffer, - the sea. If the cause is anything else for starters. Then the effects are countering each other, - increased CO2 raises temps, which also releases more CO2 etc etc.
What's different in our case in the last years is that NOW the CO2 is LEADING. Okay, we know we've added to it, and roughly how much. So hence the conclucion, not just GW, but MMGW. But it's a unique position.
(I still remain sceptic about the totalness of MM, but less with every round)
Oh, BTW, if you were god, and could tune up various gas bars on the planet at will to see what happened, increased co2 would definately cause a GW. Same with you and the kettle, put water in and turn it on, - if it works it's gonna boil in there.
As for the world poverty and welfare, you ain't seen nothing yet if the temperature bar is keeping onwards where it's heading.
As for counter measures for CO2 emissions, I fail to see a downside. It's an opening to new businesses of industry as well as a different approach to useage of land and resources. The first one I'd suspect to get a bloody nose out of those would be a greedy western consumer who wants lots of products for a truly unrealistic price.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
akh.. I have linked everything I have ever said... but looking back.. I can't recall you ever giving a source for anything you have claimed.. I have asked you repeatedly to prove the water vapor theory and how much man is contributing.
I believe the keyword for evidence is credible - blogs, opinion pieces and wacky personal webpages don't satisfy that criterion. Maybe in your world, but not in mine.
You do seem to have significant trouble recalling information. For example, when did you repeatedly ask me to prove "the water vapor theory?" I certainly don't remember proposing such a theory. Maybe you ought to scroll upthread and refresh your memory?
I suppose you remember this:
Originally posted by lazs2 "The Chinese fires also make a big, hidden contribution to global warming through the greenhouse effect, scientists said. Each year they release 360 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as much as all the cars and light trucks in the United States.
How does this fit with what you said earlier?
There are coal fires burning underground all around the world... just one in china puts out more co2 than all of the cars and trucks in America.. if you really think co2 is the boogey man... put out the fires.
And before that:
Co2.. if you still insist on it.. put out a few coal fires... just one in china is producing more co2 than all the cars and trucks in the USA... there are coal fires burning unchecked all over the world. Start there... go ahead.. put em out.. then make it illegal to have a forest fire.. just ban em... if nature starts one... put it out instantly..
Give you enough rope...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but hey.... feel free to ask me to link anything I have ever said about global warming scam... after all.. I am not a scientist.. I just read what they say.
lazs
OK - let's start with this one:
Originally posted by lazs2
In fact.. most of their highly scientific computer models don't even include water vapor or clouds. ruins the co2 effect ya see.
-
Hehe, you found it. I remembered this one :aok
-
And it has a point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Greenhouse_gases
"In the Earth’s atmosphere, the dominant infrared absorbing gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone (O3). "
And more on CO2
"For example, carbon dioxide is a linear molecule, but it has an important vibrational mode in which the molecule bends with the carbon in the middle moving one way and the oxygens on the ends moving the other way, creating some charge separation, a dipole moment, thus carbon dioxide molecules can absorb IR radiation. Collisions will immediately transfer this energy to heating the surrounding gas"
-
The founder of the weather channel speaks out on Global warming..............
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history
his take on it SEEMS similar to mine.
-
What is funny is that one of his meteoroligists said that anyone who does not agree that man is causing catastrophic global warming should have their credentials removed and banned from speaking. pretty much a hortlund kinda
deal.
http://vleeptronz.blogspot.com/2007/01/sky-is-falling-tv-weather-lady-has.html
half of em think it is a scam now.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
lazs
-
angus.. if you read wiki.. you will see that even they say mans effect on water vapor is insignificant. Are you simply trying to prove my point?
akh... Ok.. how bout this?
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://petestx.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C8DAB55CD5793C69!378.entry
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/bloom/2007/1017.html
and since angus likes wiki so much....
"The effects of clouds are highly significant in climate and a significant area of uncertainty in climate models. Clouds have competing effects on the climate; one notes that the local ground temperature drops when a cloud passes overhead on an otherwise hot or sunny day. Hence, one of the roles that clouds play in climate is in cooling the surface by reflecting sunlight back into space. Yet, seemingly opposite phenomena have occurred, such as when clear winter nights become colder, rather than warmer, in contrast to cloudy winter nights. The general concept therefore, is that clouds block the radiation of heat away from the surface (and eventually into space), and radiate it back to the surface of the Earth, moderating otherwise more extreme temperatures. [19] If CO2 changes the amount or distribution of clouds, it could have various complex effects on the climate. In the 2001 IPCC report on climate change, the possible changes in cloud cover were highlighted as one of the dominant uncertainties in predicting future climate change; see also [20]."
got any more?
lazs
-
good stuff Wrag and Laz... now just waiting for Arlo or Hortland to come tell us these guys are in the pocket of big oil....
-
Scientists: Global Warming is Real!
Lobbyists: Its not Real!
Government: *shrug*
People: WTF how can it be this hot in winter time?
-
Lazs, understand this:
(Although I am getting tired of you and John not understandic basic physics)
1. It was you that pointed out that water vapour's input on GW made CO2 laughable.
2. Water vapour, in the daytime contributes to GW.
And to what EVERY farmer knows.....
3. Clouds in the daylight reflect back the heat from the sun.
4. Warmer climate allows for more vapour WITHOUT forming clouds.
5. Clouds at night preserve temperature below them.
And some point of interest....
- Half the earth is having a night.
- some 70% of earth is covered with water.
Now no Wiki here, just the same brain working, that was trying to explain that a Carbon fire needing only a tiny amount of oxygen cannot be any bigger than that...tiny amount.
-
and 5b.... In the cool temperate areas, clouds are more likely at nights (condensation because of the sun going away,,,,or low)
5c Earth is normally less than half overcast.
-
Originally posted by Tac
Scientists: Global Warming is Real!
Lobbyists: Its not Real!
Government: *shrug*
People: WTF how can it be this hot in winter time?
Tac, read the second link Lazs posted above, particularly in regards to what some of the former MMGW believers-turned-skeptic say. I would modify what you say above to read:
Some Scientists: Global Warming is Real!
Other Scientists: Global Warming is a sham!
Lobyists (Enviro-type): It is real!
Lobyists (non-enviro): Not according to the latest evidence!
People: Can I still drive my SUV, or is that immoral?
I particularly like this one, by an Austrailian scientist. It gives the lie to those who say that only the skeptics stand to gain financially by supporting a particular position. I especially like the quote of Lord Keynes:
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link )
-
You forgot, "Naa, in my place not" and WTF cares about polar Bears.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, Sabre:
Warmer climate and raised ocean temperature unleashes CO2 from the biggest buffer, - the sea. If the cause is anything else for starters. Then the effects are countering each other, - increased CO2 raises temps, which also releases more CO2 etc etc.
What's different in our case in the last years is that NOW the CO2 is LEADING. Okay, we know we've added to it, and roughly how much. So hence the conclucion, not just GW, but MMGW. But it's a unique position.
(I still remain sceptic about the totalness of MM, but less with every round)
Oh, BTW, if you were god, and could tune up various gas bars on the planet at will to see what happened, increased co2 would definately cause a GW. Same with you and the kettle, put water in and turn it on, - if it works it's gonna boil in there.
As for the world poverty and welfare, you ain't seen nothing yet if the temperature bar is keeping onwards where it's heading.
As for counter measures for CO2 emissions, I fail to see a downside. It's an opening to new businesses of industry as well as a different approach to useage of land and resources. The first one I'd suspect to get a bloody nose out of those would be a greedy western consumer who wants lots of products for a truly unrealistic price.
I'm sorry but your model is too simplistic, and ignores some things. From the Junk Science website:
Theoretically, in a dry atmosphere, carbon dioxide could absorb about three times more energy than it actually does. Clouds, in the absence of all other greenhouse gases, could do likewise -- look at it as there already being "competition" for available suitable longwave radiation (energy these gases can absorb), if you like.
So, the more moisture in the air, the less effect CO2 can have, which dampens out the "reinforceing" effect your proposing.
Readers should be aware that the temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic (that means there is a diminishing response as you keep adding more, like the additional window shade example, above).
If we consider the warming effect of the pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric carbon dioxide (about 280 parts per million by volume or ppmv) as 1, then the first half of that heating was delivered by about 20ppmv (0.002% of atmosphere) while the second half required an additional 260ppmv (0.026%).
To double the pre-Industrial Revolution warming from CO2 alone would require about 90,000ppmv (9%) but we'd never see it - CO2 becomes toxic at around 6,000ppmv (0.6%, although humans have absolutely no prospect of achieving such concentrations).
So no, if I were God and wanted to experiment as you say, CO2 would be a very uninteresting parameter to play with, as it's effect on temps is minimal.
Again, the ice records show that temps drive CO2, not the other way around. As for countermeasures to CO2, the do not create wealth, they re-distribute it. That's what the cap-and-trade measures and carbon taxes will do, and they will do it on the backs of consumers. They will affect the poor and the undeveloped nations most, as they have the least ability to absorb the redistribution of wealth.
Look, I'm all for alternate energy and a clean enviroment, but for the right reasons and done in a smart, pro-economic growth way. CO2 is not polution, it's plant food.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
akh... Ok.. how bout this?
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://petestx.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C8DAB55CD5793C69!378.entry
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/bloom/2007/1017.html
Nothing there to support your statement. In fact, two of the three directly contradict your claim. Maybe if you weren't quite so alarmist in your approach, but restricted yourself to making accurate statements, you'd appear less of a charlatan?
-
is the polar ice cap normal? Perhaps the cavemen thought the ice age was normal.
-
it is a scam. there are many scientists who claim that once enough cold water from glacial melting enters the ocean it slows down the ocean conveyor. this in turn triggers colder temperatures globally thereby initiating global cooling. they claim that this is a naturally occuring cycle. the planet goes through periods of rising or decreasing temperature and it is little affected by what humans do.
these scientists who offer this hypothesys are systematically censured by the ones who want funding dollars.
the left and our enemies want us to tank our economy so if you do not toe the politcally motivated line you get no money.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
half of em think it is a scam now.
The figure is 6% lasz. as I have repeatedly pointed out to you. 6% is not "half"..but I know this is hard for you to understand.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The figure is 6% lasz. as I have repeatedly pointed out to you. 6% is not "half"..but I know this is hard for you to understand.
6%, 2%, 50%, doesnt really matter to me... if even one of them disagrees then I think its got problems...
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The figure is 6% lasz. as I have repeatedly pointed out to you. 6% is not "half"..but I know this is hard for you to understand.
6 is more than the number of the finger he got on his right hand (the hand he use to count)
How can you think he can understand the value of "six" (or more btw) ?
-
hortlund... nooo.. you are confused again. the 6% is for scientists... and.. it is 7% believe that man made global warming is real and a catastrophe... 30 some % think that man might have some effect.. 48% say that they have no idea and that the evidence is not good enough either way and 6% say it is total bunk.
What we are talking about is weathermen.
lazs
-
akh... I think they supported my statement quite well..
but speaking of pot/kettle.
I have asked you repeatedly to back up your new theory that man made water vapor is causing global warming.. a picture of a smokestack isn't going to get it.
you are simply an alarmist socialist who's religion is man made global warming and....
you are upset because your little chicken little world is falling apart.. every day... more and more are sceptical... the pet theories are being shown as gross exagerations at best and outright hoaxes at worst.
Now... you seem to reverse directions yet again... now... suddenly.. you are telling us that man made water vapor is causing global warming...
I asked you to show me a link.. you did not...
What you will find tho... is that so far.. no one but you and angus is saying that... you will find that the alarmists that you have been believing all this time have all dismissed water vapor in the past and hung their hat on co2.
Sooo... show us the charts... show us how much water vapor we are putting into the air and how that is NOW (as compared to yesterdays alarmist news) the new evil man is perpetuating on the planet.
I am still waiting.
lazs
-
and.. the last two links I chose just for you... they are alarmist sites that think man made global warming is real.. it is significant to note that they never say that there is any man made contribution to water vapor. It is fair to note that they admit that it is too difficult to model clouds and water vapor.
lazs
-
First off I like to call it "Global Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming" because it won't get warm everywhere someplace will get colder.
Second, it really doesn't matter if you accept the fact that man is helping contribute to "GCC" or not. The fact is it "is" happening. You can't argue that the ice caps aren't melting and that our ice packs aren't getting smaller and smaller.
That is most defiantly a fact. So regardless if you think man plays a part or doesn't the fact is we will be dealing with it.
If all the ice in the poles melts it will account for about 150 ft sea level rise. So pretty much every coastal city in the United States will be gone, much less around the world. That's where most of the population just happens to live.
Even people whom live inland and think they are out of danger, Well you are out of luck as well. Most of the water supplies in this country come from ice packs. The ice packs melt and feed the rivers and streams throughout our country.
Guess what? No more ice pack means no more drinking water. This is a news report from today that is just the beginning of what's to come for the people whom live throughout the United States and this planet.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/08/dry.town/index.html
So regardless of the fact if we are helping speed up the process or not. Don't yea think if there is a chance at all that we are, shouldn't we be doing anything we can to help slow it down?
How much do you think you would enjoy only having water 3 hours a day?
-
Lies, damned lies, and the world according to lazs.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you are simply an alarmist socialist who's religion is man made global warming and....
There is an up side to fad religions, they are easily replaced when proven false or otherwise in conflict with the believer.
-
Originally posted by wrag
The founder of the weather channel speaks out on Global warming..............
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/07/weather-channel-founder-global-warming-greatest-scam-history
his take on it SEEMS similar to mine.
So his only proof is "wait and see". If he is so sure about it, then why doesn't he present his facts to prove his case? This just proves you will believe what you want to believe regardless if there are any facts to prove your case.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
There is an up side to fad religions, they are easily replaced when proven false or otherwise in conflict with the believer.
Yea creationism, intelligent design.. I wonder what they will call it when life is found on one of Jupiter's moons or on Mars.. Will it suddenly become "interstellarism"?
-
Originally posted by storch
it is a scam. there are many scientists who claim that once enough cold water from glacial melting enters the ocean it slows down the ocean conveyor. this in turn triggers colder temperatures globally thereby initiating global cooling. they claim that this is a naturally occuring cycle. the planet goes through periods of rising or decreasing temperature and it is little affected by what humans do.
these scientists who offer this hypothesys are systematically censured by the ones who want funding dollars.
the left and our enemies want us to tank our economy so if you do not toe the politcally motivated line you get no money.
No one is censured on that subject. In fact many of the scientists whom agree with global warming say that it's likely once we reach that peak the the Earth will go back into a global ice age. It's a working theory just like many of the others.
You miss the entire point of the argument. No one that I know of unless they are an idiot thinks that the Earth is and will go on like it is today forever. Pretty much all scientist whom have a bit of credibility agree that the Earth's climate "is" changing and always has.
The only argument is if man is helping it change faster or not. Maybe you should read a little and actually understand what the scientist are saying instead of just assuming.
Reguardless if it's man's fault for speeding it up or not, the fact is we will be living with the problem in the future.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
akh... I think they supported my statement quite well..
Well, you would now, wouldn't you? Others might not agree with your warped logic though. Just to remind you, here is your original claim:
Originally posted by lazs2
In fact.. most of their highly scientific computer models don't even include water vapor or clouds. ruins the co2 effect ya see.
Can you not spot the fatal flaw in your logic and supporting evidence that makes this statement blatantly untrue?
but speaking of pot/kettle.
I have asked you repeatedly to back up your new theory that man made water vapor is causing global warming.. a picture of a smokestack isn't going to get it.
I've told you already - I have never advanced such a theory. Anyone reading this thread can easily check that.
blah, blah, blah...
Now... you seem to reverse directions yet again... now... suddenly.. you are telling us that man made water vapor is causing global warming...
I asked you to show me a link.. you did not...
What you will find tho... is that so far.. no one but you and angus is saying that... you will find that the alarmists that you have been believing all this time have all dismissed water vapor in the past and hung their hat on co2.
Sooo... show us the charts... show us how much water vapor we are putting into the air and how that is NOW (as compared to yesterdays alarmist news) the new evil man is perpetuating on the planet.
I am still waiting.
Still not me. High aluminium content in your diet?
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yea creationism, intelligent design.. I wonder what they will call it when life is found on one of Jupiter's moons or on Mars.. Will it suddenly become "interstellarism"?
If you think "intelligent design" is limited to this planet, think again.
-
AFAIK, the N-Polar cap is as it never was for 20 million years. That is very much more time than humans were about.
-
sorurce (http://science.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1351264.php/Danish_researchers_warn_of_melting_Arctic_ice_cap) 'The ice cap is at an extreme low. For the 50 years we have data from, we have never seen anything like it,' Leif Toudal Pedersen of the Technical University of Denmark told the Jyllands-Posten newspaper.
50 years of data < 20 million years of data.
source (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/coldscience/2004-08-30-n-grip-main_x.htm) No matter what the plant material and mud end up showing, researchers already are reading the story the ice tells about the past 120,000 years of Earth's climatic ups and downs, including an abrupt change in climate about 115,000 years ago that could have implications for today.
The signs of life in the ice and the climate data were discovered by a small group of men and women who have worked during summers since 1996 at the North Greenland Ice core Project (North GRIP) camp. They extracted ice cores one at a time — each a cylinder 4 inches in diameter and 11 feet long — from the top to bottom of the 10,121 feet of ice here.
2 miiles of ice gets us back 120,000 years...
10,000 to 70,000 before present day, the North Amercian ice sheet reached 45 N Latitude, carving the Great Lakes region.
20 million years is extrapolating nearly an order of magnitude past known data.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
good stuff Wrag and Laz... now just waiting for Arlo or Hortland to come tell us these guys are in the pocket of big oil....
Hmmmm ..... why? Don't project. :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If you think "intelligent design" is limited to this planet, think again.
Hmmmm .... I bet "evolution" can replace "intelligent design" in that sentence just as well. Maybe better. :)
-
OMG don't go saying stuff like that Arlo, you'll get all the book totin' ostriches in too :t
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hmmmm .... I bet "evolution" can replace "intelligent design" in that sentence just as well. Maybe better. :)
Intelligent design encompasses evolution. If you really want to get into this another thread may be in order.
-
The oldest cores of Ice found (and they won't get any older, for that ice is already gone) are some 600.000 years old Holden.
120.000 years are way in the caveman business anyway.
And do you then prefere to belive that since the cores in Greenland are only that old because you cannot find any older ice? Do you have any idea of the "prints" that advancing and retreating Ice leaves in the landscape?
Anyway, they're leaving.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Greenland
Not sure if the 20 mi number comes from "Icecap at all", since the planet sometimes roll around a little, but here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs
"The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years, and probably much longer"
That belongs to the Arctic where it is.
Here they go down to 40 million years, as a notch to the cooling period starting, but hell didn't freeze over in a day...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_history
"On longer time scales, sediment cores show that the cycles of glacials and interglacials are part of a deepening phase within a prolonged ice age that began with the glaciation of Antarctica approximately 40 million years ago. This deepening phase, and the accompanying cycles, largely began approximately 3 million years ago with the growth of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere."
So we don't know of the sea ice, but there was continental ice in sheets.
To cut a long story short, the Northern sea-ice is leaving, FAST. Something that has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions decides to turn to water in a span of less than 100. In the meantime there is a bunch of people saying that it ain't happening.
Our melting speed is actually less than a promille of the time manifested as an absolute minimum BTW, just to get the proportions right.
-
Ok.. now this is getting crazy.. always does when you talk to fundamentalists like these alarmists.
crock-its plea for "but we have to DO SOMETHING EVEN IF IT IS WRONG" Ok... you want to do something because there is some small chance that man may be the straw that broke the camels back global climate wise?
What are you doing? I have linked to sites that say ONE coal fire in china is more co2 than all the cars and trucks in America... out out the damn fire if you are so worried... hell... your precious supermen can't even put out a forest fire.
Put out the coal fires and you will do more to reduce harmless co2 than kiroto could do in it's wildest dreams.
cows... stop eating meat.. convince others not too... the gas from cows and their raising and eating is has more effect on "greenhouse gas" than all of mans co2.
Do those things and you don't need to do anything else according to the math I am seeing... that being.. man is heating the earth with greenhouse gas production and that amount... would be less than the coal fires or the gas from cows and meat animals.
But of course... that is not what you want.. the problem is manufactured in order to control politics and get funding and build world government and socialism.. if a solution is found that doesn't further that cause... you ignore it.
It is pretty transparent.
and crock-it my little red friend... you most certainly can do harm by "doing something" I would show you the smog devices of the 70's that increased pollution... I would show you the premature world wide ban of DDT... I would show you the adding of MTBE in gas in the US,
The end does not justify the means... all we have is the means and they must be justified on their own merit. Not luck or good intentions.
lazs
-
angus... guess you are alone... hortlund says he doesn't think man made water vapor is causing global warming.
lazs
-
and of course.. hortlund the potty mouthed denier...
" Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund... what data are you using that says that we are a major..or even minor.. contributor to water vapor in the atmosphere?
Basic chemistry. When any sort of fossil fuel is burned, part of the hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water vapor. This is third grade chemistry stuff lasz...which Im sure is why you didnt know about it."
I asked you how man made water vapor was contributing... you SEEM to be saying it is here... weren't you the one who showed the water vapor coming off nuclear towers or some such?
Soooo... I am sure that it is clear to anyone that you SEEM to be defending the notion that man made water vapor contributes.
I asked you then and will ask you again... where are the numbers. You make a statement with nothing to back it up and evade the answer.
If you have no numbers then it would appear that we all agree that it is.....
insignificant and... that we can't and shouldn't bother to do anything about it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.. now this is getting crazy.. always does when you talk to fundamentalists like me.
Fixed.
I have linked to sites that say ONE coal fire in china is more co2 than all the cars and trucks in America... out out the damn fire if you are so worried... hell... your precious supermen can't even put out a forest fire.
No you haven't. This is what your link says:
The Chinese fires also make a big, hidden contribution to global warming through the greenhouse effect, scientists said. Each year they release 360 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as much as all the cars and light trucks in the United States.
Can you spot the difference?
-
No worries mates, the cure for Global Warming may be just around the corner.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309738,00.html
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.. now this is getting crazy.. always does when you talk to fundamentalists like these alarmists.
crock-its plea for "but we have to DO SOMETHING EVEN IF IT IS WRONG" Ok... you want to do something because there is some small chance that man may be the straw that broke the camels back global climate wise?
What are you doing? I have linked to sites that say ONE coal fire in china is more co2 than all the cars and trucks in America... out out the damn fire if you are so worried... hell... your precious supermen can't even put out a forest fire.
Put out the coal fires and you will do more to reduce harmless co2 than kiroto could do in it's wildest dreams.
cows... stop eating meat.. convince others not too... the gas from cows and their raising and eating is has more effect on "greenhouse gas" than all of mans co2.
Do those things and you don't need to do anything else according to the math I am seeing... that being.. man is heating the earth with greenhouse gas production and that amount... would be less than the coal fires or the gas from cows and meat animals.
But of course... that is not what you want.. the problem is manufactured in order to control politics and get funding and build world government and socialism.. if a solution is found that doesn't further that cause... you ignore it.
It is pretty transparent.
and crock-it my little red friend... you most certainly can do harm by "doing something" I would show you the smog devices of the 70's that increased pollution... I would show you the premature world wide ban of DDT... I would show you the adding of MTBE in gas in the US,
The end does not justify the means... all we have is the means and they must be justified on their own merit. Not luck or good intentions.
lazs
Your argument is extreemly weak and flawed. Your whole idea behind your reasoning is that we shouldn't do anything because we "might" be wrong.
Ok so what if we are wrong? Well then all we did was to do what needed to be done anyway. Even if there was no "GCC" at all, do you really think it's that bad of an idea to now clean up our air, water and land?
Do you like a little mercury with your fish? A little smog in with your morning jog? You live in Cali right? Ever been to LA I hear the air is great there. Is cleaning up our environment and being responsible really that bad?
The other part of your argument is also flawed. You think we shouldn't do anything because China will still be polluting? That's pretty flawed reasoning Larz I mean really. You just sound like you are digging up any excuse to fit your needs.
What do I do? Well for starters I quit my job, that I used to drive 100 plus miles a day. I work from home running my own biz via the Internet and now I buy maybe a tank full of gas a month.
I don't use much electric, my AC is set to 78, just stupid little stuff, that if everyone did it, it would make a difference. That's the point, you don't have to make extreme changes in your daily life, you just had to be more thoughtful.
So what if I'm wrong? Well it won't really hurt my feelings, so I lived a little cleaner and cheaper. Oh well life's a beach.
I have a question for you Larz.. What if you're wrong?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
No worries mates, the cure for Global Warming may be just around the corner.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,309738,00.html
Yea a Global Ice Age due to volcanic ash should sort us out real quick.
See the Earth has it's way of evening things out. It just gets rid of the pests. :D
-
akh... so you admit that I am right in that one fire puts out more co2 than all the cars and LIGHT trucks in America? put out the damn fire if co2 is such a big deal to you.
now.. lets see if we can get you to be a teensy bit honest... hard for a lefty I know but... give it a shot...
What was all your talk of water vapor and mans contribution to it and how it was a powerful greenhouse gas and all if you really don't think we are having any significant effect on water vapor?
Do you admit that we are having no significant effect on water vapor?
lazs
-
crock-it... try to stay on topic.
please define "clean air and water" and how you would go about that. If your sole idea for a cure is that those who want to can quit their job and get one a little closer... well.... I have no problem with that.
If you want to put out the coal fires as a top priority... I have no problem with that.
los angeles does not concern me.. it is an area of no air circulation and will have smog no matter what... I was born there and moved away.. it is a lefty craphole in any case. I don't care to take care of people who live in such areas any more than I care to pay for N.O. idiots who live below the ocean level and whine when it floods.
Soooo... it boils down to.. we can't prove that man is creating a warming.. we can't really do much anyway.. and any "cure" may or may not be a good thing.
Again... as I must tell you lefties over and over... the end does not justify the means... that is just a lefty way of saying it is ok to lie and enslave.
You don't have an end.. that can not be predicted and it can not be justified as it does not exist except in the imagination... the "means" is all we have. If the means is unjust then the whole idea is unjust.
lazs
-
and crock-it.. what do you mean by "what if I am wrong"????
The math doesn't add up so I doubt that I am wrong on the c02 thing... even if I am... the worst case scenario shows only a degree (nothing else having changed) in a century.. hardly worth getting upset about. the sea MAY rise an inch every ten years but even that will level off... the suns activity is in a cooling period..
But... I am willing to do something... I am willing to pay to put out the coal fires. or research how it can be done... I am willing to tell you to not eat meat.
both of those things do more than the kryoto treaty. if you don't do em then your agenda is clear...you don't believe co2 bs either.
I am willing to let the free market develop solar panels that will get cheaper every year and when they make sense... I will use em... hell.. I will even build a plug in hot rod for my stable of hot rods.
What more can you expect of me?
lazs
-
Lazs, I challenge you to tell me how much of atmospheric air is needed for that...errr, that:
"akh... so you admit that I am right in that one fire puts out more co2 than all the cars and LIGHT trucks in America? put out the damn fire if co2 is such a big deal to you.
"
Okay, find me an underground coalfire in China, prove it in size to fit your statement, and tell me how much of the atmosphere is needed for the exhaust.
After all, I am tired of explaining (maybe you get this?) WHY a tiny amount of oxygen is needed to create huge amounts of CO2 :rofl
-
Sorry I can't argue with you anymore Larz.. It's about as pointless as trying to find a 1 on 1 fight in the MA's these days.
-
According to this Coal Fire (http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~prakash/coalfires/co2_emission.html) website. The highest estimate is 2% to 3% of global Fossil Fuel Co2 emissions are from the China coal fires.
Some coal fires have burned for over 6000 years.... See Burning Mountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Mountain)
T
-
Originally posted by Angus
AFAIK, the N-Polar cap is as it never was for 20 million years. That is very much more time than humans were about.
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, they're leaving.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Greenland
Not sure if the 20 mi number comes from "Icecap at all", since the planet sometimes roll around a little, but here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs
"The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years, and probably much longer"
That belongs to the Arctic where it is.
Here they go down to 40 million years, as a notch to the cooling period starting, but hell didn't freeze over in a day...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_history
"On longer time scales, sediment cores show that the cycles of glacials and interglacials are part of a deepening phase within a prolonged ice age that began with the glaciation of Antarctica approximately 40 million years ago. This deepening phase, and the accompanying cycles, largely began approximately 3 million years ago with the growth of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere."
Southern Ice cap cores go back 600,000 years, but the graph om the Wiki page for the Ngrip-Epica Greenland cores goes back 1.4 E 5 (140,000) years.
So we no nothing of the northern polar sea ice past 1 million years... and Greenland Ice cores go back 140,000
That only leaves 19 million of your 20 million number unaccounted for, and directly contradicted by the ""The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years, and probably much longer"" phrase.
-
Well, if the N-sea ice pops away within one promille of it's existence (BTW, if you work with freezing conditions you'd be surprized how long it takes to melt something that freezes quickly), - I'd say that was news. You can post as much as you like, but a million year old cluster-ice-sea disappearing in a lifespan of a human isn't exactly the norm, now is it?
(Nor does it point to no-warming)
-
Just pointing out that when somebody (even a climate scientist) says "this is the worst it's ever been" you are most probably hearing a personal comment rather than a scientifically provable fact.
One should be careful with such statements.
-
Probably posted before, but "Global Warming: Greatest Scam in History" (http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/comments_about_global_warming/) By John Coleman, Founder of the Weather Channel
He is just a lowly TV Meteorologist, but seems to have a good handle on things...
T
-
Originally posted by lazs2
akh... so you admit that I am right in that one fire puts out more co2 than all the cars and LIGHT trucks in America? put out the damn fire if co2 is such a big deal to you.
No - I was pointing out that you said "ONE fire", whereas the link says "the Chinese fires" - i.e. ALL of them. Pretty basic English comprehension, really.
now.. lets see if I can get you to be a teensy bit honest... hard for a right-wing paranoid nutjob I know but... I'll give it a shot...
What was all your talk of water vapor and mans contribution to it and how it was a powerful greenhouse gas and all if you really don't think we are having any significant effect on water vapor?
Wow, you really do have a problem understanding what people say, don't you. For the third time, that wasn't me.
Do you admit that we are having no significant effect on water vapor?
Actually, no. The reasoning behind this has already been pointed out to you by others. Do us all a favour and review the thread.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I asked you how man made water vapor was contributing...
No, you didnt. What you said was that "there is no man made water vapor". I proved you wrong. Again.
Your reaction to this is to lie, pretend you didnt read/understand what was said, and then repeat your already disproven lie. Just as you always do. Because that is the only way for someone on your side to have an argument...lie, distort facts, make s hit up, grab quotes out of context and pretend they say something they dont..etc. Which is why I consider you to be about the worst dishonest scum there is.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Just pointing out that when somebody (even a climate scientist) says "this is the worst it's ever been" you are most probably hearing a personal comment rather than a scientifically provable fact.
One should be careful with such statements.
"Ever" is not the issue. But in millions of years is. And I pointed out the facts, as close as researchers can get to them. And I live nearby. Have you been to Greenland? Have you sailed along the Ice, w of the Denmark strait? (Near to where HMS Hood was sunk)? Because I have....
-
You greenies pushing to invade China or just whine to the US about it?
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/mnp_estimates_t.html
(http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/19/globalco2_tcm6133576.jpg)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You greenies pushing to invade China or just whine to the US about it?
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/06/mnp_estimates_t.html
(http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/19/globalco2_tcm6133576.jpg)
In a world of global warming, its not acceptable that the two largest polluters stand in a corner pointing a finger at eachother, refusing to do anything as long as the other one is not doing anything. China has to cut down on pollution, as does the US, as does Europe. So f uck off.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
In a world of global warming, its not acceptable that the two largest polluters stand in a corner pointing a finger at eachother, refusing to do anything as long as the other one is not doing anything. China has to cut down on pollution, as does the US, as does Europe. So f uck off.
Has to cut down on polution? And your little country is going to make anyone do anything?
Don't go away mad....
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Has to cut down on polution? And your little country is going to make anyone do anything?
Nah, not just us, the EU will.
Most probably what will happen if you try to do another Kyoto-bail-out is some sort of trade dispute. But its doubtful that will happen since the political landscape even in your retarded nation is swinging towards awareness of global warming and understanding of the need to take action.
Present company excluded of cource, you guys wont ever understand. Which is why its a good thing you are just a couple of white trash morons without any real influence.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Nah, not just us, the EU will.
Most probably what will happen if you try to do another Kyoto-bail-out is some sort of trade dispute. But its doubtful that will happen since the political landscape even in your retarded nation is swinging towards awareness of global warming and understanding of the need to take action.
Present company excluded of cource, you guys wont ever understand. Which is why its a good thing you are just a couple of white trash morons without any real influence.
You have some issues there bud. If throwing around the ad-hominems here stops you from beating your wife it's ok with me.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You have some issues there bud. If throwing around the ad-hominems here stops you from beating your wife it's ok with me.
The only issues I have is with the ignorance and pure stupidity displayed by you and lasz. I honestly did not think that ignorant people existed in real life, unfortunately I was wrong.
Im not married, but given your white trash status I can understand why wife-beating is something that you can relate to.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Im not married....
Kids then? Hit me again if it saves them a slap or two.
-
Oh come on now... this is getting pretty weak....
What does it take to pin you lefties down?? Like arguing with a woman.
Yes... we can make water vapor. and yes it is an insignificant amount so far as the total greenhouse gas.
Now... if you admit that then there is no need to talk of man made water vapor again... I have no idea why you guys brought it up.
And....
If you read it one way then ALL the fires in china are more than all of mans co2 contribution "According to this Coal Fire website. The highest estimate is 2% to 3% of global Fossil Fuel Co2 emissions are from the China coal fires."
either way... the coal fires in all the world are somewhere between as much as all of mans contribution to co2 to many times more our contribution.
If you are not talking about ending the fires or you don't want to end eating meat then you are not serious about the "problem" but only have a political agenda.
That is why you can't argue with me crock-it... I would suggest that rather than hear the facts you simply go back to your little circle of hand wringing socialist friends and pat each other on the back for moving a few miles closer to work and scolding everyone else.
Don't do the research and you won't be unhappy like hortlund.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Yes... we can make water vapor. and yes it is an insignificant amount so far as the total greenhouse gas.
Your problem lasz, is that you dont understand that what determines the greenhouse effect is the balance between all the contents of the atmosphere.
It is very simple, and very basic really. When you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The change of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere changes the amount of heat from the sun that is trapped in the atmosphere.
This is pretty basic.
What you are doing is saying "but there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2, shouldnt you worry about water vapor instead". And the answer to that is yes, there is more water vapor than co2 in the atmosphere, but that is irrelevant since the balance between co2 and water vapor is changing because of our pollutions, and it is the change of this balance that causes more heat to be trapped in the atmosphere...causing global warming.
Then this warming have other consequences...less ice means less sunlight reflected into space, means more sunlight trapped in our atmosphere...melting of permafrost causing methane to be released into the atmosphere, creating another balance-shift to the worse, meaning more global warming... etc
-
hortlund... and what you don't understand is that man is not making a significant amount of the water vapor.
What about "mans contribution to water vapor is insignificant" do you not understand.
twist and squirm all you want but water vapor is out of our control.
If you do not believe that then show me proof that it is otherwise.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund... and what you don't understand is that man is not making a significant amount of the water vapor.
What about "mans contribution to water vapor is insignificant" do you not understand.
twist and squirm all you want but water vapor is out of our control.
If you do not believe that then show me proof that it is otherwise.
lazs
So when are you going to understand that what I said was that the water vapor, and the causes of those vapors are irrelevant to the discussion?
Whats next...are you going to argue that mans contribution to nitrogen in the atmosphere is insignificant?
-
nooo... but I will say that mans contribution to nitrogen is insignificant.
I admit that water vapor is the major player in greenhouse gas. I don't have a clue as too how much of a player greenhouse gas is.. neither do you but...
I admit that in "greenhouse gas" water vapor is the major player.
I also say that... man has an insignificant effect on water vapor.
are you still following me or should I go slower?
lazs
-
and.. you want my prediction?
I predict that in the next few years the high priests of MMGW are gonna do a 180 and shift from man made co2 to man made water vapor and ask us to quit sacraficing goats to the alter of co2 and start sacraficing sheep to the man made water vapor altar.
They may do some kind of bait and switch with the interaction of the two but it is apparent that they can't go on saying that man made water vapor is insignificant and... at the same time say that the greenhouse effect is real and that we are altering it enough to change the climate of the planet.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nooo... but I will say that mans contribution to nitrogen is insignificant.
I admit that water vapor is the major player in greenhouse gas. I don't have a clue as too how much of a player greenhouse gas is.. neither do you but...
I admit that in "greenhouse gas" water vapor is the major player.
I also say that... man has an insignificant effect on water vapor.
are you still following me or should I go slower?
lazs
Well, considering that you are heading into the same dead-end as usual, I dont think I should be following you.
Your problem lasz, is that you dont understand that what determines the greenhouse effect is the balance between all the contents of the atmosphere.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Oh come on now... this is getting pretty weak....
What does it take to pin us deniers down?? Like arguing with the banjo kid from Deliverance.
If you read it one way then ALL the fires in china are more than all of mans co2 contribution "According to this Coal Fire website. The highest estimate is 2% to 3% of global Fossil Fuel Co2 emissions are from the China coal fires."
either way... the coal fires in all the world are somewhere between as much as all of mans contribution to co2 to many times more our contribution.
Really? I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion. I suspect that you made it up by utilising your "common-sense" and mathematical skills. One thing is a given: the error bars will be enormous.
Don't do the research and you won't be unhappy like hortlund.
Ah - the Lazsian philosophy revealed.
and.. you want my prediction?
No, but you're going to "enlighten" us anyway.
I predict that in the next few years the high priests of MMGW are gonna do a 180 and shift from man made co2 to man made water vapor and ask us to quit sacraficing goats to the alter of co2 and start sacraficing sheep to the man made water vapor altar.
Put your hands in the air and step away from the crack pipe!
-
Lazs, I thought you WERE the Banjo kid from Deliverance :D
-
so you guys got nothing? or are you still on co2.. er... man made co2?
lots of "you are wrong cause I say so" but precious little data to back you up.
Put out the damn coal fires if you think co2 is a big deal... in the meantime I, and the rest of the world, will enjoy the increased crop yeilds from increased co2.
I can see why you guys are so angry tho.. your priests are getting caught with their hands in the altar boys and donations are down.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
lots of "you are wrong cause I say so" but precious little data to back you up.
We can always rely on you to gather up an interesting collection of information, to perform some truly outstanding analysis of the data on hand and come up with revolutionary hypotheses that you will advocate with vigour.
Personally, I admire the courage of your convictions; how you can emotionally attach yourself to your conjectures to the extent that you will not let them go, even when repeatedly refuted. That takes real intestinal fortitude.
Unfortunately, your last post was a bit lame - it must be time for your nap.
-
and I can always rely on you to make claims without backing them up with anything more than... "I don't like the messenger"
lazs
-
Chicken little me?
-
akh... I find it telling that even your sig line is dishonest.
You and I both know that I said it to crock-it when he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown because I simply wouldn't "feel" the fact of MMGW and how unfair it was that I was bringing data into the whole thing.
I would say you are in the same boat.. sooo.. I will give you some more sig material... for you... If you don't want your religion shaken then don't debate people who might have looked into it and found it wanting.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Intelligent design encompasses evolution. If you really want to get into this another thread may be in order.
Intelligent design is a matter of faith, evolution a matter of science, encompassing a matter of viewpoint.
Noooo .... not another thread on this! (heh) ;)
-
News update Lazs.
I was on a meeting today. Professionals in the farming business. Expert growers as well as scientists. Lots of thinkers, and well travelled and read-up people from various branches of agriculture.
As I expected, there was absolutely nobody that doubts GW. To my careful surprize, nobody doubted MMGW as well, except perhaps myself putting it a little on the weight.
There were some news on the functions of data presentations of powerful corporations. Corporations that have scientists on their payroll for research of impacts of new products, and the effects of this and that, - the theme was both GW as well as the impact of man (not carbon footprint, but ecological footprint). Anyway, our main focus was on genetically engineered plants and their effects. Hot matter in Europe. Adapted in the USA, and in widespread use.
What baffled us was finding out that the corporates edit the reports of their own scientists. So, "uncomfortable" sides, downsides are damped or dumped, while positive sides are emphasized. There is already plenty of data on this.
This brings me around to these threads, where some people, completely castrated in the sense of understanding base physics, stand up on the soapbox and shout about the GW fraud, and attempt to debunk the data behind it. While there is the freedom of expression, there is also the freedom of making an idiot of yourself.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
akh... I find it telling that even your sig line is dishonest.
You and I both know that I said it to crock-it when he was on the verge of a nervous breakdown because I simply wouldn't "feel" the fact of MMGW and how unfair it was that I was bringing data into the whole thing.
Let's have a look at what you said in more detail then:
Don't do the research and you won't be unhappy like hortlund.
Let's start by getting rid of the double negatives, since they always seem to confuse the issue.
"Do the research and you will be unhappy like hortlund." So, we have a statement regarding cause and effect: if you research the topic, you will end up unhappy, just like Hortlund. Hmmm.
I don't think Hortlund is unhappy; I believe that he is frustrated and is expressing that frustration. So why is he frustrated? Well, as you say, he has done his research and has a fairly good understanding of the topic for a layman. He then ends up in a "debate" with someone who makes use of every single dishonest trick he can. I can understand his frustration.
So your advice to crockett (I have to admire your creative use of name based ad-hominems) is to avoid the angst of having to argue with you (for he will surely lose) by ensuring that he has no knowledge of the subject. Interesting. I could paraphrase that with "Ignorance is Bliss." Yeah. That sounds like good advice for anyone.
So, I don't believe the quote is dishonest. In fact, I think that it speaks volumes about you. I certainly don't find it any more dishonest than:
ITS THE SUN STUPID
I would say you are in the same boat.. sooo.. I will give you some more sig material... for you... If you don't want your religion shaken then don't debate people who might have looked into it and found it wanting.
What can I say other than :rolleyes:
-
Lazs:
"Don't do the research and you won't be unhappy like hortlund."
Okay, so does that mean that you are against research, because you are afraid of what you may find out?
While in this case the "finding" is something that is happening, this attitude expresses fear. So you are afraid that what some of us are promoting is true. You want us to be wrong so bad, that you go to any length to convince yourself. On the flipside, well for my behalf, I hope you are right. It would be better. But anything I look into brings me further into the same conclusion.
Now this is well known, and analyzed through human history. Let's leave it open for anybody to find a historical parallell.
In a military term you would describe this as anything between "lack of sense of realism", "lack of situation awareness", or as far as dumbness or cowardice. Or an amalgam of the above.
In the animal world, this can simply be described with being an Ostridge. Or perhaps a Lemming :t
-
well.. I would say that hortlunds outbursts whenever I link to a site that proves my point would be good indication that doing the research makes him unhappy..
simple really... don't make too much of it.
angus... if they all believe it is man made... what do they think we are doing that is causing the warming and what do they suggest we do about it?
Did you suggest putting out the coal fires.. that always gets the MMGW shills I know stuttering.
Did you ask em if they thought it was gonna continue for another century?
lazs
-
Simple Lazs.
CO2 as well as deforestation and other factors, - human footprint big enough to create a diversion in the weather system.
And what we do about it. Well, since we can't go on for long as we do, we must realize and react. We will have to work on any possible way not to squander our energy resources as we do. This goes all the way from big stuff down to the small stuff.
Even you can point out where we burn a lot for very little.
And as for the coal fires, I am still figuring out how to explain to you how a tiny amount of oxygen can together with it's half of Carbon, create massive co2.
Shouldn't matter much to you anyway, for AFAIK you don't belive in any link between co2 and GW.
-
angus.. you are not telling me what you want us to do. If you were king of the world... name ten things that you would order the people to do to combat this horror of horrors.... MMGW!! what is your plan your excelence?
the coal fires.. read the sites.. read your precious wiki.
and.. what do I care? I don't really as I don't think c02 is doing diddly other than making crops grow better. but... I was playing devils advocate... if c02 is as important to you as you say... it would seem that simply putting out the fires would do more than anything else suggested (did you acolytes ever even suggest ANYTHING?)...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't think c02 is doing diddly
More sig material, already?
I was playing devils advocate...
ROFL
If you read it one way then ALL the fires in china are more than all of mans co2 contribution "According to this Coal Fire website. The highest estimate is 2% to 3% of global Fossil Fuel Co2 emissions are from the China coal fires."
either way... the coal fires in all the world are somewhere between as much as all of mans contribution to co2 to many times more our contribution.
Would you explain how you reached this conclusion?
-
I would begin #1 with a mandatory question.
DO YOU WANT TO SEE A HUMAN RACE ABOVE CAVEMAN LEVEL IN 300 YEARS.
Yes or no would determin the other #9
:D
BTW Lazs, I actually think we are together on one point that has nothing to do with GW, but general politics, and that one goes into the pot of critizism.
Ok, I'll try a thesis;
A case of critizism on important issues is light in weight if no (better) alternatives are pointed out.
?
-
Oh, Lazs, AFAIK, crops are going downhill, and Top-oil is behind us. In the meantime mankind is growing. So, Imagine that graphwise.
It is wise, if driving full speed towards an abyss, to check breaks and alternative routes and speeds I think....
-
Originally posted by Angus
The oldest cores of Ice found (and they won't get any older, for that ice is already gone) are some 600.000 years old Holden.
120.000 years are way in the caveman business anyway.
And do you then prefere to belive that since the cores in Greenland are only that old because you cannot find any older ice? Do you have any idea of the "prints" that advancing and retreating Ice leaves in the landscape?
Anyway, they're leaving.
Here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850#Greenland
Not sure if the 20 mi number comes from "Icecap at all", since the planet sometimes roll around a little, but here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs
"The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years, and probably much longer"
That belongs to the Arctic where it is.
Here they go down to 40 million years, as a notch to the cooling period starting, but hell didn't freeze over in a day...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_history
"On longer time scales, sediment cores show that the cycles of glacials and interglacials are part of a deepening phase within a prolonged ice age that began with the glaciation of Antarctica approximately 40 million years ago. This deepening phase, and the accompanying cycles, largely began approximately 3 million years ago with the growth of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere."
So we don't know of the sea ice, but there was continental ice in sheets.
To cut a long story short, the Northern sea-ice is leaving, FAST. Something that has been around for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions decides to turn to water in a span of less than 100. In the meantime there is a bunch of people saying that it ain't happening.
Our melting speed is actually less than a promille of the time manifested as an absolute minimum BTW, just to get the proportions right.
Angus... I'm with you my friend...but please find another reference than wiki. It is a user run interface and its content changes by the moment; it is not a terribly good place to quote from.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well.. I would say that hortlunds outbursts whenever I link to a site that proves my point would be good indication that doing the research makes him unhappy..
simple really... don't make too much of it.
angus... if they all believe it is man made... what do they think we are doing that is causing the warming and what do they suggest we do about it?
Did you suggest putting out the coal fires.. that always gets the MMGW shills I know stuttering.
Did you ask em if they thought it was gonna continue for another century?
lazs
The problem with your links is this laz.... they are all completely biased to disproving AGW. Junkscience.com? Cmon bro. When you start posting papers found in "Nature" or "Bioscience" or other scientific journals... I'll take notice of your rantings. Those journals are "peer reviewed"...and if you don't know why that is a big deal, then I'm talking to a moron.
One more post with coal fires from you.... and I might find a grassy knoll around your house....Damn if you aren't persistent with your BS.
-
Hehe, Moray, I know. But Wiki is fast, and easy when you already have the numbers in your head. And I belive I was rather right there ;)
Britannica requires subscription right?
As a sidenote, just got D.A.'s "Planet Earth" series on DVD. Can't wait to watch. Going to be one heck of a job to quote that though ;)
-
BTW, a little news update.
In Spitzbergen they have been measuring the permafrost, from the depth of 30 and down to 60 metres.
The cave a raise of 0.19 deg Celcius in the last six years, which is considered quite much. Higher above the temp raise in the ice is up to .7 degs Celcius which is considered quite much as well.
Note that the ice is still not melting, just getting nearer to that point.
The upper surface of the iceblock is at 2m depth in the summer in the location of measurement, the temp there last year was 1.8 degs above the years before. The atmospheric temp last winter was however whooping, - 8,2 degs above normal.
Linkie to icelandic translation with graph.
http://esv.blog.is/blog/esv/#entry-362346
Linkie to the Norwegian page:
http://www.cicero.uio.no/fulltext/index.aspx?id=5773
English translation to the Cicero homepage:
http://www.cicero.uio.no/Home/index_e.aspx
No Wikipedia this time ;)
-
I need a dedicated forecast for next week.
-
Okay. give location, and atm. conditions, mail me a SAT pic as well as data from the surroundings, and I'll make a try :D
You know, in the autumn of 1944, there was a Nazi-collapse forecast. However, you could not say where exactly and when, and what the conditions were going to be like, but it would BE.
And it turned out :D
In June 1944, the most important weather forecast of all times was made, and it was a couple-of day forecast for a relatively difficult area.
It turned out on spot:D
-
To add on this, - it was forecasted that sea ice melting would increase as well as permafrost would start to retreat in the N-Hemisphere.
Turned out just so. Creepy, isn't it...
-
moray... this is telling.. you think there are no coal fires?
angus... it is not complex.. let's say that you are king... lets say that you still think that man made co2 is causing global warming and let's say that you want that crap to end damnit!!!!!
What are the ten things you will do. You can't say "reduce man made co2 by...."
You have to name the way you would do it.
I think that the reason this has degenerated into a name calling contest is because... the blush is off the whole MMGW rose.. more and more scientists are deserting the co2 scam... and...
Now.. it is making fun of a religion... People get pissy when you make fun of their religion or throw facts at it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray... this is telling.. you think there are no coal fires?
angus... it is not complex.. let's say that you are king... lets say that you still think that man made co2 is causing global warming and let's say that you want that crap to end damnit!!!!!
What are the ten things you will do. You can't say "reduce man made co2 by...."
You have to name the way you would do it.
I think that the reason this has degenerated into a name calling contest is because... the blush is off the whole MMGW rose.. more and more scientists are deserting the co2 scam... and...
Now.. it is making fun of a religion... People get pissy when you make fun of their religion or throw facts at it.
lazs
Religion?
Lazs, you truly are the number one conspiracy theorist in the country. Keep working on the number one sweetheart, and someday you'll outdo our president for the honor.
Sir, your "facts" aren't measuring up and the more you stand there screaming denial, the dumber you truly look. AKH has repeatedly taken his valuable time to enlighten you, and direct you to more "scientifically relevant" information, not like your sites that throw up a vomit of information that seems like "science" to the general idiot out there, or you, in this case. I, have given up that crusade, due to the fact you act like a pathetic petulent child when someone uses actual facts, that are substantiated by real, competent research....not OP-ed or Fox News "just cuz we way its so" stories.
The fact you seriously think that a group of scientists, ANY group of scientists, can make a concerted effort, and make people fear imminent disaster, to make themselves financially better.... IS fediddleING DISGUSTING.
You are entitled to your opinion.... I'm just as entitled to laugh at you.
-
Lazs:
"angus... it is not complex.. let's say that you are king... lets say that you still think that man made co2 is causing global warming and let's say that you want that crap to end damnit!!!!!"
King of the earth, yeahh!
Well, I could put it in one line basically, a tad Churchillian :D
Since we have a problem, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength untill victory is achived.
Simple Lazs, face a problem, analyze it, and counter it, do not stick the head in the sand.
No matter what you think of CO2, we have another global problem, which has been overshadowed a bit with a CO2-Al Gore etc etc debate.
Our problem is however closely linked.
It is our total impact on the planet if I can word it so. Even if the MMGW was a scam, we still cannot go on like we do. We are depleting resources and screwing up the planet.
The answer is that we must mend our ways, and energy is the first milestone. I would have to ponder on some lines for you, if I was the king of the world. First question would be, if I am a monarch, elected prez, Communist leader or a DICTATOR :t
-
Ok... I can understand that... you guys don't have a "solution" or if you do... you don't want to say. "mend our ways" is not a solution... "fight the pollution" is not an answer.
everything is pollution... you want to fight everything? "mend our ways" what ways are those?
please.. one of you.. be specific.
and moray... if it were just me that wasn't "getting it" then you would have a point but at least 17,000 scientists and people with advanced degrees do not believe in man made global warming.
Do you? if so... what are we doing to cause it and... what is your solution?
Should be simple for someone who is so sure of himself right?
Hope you do better than your guys did in the debate with crichton and a few others.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/03/crichton_debates_global_warmin.php
seems more people believe the "deniers" when given the chance to hear debate.
just like.. you are not helping your case here. You keep wanting to make it a debate between my credentials and yours... neither one of us is qualified even tho you have more education... what we need to do is simply post the links (as I have done repeatedly) and let people decide.
lazs
-
Some of 'em could start by stop smokin' pot. Wonder how much c02 is contributed by the world's pot heads?
Next time you light up a joint, count yourself among the SUV fleet owners like Al Bore.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok... I can understand that... you guys don't have a "solution" or if you do... you don't want to say. "mend our ways" is not a solution... "fight the pollution" is not an answer.
I don't suppose that you have read the Stern Review?
Stern Review on the economics of climate change (http://http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm)
please.. one of you.. be specific.
Less construction of subcritical and supercritical coal-fired power plants instead of Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plants would be a good start.
-
A change of habit would be a good start. The sad part is that people won't do that without some spanking. It will always boil down to the economics and the international trade. So it will get to decisions taken by clusters of nations, and those will decrease life standards...maybe.
Well, I'm the King, so....
The first step is realizing instead of putting the head in the sand. Step 2 as a king is putting Lazs in the dungeon. (sorry, couldn't help getting a little medieaval here :D). Step 3 is getting the grip on the usage of fossil fuel (that means a lot of sub-steps). Step 4, hmm, big step, stop deforestation. Step 5, Try to utilize the land in my grip without exploitation.
Step 5b Ponder on Step 6 to step 10.
-
ah... so at least you admit that there must be some pain to stop us from changing the climate of the entire planet... some regulation and more government.
akh.. can't open that site.
Soooo... we have one suggestion... AKH says that we need to have a "little more expensive" power from our coal plants..
Still... that is for what? co2 reduction?... still laughable compared to putting out the coal fires around the world.
Next.
lazs
-
Pain? Well, maybe. Because, businesswise, there is a heck of a job to keep things running without spoiling what we have. On god's green earth. Unfortunately, those who are now floating on in a comfortable, albeit short term profit, don't agree with that.
Pain? It's gonna be pain when you go from free-fall and hit the ground. Opening the chute will give you some pain, but you won't hit the bottom as hard, or lethally, instead.
So, Lazs, tell me, can you put up 10 things that are going to happen if mankind carries on with it's exploitation of earth as it is heading. Like, when we run out of fossil fuel, when we run out of food, who runs out of food, will there be forests, what will the oil price be in 35 years, what are the SL numbers in 100 years, the weather, what the CO2 PPM are going to hit eventually, so forth, et cetera...?
-
I say nothing will happen... oil will get more expensive.. solar and wind and nuclear and coal will be developed to take it's place as it becomes more scarce.
the climate will do what it will do regardless of what we do. We will enter a cooling trend just as night follows day. we won't be able to do a thing about that either.
Already solar electric for homes is nearing the break point.. you can spend 200 or 300 a month to pay for the loan on a system and save 200-500 a month in power bills.. plug in hybrids will take some pain away too.. the power companies are giving incentives and rebates on home systems because it is good for them... they get power in the peak hours instead of trying to get it to us through the horrible grid.
more oil will be found and coal will get used.
Those are some of the things....specific things.. I see happening if we "do nothing".. do nothing about something we can't do anything about in any case that is... the climate of the globe.
baring any huge discovery... oil will get more expensive.. alternatives will get more attractive.. the free market will provide.
stop wringing your hands and weeping over nothing.
lazs
-
Heres an opinion on the topic.................
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/13/sanfran-chronicle-only-the-informed-believe-in-global-warming/
SEEMS the media is on Al Gore's side?
Or at least some of the media.
Some would say............
"The great mass of people . . . will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) German dictator
Could it be said something like this is happening..............
“the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946
should we be worried more about our rights, freedom, and liberty.................
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." - H.L.Mencken
IMHO there is TOO MUCH proof that the GLOBAL WARMING issue is a smoke screen.
-
Originally posted by wrag
“the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Hermann Goering in his cell on the evening of 18 April 1946
but what if the country is being attacked?
-
Originally posted by john9001
but what if the country is being attacked?
was the attack provoked???? OR was a phony claim about an attack that actually NEVER happened but made up as an excuse for war...........
the IDEA behind the quote........
1st make a claim, then attack those that refute the claim, paint them as un-green, anti-environment, naughty naughty bad bads, whatever...
been watching this kinda stuff for YEARS............ some claim gets made and some people start screamin the sky is falling........ alar and apples,
eggs are good for you then eggs are bad for you,
good cholesterol vs bad cholesterol (a strain of chlamydiae, it has been shown, can be the actual cause of blocked arteries),
this causes cancer and that causes cancer, etc.. etc.. etc..
I remember in the early 70's the claim was global cooling, and the blame was pretty much placed on the same gases....... we were heading for an ICE AGE!!
in the case of global warming...................
Sorry I can't support it, I don't believe it, think it's being used to control the market and the people, and an excuse for more power to the government.
After all what is Al Gore? He's a politician ain't he?
-
Wag the dog :D
Lazs, I wish I could float on in the autopilot mode like you. Anyway, the way you put your side/theory, my job as a king of the globe would be simple. Tax fossil fuels. Use the tax money (earmarked) for land retrival, growing projects and alternative energies. Just that.
But my worries (which you refer to as wringing) seem to be becoming true. And if my theory holds better than yours (which I certainly do not hope), mankind is going on as stupid as possible, with some half-minded remedies (CO2 balancing as one) untill the discomfort of what has been done is going to smack us right in the face. Us meaning more than U.S. It's the globe, and we CAN change the atmosphere. If we go to like 800 ppm CO2, we're going to have some rock&roll I guess. In the meantime we are depleting many of earth's resources for a cheap product party. Forests mostly.
So. - we're going to get smacked. I hope we won't get swatted. Rome will burn, so to say, or like Nero: "Who fediddleing cares, just give the people bread and games" ;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
"Ever" is not the issue. But in millions of years is. And I pointed out the facts, as close as researchers can get to them. And I live nearby. Have you been to Greenland? Have you sailed along the Ice, w of the Denmark strait? (Near to where HMS Hood was sunk)? Because I have....
Been away a few days... back to it.
I think I've been within 6 miles of Greenland. (Seattle to Gatwick)
That does not make any difference to the inconsistancy in your argument that it's the worst it's been for 20 million years, when you also post a wiki quote that says, "The Arctic Sea has not been ice free for a period of at least one million years, and probably much longer"
It is not ice free now, and if you take your wiki quote as gospel, has been ice covered to some extent for at least 1 million years.
The "Probabably a lot longer" does not equate to a 19 million year time stretch in the data.
I am not disputing your view, I am disputing the extent of reasonable extrapolation of data.
-
now we are getting somewhere.. you would "tax fossil fuels and use the money to buy land" and to pay for alternative energies?
Ok.. how do you tax fuel? Are you saying we need some one world government like say.... oh, I don't know.. the frigging UN say? They make some law that every country in the world tax fuel and send the money to them and they will make it all better with land purchase and funding alternative fuels for the entire world?
You would just do away with the governments of all the countries we have now?
Ok... you are king.. but you got to admit.. not a very workable plan... but... how much tax is enough?
$10 on each gallon of oil? 10 cents? what would you do with the land you bought? what alternative fuels would you fund?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
my job as a king of the globe would be simple. Tax fossil fuels. Use the tax money (earmarked) for land retrival, growing projects and alternative energies. Just that.
I thought we already did that, here anyway, tax on gas and oil to fund alternative energy research, I see thats working real well...
How bout they have a program similar to the Spacecraft X prize. Give priviate companies a goal and a prize for developing a real, workable, realistic alternative energy
-
I have to pay more than 2$ per LITRE of fuel, be it diesel or petrol.
That gives me second thoughts when I rush to town to buy..... bread, - frequently ending with the decision of a bicycle. Cars are for bad weather :D
It also affects the choice of a car, - no guzzler please....
Lazs, as a King of the globe (remember), I don't buy land. I just take it :D
If there are owners they can share the dungeons with you.
Anyway, I refer to land to reclaim, what is already a waste or a steppe. Useless land that can be cultivated. There is quite a lot of it about, but with current economy it doesn't pay off to use it.
You know, it's funny, my "King of the globe" scenario is just a shortcut to what you predict is bound to happen anyway. Fossil fuel will run out and something else tae over, - resources being depleted will go up in price untill there is a balance etc. Our differences there are mainly two as I can see it, -
1. I think that "we" are making a hell of a damage before realiy hits the money system.
2. I think that something can be done about it.
Anyway, good night fellars ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I admit that water vapor is the major player in greenhouse gas. I don't have a clue as too how much of a player greenhouse gas is.. neither do you but...
so few logic in so few lines,I'm speechless
-
Again to the point, - the USA has lots of engineering at work. But while the gas is cheap, the competition is hard. But still there is progress in research and developments of alternative usage of energy....
http://www.psu.edu/ur/2007/biohydrogen.htm
-
Originally posted by Angus
As a sidenote, just got D.A.'s "Planet Earth" series on DVD. Can't wait to watch. Going to be one heck of a job to quote that though ;)
I was at a friend's house for the past few days. He has a brand new 42 inch HD TV and HDDTV (?) DVD player, and the Planet Earth series on DVD. We watched about 6 programmes - absolutely stunning photography, sometimes taken in the depths of the earth. DA believes in MMGW by the way. And it is clear that there is very little that DA does not know about this planet, so it would not surprise me if Lazs thought he was rubbish.
Still, I don't place much value on the rantings of people who form an opinion first and then go in search of material to support it second. And I absolutely agree with Hortlund ^ who said that often the folks denying MMGW do so because they don't WANT to know the truth as they fear it would go against their lifestyle or hurt "their" economy.
And... it's not worth debating with an 85%-DUH poster, who clearly does not have a grasp of basic chemistry.
-
Well, I did use the phrase "OSTRIDGE" :D
-
LOL... so if it is on TV..
Sheesh you guys.. just prove it to me.. show me that chemistry that I am not getting.. show me that math that says our co2 is heating the planet in any catastrophic way. It is simple really... they even have contests where you can win what? 50 grand? if you can prove co2 is doing something to the climate.
co2 is going up.. there has been no warming of the planet for 7 years.. the average has actually gone down 0.04 degrees... nothing tho really if you take the insane margin of error... the U.S. who uses sat data... has not seen a warming in 18 years. So how bad is it?
angus... you would tax fuel? but there are lots of places that tax fuel and they haven't done a damn thing with the money... and... as I have pointed out.. what good is cutting down consumption... by your plan.. at best say.... 25% when one coal fire is making more co2 than all the cars and trucks in America?
but.. it will happen in any case... as fuel gets more expensive.. cars will get driven less and get better mileage.. no need to do anything.. as the demand increases their will be inventions to satisfy it and make some people rich.
What are you worried about? show me the predictions for next years weather.. for 5 years.. ten.. lets see how it looks in five years.
If you are right it will be apparent. we can't do much anyway so lets look at it again in 5 years.... if the predictions are again proven to be so much bs and exaggeration... like they always are... then we can all breath a sigh of relief.
The fact is that more and more people are starting to ask for proof and there just isn't any.
Why not just have a series of films or whatever that... just like algores movie... tell us all exactly what is happening and will happen in laymans terms? I mean.. one just like algores movie but without all the lieing?
why not? because the case can't be made without stretching the truth or being vague... because it is far from being a fact that MMGW exists or is even a problem if it does.
I bet more people reading this thread have started to doubt the whole scam than have gone to your view of "do something radical right now just in case"
That is happening on a world scale.. more and more people, scientists and laymen, are speaking out... you couldn't google a person who didn't believe the MMGW party line a few years ago... now you get millions of hits when you do a search for MMGW hoax or scam or co2 scam.
I think that this is good.. this is too important to not debate.. yet.. the MMGW types don't want debate.. they get their butts kicked in open debate... I linked one such debate and the audience ended up with a complete reversal of opinion when it was over.
No.. in order for the scam to work.. there can be no debate... just a flood of arrogant and worthless quasi info and quasi science.
lazs
-
Report on ABC (I think it was) talked about a jet that flew from europe to the US and back with no passengers. Stated how much fuel was burned and how much carbon was made. Only problem was that the carbon weighed something like 600% more than the fuel burned.
Seems if your a Global Warming "Enthusiast" your calculations can be as miscalculated as you want them to be.
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Not that it will convince the die-hard Man-Made Global Warming followers, but hey...I can try.
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=08
He's obviously a paid hack for Big Oil.:rolleyes:
Good Post Sabre!
The best evidence I can cite is: The global mean temperature on MARS has risen during the last 50 years.
Now unless Halliburton and the Bush/Cheny cabal [:rolleyes:]has started dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the Martian atmosphere, Its is safe to assume that the variation of total solar luminesence (it is a fact that our sun is a variable star) has risen.
A normal/sane person without a whacked out political agenda could only conclude that the reason the average global mean temperature has gone up (marginally) over the last 50 years is because the sun is emmiting more energy! The Earth is warmer for the same reason Mars is warmer... It's supposed to be warmer, and this "effect" is part of the suns natural variability cycle.
We humans will do what wehave always done... adapt to the ever changing climate on our fragile speck of dust in the vastness of the cosmos.
A more reasoned response to all this climate change hysteria would be to start looking for another planet that can sustain us, because in a few billion (thats a few thousand million) years we won't have a planet to call home anymore, as earth will be reduced to a smoldering cinder orbiting a white dwarf star that used to be our life giving sun!:aok
-
Originally posted by MajIssue
Good Post Sabre!
The best evidence I can cite is: The global mean temperature on MARS has risen during the last 50 years.
[/b]
Dear God, this stuff was debunked 6 months ago, and we still have people around coming up with this anus of an argument.
Quick question, if the energy from the sun is increasing, why is the temperature on Venus (closest to the sun you know? Of cource you dont) not rising?
Well, if that is your best evidence, then its time for you to switch sides and join our side. Unfortunately you need something at least resembling a normal intelligence level to understand the basics behind global warming, so you might feel a tad missplaced here with us.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Dear God, this stuff was debunked 6 months ago, and we still have people around coming up with this anus of an argument.
Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting naa naa naa may count as debunking among some but not for everyone.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Unfortunately you need something at least resembling a normal intelligence level to understand the basics behind global warming, so you might feel a tad missplaced here with us. [/B]
hortland, just post the facts and stop insulting people.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting naa naa naa may count as debunking among some but not for everyone.
well if it work for Lazs , shouldn't it work for every one ? (except the women of course !)
-
Originally posted by john9001
hortland, just post the facts and stop insulting people.
Emotion does seem to be trait among the GW faithful.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Sticking one's fingers in one's ears and shouting naa naa naa may count as debunking among some but not for everyone.
The "naa naa naa"-argument is something that only your side ever uses. It has been practiced to perfection by lasz and other retards.
Here is the explanation for the temperature rise on Mars
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html
And riddle me this, s hitface, if the temperature rise was because of increased solar output why are all measurements of the sun showing that the energy output has been decreasing over the past 20 years...and why is Venus not getting warmer?
-
Originally posted by straffo
well if it work for Lazs , shouldn't it work for every one ? (except the women of course !)
I think no one will disagree that lazs needs no one to answer for or defend him but I've yet to see him miss an opportunity to respond in detail to every point made in this thread. His responses are far removed from the insults and claims that "facts" have been "debunked" without a shred of supporting evidence. Lazs may be many things but hardly as you have characterized him here.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
The "naa naa naa"-argument is something that only your side ever uses. It has been practiced to perfection by lasz and other retards.
Here is the explanation for the temperature rise on Mars
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html
And riddle me this, s hitface, if the temperature rise was because of increased solar output why are all measurements of the sun showing that the energy output has been decreasing over the past 20 years...and why is Venus not getting warmer?
Shifting reflective dust is one theory for warming on Mars but it hardly debunks increased solar activity as the cause.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Shifting reflective dust is one theory for warming on Mars but it hardly debunks increased solar activity as the cause.
Didnt I just tell you that since 1985, solar activity has been decreasing? did you not see that part? Did you not understand it? Or are you ignoring it (ie going "naa naa naa")?
Your side never changes. Always wrong, always making s hit up, always ignoring facts, always trying to distort facts, spin the truth and grab isolated statements out of context pretending they mean something they dont. Its beyond pathetic.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Didnt I just tell you that since 1985, solar activity has been decreasing? did you not see that part? Did you not understand it? Or are you ignoring it (ie going "naa naa naa")?
Your side never changes. Always wrong, always making s hit up, always ignoring facts, always trying to distort facts, spin the truth and grab isolated statements out of context pretending they mean something they dont. Its beyond pathetic.
Where are you getting your "facts"?
Are you saying this is bogus? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
(http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Where are you getting your "facts"?
Are you saying this is bogus? http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
(http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif)
Yup, the idea that the sun is driving global warming has been debunked.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg16622370.800
And
In the latter half of the century, we find that anthropogenic increases in greenhouses gases are largely responsible for the observed warming, balanced by some cooling due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosols, with no evidence for significant solar effects."
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/carslaw-2002.pdf
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Yup, the idea that the sun is driving global warming has been debunked.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg16622370.800
And
In the latter half of the century, we find that anthropogenic increases in greenhouses gases are largely responsible for the observed warming, balanced by some cooling due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosols, with no evidence for significant solar effects."
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/pdf/carslaw-2002.pdf
From your source: "A correlation between the sunspot cycle and temperatures in the northern hemisphere seemed to account for most of the warming seen up until 1985. But new results reveal that for the past 15 years something other than the Sun—probably greenhouse emissions—has pushed temperatures higher."
Something... probably... They don't even deny that sun activity has contnued to increase, just that something else must be causing global warming, like greenhouse gasses, yeah, that's it.
I'm not subscribing to read more.
Haven't read all of your second source but it seems to be only about cosmic rays and I can't find your quoted excerpt.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm not subscribing to read more.
How symptomatic...
and lets take a look at that continued increase shall we...
....
exciting huh...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png)
And now lets see you try to marry that chart with this one... best of luck
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png)
-
I still can't help but laugh about the 2 Global Warming meetings in Chicago.... cancelled because of heavy snow.... :rofl
-
Where'd you get that second quote Hortlund. I can't find it in the second article. Was it in the first?
-
:lol What a mess.. No one know anything for sure, but you wouldn't think so, looking at some people's arguments...
-
How about this one from the same source as your pic.
(http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
How about this one from the same source as your pic.
(http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/6/60/Solar_Activity_Proxies.png)
How about this one? Its about as relevant.
(http://www.cycle-trader.com/images/chart1.gif)
Quick question, why do you think yours ends at 2000?
More:
The Sun’s brightness (or irradiance, which is a direct indicator of the amount of energy coming from the Sun to the Earth) increased between 1977 and 1985, but has been decreasing since 1985. Less irradiance, or brightness, makes less heat energy coming to the Earth. Such a scenario would indicate a cooler Earth, not a warmer one.
http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/h844264320314105/
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
Report on ABC (I think it was) talked about a jet that flew from europe to the US and back with no passengers. Stated how much fuel was burned and how much carbon was made. Only problem was that the carbon weighed something like 600% more than the fuel burned.
Seems if your a Global Warming "Enthusiast" your calculations can be as miscalculated as you want them to be.
Jet fuel is an alkane - a group of hydrocarbons composed of only Carbon and Hydrogen (no Oxygen). Alkanes are also known as paraffins. You seem to be overlooking the fact that when jet fuel burns, it combines with oxygen from the atmosphere !! An atom of Carbon (C) has an atomic weight of 12, and a molecule of Oxygen (O2) has a molecular weight of 16 so that CO2 has a molecular weight of 28. Thus, if two tonnes of CO2 are produced by the burning of jet fuel, more than one tonne of the CO2 produced comes from oxygen already in the atmosphere.
So as you can see, the total waste output from the burning of jet fuel weighs more than the fuel itself, because the combustion process uses oxygen not in the fuel itself, but in the atmosphere.
Moray and Hortlund will correct any mistakes I've made with the chemistry. And if they need help, they can always consult Lazs. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Quick question, why do you think yours ends at 2000?
Could it have anything to do with this...?
(http://www.petermeadows.com/graphics/rsmooth.gif)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Could it have anything to do with this...?
(http://www.petermeadows.com/graphics/rsmooth.gif)
So you're agreeing that solar activity has steadily increased for decades as indicated at least until 2000? How much has the earth's temperature increased since 2000?
Please don't try to deny sun spots have nothing to do with the earth's climate. That was the whole point of the cosmic ray link you provided.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think no one will disagree that lazs needs no one to answer for or defend him but I've yet to see him miss an opportunity to respond in detail to every point made in this thread. His responses are far removed from the insults and claims that "facts" have been "debunked" without a shred of supporting evidence. Lazs may be many things but hardly as you have characterized him here.
In the past I tried repeatedly to make Laz use some basic logic.
He failed loudly, so I characterize him like he is.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I think no one will disagree that lazs needs no one to answer for or defend him but I've yet to see him miss an opportunity to respond in detail to every point made in this thread.
:lol :rofl :aok
Originally posted by AKIron
His responses are far removed from the insults and claims that "facts" have been "debunked" without a shred of supporting evidence.
Yeah right. "It's the sun stupid" pretty much covers everything there is to know about global climate change, "in detail". :rolleyes: :D
-
Originally posted by AKIron
So you're agreeing that solar activity has steadily increased for decades as indicated at least until 2000?
Obviously no. Lets try again shall we...
But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.
-
Well...
The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.
And co2 goes up. Lazs says it's the sun...how stupid is that then?
I wonder if I get banned if I change my sig to "IT AINT JUST THE SUN, avacado!"
:D
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Dear God, this stuff was debunked 6 months ago, and we still have people around coming up with this anus of an argument.
Quick question, if the energy from the sun is increasing, why is the temperature on Venus (closest to the sun you know? Of cource you dont) not rising?
Well, if that is your best evidence, then its time for you to switch sides and join our side. Unfortunately you need something at least resembling a normal intelligence level to understand the basics behind global warming, so you might feel a tad missplaced here with us. [/B]
Debunked by whom????
Please cite your evidence sir!
I never cease to be amazed that when confronted by a reasoned discussion the human caused global warming "faithful" invariably start name calling (example: those who have a healthy skepticism posess less than "normal" intelligence). I liken those that practice this global warming "religon" to those that were convinced by "scientific consensus" in recent history (400 years ago give or take a few) that the Earth was the center of the Universe!
As for Venus, I really think that a basic understanding of atmospheric dynamics and the composition of the solar system would illuminate the unique position that Venus occupies among the rocky planets of the inner the solar system. The atmosphere on that body is over 100 times more dense that what we enjoy here. Additionally Venus is half again as close to the Sun, and has a retrograde revolution! Comparisons of the climate on the Earth and Venus is like comparing a volleyball to a bowling ball! At first glance they appear almost identical, but an examination of their properties reveals that they are vastly different objects.
You will have to come up with something better than pseudo-science and the slogans of the radical left to convince me sir!
Please explain the large fluctuations in the global mean temperatue (as evidenced by deep ocean sediments and Ice cores that occured long before the advent of human industrail technology.
I stand by my statement that the climate is warmer because it is supposed to be!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Didnt I just tell you that since 1985, solar activity has been decreasing? did you not see that part? Did you not understand it? Or are you ignoring it (ie going "naa naa naa")?
Your side never changes. Always wrong, always making s hit up, always ignoring facts, always trying to distort facts, spin the truth and grab isolated statements out of context pretending they mean something they dont. Its beyond pathetic.
You sir have REALLY drank the Kool-aid haven't you?!
Can't win an argument with facts? Simple... Call them names!
I say again sir cite your sources!!!
You need to read a little more than the Wikipedia article about the solar cycle... There are short and LONG term cycles. Also (I will say this S L O W L E Y so the F A I T H F U L can U N D E R S T A N D) our sun is a irregular variable star! This means that the amount of energy emmited by it CHANGES over an IRRIGULAR time period. Those that preach human caused global warming have a P O L I T I C A L agenda! They base their argument on on an extremly narrow data set that is of such a short duration that it is mind boggling. Also the computer models used to support their conclusions do not factor in precipitation among other dynamics in the atmosphere!!!
-
my my...listen to the wailing and knashing of teeth... so sad.
I love the logic of this.. "it can't be the sun because suns activity (never mind solar wind) has gone slowly down since 85" never mind that the temp is now going down.. you have to look at charts after 2000... something they don't like showing.
I like the logic that says... "sure c02 has lagged temp change for eons but now it is different" but... says that... if the suns activity goes down and the earths temp does not instantly go down with it.. then.. it can't be the sun... even tho.. a chart on any scale at all would still show the temp FOLLOWING the suns activity and still show the co2 lagging temp.
even the most dishonest of the MMGW priests admit that the sun is at least responsible for 25% of the increase (big of em).. that leaves 75%.. they don't even claim man makes up all of that.
And... what has happened? how bad is it? who is being hurt? World wide crop production is up.... some places have had milder winters.. not all but some... this natural global warming had been nothing but a good thing.
no one has drown from the tenth of an inch rise per year in the ocean level.. no one is in any danger of drowning in the near future.
What bad things have happened? hell... we even have an increase in the polar bear population.
But... the good times won't last.. the temp is going down. 0.04 degrees in the last 7 years.
so for now... relax.. enjoy the sun... get a tan... enjoy the fresh fruit and veggies and don't worry too much about the doom predicted for 100 years from now by guys who can't tell you next weeks weather much less next weeks... whos computer models have only predicted the past so far.
lazs
-
MajIssue:
"Those that preach human caused global warming have a P O L I T I C A L agenda!"
Rubbish. Since the sources are everywhere (climatology/metreology, biology, oceanology, agriculture and even urbanism), a conspiracy theory there simply doesn't work.
However, those "scientists" trying to debunk notonly MMGW, but GW seem to have a common link to oil money in quite some numbers.
So, those who preach that GW is not happening have an E C O N O M I C A L agenda!!!!
And Lazs...Looking at the charts after 2000 shows you what? Oh, rising CO2, lowered solar activity, and higher temperatures. No wonder that the program "the great GW swindle" had it's graphs ending some 17 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!
FRAUD AND SCANDAL.
-
no.. temps are going down. I think that almost everyone agrees that the average global temp has gone down about 0.04 degrees in the last 7 years.
It is time to panic... if you project this horrifying drop in temp... why.. by the year 2100... we will all freeze!!!!!
so tell me.. what horrible things have happened so far? better crops? show me the computer model that ever predicted the future and not the past. What is gonna happen in 5 years? what bad things? what bad things in 10 years?
Someone did say.. we really don't know but.. we do know that the math on co2 just doesn't add up.
and if it did.. say our tiny little contribution could be changing the entire planet... well.. not much we can do.. at best.. we can reduce our contribution by 20% in the next 10 or 20 years... probly not at all considering emerging nations.. and to what point... if co2 really is the problem...
wouldn't we be better off putting out a few simple coal fires? surely.. the great and powerful oz who controls the weather of the entire planet can put out a couple of fires?
lazs
-
sraffo stuttered out..."In the past I tried repeatedly to make Laz use some basic logic.
He failed loudly, so I characterize him like he is."
ok... I am calling you on it frenchy... please quote me something... of all the things you have ever written.. none are more than a few disjointed sentences that don't even follow the thread so yeah... I want to see where you "repeatedly" tried to make me use some basic logic.
you sir.. are making things up.
lazs
-
Lazs:
"no.. temps are going down. I think that almost everyone agrees that the average global temp has gone down about 0.04 degrees in the last 7 years."
ABSOLUTE RUBBISH. Please please find me a source for this.
Oh, and as for world crops, remember to divide with the area used .....
Edit---add-on
And while you're at it, find a source for the unimportant-yet important coal fires who burn gladly without using much oxygen
-
angus.. I have linked it before..
as for crops.. are you saying that the increased co2 has not increased crop yeild?
but.. back to the point.. what bad has happened? every other natural warm spell has been good for man... so has this one.
so why are you so upset?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sraffo stuttered out..."In the past I tried repeatedly to make Laz use some basic logic.
He failed loudly, so I characterize him like he is."
ok... I am calling you on it frenchy... please quote me something... of all the things you have ever written.. none are more than a few disjointed sentences that don't even follow the thread so yeah... I want to see where you "repeatedly" tried to make me use some basic logic.
you sir.. are making things up.
lazs
Knowing you since about 3 year, I doubt any answer will change your mind.
I'll take the time tomorrow to look at some of your past gem I stored for future use.
But I guess you willl like the last time divert on another subject .
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you sir.. are making things up.
So laz, how much coal did China consume last year?
-
Originally posted by MajIssue
Good Post Sabre!
The best evidence I can cite is: The global mean temperature on MARS has risen during the last 50 years.
Now unless Halliburton and the Bush/Cheny cabal [:rolleyes:]has started dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the Martian atmosphere, Its is safe to assume that the variation of total solar luminesence (it is a fact that our sun is a variable star) has risen.
A normal/sane person without a whacked out political agenda could only conclude that the reason the average global mean temperature has gone up (marginally) over the last 50 years is because the sun is emmiting more energy! The Earth is warmer for the same reason Mars is warmer... It's supposed to be warmer, and this "effect" is part of the suns natural variability cycle.
We humans will do what wehave always done... adapt to the ever changing climate on our fragile speck of dust in the vastness of the cosmos.
A more reasoned response to all this climate change hysteria would be to start looking for another planet that can sustain us, because in a few billion (thats a few thousand million) years we won't have a planet to call home anymore, as earth will be reduced to a smoldering cinder orbiting a white dwarf star that used to be our life giving sun!:aok
Ummm... Mars is RED. RED soaks up more heat.... especially since the dust storms of the past 15 years on Mars, which uncovered older, darker material... you really need to read more.
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
I still can't help but laugh about the 2 Global Warming meetings in Chicago.... cancelled because of heavy snow.... :rofl
I can't help laughing because people think that snow ISN't a sign of global warming.
..like snow in the sahara desert. No, that can't have anything to do with more moisture in the air. People are simpletons. You just can't put the pieces together in your heads.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus.. I have linked it before..
as for crops.. are you saying that the increased co2 has not increased crop yeild?
but.. back to the point.. what bad has happened? every other natural warm spell has been good for man... so has this one.
so why are you so upset?
lazs
Every other "WARM spell" hasn't occured with 6 billion people on the planet, HALF of which struggle for a single meal every day. Your diluted logic is enviable... because it lacks any sort of wisdom WHATSOEVER....therefore you can't be responsible for it.
-
Originally posted by MajIssue
Debunked by whom????
Please cite your evidence sir!
[/b]
Oh dear. I know you must be swimming in the shallow end of the IQ pool since you are in the anti-environment corner, but I never figured it would be this bad. Have you ANY idea how stupid you appear when you ask for evidence in the middle of a discussion of such evidence? The link I posted something like 10 posts ago explain why mars is warming. The link I posted after that explain that solar activity has been decreasing since 1985. And then you appear here to ask me to cite my evidence? Off to special class lad.
I never cease to be amazed that when confronted by a reasoned discussion the human caused global warming "faithful" invariably start name calling (example: those who have a healthy skepticism posess less than "normal" intelligence). I liken those that practice this global warming "religon" to those that were convinced by "scientific consensus" in recent history (400 years ago give or take a few) that the Earth was the center of the Universe!
[/b]
Except practically everyone in the anti-environment corner are there because they fail to understand basic science. With no knowledge whatsoever they arm themselves with quotes from any random anti-environment website and dive into the discussion...much like you did here. And no, googling or ripping quotes from an anti-environment website does not count as education, knowledge or understanding. Sorry.
The fact that you liken those who understand global warming with those who believed that the earth was the center of the universe only gives us yet another insight into your lack of education. Apparently you have no idea about the scientific method and how that has changed in the past 400 years.
As for Venus, I really think that a basic understanding of atmospheric dynamics and the composition of the solar system would illuminate the unique position that Venus occupies among the rocky planets of the inner the solar system. The atmosphere on that body is over 100 times more dense that what we enjoy here. Additionally Venus is half again as close to the Sun, and has a retrograde revolution! Comparisons of the climate on the Earth and Venus is like comparing a volleyball to a bowling ball! At first glance they appear almost identical, but an examination of their properties reveals that they are vastly different objects.
[/b]
Venus spins the other way? Is that the best you've got? Dear God.
Basically there are two problems with your "its the sun, because mars is getting warmer"-theory.
1) Solar output has been decreasing since 1985.
2) The warming of Mars is explained by other reasons.
Now, to a person with normal intelligence and education, the first point would be enough. Its impossible to blame the sun for the warming, when the sun is decreasing (less heat is coming from the sun).
But no.
You guys sit here, and claim, with a straight face, that the sun is responsible for the warming, despite the fact that the sun is getting cooler, while temperature is rising over here. And you ask me why I call you guys stupid? You ask me why it is so often that you retards are ridiculed in discussions like these? Priceless.
You will have to come up with something better than pseudo-science and the slogans of the radical left to convince me sir!
[/b]
Ive directed you to two peer-reviewed articles published in respected scientific magasines. That you try to call that "pseudo-science" just (again) displays your own ignorance.
The scientific method. Google it or what the f uck ever you do when you try to get educated on some subject.
Please explain the large fluctuations in the global mean temperatue (as evidenced by deep ocean sediments and Ice cores that occured long before the advent of human industrail technology.
[/b]
Sure. Ice-ages.
I stand by my statement that the climate is warmer because it is supposed to be!
How sweet.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I love the logic of this.. "it can't be the sun because suns activity (never mind solar wind) has gone slowly down since 85" never mind that the temp is now going down.. you have to look at charts after 2000... something they don't like showing.
[/b]
Again you lie. You f ucking dishonest scum.
Global temperatures in 2003 were 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the long-term (1880-2003) average**, ranking 2003 the second warmest year on record, which tied 2002. The warmest year on record is 1998 with an anomaly of +0.63°C (+1.13°F). Land temperatures in 2003 were 0.83°C (1.50°F) above average, ranking third in the period of record while ocean temperatures ranked as second warmest with 0.44°C (0.80°F) above the 1880-2003 mean.
Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record worldwide.[1] For people living in the Northern Hemisphere—most of the world's population—2005 was the hottest year on record since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide.
When are you going to stop with the lies? When is enough enough? If you are going to be in the discussion, then at least do us the f ucking courtesy of NOT JUST MAKING S HIT UP TO FIT YOUR AGENDA. You worthless f uck.
This chart shows the latest figures (it goes up to 2006)
(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif)
-
Hortland...............
IMHO if you are unable to discuss the issue without name calling, cursing, and getting all emotional ( hey maybe you're not getting emotional but it sure looks that way!)
Then perhaps you needs to back off just a little, calm down, and rethink your approach?
Because IMHO you have LOST this discussion, if for no other reason then a lack of manners.
BTW I have yet to see a reply, by anyone, about the claims made by the so called scientist in the early 1970s that we heading for an Ice Age. I remember watching the news and seeing the rabid claims put forward in a very similar manner.
IMHO much of this kind of stuff, the Ice Age we were heading for, the global warming we are now headed for, and some of the other stuff that the media continues to put out. Is done in part because it SELLS! It gets your attention makes them MONEY!
IMHO the MAJOR reason it gets put out is CONTROL!
Make people afraid!
Then tell them you can save them!
BUT there is this little thing involved.
YOU MUST give me CONTROL of everything in order for me to save YOU!
Come on now :D
It's a small price to pay :D
I promise it won't hurt even a little bit :D
TRUST ME! (Even if I am a politician):D :D
-
Originally posted by wrag
Because IMHO you have LOST this discussion, if for no other reason then a lack of manners.
[/b]
LOL yeah, I hope that works out for you in the future. Well, the other side was dead wrong, but they were polite...so they got my vote.
-
Originally posted by wrag
IMHO much of this kind of stuff, the Ice Age we were heading for, the global warming we are now headed for, and some of the other stuff that the media continues to put out. Is done in part because it SELLS! It gets your attention makes them MONEY!
The side with the financial stake in this debate is hte anti-environment guys. They are funded by huge companies that sell fuel, oil, power, cars. All of which will lose economically if people took the actions required to cut back on CO2 emissions.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL yeah, I hope that works out for you in the future. Well, the other side was dead wrong, but they were polite...so they got my vote. [/B]
IMHO I see NO proof that the other side is DEAD WRONG!
I see charts and such. I've seen charts and such that say the opposite as well.
Perhaps I can get you to understand something.
I do NOT TRUST Al Gore.
I have difficulty trusting MANY of those that have publicly come out on the side of GLOBAL WARMING.
Why? Because so many of them are driving around in big expensive SUV's and traveling all over in JETS, and using great amounts of energy to heat or cool themselves.
Also I still remember the BIG "Ice Age" thing in the early 70's.
Now it's no longer going to be an "Ice Age", now it's gonna get HOT instead?
IMHO the jury is still out!
Sure some in HOLLYWEIRD are makin movies.
It's called showmanship!
Perhaps the best approach here is to relax, set back, think about the issues a little more, look for a few more facts, and CALM DOWN?
-
BTW Hortland that chart you're showing...
does it take into account the volcano that exploded just a little earlier?
Wasn't it called Krakatoa or something?
Didn't it cause some serious dust, ash, and other stuff?
Didn't it COOL things down all over the globe?
I also seem to recall something about the Norse/Vikings actually farming wheat in Iceland, or was it Greenland, around 1000?
And something happened that created some very nasty weather. It was so bad they abandoned their farming there?
Something about some records at an Irish monastery talking about the sky being DARK for many days or months? It was about the time St. Patrick was supposed to have arrived in Ireland.
It's actually possible that we have repeatedly had things happen that have COOLED the earth down from it NORMAL temperature?
Records indicate that in the past the earth has been HOTTER then it is now.
-
Originally posted by wrag
BTW I have yet to see a reply, by anyone, about the so called claims made by the scientist in the early 1970s that we heading for an Ice Age.
Fixed.
Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/)
Of course, you could just take Michael Crichton’s word on the subject, "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL yeah, I hope that works out for you in the future. Well, the other side was dead wrong, but they were polite...so they got my vote.
:rofl
:aok
-
Originally posted by wrag
IMHO I see NO proof that the other side is DEAD WRONG!
[/b]
See previous comment about shallow end in the IQ-pool.
Perhaps the best approach here is to relax, set back, think about the issues a little more, look for a few more facts, and CALM DOWN?
Nope, doesnt work that way. We have all the evidence we need. And by doing nothing, we are making the problem worse. You are about as smart right now as a guy sitting on the third floor of a burning building going "relax, the fire has only reached the first and second floors, I dont need to worry about burning up until it has reached this floor". Of cource, what he (you) fails to understand is that by then it is too late.
-
Originally posted by wrag
BTW Hortland that chart you're showing...
does it take into account the volcano that exploded just a little earlier?
Wasn't it called Krakatoa or something?
Didn't it cause some serious dust, ash, and other stuff?
Didn't it COOL things down all over the globe?
I also seem to recall something about the Norse/Vikings actually farming wheat in Iceland, or was it Greenland, around 1000?
And something happened that created some very nasty weather. It was so bad they abandoned their farming there?
Something about some records at an Irish monastery talking about the sky being DARK for many days or months? It was about the time St. Patrick was supposed to have arrived in Ireland.
It's actually possible that we have repeatedly had things happen that have COOLED the earth down from it NORMAL temperature?
[/b]
Well, lets look shall we?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
-
Short facts here.
- Warming is established, and Lazs quotes some quote I can't even find. The only thing dead sure is that it's quite a bit warmer.
- Krakatau was big and made some quick cooling effect. There was another bigger one in Indonesia though. And then in Iceland 1783-1786, which cooled the atmosphere all the way down to Egypt, - and for years, Benjamin Franklin pondered on that, and believed it was Mt Hekla, which it wasn't.
And:
"I also seem to recall something about the Norse/Vikings actually farming wheat in Iceland, or was it Greenland, around 1000?"
Wheat, no. Barley yes, and rhye as well, both of which are tougher and faster than wheat. However TODAY, guess what...We've been growing Barley on growing scales for some 20 years after almost 1000 years of not being able to. And now we are starting with wheat with some success, - which was pointless some 20 years ago.
BTW, this is nothing from wiki, I am IN this growing business myself!
In Greenland they didn't manage to grow anything special apart from grass in the era, but now they do cabbage, turnips and potatoes....
-
hortlund shows surface temps that are affected by the weather stations that now in urban areas... some on asphalt or near heat sources.
http://www.surfacestations.org/
Nasa satalite data for the US.. shows no real warming. Then.. we see a chart that goes to 2004 in 200 year increments... it doesn't show the temp going down from 98 like the some of the other charts THEY showed but that only went to 2000 as do... the computer models.. who is being dishonest?
here is the article from newsweek..
http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Here is one on cooling...
http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624cul.asp
"The official thermometers at the U.S. National Climate Data Center show a slight global cooling trend over the last seven years, from 1998 to 2005."
we may be causing global cooling yet again!
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/03/16/the-coming-global-cooling/
As wrag pointed out... charts can show different things.. hortlunds were pretty dishonest tho.. but.. in his defense.. that's all he could find.. for those who like charts.. here is one in a scale more easy to see (what I am saying) and more honest.. it is average global temp (if such a thing exists)
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
lazs
-
hortlund... I think that it would not be a good idea for us to meet in person. I find your tantrums music to my ears here but in person... I might have to teach you some manners.
but....but we are getting off track here... how is co2 causing global warming? man made c02 that is? laughable... the math doesn't work... now co2 leads global warming when always...ALWAYS in the past it has led? So it has to be something else.. the math doesn't work for co2
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
So what is it? we have always had warm and cold cycles.. this one is no different... so what is it? some say that now.. it is methane from cattle and their care.. the numbers do work better than the co2 ones I will admit but...
Who is willing to stop eating meat here? hortlund? angus? nope... they want to restrict co2 still even tho.. they don't even care about the biggest source that is controllable.. coal fires underground.
And so what if it does get a degree warmer in a century than it would have before the INEVITABLE cooling trend?
Who here has been hurt by this decades long warming trend? we have more food... milder winters... far more people freeze than fry every year so less people are killed by the climate.. what is so bad?
Oh but wait.. it is in the future that we will suffer... sure.. it seems fine now but just you wait!!! wait for what? they won't give predictions for next year.. or 5 years... every time they do they are wrong...as we all know.. they have moderated their predictions every year.
We expect a colder than "normal" winter here. would that is was warmer.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
In Greenland they didn't manage to grow anything special apart from grass in the era, but now they do cabbage, turnips and potatoes....
greenland is growing food, and this is bad how?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
See previous comment about shallow end in the IQ-pool.
Nope, doesnt work that way. We have all the evidence we need. And by doing nothing, we are making the problem worse. You are about as smart right now as a guy sitting on the third floor of a burning building going "relax, the fire has only reached the first and second floors, I dont need to worry about burning up until it has reached this floor". Of cource, what he (you) fails to understand is that by then it is too late. [/B]
It is clear that you can't have an honest discussion without name calling and personal insults!
Like all dedicated believers of the religon of global warming you pick and choose your data and leave the rest to FAITH, Ignoring inconvenient FACTS!
The truth is that the earths climate is a self regulating system and we have little if any chance to CHANGE any of the mesoeffects that are cited by the true believers.
We have all the evidence we need... the earth is FLAT Capitan Columbus! We will not fund your dubious journey west and off the edge of the Earth.
Our best scientist conclude that there is no way that the earth can be a sphere!
Scientific consensus... P L E A S E...
BTW wouldn't you think that having an atmosphere 100 times as dense and being 40 million miles closer to the sun MIGHT be a reason why the surface temperature on venus is 285 degrees celcius?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund... I think that it would not be a good idea for us to meet in person. I find your tantrums music to my ears here but in person... I might have to teach you some manners.
[/b]
You are right, If we ever met in person I might have to teach you some basic physics and chemistry...and judging by your amazing lack of intelligence, that would be a herculean task indeed..
we have always had warm and cold cycles.. this one is no different...
Of all the retarded arguments the anti-environment crowd presents, and lets face it, they are legion, this one is the dumbest of them all. Basically they look at this graph and go "yes? that seems normal to me.."
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png)
-
Originally posted by MajIssue
It is clear that you can't have an honest discussion without name calling and personal insults!
[/b]
LOL, and it took you all this time to understand that? See the shallow end of the IQ-pool comment above. Read it ten times and ponder over its ramifications.
You were never looking for an "honest discussion". You came here with an agenda, and you copy/pasted some stuff from retards-r-us or wherever, and now you are here whining that you cant have a honest discussion? Priceless.
Like all dedicated believers of the religon of global warming you pick and choose your data and leave the rest to FAITH, Ignoring inconvenient FACTS!
The truth is that the earths climate is a self regulating system and we have little if any chance to CHANGE any of the mesoeffects that are cited by the true believers.
We have all the evidence we need... the earth is FLAT Capitan Columbus! We will not fund your dubious journey west and off the edge of the Earth.
Our best scientist conclude that there is no way that the earth can be a sphere!
Scientific consensus... P L E A S E...
Here we go again. Another one staring at these two charts, thinking "yes, that looks quite normal to me".
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
If it wasnt so tragic it would be funny. But hey, maybe you could sue your highschool teacher or something.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL, and it took you all this time to understand that? See the shallow end of the IQ-pool comment above. Read it ten times and ponder over its ramifications.
You were never looking for an "honest discussion". You came here with an agenda, and you copy/pasted some stuff from retards-r-us or wherever, and now you are here whining that you cant have a honest discussion? Priceless.
Here we go again. Another one staring at these two charts, thinking "yes, that looks quite normal to me".
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
If it wasnt so tragic it would be funny. But hey, maybe you could sue your highschool teacher or something. [/B]
Nice... Wikipedia!!!! LMAO Go back to your 6th grade teacher and tell him or her you've failed!
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
See previous comment about shallow end in the IQ-pool.
Nope, doesnt work that way. We have all the evidence we need. And by doing nothing, we are making the problem worse. You are about as smart right now as a guy sitting on the third floor of a burning building going "relax, the fire has only reached the first and second floors, I dont need to worry about burning up until it has reached this floor". Of cource, what he (you) fails to understand is that by then it is too late. [/B]
Hmmm..................
I.Q. IIRC it's right around 138 here......... (which IMHO most often don't mean squat)
Guess yours must be WAY HIGHER huh..........( should I repeat myself? or can you look within the "(" and the ")" just above)
Sadly you sound more like a fanatic then someone that can discuss something in a mature and reasonable fashion.
BTW YOUR statement "We have all the evidence we need" is IMHO EXTREMELY inaccurate! In the place of the we it should have said "I" >>> (as in Hortland) has all the evidence "he" needs.
So I'm figuring any further discussion with you Hortland is just a waste of my time.
Weeellll I Guess seeing as we are being insulting and abusive this SHOULD be politically correct???? And in keeping with the nature of what this discussion has SEEMED to become. Let's see how does that go............... ahhhh Think I remember it now goes like this>>>>>>> Never try to teach a Hortland to sing, it is a waste of your time and it annoys the Hortland?
-
hortlunds cartoon charts are no more "official" than the ones I presented... he has no proof that any of the warming we are seeing is anything but a natural occurance.. further.. he has no math or proof that co2 could be causing any warming worth mentioning.
The margin of error is greater than the spikes his graphs show..
And.. again.. what bad things have happened? what bad things will happen next year? 5 years from now? how would reducing our co2 by even 30% (LOL) have anything more than at best... a twentieth of a degree difference? How can anyone say that we won't go into a global cooling trend long before that?
lazs
-
what is "reconstructed temperature"?
-
Possibly calibrated numbers because of urban area effect?
Bear in mind that the film, "The great global warming Swindle" does not take any numbers into account from recent years. Their graphs end some 17 years ago.
The recent numbers include sattelite data, and are about the best mankind has, while the "IDONTWANNABELIVETHATGWISHAPPE NING" camp now claims we are no more able to measure temperature.
And while you ponder on this John, also try to break the equation why a lot of carbon with little oxygen cannot make a whole lot of CarbonDioxide :D
-
reconstructed temperature
Abstract
Examination of large-scale millennial-long temperature reconstructions reveals a wide range of datasets and methods used for calibration. Proxy time series are commonly calibrated against overlapping instrumental records, representing different seasons, Northern Hemisphere latitudinal bands, and including or excluding sea surface temperature data. Methodological differences include, using scaling or regression, the calibration time period, and smoothing data before calibration. We find that these various approaches alone can result in differences in the reconstructed temperature amplitude of about 0.5°C. This magnitude is equivalent to the mean annual temperature change for the Northern Hemisphere reported in the last IPCC report for the 1000–1998 period. A more precise assessment of absolute reconstructed temperature amplitudes is necessary to help quantify the relative influences of forcing mechanisms in climate models.
Received 10 August 2004; accepted 8 February 2005; published 15 April 2005
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021236.shtml
-
I recently watched David Attenborough's Planet Earth series (or part of it). Something I didn't realise, until DA explained it, was that algae in the oceans are responsible for generating around 70% of the oxygen found in the atmosphere. Clearly it would be a very bad thing for CO2 emissions to be allowed to rise, unchecked, and then to expect the oceans to somehow soak it all up. That risks tampering with the earth's delicate ecosystem, and the habitat of many microorganisms responsible for sustaining all life on earth including the algae that generate 70% of the atmosphere's oxygen. Of course, not everyone here would believe Attenborough's explanation of the effect of algae on our atmosphere....
Originally posted by wrag
you have LOST this discussion, if for no other reason then a lack of manners.
.... but he explained it in a polite tone of voice, so it must be true. :lol
-
Originally posted by john9001
greenland is growing food, and this is bad how?
Because the desertification of the middle latitudes is experiencing logarithmic expansion, much faster than any increase in local productivity on Greenland.
Sorry to burst your happy bubble, john.
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
I recently watched David Attenborough's Planet Earth series (or part of it). Something I didn't realise, until DA explained it, was that algae in the oceans are responsible for generating around 70% of the oxygen found in the atmosphere. Clearly it would be a very bad thing for CO2 emissions to be allowed to rise, unchecked, and then to expect the oceans to somehow soak it all up. That risks tampering with the earth's delicate ecosystem, and the habitat of many microorganisms responsible for sustaining all life on earth including the algae that generate 70% of the atmosphere's oxygen. Of course, not everyone here would believe Attenborough's explanation of the effect of algae on our atmosphere.... .... but he explained it in a polite tone of voice, so it must be true. :lol
My GOD MAN. Someone FINALLY gets it! It is a fine day on this board indeed....and that is....
Exactly WHY the CO2 is an issue.... and any anthropogenic warming is secondary. Simply put....for those that need easy understanding...
MORE CO2......EQUALS..... Lower pH (higher acidity) in the ocean.
(anyone that needs help with this concept, i will re-explain it if needed)
Algae... and plants in general, NOT GOOD WITH ACID.
ALGAE dies. FOOD WEB falls apart.... and that is marine and terrestrial web, as the terrestrial web relies upon the marine environment for nutrient upsourcing.
Louis your status of king.... intact.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Again you lie. You f ucking dishonest scum.
Global temperatures in 2003 were 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the long-term (1880-2003) average**, ranking 2003 the second warmest year on record, which tied 2002. The warmest year on record is 1998 with an anomaly of +0.63°C (+1.13°F). Land temperatures in 2003 were 0.83°C (1.50°F) above average, ranking third in the period of record while ocean temperatures ranked as second warmest with 0.44°C (0.80°F) above the 1880-2003 mean.
Global average surface temperatures pushed 2005 into a virtual tie with 1998 as the hottest year on record worldwide.[1] For people living in the Northern Hemisphere—most of the world's population—2005 was the hottest year on record since 1880, the earliest year for which reliable instrumental records were available worldwide.
When are you going to stop with the lies? When is enough enough? If you are going to be in the discussion, then at least do us the f ucking courtesy of NOT JUST MAKING S HIT UP TO FIT YOUR AGENDA. You worthless f uck.
This chart shows the latest figures (it goes up to 2006)
(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif) [/B]
Listen Hort... chill out. Making an enemy is costly. But, making an enemy a friend is priceless. He has just as much a right to his opinion, free of name calling, as you do.
I feel your pain. It is difficult to express without losing your own control. I may disagree vehemently with folks on this board, such as Lasz, who consistently mocks science in general. He thinks I look down upon him, but has yet to realize that that is only his own internal fear that he IS wrong. Some of the posters on this board haven't had formal education, don't know what a molecule is... don't know how to figure out molar weight and such. It is very difficult to explain science to the layman..... just relax, and hope that someday some of these folks will actually read a book that isn't paint by numbers.
-
*sigh* you are right ofcource. Its just the immense frustration coming from trying to talk to someone who
1) doesnt understand what you are saying
2) doesnt want to understand what you are saying
3) repeat statements over and over again despite the fact that you have proved them wrong, often repeatedly
4) copy/paste from random webpages without understanding what it is they are copy/pasting in the first place
5) grab talking points from horribly biased websites and present it as gospel, while demanding extraordinary level of proof for your statements
"So you linked to a peer-reviewed article published in science magazine that says the solar output has been decreasing? That doesnt count, because I copy/pasted something from Conservatives for America (funded by Exxon), written by a lobbyist who says all the scientists are wrong...(and communists). Its the sun stupid."
Try to argue with that guy when he repeats the same debunked lie over and over and over again, like a deaf parrot on steroids.
-
deaf parrot on steroids :rofl
You have made my morning better ;)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
"So you linked to a peer-reviewed article published in science magazine that says the solar output has been decreasing? That doesnt count, because I copy/pasted something from Conservatives for America (funded by Exxon), written by a lobbyist who says all the scientists are wrong...(and communists). Its the sun stupid."
Not enough... ellipses...you...can...never. ..have...enough...ellipses...
Link for Lazs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellipsis)
-
Moray - thank you for your kind words! :aok I've always been interested in Chemistry...
Originally posted by MORAY37
Some of the posters on this board haven't had formal education, don't know what a molecule is... don't know how to figure out molar weight and such. It is very difficult to explain science to the layman.....
While we're here waiting for Lazs to come back and tell us that it's the sun stupid, perhaps we can have our own discussion about molar weights. As I recall, by understanding atomic/molecular weights it is possible to measure accurately the proportions of substances for a particular chemical reaction. Eg. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12, Oxygen has an atomic weight of 8 (and therefore O2 has a molecular weight of 16) and from this we know that 12 grams of carbon would combine with 16 grams of oxygen to form a molecule of CO2. I seem to remember that one MOLE of an element is a quantity whose weight in grams is equal to its atomic weight, ie one mole of carbon = 12 grams.
If you could provide further enlightenment, I would be delighted to take the opportunity to further my education on this subject. :)
-
Ah, moles, yes. Good to freshen that one up, didn't do molar calculations for more than 20 years.
BTW, I almost went deep into biology, ended up studying English, got sick of it and turned to agriculture. And agricultural education is actually a good place to spot GW from, as well as it concequences. Sometimes I show my buddys posts from these threads, and they have a good laugh then Guess who's posts they're reading :D :t
-
LOl.. this is funny.. I am not saying anthing.. my education or lack of is not the issue.. you are not trying to disprove me with your pitiful educations but the scientists I link to. the thousands of scientists who have more education and experiance than all of you combined who say that co2 numbers do not add up.
So now it is the ocean will... "algae in the oceans are responsible for generating around 70% of the oxygen found in the atmosphere. Clearly it would be a very bad thing for CO2 emissions to be allowed to rise, unchecked, and then to expect the oceans to somehow soak it all up. That risks tampering with the earth's delicate ecosystem, and the habitat of many microorganisms responsible for sustaining all life on earth including the algae that generate 70% of the atmosphere's oxygen. Of course, not everyone here would believe Attenborough's explanation of the effect of algae on our atmosphere.... ."
more scare tactics with no numbers.. the poor delicate ocean will not be able to absorb the co2? It has in the past... more than we have now... the "risks" and "clearly it would be a bad thing" and "risks tampering"
I think I can understand all those "scientific" terms quite well thank you... no numbers... no proof.. just scare tactics... it is like the hydra (to quote tigress) every time one of your pet theories is questioned you drop it and make some other huge and undocumented claim.
And moray... if you are quoting... you should get current.. you quoted that 2005 was the record with 98... the new data says 1935 was the hottest..
But.. I will play.. The way we play now is.. one year increments? if it is cold for one year.. end of problem? I said the average for seven years was down... one might be up but others are down..
course.. the margin of error is higher than all the charts any of us have shown but.. that is just a detail.
So what bad has happened? crop production is up. less people are dieing because of the weather.. freezing to death has always been the worst of heat/freeze so far as death toll.
What bad has happened? why won't the oceans absorb co2 anymore? they did in the past. what are the frigging numbers?
"it could be a very bad thing" is not enough for me to get shook up about.
And.. if you guys are so upset about man made greenhouse gas supposed global warming... petition to stop everyone from eating meat... put out the coal fires that are raging around the world and then get back to me.
Do the big easy stuff first.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOl.. this is funny.. I am not saying anthing.. my education or lack of is not the issue..
[/b]
Oh, but your lack of education is at the very heart of this issue.
Allow me to demonstrate why.
more scare tactics with no numbers.. the poor delicate ocean will not be able to absorb the co2? It has in the past... more than we have now... the "risks" and "clearly it would be a bad thing" and "risks tampering"
Here we have an excellent example on why lack of education or understanding can lead to grave missunderstandings and a general inability to understand the severity of a situation.
Your words, to someone with half a brain/education, are like beacons of stupidity. "Why should the ocean not be able to absorb the co2...it has in the past". That comment is so insanely stupid it is actually painful to read it.
I invite you to open a lexicon and turn to the word "saturation".
Oh, heck I know that is too complex for you, let me quote the relevant passage for you.
saturation
In physical chemistry, saturation is the point at which a solution of a substance can dissolve no more of that substance and additional amounts of that substance will appear as a precipitate.
This point of maximum concentration, the saturation point, depends on the temperature of the liquid as well as the chemical nature of the substances involved.
Saturated
(chemistry, of a solution) Containing all the solute that can normally be dissolved at a given temperature.
Now, with that in mind...what could this possibly have to do with the oceans and co2? Hm, I fear this might still be too complex. How about if we try this. Have you ever had a cup of coffee? If you pour a tablespoon of sugar into the cup...what happens? The sugar dissapears...right? Its like magic...the sugar dissapears and the coffee tastes sweeter. Magic.
Anyway, if you pour another spoonful of sugar into the coffee...what happens? Again the sugar dissappears! Cool!
Ok, so what happens if you pour 15 more spoons full of sugar into the coffee? Hm...the magic doesnt seem to work anymore. There is a thick layer of sugar at the bottom of the cup...isnt there? OMG WE BROKE THE COFFEE-MAGIC -I hear you cry. But relax dear lasz...the coffee magic is not broken, you can pour another spoon of sugar into another cup of coffee and it will vanish again. What happened was that the first cup of coffee became saturated with sugar. Meaning that the coffee could not dissolve the sugar anymore...because too much sugar had been added to the coffee.
Now, try this mental excercise. Pretend the coffee is the ocean, and the sugar is co2. Now...what do you think this could mean?
(backs away slowly in case of a head-explosion)
-
ahh, if we put 15 spoon fulls of sugar in the ocean it will explode?
:confused:
-
It seems to me that people who go on and on about their superior education are usually insecure about their intelligence. When the same people berate others for their lack of education it's a good indicator of a lack of intelligence on their part.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Oh, but your lack of education is at the very heart of this issue.
Allow me to demonstrate why.
Here we have an excellent example on why lack of education or understanding can lead to grave missunderstandings and a general inability to understand the severity of a situation.
Your words, to someone with half a brain/education, are like beacons of stupidity. "Why should the ocean not be able to absorb the co2...it has in the past". That comment is so insanely stupid it is actually painful to read it.
I invite you to open a lexicon and turn to the word "saturation".
Oh, heck I know that is too complex for you, let me quote the relevant passage for you.
saturation
In physical chemistry, saturation is the point at which a solution of a substance can dissolve no more of that substance and additional amounts of that substance will appear as a precipitate.
This point of maximum concentration, the saturation point, depends on the temperature of the liquid as well as the chemical nature of the substances involved.
Saturated
(chemistry, of a solution) Containing all the solute that can normally be dissolved at a given temperature.
Now, with that in mind...what could this possibly have to do with the oceans and co2? Hm, I fear this might still be too complex. How about if we try this. Have you ever had a cup of coffee? If you pour a tablespoon of sugar into the cup...what happens? The sugar dissapears...right? Its like magic...the sugar dissapears and the coffee tastes sweeter. Magic.
Anyway, if you pour another spoonful of sugar into the coffee...what happens? Again the sugar dissappears! Cool!
Ok, so what happens if you pour 15 more spoons full of sugar into the coffee? Hm...the magic doesnt seem to work anymore. There is a thick layer of sugar at the bottom of the cup...isnt there? OMG WE BROKE THE COFFEE-MAGIC -I hear you cry. But relax dear lasz...the coffee magic is not broken, you can pour another spoon of sugar into another cup of coffee and it will vanish again. What happened was that the first cup of coffee became saturated with sugar. Meaning that the coffee could not dissolve the sugar anymore...because too much sugar had been added to the coffee.
Now, try this mental excercise. Pretend the coffee is the ocean, and the sugar is co2. Now...what do you think this could mean?
(backs away slowly in case of a head-explosion) [/B]
Hortland you remind me of Jethro Bodine on the old Beverly Hillbillies TV sitcom bragging about his 6th grade education... gonna do some more cipherin' for us? How 'bout some gozintus? It is fool hardy to attack a stranger's academic bona fides as you really don't know whom you are attacking. It is sad to see that you have absolutely NO CLUE and a re willing to accept as truth, dubious "facts" that are a result of the thinnist of datasets! Wanna buy some carbon credits? Don't worry about your head exploding my poor misguided simpleton... nothing can burn in a vacum!:lol
-
LOL wtf is this? The three stooges?
1) I dont understand jack s hit of this, so I try to say something funny.
2) You think you are so smart, but I think I am smarter...because when you say something smart, I think that means you are insecure about your intelligence.
3) I dont know how to counter that argument, so I'll talk about something completely irrelevant for a while and throw in a couple of insults.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
LOL wtf is this? The three stooges?
1) I dont understand jack s hit of this, so I try to say something funny.
2) You think you are so smart, but I think I am smarter...because when you say something smart, I think that means you are insecure about your intelligence.
3) I dont know how to counter that argument, so I'll talk about something completely irrelevant for a while and throw in a couple of insults.
:aok
What I wrote isn't that difficult to understand. I'm begining to doubt you actually achieved the level of education you keep harping on.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
more scare tactics with no numbers.. the poor delicate ocean will not be able to absorb the co2? It has in the past... more than we have now... the "risks" and "clearly it would be a bad thing" and "risks tampering"
Scare tactics? Don't think so. And what are you talking about, no numbers? I said 70% of the atmosphere's oxygen was created by algae in the oceans. Last time I checked, 70 was a number. Try again Lazs. Hortlund is right - education!
The rest of the statement doesn't need "numbers". We don't need to know exactly how many pentiillion algae are in the oceans for DA's statement to hold true. We don't need to know precisely how many molecules of oxygen each will produce. And even if we did, we wouldn't have a name for that number, and would have to use E-numbers to express it.. Besides, we don't want to tax your already overstretched mental faculties. :D
If someone sets fire to your house, it burns down. No "numbers" required for that simple fact. Hope this helps. :aok
-
I have to say, our educational system, in the US anyhow, is more about indoctrination than education. Some posters here are reinforcing my opinion in this.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I have to say, our educational system, in the US anyhow, is more about indoctrination than education. Some posters here are reinforcing my opinion in this.
I'd say all american posters, cept a handful are reinforcing that option.
Education level = abysmal
Indoctrination level = USA USA USA WOO HOOO GUNS AND CARS YIPEE
-
Originally posted by lazs2
LOl.. this is funny.. I am not saying anthing.. my education or lack of is not the issue.. you are not trying to disprove me with your pitiful educations but the scientists I link to. the thousands of scientists who have more education and experiance than all of you combined who say that co2 numbers do not add up.
more scare tactics with no numbers.. the poor delicate ocean will not be able to absorb the co2? It has in the past... more than we have now... the "risks" and "clearly it would be a bad thing" and "risks tampering"
And moray... if you are quoting... you should get current.. you quoted that 2005 was the record with 98... the new data says 1935 was the hottest..
But.. I will play.. The way we play now is.. one year increments? if it is cold for one year.. end of problem? I said the average for seven years was down... one might be up but others are down..
course.. the margin of error is higher than all the charts any of us have shown but.. that is just a detail.
What bad has happened? why won't the oceans absorb co2 anymore? they did in the past. what are the frigging numbers?
.
And.. if you guys are so upset about man made greenhouse gas supposed global warming... petition to stop everyone from eating meat... put out the coal fires that are raging around the world and then get back to me.
Do the big easy stuff first.
lazs
First of all... Experience doesn't have an A in it. I know, 4th grade was kinda tough.
Sir, I didn't quote any site or any data set in any of my past three posts. You prove to me again and again that you lack fundamental tools in interpretting what people say. I did however, POST Hortlund's rant, and told him he need's to chill out. Do you even READ, or do you just blather?
I think I understand Hortlund's issue with you.
I'm impressed you didn't tell us, again, about the fires in China...your current talking point ad nauseum. Oh, wait, you DID say it again? Crap.
My problem with you is that you decide how things are then go out and try to find information that backs up your OPINION. In science, we do it the other way around... OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
You live in a fairy tale land of Lazs make-believe, where a 357 magnum comes with every happy meal and pixies whisper "Torture isn't torture if you do it" to all.
READ THIS TO UNDERSTAND MY LAST POST
http://www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_gcc.html (http://)
-
Ah, the grand fires in China, that put out pointless amounts of CO2 with very little use of Oxygen, and now the oceans soaks it up without satur..rrr..whatever, and doesn't even fall on the Ph scale....WTF is Ph anyway, a university degree right?
:t
-
For those who don't follow that link... i know, tough since the hyperlink didn't post...
From the site:
The following were some of the major conclusions of the workshop:
1.Ocean acidification is a predictable consequence of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from human activities. Surface ocean chemistry CO2 and pH changes resulting from these activities can be predicted with a high degree of confidence.
2.Ocean acidification means that there would be concern over carbon dioxide emissions independently and apart from any possible effects of carbon dioxide on the climate system. Ocean acidification and climate change are both effects of CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, but they are completely different; ocean acidification depends on the chemistry of carbon dioxide; whereas climate change depends on temperature and freshwater changes resulting from the atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
3.If current trends in carbon dioxide emissions continue, the ocean will acidify to an extent and at rates that have not occurred for tens of millions of years. At present, ocean chemistry is changing at least 100 times more rapidly than it has changed in the 100,000 years preceding our industrial era.
4.Ocean acidification could be expected to have major negative impacts on corals and other marine organisms that build calcium carbonate shells and skeletons. When carbon dioxide reacts with seawater it forms carbonic acid, which is corrosive to calcium carbonate shells and skeletons. The impact is likely to be disruptions through large components of the marine food web. The potential for ecological adaptation is unclear at this time; however, both in today's ocean and over geologic time the rate of accumulation of shells and skeletons made from carbonate minerals shows a consistent relationship with ocean chemical conditions indicating that the success of these organisms is largely controlled by carbonate chemistry.
5.Research is needed to better understand the vulnerabilities, resilience, and adaptability of marine organisms and ecosystems. The science of understanding the biological consequences of ocean acidification, and placing these changes in a historical context, is in its infancy; initial information indicates that there is cause for great concern over the threat carbon dioxide poses for the health of our oceans.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
I'd say all american posters, cept a handful are reinforcing that option.
Education level = abysmal
Indoctrination level = USA USA USA WOO HOOO GUNS AND CARS YIPEE
Educationally, we are abbysmal... but not because the education system is broken. sir. The priorities of our citizenry is what is the issue. The information gets put out, (the basic sciences, math, social studies, etc....) Hortlund, it has just become accepted that you have a right to NOT learn it. Besides, there are pictures of Brittney's snatch to be googled.
Our society is becoming broken to the point of stupidity.
-
ok... the only number we get is 70%...
At what point will co2 cause enough damage to the ocean to matter? what are the exact effects and when will they happen? next year? year after? ten years?
run it down to me. give me the numbers... continually saying that I am being mean to you and that I am stupid does not prove your point in any way.
moray is the worst I believe.. ask him about co2 causing the planet to heat up and he sidesteps.. He never said that he says... he does agree that water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas.. ask him if he thinks our contribution is considerable.. he sidesteps and says.. he never said we were contributing.
ask him what he is talking about and he goes to "balance" the fragile planet and balance of greenhouse gases.. now it is saturation of the ocean... yet..
no frigging numbers.. no proof that it is anything at all to worry about..
So tell us.. moray.. hortlund... when is the big disaster gonna hit? when will we all fry? Is it still sometime after 2100?
I bet you guys were the same ones who thought WHY tooooo kaaaay was gonna be the end of the world? come on... admit it.. you were scared crapless about it.
Show me that numbers on how much co2 the ocean can absorb and how we are putting more of a co2 burden on it.. a catastrophic one.. than ever before in the history of the world... show me the numbers.
first it is man made c02 creating a greenhouse effect... then it is water vapor that.. who knows.. you guys never did say if you really thought man was contributing to that... then it was balance of greenhouse gases and now... it is man (by co2) changing the PH of the ocean to something it has never been through before.
and.. not a bit of proof for any of it.. except to say... "bad things will happen".
I really don't know if man is contributing to the current benevolent warm period we are in or not or.. if we are if it is even measurable but... from the stuff you guys are putting out.. there sure doesn't seem to be much proof..
maybe we are but not in any way you guys are saying... I guess if you keep jumping around enough.. eventually you will find something. still.. it should have been apparent by now.. we should be able to get a consensus.
but we don't... scientists that are ten times the minds of moray and hortlund and angus combined.. think it is a hoax. Why should I believe you over them? they offer numbers.. you offer scare tactics and vague threats and name calling.
moray... how much do you think man is warming the planet... do you think we can cause a catastrophic warming and what do you think it is that we are doing that is causing it.
simple question.. I will complicate it a bit tho.. what can we do to stop it if you think we are causing it.. what IN DETAIL would the kyoto treaty do any good at all in your opinion.. how many minutes longer would we have on this earth if we all signed it? how many minutes would it forestall the inveitable doom?
lazs
-
Using the above "logic" ^ I believe I'm immortal. I can't put a date - a number - to the day when I'm going to die, therefore I believe I won't die at all but will live forever.
I need never worry about burning myself on the stove any more. Because I don't know the exact temperature - the number - that my ring burner gets to when I'm boiling pasta, I can safely assume that I will never burn myself at the stove.
I can go against the advice of the makers of my oil filled electrically powered radiator, and drape clothes over it to dry. Because I don't have "the numbers" for what temperature the radiator runs at, or the flash point of the clothes I might be drying on it, I can assume that there's no fire risk at all.
And I can drive to work on Monday, and because I don't know precisely how many other cars will be on the same stretch of highway as me at the same time, I can assume there will be no traffic jam, because I don't have "the numbers".
Well Golly-G, it must be comfy is Lazs-World. If you don't know "the numbers", anything is possible, and you can live forever. :D
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
From the site:
Surface ocean chemistry CO2 and pH changes resulting from these activities can be predicted with a high degree of confidence.
"a high degree of confidence", what degree is that, 30%, 50%, 70%?
my own contribution to the numbers game.
reconstructed temperature
Abstract
Examination of large-scale millennial-long temperature reconstructions reveals a wide range of datasets and methods used for calibration. Proxy time series are commonly calibrated against overlapping instrumental records, representing different seasons, Northern Hemisphere latitudinal bands, and including or excluding sea surface temperature data. Methodological differences include, using scaling or regression, the calibration time period, and smoothing data before calibration. We find that these various approaches alone can result in differences in the reconstructed temperature amplitude of about 0.5°C. This magnitude is equivalent to the mean annual temperature change for the Northern Hemisphere reported in the last IPCC report for the 1000–1998 period. A more precise assessment of absolute reconstructed temperature amplitudes is necessary to help quantify the relative influences of forcing mechanisms in climate models.
Received 10 August 2004; accepted 8 February 2005; published 15 April 2005
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/20...4GL021236.shtml
i quote.
"A more precise assessment of absolute reconstructed temperature amplitudes is necessary to help quantify the relative influences of forcing mechanisms in climate models. "
-
Lazs, - there is no particular point where the ocean goes strictly from good to bad with falling pH. It just goes from now to worse.
And for you as well as Moray,- the same goes with agriculture. Falling pH will completely change the crops as well as possible vegetation.
I have quite much experience with exactly this. Wish I had learned more of the chemistry before I went farming though,,,
-
Originally posted by john9001
"a high degree of confidence", what degree is that, 30%, 50%, 70%?
my own contribution to the numbers game.
reconstructed temperature
Abstract
Examination of large-scale millennial-long temperature reconstructions reveals a wide range of datasets and methods used for calibration. Proxy time series are commonly calibrated against overlapping instrumental records, representing different seasons, Northern Hemisphere latitudinal bands, and including or excluding sea surface temperature data. Methodological differences include, using scaling or regression, the calibration time period, and smoothing data before calibration. We find that these various approaches alone can result in differences in the reconstructed temperature amplitude of about 0.5°C. This magnitude is equivalent to the mean annual temperature change for the Northern Hemisphere reported in the last IPCC report for the 1000–1998 period. A more precise assessment of absolute reconstructed temperature amplitudes is necessary to help quantify the relative influences of forcing mechanisms in climate models.
Received 10 August 2004; accepted 8 February 2005; published 15 April 2005
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/20...4GL021236.shtml
i quote.
"A more precise assessment of absolute reconstructed temperature amplitudes is necessary to help quantify the relative influences of forcing mechanisms in climate models. "
check your link please.
-
Ok.. are we now off of the whole man made global warming thing and onto man made destroy the ocean?
You guys are not on the climate anymore.. but...
I will see your new scare tactic and raise you.... one solution!
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/08.24/99-seafloor.html
lazs
-
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004GL021236.shtml
link fixed, thanks.
-
Now.. are we back on climate or do we want to go onto ocean pollution?
Man may be changing the climate in some way but.. you guys haven't shown how yet.. co2 may be helping in some way but it is certainly slight by the numbers...
oh..
http://www.climatepolice.com/
If you go to the bottom you will find a linked document on projected climate change to 2030...
hortlund and moray and louie won't understand it because it has a lot of numbers and stuff but... the gist of it is that it most of the climate change that co2 is capable of has already happened.. if co2 is driving climate change then it has shot it's wad... the study shows the relationship between the temperature and the increase in co2 in 20 ppm increments. more co2 has had less and less effect.
This is in line with every study I have seen.. if you realize that co2's ability to check certain types of solar radiation is not linnear.. a doubling doesn't double the amount of radiation it can hold.. the first increases do all the work.
we have already had about a 40% of the doubling that is so feared and it may be responsible for.. maybe 1 degree.. at that rate... getting to a doubling would increase temps maybe 0.4 degrees.. after that.. further increases would not make any measurable difference.
This is in line with some of the more conservative alarmists at about 1 degree by the end of the century.. the alarmists RANGE is 1-almost 6 degrees! how can you trust their models? this is a huge range and indicates their models are a guess.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Now.. are we back on climate or do we want to go onto ocean pollution?
Man may be changing the climate in some way but.. you guys haven't shown how yet.. co2 may be helping in some way but it is certainly slight by the numbers...
oh..
http://www.climatepolice.com/
hortlund and moray and louie won't understand it because it has a lot of numbers and stuff but... the gist of it is that it most of the climate change that co2 is capable of has already happened.. if co2 is driving climate change then it has shot it's wad... the study shows the relationship between the temperature and the increase in co2 in 20 ppm increments. more co2 has had less and less effect.
This is in line with every study I have seen.. if you realize that co2's ability to check certain types of solar radiation is not linnear.. a doubling doesn't double the amount of radiation it can hold.. the first increases do all the work.
lazs
You really are funny. You're so right all those big numbers... so confusing. I think maybe it's the republimath that went with it.... that was kinda fuzzy.
That was in line with every study you've seen? That was? You must have read exactly one study then...and none of the other 96%. Another example of you decidng the issue then going out and finding someone who agrees with you... then presenting it as your own opinion. You are a simpleton.
And, as I've said before, I'm not predicting CO2 to be the big player in AGW. I've said REPEATEDLY (you just NEVER read) that carbon dioxide is a third rate warming gas, but the slight warming it gives by itself unlocks the really bad CH4 from lockup in permafrost and undersea. Lazs... please try hard to keep up. You've never seen me jump up and down saying CO2 is everything here.... NEVER.
Also, I feel the main issue with CO2 is its effect upon the oceans, big surprise, since I see it and deal with it. The oceans are the carbon sink for hyperconcentrations....which drop the pH by forming base acids. CO2 concentrations are dropping the pH in the oceans... and that is tied into the whole anthropogenic global warming debate.
You constantly prove the fact I am talking to someone incapable of linnear thought, or logic.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
http://www.climatepolice.com/
lazs
As usual, you link to a site that has made its mission to disprove the AGW debate. All of your links are exactly that way. This should tell you something. When a site is as biased as this...
And the paper you linked to..."Projections to 2030"
David C. Archibald.
The AUTHOR REFERENCED HIMSELF as the NUMBER ONE CONTRIBUTOR. You seriously pick good folks to listen to.
YOU are so easily confused.
Here is a quote from a guy who had his work abused by Archibald...
My model, used for deception
Filed under: Climate Science— david @ 7:57 AM
Well, not my model exactly. I developed and host a web interface to the modtran model of atmospheric infrared radiation, an early example of a line-by-line code which I downloaded and use to teach and as part of a textbook. Now David C. Archibald from Summa Development Limited, Perth, WA, Australia claims that my "University of Chicago modtran facility" proves that global warming won't happen.
Archibald begins by discovering that the IR light flux at the top of the atmosphere is more sensitive to changes in atmosphere CO2 when the concentration of CO2 is lower. This will come as no surprise to regular readers of realclimate who will know that the energy flux scales with the logarithm of CO2. The log dependence is why the climate sensitivity parameter is often posed as a temperature change for doubled CO2 concentration; to first order, a change from 10 ppm to 20 would have about as much climate impact as a change from 1000 to 2000 ppm. So Archibald is right on this score, clearly climate is more sensitive to CO2 when levels are lower. However, I think most climate models are aware that atmospheric CO2 is 380 ppm rather than 10 ppm, and they predict global warming anyway. If we were starting out from 10 ppm, the warming would be even worse.
Archibald then takes an atmospheric increase of 40 ppm which he thinks will happen by the year 2030. I'd have guessed 60 ppm by then at least, the way things are going, but whatever, we'll see. He uses my setup of modtran to calculate that the IR flux to space would drop by 0.4 Watts / m2 as a result of this 40 ppm. Try it yourself. Run the model once with 375 ppm CO2 and another time with 415 ppm, and compare the Iout values in Watts / m2. The exact number you get depends on humidity, setting, clouds, etc. Formulas given in IPCC would say 0.5 Watts / m2; zeroing out water vapor in modtran gets the IR response up to 0.6 Watts / m2 for the default tropical atmosphere case. At any rate Archibald isn't wildly off here either.
But then Archibald multiplies the radiative forcing by an absurdly low value of the climate sensitivity parameter. In this case he is using the parameter in units of degrees C per Watt / m2. The two forms of the climate sensitivity parameter that we have discussed here are related by a factor of about 4 Watts / m2 for a doubling of CO2. The value Archibald uses is 0.1 degree C per Watt / m2 which was "demonstrated" in a paper entitled "CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change" by Idso, 1998. Translated, Idso's climate sensitivity winds up to be 0.4 degrees for doubling CO2. IPCC finds it essentially impossible (yeah, I know, highly unlikely or whatever) that the climate sensitivity could be less than 1.5 degrees C for doubling CO2, and 3 degrees C is a best-guess value.
In the end, Archibald concludes that the warming from the next 40 ppm of CO2 rise (never mind the rest of it) will only be 0.04 degrees C. Archibald's low-ball estimate of climate change comes not from the modtran model my server ran for him, but from his own low-ball value of the climate sensitivity.
-
FOR LASZ
BBC contrarian top 10
Filed under: Reporting on climate Climate Science¡ª gavin @ 2:07 PM
There is an interesting, if predictable, piece up on the BBC website devoted to investigating whether there is any 'consensus' among the various contrarians on why climate change isn't happening (or if it is, it isn't caused by human activity or if it is why it won't be important, or if it is important, why nothing can be done etc.). Bottom line? The only thing they appear to agree about is that nothing should be done, but they have a multitude of conflicting reasons why. Hmm¡_
The journalist, Richard Black, put together a top 10 list of sceptic arguments he gathered from emailing the 61 signers of a Canadian letter. While these aren't any different in substance to the ones routinely debunked here (and here and here), this list comes with the imprimatur of Fred Singer - the godfather to the sceptic movement, and recent convert from the view that it's been cooling since 1940 to the idea that global warming is now unstoppable. Thus these are the arguments (supposedly) that are the best that the contrarians have to put forward.
Alongside each of these talking points, is a counter-point from the mainstream (full disclosure, I helped Richard edit some of those). In truth though, I was a little disappointed at how lame their 'top 10¡ä arguments were. In order, they are: false, a cherry pick, a red herring, false, false, false, a red herring, a red herring, false and a strawman. They even used the 'grapes grew in medieval England' meme that you'd think they'd have abandoned already given that more grapes are grown in England now than ever before (see here). Another commonplace untruth is the claim that water vapour is '98% of the greenhouse effect' - it's just not.
So why do the contrarians still use arguments that are blatantly false? I think the most obvious reason is that they are simply not interested (as a whole) in providing a coherent counter story. If science has one overriding principle, it is that you should adjust your thinking in the light of new information and discoveries - the contrarians continued use of old, tired and discredited arguments demonstrates their divorce from the scientific process more clearly than any densely argued rebuttal.
-
You beat me to it Moray :)
I'll just post the link then My model used for deception (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/#more-477)
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
So why do the contrarians still use arguments that are blatantly false?
Probably why GW supporters continue to site the discredited Mann Hockeystick graph as gospel.
-
Link to debunking (http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Probably why GW supporters continue to site the discredited Mann Hockeystick graph as gospel.
The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick, which hold that the "Hockey-Stick" shape of the MBH98 reconstruction is an artifact of the use of series with infilled data and the convention by which certain networks of proxy data were represented in a Principal Components Analysis ("PCA"), are readily seen to be false , as detailed in a response by Mann and colleagues to their rejected Nature criticism demonstrating that (1) the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction is robust with respect to the elimination of any data that were infilled in the original analysis, (2) the main features of the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely insensitive to whether or not proxy data networks are represented by PCA, (3) the putative ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick, which argues for anomalous 15th century warmth (in contradiction to all other known reconstructions), is an artifact of the censoring by the authors of key proxy data in the original Mann et al (1998) dataset, and finally, (4) Unlike the original Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, the so-called ‘correction’ by McIntyre and McKitrick fails statistical verification exercises, rendering it statistically meaningless and unworthy of discussion in the legitimate scientific literature.
False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al. (1998) reconstruction (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=8)
-
LAZS..spend a day or more on this site... it's just a bit more unbiased than yours... though some of the perceived bias you'll talk about comes from real scientists that back their OWN WORK.
Real Climate (http://www.realclimate.org/)
-
Solar Surface Rad VS Global Surface Temp (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/global-dimming-and-global-warming/)
I find it telling to watch solar RAD fall away from the Global Temp....Sure is the sun, stupid.
These are GISS numbers...doesn't get any better than that
-
Moray, PLEASE STOP POSTING SO MANY LINKS; I've got some catching up to do before I have enough learning speed :D
Just kidding. Thank you so very much for your links. And this:
" If science has one overriding principle, it is that you should adjust your thinking in the light of new information and discoveries "
ESPECIALLY !
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Solar Surface Rad VS Global Surface Temp (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/global-dimming-and-global-warming/)
I find it telling to watch solar RAD fall away from the Global Temp....Sure is the sun, stupid.
These are GISS numbers...doesn't get any better than that
You should realize that the article you just referenced does not imply there is less solar radiation, only that less is received at the surface as explained by the "dimming". If anything this would seem to contradict the concept of the greenhouse effect being the cause for warming.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
You should realize that the article you just referenced does not imply there is less solar radiation, only that less is received at the surface as explained by the "dimming". If anything this would seem to contradict the concept of the greenhouse effect being the cause for warming.
LOL you should realize that that dimming occurs in the higher levels of the atmosphere..specifically the stratosphere, and that CO2 concentrations are firmly rooted in the troposphere...and this graph proves it spectacularly.
If the sun is getting dimmed... (solar RADS down) and the Temp is GOING UP... Do the math AK and listen to your squadmate(?)
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
LOL you should realize that that dimming occurs in the higher levels of the atmosphere..specifically the stratosphere, and that CO2 concentrations are firmly rooted in the troposphere...and this graph proves it spectacularly.
If the sun is getting dimmed... (solar RADS down) and the Temp is GOING UP... Do the math AK and listen to your squadmate(?)
Are you a proponent of the greenhouse effect being the cause of global warming? You do understand what the greenhouse effect is right?
Just in case, here's a quick refresher:http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/greenhouse.html
-
A dimmer sun in this case does not mean it's output is lessened, only that less makes it to the surface. An increased output of the sun with a corresponding increase in the earth's temperature with warmer air holding more moisture could easily explain both dimming and the increase in temp. "It's the sun stupid" is not so easily explained away.
-
Here ya go AKH
National Academy of Sciences, June 22, 2006, Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium. The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that "the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium" because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales."
So there is some backup against holding the Mann Hockeystick as gospel.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
A dimmer sun in this case does not mean it's output is lessened, only that less makes it to the surface. An increased output of the sun with a corresponding increase in the earth's temperature with warmer air holding more moisture could easily explain both dimming and the increase in temp. "It's the sun stupid" is not so easily explained away.
AK... let me explain this to you in another way...
LESS RADS making it to the surface layers. Troposphere.
Sun is being dimmed in the stratosphere.
Troposphere temp.. going UP with LESS ENERGY GETTING TO IT.
My god man... try and keep up.
-
Moray, your graph is hardly the final authority and conclusions based upon it perhaps even less so. I do like this from that article:
"The cautionary note global dimming and
brightening sounds for climate change scientists
is not a new one; rather it strikingly vindicates
the two rules of climate change set out
by Peter Wright 30 years ago [Wright, 1971].
The first rule states that some feature of the
atmosphere can always be found that will
oscillate in accordance with your hypothesis;
the second states that shortly after its discovery,
the oscillation will disappear."
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Here ya go AKH
So there is some backup against holding the Mann Hockeystick as gospel.
Let's go back a paragraph...
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005b, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press) and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press).
You did say discredited, didn't you?
-
Originally posted by AKH
Let's go back a paragraph...
You did say discredited, didn't you?
When the National Academy of sciences cite "substantial uncertainties" to data prior to 1600, and even more uncertainties to their conclusions that the 1990's were the warmest decade.... that discredits it in my view.
I mean we are talking about a 1 degree rize in the last century being huge and the foundational data for many is substantially uncertain.
The only thing the NAS seems to have taken is that Mann shows the climate is warming.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
When the National Academy of sciences cite "substantial uncertainties" to data prior to 1600, and even more uncertainties to their conclusions that the 1990's were the warmest decade.... that discredits it in my view.
I mean we are talking about a 1 degree rize in the last century being huge and the foundational data for many is substantially uncertain.
The only thing the NAS seems to have taken is that Mann shows the climate is warming.
The use of terms like "unprecedented" tends to imply more, or do you only pick out keywords that make your argument appear more plausible?
-
Originally posted by AKH
The use of terms like "unprecedented" tends to imply more, or do you only pick out keywords that make your argument appear more plausible?
Unprecedented does not imply, it means that there is no precedant, that something has never happened before.
It is a strong word.
-
ok... so moray.. you do not think that man made co2 is causing catastrophic warming? It is hard to tell sometimes but "third rate player" seems to confirm this... please.. just tell us yes or no.
Is man made global warming caused by our contribution to co2?
part two would be... do you think we are in an unprecedented and catastrophic warming period and if so... what is causing it?
I believe that the answers by you would go a long way toward making you look less evasive. Point being.. when I say the co2 numbers don't add up.. you defend the co2 acolytes and try to trash the math.. yet... you then say that co2 is a third rate player. Which is it? and if not co2... what is it? or.. is it even worth getting upset about?
as for the numbers.. I don't believe anyone has argued that the effect of co2 does not diminish as the concentration increases so that it is not linear.
as for margin of error.. if 1 degree is what we are all getting upset about.. then the margin of error is a major player... on the one hand... we have on "mann" saying that the history of the planets climate is a hockey stick..
This would deny that there was ever a mideveal warm period as warm or warmer than today or that there ever was a "little ice age".
I think it fair that, asking moray what he believes.. I should say what I do..
I believe we are in a warming period... so far.. it has been very very good for us... I believe that if it is helped by anything we are doing as a people then it is a very tiny bit and that co2 has such an insignificant effect as to be a sideshow.
I believe that we won't see much more in the way of this warm period tho and we will go back to a colder period.. with any luck.. it won't come soon and when it does.. it won't be too bad.
lazs
-
Lazs, it would also be interesting to know if you belive that the globe has been warming in the last 25 years or not...
So, no playing with it.
I have seen conflicting statements there, as well as the unsupported claim that it has been cooling in the last years.....
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok... so moray.. you do not think that man made co2 is causing catastrophic warming? It is hard to tell sometimes but "third rate player" seems to confirm this... please.. just tell us yes or no.
Is man made global warming caused by our contribution to co2?
part two would be... do you think we are in an unprecedented and catastrophic warming period and if so... what is causing it?
I believe that the answers by you would go a long way toward making you look less evasive. Point being.. when I say the co2 numbers don't add up.. you defend the co2 acolytes and try to trash the math.. yet... you then say that co2 is a third rate player. Which is it? and if not co2... what is it? or.. is it even worth getting upset about?
as for the numbers.. I don't believe anyone has argued that the effect of co2 does not diminish as the concentration increases so that it is not linear.
as for margin of error.. if 1 degree is what we are all getting upset about.. then the margin of error is a major player... on the one hand... we have on "mann" saying that the history of the planets climate is a hockey stick..
This would deny that there was ever a mideveal warm period as warm or warmer than today or that there ever was a "little ice age".
I think it fair that, asking moray what he believes.. I should say what I do..
I believe we are in a warming period... so far.. it has been very very good for us... I believe that if it is helped by anything we are doing as a people then it is a very tiny bit and that co2 has such an insignificant effect as to be a sideshow.
I believe that we won't see much more in the way of this warm period tho and we will go back to a colder period.. with any luck.. it won't come soon and when it does.. it won't be too bad.
lazs
Jesus, bro, you are dense.
#1. Yes, CO2 is causing a warming event. YES
#2. NO, CO2 is not a very efficient Greenhouse gas. H20 vapor and CH4 are infinitely better at warming... but they aren't changing in content yet.
Seriously, stop asking me questions that I JUST ANSWERED A POST AGO.
I get a feeling you had issues with either ADD, or just weren't a good student at all.
My cats make more sense when they "meow". At least I have a free interpretation on what they mean....unlike your mishmash of ideology and lost logic.
The warming period has been very very good for us? There are water shortages on both coasts right now. The largest fire in recent historical times almost burned San Diego. Floods in Europe, followed by droughts. Alaskan coastline, eroding away by the day. You have a very, very short attention span.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
The warming period has been very very good for us? There are water shortages on both coasts right now. The largest fire in recent historical times almost burned San Diego. Floods in Europe, followed by droughts. Alaskan coastline, eroding away by the day. You have a very, very short attention span.
moray is right, this is the first time in the history of mankind that there have been water shortages, floods, droughts, fires, and eroding coastlines.
:rolleyes:
i put the full blame on the Wicked Witch of the East.
-
Originally posted by john9001
moray is right, this is the first time in the history of mankind that there have been water shortages, floods, droughts, fires, and eroding coastlines.
:rolleyes:
i put the full blame on the Wicked Witch of the East.
I agree that Hillary can be blamed for a lot of ill but I'll stop short of blaming her for droughts.
-
My two cents....
I was completely for global warming right before I was completely against it!
-
Be against it if you like, but it's still gonnaa warm your butt :D
-
Lazs thinks the "envirnoment" guys are wobbling, but maybe it's Lazs?
Ok.. are we now off of the whole man made global warming thing and onto man made destroy the ocean?
Now.. are we back on climate or do we want to go onto ocean pollution?
I'll have to let you off that one, because it seems the topic title got changed for some reason. It was originally something like MMGW... The environment guys have been consistent in maintaining that Man Made Global Warming stems from one principal activity - the burning of fossil fuels. This has a negative impact on the climate AND the oceans. So we're not "off" one thing, and "on" to another. And we are not "off" CO2 and "on" to H20; I have said before that burning fossil fuels creates BOTH. Maybe you didn't read it - no surprise there then. :D I believe we are in a warming period... so far.. it has been very very good for us...
Well LOL, on two counts. For the last n posts, you've been saying that the earth has been cooling for at least 7 years. But that's probably because your graphs don't go past year 2000, and you have extrapolated the trend based on what happened in previous years? Sounds like the sort of thing you'd do, and I'm not the only one saying it. ^
As for LOL #2, the warming has been good for.... us? Who is "us"? Do you mean all inhabitants of the earth, or just a select subset of human inhabitants in one particular continent, country or state? Because from what I've read (just yesterday) entire species of organisms are coming under the threat of extinction because of the warming. And, you might say this is "no problem" because the species under direct threat are not human. But again, human life is dependent many small organisms (eg. algae in the oceans that generate 70% of the earth's atmospheric oxygen - there are others). So if you think that the current warming is good for "us", maybe you'd better think again. :aok
-
Originally posted by john9001
moray is right, this is the first time in the history of mankind that there have been water shortages, floods, droughts, fires, and eroding coastlines.
:rolleyes:
i put the full blame on the Wicked Witch of the East.
First time that the south east, besides florida, has been under severe water shortages. Look it up, it's unprecendented. There are towns that only run water for 3 hours a day...and this is in WINTER...supposedly the wet part af the year. That has NEVER happened before. Tennesee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia....
-
moray.. sorry but you did not nor have you ever answered my question completely.
Do you think that man made co2 is causing a catastrophic warming.
I do hope you are not blaming the arson fires in kalifornia on global warming? How many died? How many died in one year during some of our coldest winters in this century alone?
the yellowstone fires were pretty bad.. was that man made global warming too? If we can't even put out fires tho... how the hell we gonna change the carbon level in the entire atmosphere?
louie.. I can see we are not communicating... We are in a warming trend.. this is good. I believe we have probly reached the peak and we have seen a cooling in the last 7 years from that peak. There are always spikes tho... low and high.. that is why.. in our lifetimes.. so many have said throughout time that this or that was the coldest or warmest or whatever they had ever seen... old guys around the pot bellied stove.
I believe we are going to enter a cooling trend as surely as night follows day... there is nothing we can do to stop it.
I believe we are being scammed for political and selfish reasons and that jumping in, right in the middle of a warming trend with a hand wringing "end of world" scenario is pretty cs and plays on neurotic peoples fears. Lefties are fritghtened and neurotic by nature so this is taylor made for em.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I believe we are being scammed for political and selfish reasons and that jumping in, right in the middle of a warming trend with a hand wringing "end of world" scenario is pretty cs and plays on neurotic peoples fears. Lefties are fritghtened and neurotic by nature so this is taylor made for em.
Someone said earlier that reality has a left leaning streak. :D You bang on about politicians/socialists/girly men feathering their own nests with a global warming "scam". The other side does their own scamming. You have Big Oil and the Detroit motor industry and drivers of 10mpg cars wringing their hands and believing it's the end of the world if they had to drive something that gets 18mpg or more, while people in texas are worried because that's the hub of the American oil industry. So they deny that the earth is warming and/or deny that mankind has anything to do with it, and then go cherrypicking for data to support the opinion they've already formed which has itself been formed to support a particular lifestyle or livelihood. Not very scientific, as Moray has already pointed out. Talk about frightened and neurotic! :lol
-
louie.. I drive a lincoln that gets 23 mpg and I drive hot rods that get 10-14 mpg.. I ride a motorcycle that gets 50 mpg..
I am not frieghtened in the least... you can't take away my hot rods because they are all old and exempt. I don't give a crap what anyone drives.. if they can afford the gas then let em. In fact.. I like the fact that if they own low mpg cars, and gas goes up... there will be fewer of em on the road.
that is as it should be.. the cost of fuel, its availability, will be the motivator for what people drive.
I think that there is some bizzare and childish envy going on with the environmentalists and the lefties.. they simply don't like to see people driving SUV's they want to punish.. they want to control. to be more pious than others. silly control freak, socialist crap.
I fear nothing because... I am a hot rodder... no matter what power source comes out.. mine will be a hot rod.. mine will always be faster than the one you buy.
I do fear.. useless taxes to solve a made up problem with unworkable and power grabbing solutions.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
Someone said earlier that reality has a left leaning streak.
Whoever said that is living in lala land. The free market/capitalism is far closer to nature unfettered by delusions of utopia than is socialism.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think that there is some bizzare and childish envy going on with the environmentalists and the lefties.. they simply don't like to see people driving SUV's they want to punish.. they want to control. to be more pious than others. silly control freak, socialist crap.
I find that to be a strange point of view, given that the areas of the world where GW will bite first and bite hardest are often impoverished countries like Bangladesh. They're really concerned about GW because it's a low lying country without proper funding to build flood defences. Given that its per capita GDP is around $2000, this has absolutely zilch to do with SUVs because no-one there could afford one. So that's that argument blown out of the water.
Also I note that "Angus" is clearly concerned about GW, and he lives in Iceland. How many gas guzzling SUVs do they have in Iceland?
-
Hehe, Lois
"How many gas guzzling SUVs do they have in Iceland?"
Terribly many, and only USA (AFAIK) exceeds us in terms of cars per inhabitant.
This is recent, and simply due to good economy, - people do indeed stop "gizzling" when it hits the purse. However, the average wallet up here is now thick.
However, the road system is rather long pr. inhabitant, and I belive the miles pr. inhabitant are not so high.
(Well, you always have to take a lot into the account)
Sidenote here, (personal) - I prefer to keep honest about these things. This might not suit my "agenda", - or rather thesis regarding concern of emissions. But right is right, and I prefer the Churchillian way of a no-bluff when it comes to these "politics". I also belive that with straight (and possibly friendly) approaches like this, more "educational" feedback is achieved rather than through bashing and humiliating as well as hurting victories or losses in debates.
Maybe just me, but I stick through this theory,,,,and it's not easy :(
As for the impact, the country is easily self-sustainable - energyvise. We basically export energy AFAIK.
Oh, and as a sidenote, I don't even have a car :D
(...sort of....but I mostly go by foot, and therefore I don't need a guzzler to drive me to the gym )
:t
-
louis.. you are a little difficult to follow..
Are you saying the "man made global warming is gonna end the world as we know it sometime (not specified) soon movement"
was started in, and run by, bangledesh?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
louis.. you are a little difficult to follow..
Yes, I realise some of the words I used have more than four letters and more than one syllable.
Are you saying the "man made global warming is gonna end the world as we know it sometime (not specified) soon movement"
was started in, and run by, bangledesh?
Why do you always ask people what they're saying? If you would read the post properly (something you never seem to do) then you would KNOW what's being said.
This thread is ending up exactly as I predicted, with Lazs making fatuous counter remarks and pretending not to know what's being said. In doing this, he knows that most brain cells will leave the thread (as I'm about to do) and then he can have the last word and believe that he's "won the argument".
Let the record show that - Lazs claims the warming predictions are being driven by "liberal socialists" and girly men politicians who want to punish SUV operators.
- I say that's rubbish because one of the first places to suffer the consequences of GW will be Bangladesh, where no-one can afford gas guzzling SUVs and there probably aren't roads for them anyway. Only last week that country was swept my a freak storm - Cyclone Sidr - and 3000+ people died. This follows other freak weather in the SE US, as was pointed out by Moray.
Angus - yes I thought Iceland might have all terrain vehicles. Are your concerns about GW driven by a) a desire to punish their operators, or b) the Arctic ice meltdown you see with your own eyes each day? And... does the Icelandic government have any girly men? ;)
-
I do hope anyone screaming about Global Warming IS NOT relying on the U.N.s claims!!!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071120/D8T14OD80.html
Cause there is a VERY good chance, as the above reports would indicate, the U.N. is AGAIN mistaken!
-
Heres a place of interest.................
http://www.heartland.org/
seems dedicated to Global Warming NOT!
-
LOL, Lois:
"Angus - yes I thought Iceland might have all terrain vehicles. Are your concerns about GW driven by a) a desire to punish their operators, or b) the Arctic ice meltdown you see with your own eyes each day? And... does the Icelandic government have any girly men? "
- The big-wheeled crew mostly live in town! It's money people in abundance.
- Oh, we see the meltdown and notice the warming.
- Girly men are everywhere :D
-
Thought ya'll would get a laugh out of this video!
This is a great imitation of a George W. Bush performed by some kid, talking about global warming issues.
Pres Bush on Global Warming: http://stupidvideos.us/video.aspx/IDp~1572/George%20W.%20Bush%20imitation/Funny%20videos/
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by wrag
I do hope anyone screaming about Global Warming IS NOT relying on the U.N.s claims!!!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/19/AR2007111900978_pf.html
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071120/D8T14OD80.html
Cause there is a VERY good chance, as the above reports would indicate, the U.N. is AGAIN mistaken!
So...you guys are really desperate for arguments now huh?
-
I'm desperate to not give the UN a freakin' inch when it comes to anything.
-
louis.. you can't have it both ways... you said
"The other side does their own scamming. You have Big Oil and the Detroit motor industry and drivers of 10mpg cars wringing their hands and believing it's the end of the world if they had to drive something that gets 18mpg or more,"
you are implying that the whole argument is about SUV's.. I was merely making fun of this. People aren't saying that it's a scam so that they can continue to drive SUV's They are saying it's a scam cause the numbers don't add up.
then you said that...
" I find that to be a strange point of view, given that the areas of the world where GW will bite first and bite hardest are often impoverished countries like Bangladesh. They're really concerned about GW because it's a low lying country without proper funding to build flood defences. Given that its per capita GDP is around $2000, this has absolutely zilch to do with SUVs because no-one there could afford one. So that's that argument blown out of the water."
now really... I don't see a lot of bangladesh people in the news saying that they fear man made global warming. The scientists who are in on the scam aren't doing it to save bangledesh.. they are doing it to get grants. for the money... for the fame... and.. they are socialist one world government types that see any individuality as a threat.
They aren't trying to get a thing out of the people of bangledesh except to use them. It matters not what the average income of bangledesh is.. that isn't who they are trying to soak... in the US alone we are spending billions a year on research for this.. money that goes to fatten their bank accounts.. it has nothing to do with bangledesh for them.
don't bring up SUV's and I won't... don't bring up bangledesh and I won't. They are irrelevant to the subject in any case.
and your examples of this storm or that being unusual.. there is no such thing as a normal year for climate or storms. Are you next gonna claim that the mild hurricane season can be credited to benificial man made global warming? of course not.. only bad things right? Name me a year in history where some natural disaster or multiple ones did not occur.
lazs
-
and... I don't drive an SUV.. I don't care about em one way or the other except to say that it is none of my business what anyone drives.
Do you feel the same way? Do you think you have a right... in the name of man made global warming.. to ban SUV's? except for the MMGW priests to drive to their jets of course... they are exempt.
What exactly do you think should be done? no one here will answer. I think that is because they know how stupid the whole thing will sound to everyone... Like banning SUV's will do squat.. Like making meat illegal will help.. maybe "carbon credits" to pad some peoples pockets and to ease the conscience of the pious believers? none of it will do diddly.. but that doesn't matter cause the problem is a fabricated one anyway.
And I agree with AKiron.. I am desperate to see that the UN get's no power over anything.
lazs
-
What is a SUV?
-
Originally posted by Angus
What is a SUV?
sport utility vehicle
-
aka performance caravans.
-
Originally posted by moot
aka performance caravans.
bloody English, i still say you drive on the wrong side of the road. :D
-
Guys, (and gals) I'm beginning to think this global warming isn't all bad :lol
(http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a217/sarahjeanb/global.jpg)
-
i think SD67 may be on to something here, but i will have to conduct my own study.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So...you guys are really desperate for arguments now huh?
Not really just REALLY tired of all the people that think the U.N. is so wonderful, cause IMHO it AIN'T.
Not even close!
WAY too often, IMHO, claims made by the U.N. are so much KA KA!
They sold out too many times! They took away peoples weapons claiming that the U.N. would protect them.
Trouble started, the U.N. ............... LEFT RAPIDLY, and DID NOT return the weapons, and the trusting PEOPLE, now defenseless, DIED! Often horrible deaths!
I do NOT trust the U.N.
-
Sorry for posting on this once again, but I was on the nasa site and came across this:
Source (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ipy-20071113.html) NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
Nov.13.07
PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
....
The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend, until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly, with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.
Morison said data gathered by Grace and the bottom pressure gauges since publication of the paper earlier this year highlight how short-lived the ocean circulation changes can be. The newer data indicate the bottom pressure has increased back toward its 2002 level. "The winter of 2006-2007 was another high Arctic Oscillation year and summer sea ice extent reached a new minimum," he said. "It is too early to say, but it looks as though the Arctic Ocean is ready to start swinging back to the counterclockwise circulation pattern of the 1990s again."
-
Don't be sorry. Be happy ;)
And we will then be seeing this circulation occuring quite soon I guess.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Sorry for posting on this once again, but I was on the nasa site and came across this:
Source (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ipy-20071113.html)
So why didnt you quote this part?
Morison cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
So why didnt you quote this part?
I quoted something that I thought intresting and gave you the link so you could see the whole thing. I am sorry if I did not highlight your favorite part.
Just wondering, if 'most climate models predict'... that means some do not. doesn't it?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I quoted something that I thought intresting and gave you the link so you could see the whole thing. I am sorry if I did not highlight your favorite part.
Just wondering, if 'most climate models predict'... that means some do not. doesn't it?
Presumably it does. But considering that everyone, including lasz, can make his own climate model (its the sun...) I wouldnt think too much of it. What it refers to is probably those within the current consensus.
But, see, if we chose to highlight my quoted part, instead of your quoted part, we get an entirely different meaning to the article. Which is probably why you ripped a single sentence out of context. When you read the whole article you realize that it actually supports the current global warming consensus...while if one only reads your sentence, one gets the impression that it doesnt.
Which is why it is important to read the entire article.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
But, see, if we chose to highlight my quoted part, instead of your quoted part, we get an entirely different meaning to the article. Which is probably why you ripped a single sentence out of context.
You would think an article written by Nasa for a Nasa website about a Nasa study would try not to contradict itself by saying "The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming." in an article which says just the opposite.
I mean they even made a second mistake by quoting Morison saying, "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,"
I'm glad you were able to divine the true meaning.
Thank you
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
You would think an article written by Nasa for a Nasa website about a Nasa study would try not to contradict itself by saying "The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming." in an article which says just the opposite.
I mean they even made a second mistake by quoting Morison saying, "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,"
I'm glad you were able to divine the true meaning.
Thank you
Actually, I think much of your confusion here comes from the fact that they are talking about two different things in the article, changes in arctic climate and changes in upper arctic ocean circulation.
I suggest you try to read the article again.
-
Weekend holidays.
The pharmacies are closed.
:D
-
Two different things?
"The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."
Then he discusses how one of these large changes, the upper Arctic Ocean circulation, is multi decadal in nature and not necesarily driven by global warming. This backs up the quoted assertion at the beginning of the article.
The ocean circulation behavior is the point of the article. That is the single point in his discussion.
Perhaps you should reread the article.
And this time with an open mind.
-
what does "long term" mean? seems that nature trumps man yet again.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Weekend holidays.
The pharmacies are closed.
:D
Oh, sorry for you Jacka1. Hold on till monday bro :D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Two different things?
Then he discusses how one of these large changes, the upper Arctic Ocean circulation, is multi decadal in nature and not necesarily driven by global warming. This backs up the quoted assertion at the beginning of the article.
The ocean circulation behavior is the point of the article. That is the single point in his discussion.
Perhaps you should reread the article.
And this time with an open mind.
Well, you're right and you're wrong. The article deals strictly with the circulation patterns. It also, as many current papers do, affirms that this multidecadal pattern is not tied concurrently with the ongoing global warming. The use of this is not to infer the currents are a proof for or against AGW... the author is already giving that GW is a given already. You both need to re-read the article.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071127/ap_on_sc/un_climate_change
So nobody's gonna make any money off the climate change scam?
Tue Nov 27, 1:30 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS - Helping the world's poor adapt to more floods, droughts and other changes from a warming planet will cost the richest nations at least $86 billion a year by 2015, an expert panel warned Tuesday.
"They must have help from the rich world," said Claes Johnasson, a co-author of the report commissioned by the U.N. Development Program. "Climate is forcing people into human development traps."
Half the cost, $44 billion, would go for "climate-proofing" developing nations' infrastructure while $40 billion would help the poor adapt how the live to cope with climate-related risks, says the panel's report. The other $2 billion would go to strengthening responses to natural disasters.
The report recommends the biggest share be paid by the United States and other rich nations, based on aid targets and financing calculations by the World Bank and Group of Eight major industrialized nations.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071127/ap_on_sc/un_climate_change
So nobody's gonna make any money off the climate change scam?
Tue Nov 27, 1:30 PM ET
UNITED NATIONS - Helping the world's poor adapt to more floods, droughts and other changes from a warming planet will cost the richest nations at least $86 billion a year by 2015, an expert panel warned Tuesday.
"They must have help from the rich world," said Claes Johnasson, a co-author of the report commissioned by the U.N. Development Program. "Climate is forcing people into human development traps."
Half the cost, $44 billion, would go for "climate-proofing" developing nations' infrastructure while $40 billion would help the poor adapt how the live to cope with climate-related risks, says the panel's report. The other $2 billion would go to strengthening responses to natural disasters.
The report recommends the biggest share be paid by the United States and other rich nations, based on aid targets and financing calculations by the World Bank and Group of Eight major industrialized nations.
I see the spending part. You left out the making part. And the scam part. Is this an action serial? :D
-
Its cool outside, I thought I would throw another log on the fire.. :D
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Its cool outside, I thought I would throw another log on the fire.. :D
oh sure, dump more carbon into the air. :O
-
cheap exploit of thread to showoff grandkids
(http://www.sidesconsulting.com/misc/firstsnow6.jpg)
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Well, you're right and you're wrong. The article deals strictly with the circulation patterns. It also, as many current papers do, affirms that this multidecadal pattern is not tied concurrently with the ongoing global warming. The use of this is not to infer the currents are a proof for or against AGW... the author is already giving that GW is a given already. You both need to re-read the article.
Okay, where did I offer the quoted article as proof against GW?
After reading the article, I was under the impression that the author was saying, "The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."
Did I get that quote the article wrong? I thought my copy and paste skills were better than that.
-
From:
Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature... (http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf)
In conclusion, if we assume that the latest temperature and TSI secular reconstructions, WANG2005 and D24S03 SCAFETTA AND WEST: SOLAR CONTRIBUTION TO CLIMATE CHANGE 8 of 10 D24S03 MOBERG05, are accurate, we are forced to conclude that solar changes significantly alter climate, and that the climate system responds relatively slowly to such changes with a time constant between 6 and 12 a. This would suggest that the large-scale computer models of climate could be significantly improved by adding additional Sun-climate coupling mechanisms.
Seems that the Sun has more to do with GW than what the "climate models" have been taking into account...
T.
-
ooops...
Oh well... we can always just tax the sun and offer sun credits tho right?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Terror
From:
Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature... (http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/2007JD008437.pdf)
Seems that the Sun has more to do with GW than what the "climate models" have been taking into account...
T.
Yep.. in the same conclusion...
"Therefore our estimates about the solar effect on
climate might be overestimated and should be considered as
an upper limit."
(Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the
Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600)
Pick and choose your facts wisely and read the entire article before pasting.
-
but it does have some effect.. anywhere from 25% to 75% depending on who you believe and.. it is not as well understood as the solar deniers pretend.
I would say that even at the lower limit.. that is a lot more of an effect than anything we are doing. Perhaps you think our co2 is having a 25% effect on global climate? if not.. what are we doing to make this much of a change?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but it does have some effect.. anywhere from 25% to 75% depending on who you believe and.. it is not as well understood as the solar deniers pretend.
I would say that even at the lower limit.. that is a lot more of an effect than anything we are doing. Perhaps you think our co2 is having a 25% effect on global climate? if not.. what are we doing to make this much of a change?
lazs
Laz... I have seen you flop around like a flounder on the beach for far too long.
Now the sun only has 25% to 75% of the total effect? I read in your sig line that it was pretty much 100%. That is certainly a wild swing.
Therefore, just by using your own statements..., the minimum effect you believe anthropogenic forcing to have is 25%....(the theoretical difference between having a 100 degree day versus a 75 degree day) so there is no man made climate forcing? Or there is>? You seem more confused than the sources you quote.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Laz... I have seen you flop around like a flounder on the beach for far too long.
Now the sun only has 25% to 75% of the total effect? I read in your sig line that it was pretty much 100%. That is certainly a wild swing.
Originally posted by Lazs
but it does have some effect.. anywhere from 25% to 75% depending on who you believe and.. it is not as well understood as the solar deniers pretend.
Moray my boy,
when Lazs says, "It does have some effect ... depending on who you believe" he is just trying to show that those who believe that the present warming is entirely anthropogenic are incorrect.
There is only 25% swing between 75% and "pretty much 100%" and a 50% swing between his stated 25% and 75%. That wild swing you point out is probably not statistically significant depending on the data population size, which is either small or unknown at this point.
I would think a scientist such as yourself would be more careful in his data interpretation.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Moray my boy,
when Lazs says, "It does have some effect ... depending on who you believe" he is just trying to show that those who believe that the present warming is entirely anthropogenic are incorrect.
There is only 25% swing between 75% and "pretty much 100%" and a 50% swing between his stated 25% and 75%. That wild swing you point out is probably not statistically significant depending on the data population size, which is either small or unknown at this point.
I would think a scientist such as yourself would be more careful in his data interpretation.
Actually I wasn't referencing a data set... i was referencing Lazs's wild assertions that the sun has always been behind all of the climate shift. He has consistently spouted, "it's the sun stupid"...and now says that reliably, it's between 25% and 75% now...not the 100% he first spouted.
I wasn't interpretting data... I was interpretting his positional shift.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Actually I wasn't referencing a data set... i was referencing Lazs's wild assertions that the sun has always been behind all of the climate shift. He has consistently spouted, "it's the sun stupid"...and now says that reliably, it's between 25% and 75% now...not the 100% he first spouted.
I wasn't interpretting data... I was interpretting his positional shift.
Its the sun stupid... is a play on It's the economy stupid, the slogan of WJ Clinton's 1992 campaign.
Is it your assertion that Clinton's campaign had no intrest in anything other than economic factors, that there were no position papers issued on foreign policy?
Or was it just a catch phrase to sum up the major factor in getting elected?
You are confusing a catch phrase with positional shift.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Its the sun stupid... is a play on It's the economy stupid, the slogan of WJ Clinton's 1992 campaign.
Is it your assertion that Clinton's campaign had no intrest in anything other than economic factors, that there were no position papers issued on foreign policy?
Or was it just a catch phrase to sum up the major factor in getting elected?
You are confusing a catch phrase with positional shift.
Seriously, Holden, My Boy...
Have you been in this discussion long enough to read his responses>? If you are questioning mine as so... THEN no you have not. He has steadfastly been a proponent that any climate shift is inferentially natural and that our effect on such is so minimal as to be insignifigant. Go back and read, then comment, sir. You're way off base now.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Seriously, Holden, My Boy...
Have you been in this discussion long enough to read his responses>? If you are questioning mine as so... THEN no you have not. He has steadfastly been a proponent that any climate shift is inferentially natural and that our effect on such is so minimal as to be insignifigant. Go back and read, then comment, sir. You're way off base now.
I have been reading Lazs on this BBS for some years. I understand his position very well. He is as adamant on natural forcing as Al Gore is on blaming humanity.
That doesn't mean that 50% is less than 25% does it?
I'm glad you noticed the my boy salution. Perhaps you will lessen your sarcastic 'sir' references in the future.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I have been reading Lazs on this BBS for some years. I understand his position very well. He is as adamant on natural forcing as Al Gore is on blaming humanity.
That doesn't mean that 50% is less than 25% does it?
I'm glad you noticed the my boy salution. Perhaps you will lessen your sarcastic 'sir' references in the future.
Yes, he has been adamant about it. Now he is posting at 25% to 75%, which by advanced math... leaves 25% to 75% accounted for by anthropogenic sources shifting climate. Can you keep up?
-
so in your math 50% is less than 25%.
gotcha.
This explains your statistical method in the other thread as well.
-
? guess ill have to start at the beginning!
-
Originally posted by WWhiskey
? guess ill have to start at the beginning!
Then you'll have to dig up more than a few other threads going back for at least a couple of years and wade through a few thousand posts. Or, just enjoy the warmer weather.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Yep.. in the same conclusion...
"Therefore our estimates about the solar effect on
climate might be overestimated and should be considered as
an upper limit."
(Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the
Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600)
Pick and choose your facts wisely and read the entire article before pasting.
Of course, they are saying they overestimated because of volcano activity, not industrial activity...
From the previous paragraph to your quote:
In addition to solar forcing only volcano activity
might have played a significant role in climate change on a
global scale during the preindustrial era. However, volcano
forcing is very uncertain [Hegerl et al., 2006, 2007] and
might be overestimated [Douglass and Knox, 2005].
Fischer et al. [2007] suggest that volcano forcing might
have a significant impact on climate (cooler summers and
warmer winters) but only on a time scale of a few years.
Some climate model studies [Shindell et al., 2003] have
reported that on a secular scale the volcano forcing had the
same order of magnitude as solar forcing, other studies
would present a wide range of relative contributions.
But in finalizing their conclusion, they conclude that solar activity is not being considered with enough weight in the current models. They suggest future models be updated with more weight to solar input to the environment.
T.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
so in your math 50% is less than 25%.
gotcha.
This explains your statistical method in the other thread as well.
Holden...
If he accounts solar forcing as being 75% the reason for climate change, and says that human activity (CO2 production) makes up the rest.. then that is 25%.
Seriously... READ, then spout.
-
I am quite well read on the subject.
Originally posted by MORAY37
Laz... I have seen you flop around like a flounder on the beach for far too long.
Now the sun only has 25% to 75% of the total effect? I read in your sig line that it was pretty much 100%. That is certainly a wild swing.
Therefore, just by using your own statements..., the minimum effect you believe anthropogenic forcing to have is 25%....(the theoretical difference between having a 100 degree day versus a 75 degree day) so there is no man made climate forcing? Or there is>? You seem more confused than the sources you quote.
This is the start of our discussion where I took issue.
You ask, “Now the sun only has 25% to 75% of the total effect?" and you use his signature of "It's the sun stupid" as evidence (to you) of an apparent contradiction.
This is a false premise. "It's the sun, stupid" is not a quantitative statement. One may infer that it says > 50% or dead bang 100%, so it is not a quantitative statement that proves contradiction.
Lazs’ point as I have read through the years is that the money and effort spent to battle anthropogenic global warming is wasted, as most (if not all) of the current GW trend (if there is indeed one) is natural. I have seen no deviation from this view in the many posts he has made.
By the way, your 100 degrees v 75 degrees is not an accurate analogy. Your choice of a 75 to 100 degree day and country of would tend to indicate a Fahrenheit scale, and a 25 degree swing is only about a 4.5% temperature swing, as of course as a scientist you know about the absolute temperature scale.
-
You'll be familiar with these papers then:
- Ammann 2007: "Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
- Lockwood 2007 concludes "the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanism is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."
- Foukal 2006 concludes "The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years."
- Scafetta 2006 says "since 1975 global warming has occurred much faster than could be reasonably expected from the sun alone."
- Usoskin 2005 conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
- Haigh 2003 says "Observational data suggest that the Sun has influenced temperatures on decadal, centennial and millennial time-scales, but radiative forcing considerations and the results of energy-balance models and general circulation models suggest that the warming during the latter part of the 20th century cannot be ascribed entirely to solar effects."
- Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found "most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases."
- Solanki 2003 concludes "the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970".
- Lean 1999 concludes "it is unlikely that Sun–climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970".
- Waple 1999 finds "little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend."
- Frolich 1998 concludes "solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade"
-
still havent even tried to read this forum to darn long! probably the main contributor to global warming as we know it!!!
-
sheesh.. well.. at least the hand wringers are starting to admit that natural causes come into play.
I am saying that the math on man made C02 doesn't add up.. that at best.. it is about 3% of the global climate change. if that is the case then it is indeed the fact that IT'S THE SUN STUPID.
It can't be co2.. the math doesn't work.. the logic that the hand wringers and left wingers use is...
"well... it is nothing we can see so it must be man made co2" Then, when the math doesn't add up they say.."it must be some complex interaction between co2 and something else and we just don't know enough about it yet."
Problem is.. the logic behind this is glaringly wrong. If the math doesn't add up then why not just dismiss man made c02? why not just say that it is one of a dozen of natural things that is causing this nice warm spell and admit that we don't understand how they all work?
The "logic" we are supposed to swallow continues with "sure.. co2 has always followed warming spells not lead them but... now we think that things have changed. the rules no longer apply"
But... when you show that the sun has always led climate change and that it has done so recently... they say... "but..but...it hasn't worked out exactly to the day like it has in the past so it is not worth thinking about."
Solar activity has gone down..we will see a cooling. It may not have reacted as rapidly as in the past but other things may be happening that I, or them have no way of knowing or understanding at this time.
Why choose the man made agenda unless... unless you do have an agenda.
moray himself says he doesn't think man made co2 is fully or even significantly responsible for the warming trend.
In the end... it is all good.
Anyone here suffering? people suffer in the cold.. it will get cold soon enough. relax and enjoy natures bounty. bunch of frigging old ladies.
lazs
-
Sure, natural forcings were never considered before now :rolleyes:
(http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/images/figspm-4.gif)
The maths does add up. Why should your ignorance be accepted as proof of something that isn't true?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I am quite well read on the subject.
:rofl
Books like these doesnt count, moron.
(http://www.pilotmart.net/cat_images/B501.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
:rofl
Books like these doesnt count, moron.
(http://www.pilotmart.net/cat_images/B501.jpg)
Hortland IMHO your response to Holden was unwarranted, insulting, and spiteful.
You are IMHO starting to sound like child?
Are you getting upset and calling names because someone doesn't agree with you?
Is it your goal to get this thread closed while you THINK you're winning the argument?
Perhaps the idea is to draw attention away from the discussion topic?
I have to say here that IMHO Hortland is sounding very much like one of those VIOLENT left wing types that is VERY willing to take EVERYONES right away and REQUIRE that EVERYONE do things HIS WAY OR ELSE!
Perhaps somewhere there is a movement for Hortland for KING of the world?
Telling you right now I am NOT a member of any such group!
IMHO what Hortland posted was a blatant ATTACK on another persons right to have an opinion that is different.
-
Wrag, are you qualified to make such an assessment of Hortlund? What law school did you go to? ;)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Wrag, are you qualified to make such an assessment of Hortlund? What law school did you go to? ;)
Assessment?
Perhaps it was such.
You did notice I mostly asked questions?
True I am stating opinion, yet IMHO what Hortland said was an ATTACK.
Law School?
So you're saying Law School is required to recognize bad manners? :D
-
No law school huh? What gall you have to judge the judge.
He'll be by soon asking for your transcripts or pedigree, just giving you a heads up so you can get them in order.
;)
-
Halt! Papers!
Doobage!*
*Had to add that in, every reference to smoking pot from me convinces Laz his perception of me is on the mark. ;)
-
Originally posted by wrag
You are IMHO starting to sound like child?
Why is there a question mark at the end of that sentence?
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Why is there a question mark at the end of that sentence?
It allows for inserting something worse or better depending.............
It's a question left open...................
-
Originally posted by lazs2
sheesh.. well.. at least the hand wringers are starting to admit that natural causes come into play.
I am saying that the math on man made C02 doesn't add up.. that at best.. it is about 3% of the global climate change. if that is the case then it is indeed the fact that IT'S THE SUN STUPID.
It can't be co2.. the math doesn't work.. the logic that the hand wringers and left wingers use is...
"well... it is nothing we can see so it must be man made co2" Then, when the math doesn't add up they say.."it must be some complex interaction between co2 and something else and we just don't know enough about it yet."
Problem is.. the logic behind this is glaringly wrong. If the math doesn't add up then why not just dismiss man made c02? why not just say that it is one of a dozen of natural things that is causing this nice warm spell and admit that we don't understand how they all work?
The "logic" we are supposed to swallow continues with "sure.. co2 has always followed warming spells not lead them but... now we think that things have changed. the rules no longer apply"
But... when you show that the sun has always led climate change and that it has done so recently... they say... "but..but...it hasn't worked out exactly to the day like it has in the past so it is not worth thinking about."
Solar activity has gone down..we will see a cooling. It may not have reacted as rapidly as in the past but other things may be happening that I, or them have no way of knowing or understanding at this time.
Why choose the man made agenda unless... unless you do have an agenda.
moray himself says he doesn't think man made co2 is fully or even significantly responsible for the warming trend.
In the end... it is all good.
Anyone here suffering? people suffer in the cold.. it will get cold soon enough. relax and enjoy natures bounty. bunch of frigging old ladies.
lazs
Another wall of text rehash. Lazs really has run out of things to say. This ongoing text is full of conspiracy theorist BS that drivels like a 10 month old. Seriously, AKH has posted 15 different papers you should take a day long look at. I've posted many of the same papers. Lazs, sit down, shut up and read them... ask questions about the technical parts that you won't understand.... THEN make a complete, INFORMED opinion.
You are constantly picking and choosing what people say... I didn't say that man made CO2 wasn't significantly responsible... I SAID.. "CO2 isn't a strong greenhouse gas, it is a third rate one at best". At no point did I say what you have turned it into.
Also, PLEASE POST A PAPER THAT SHOWS THE MATH IS WRONG. (WITH THE MATH INVOLVED, CONTAINED WITHIN.)
-
Originally posted by wrag
It allows for inserting something worse or better depending.............
It's a question left open...................
You fail: grammar.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
You fail: grammar.
Really?
HMMMMMM...................... well............
I DON'T CARE.:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I am quite well read on the subject.
This is the start of our discussion where I took issue.
You ask, “Now the sun only has 25% to 75% of the total effect?" and you use his signature of "It's the sun stupid" as evidence (to you) of an apparent contradiction.
By the way, your 100 degrees v 75 degrees is not an accurate analogy. Your choice of a 75 to 100 degree day and country of would tend to indicate a Fahrenheit scale, and a 25 degree swing is only about a 4.5% temperature swing, as of course as a scientist you know about the absolute temperature scale.
Sir, percentage is based upon the measurement scale used...
You'd only be right if I had posted in degrees K or R, and then used it as a percent marker... which I did neither.
-
apparently you have run out of things to say moray. What do you think is causing this pleasantly warm period in our climate?
Why does any interaction of forces that change the climate a degree of two have to be man made?
Why is it not some natural combination? The point is... the natural ones are dismissed by the hand wringers as not fitting a model... a model that they never even studied till a few decades ago....
but any man made causes are given high priority even tho they don't fit into any model at all...
Co2 has ALWAYS lagged a rise in global temp.. it has never led. Sooooo... by the hand wringers logic.. we can dismiss it.
And.. also by their logic.. since no man made cause can be found.. the math doesn't add up....
We can dismiss all man made causes. no matter what the little charts show.. the math does not add up.. Co2 can't be the reason so man made greenhouse gas can't be the reason for more than an insignificant amount.
Unless you guys are going back to cow farts? we can discuss that if you like.
holden gets it... if man made co2 is causing change then it pales by in comparisson to the sun.
Why don't the hand wringers admit that they don't fully understand how the suns activity (including solar wind) works?
Why don't they admit they don't fully understand aerosols and sea floor spreading and core shifts and el nino/la nina?
AKH shows charts from a simulation... garbage in... garbage out. the "simulation" has never predicted climate change.. did you know that? it has only "predicted" what has happened in the past.. there are no future predictions.. not even for 5 years. not even for one... in fact.. the data had to be adjusted several times when old temperature data was found to be inaccurate.
Show us the computer simulation models for the next ten years and I bet farmers almanac does a better job.
lazs
-
and... if one degree warmer is gonna be the end of all times by the next century... what will say.. 2 degrees cooler be like? It is gonna get cooler.. the suns activity (for the most part) has slowed. it is gonna get cooler.
This is not a good thing. I, like every living thing, like these warmer periods in our global climate. I guess the hand wringers just want to tax us for having too good a time... as usual...
I started with the IT'S THE SUN STUPID as a play on politics... and the lefties who like to shout out simplistic sound bites... I used it as a sig when some hand wringer here said that he would post some wall of words article from a brit paper about how the sun has been dismissed because it only worked for a couple of eons and now after a few years it wasn't following the exact model they liked. He never did do as he said tho.
So.. relax... be happy.. it is cold enough in the winter...enjoy the tiny improvement over the really really cold ones...
Wait till august to try to panic people again when they are feeling some heat. They might ask you to show some real numbers if you tell them they have to give the UN or algore another buck or two a gallon in taxes to "end man made global warming"
While they are scraping ice off the windshield and trying to get to work.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Sir, percentage is based upon the measurement scale used...
You'd only be right if I had posted in degrees K or R, and then used it as a percent marker... which I did neither.
When was the last time you enjoyed walking outside on a 75K or 75R day?
Percentage based on F or C is meaningless. You should know that.
-
75 Kelvin is dam cold
-
To summarise for Lazs...
(http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/3698/ostrichgc1.gif)
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Sir, percentage is based upon the measurement scale used...
You'd only be right if I had posted in degrees K or R, and then used it as a percent marker... which I did neither.
Just to clear up a detail...
Originally posted by MORAY37
Therefore, just by using your own statements..., the minimum effect you believe anthropogenic forcing to have is 25%....(the theoretical difference between having a 100 degree day versus a 75 degree day) so there is no man made climate forcing? Or there is>? You seem more confused than the sources you quote.
"anthropogenic forcing to have is 25%....(the theoretical difference between having a 100 degree day versus a 75 degree day)"
There is your quoted refererence to a perecentage.
So unless you enjoy a 75 K or 75 R day, you did both.
-
akh... I would never put my butt up in the air like that around you lefties.
lazs
-
Hey, we need somewhere to park our bicycles.
-
Is that what "you people" are calling it these days?
not that there is anything wrong with that....
lazs
-
I believe it's been called that for quite a while now...
(http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/adaptation/pics/PennyFarthing.jpg)
-
yeah... ok.. like I said.. it really is none of my business.. if that is the way you go then more power to you.. I just don't want to have to see it and don't do it in front of the kids.
I am glad that you let me in on the code tho.. I am finally starting to understand what those guys in the spandex and girl shirts are saying when they say "I am going for a bike ride"
It is starting to make sense.
lazs
-
quote from a college instructor, "if your computer model does not give you the results you expected, you need to adjust your model."
-
yep.. and with the computer ones.. they aren't even bothering to predict future climate except for 50 or 100 years down the road when it is too late and they have gotten what they wanted...
Hell.. they are adjusting the computer whenever some old climate data changes or is found to match some graph they make up.
let's see their model for next year and the year after.. 5 years... lets wait to see if it comes true and then start to listen to em.
What cracks me up is that they knew nothing about climate science a few years ago and now.. all of a sudden.. they know everything and guess what?
it is too late!!! the sky is falling!! we have to do something now!!! How convienient.
lazs
-
Let see your model.
-
a better thing for you to ask would be to see their model. Have them show you next months projection.... next years.. 5 years...
My model is better than theirs.. I say it will get colder eventually.. that means mine will be right for the future at least once.. so far as I can tell.. theirs has NEVER been right unless it is to predict the past.
Is a bad computer model better than no model at all? Should you act on the results of a bad computer model?
lazs
-
By your twisted logic, you'd have a stopped watch in preference to one that runs slow or fast, since the latter is always wrong, whereas the stopped watch is correct twice a day.
From your comments, it's fairly apparent that you know little or nothing about climate models. No great surprise there, though.
We now return you to your scheduled ranting...
-
computer models showed 07 to a year of many strong hurricanes.
"dude, where's my hurricanes?"
-
Originally posted by lazs2
a better thing for you to ask would be to see their model. Have them show you next months projection.... next years.. 5 years...
My model is better than theirs.. I say it will get colder eventually.. that means mine will be right for the future at least once.. so far as I can tell.. theirs has NEVER been right unless it is to predict the past.
Is a bad computer model better than no model at all? Should you act on the results of a bad computer model?
lazs
how do you check the coherence of a model without using data from the past ?
or have you a way to have data from the future ?
-
pretty weak you guys.. by my reasoning.. a stopped watch is accurate more often than a fast or slow one in that it is at least right twice a day.
straffo... the models are not predicting the future.. they are making graphs and charts about the past using data from the past.. in other words.. they take a known and then try to fit their model to it by inputing data till the results match.
this is fine.. but.. when new data about the past comes up.. their neat little graphs and charts look silly.. say for instance.. it is found that 1935 was the hottest year and not 98 as previously thought... AKH posted one of their neat charts that showed that their model predicted the 98 hottest year even tho... they precicted it in 2000...
The graph shows of course.. that 1935 was just another year... now.. they are proven wrong.
They won't predict the future at all after the great hurricane (or lack therof) fiasco.
So back to you acolytes and alter boys... what do the models say about next year and the year after?
lazs
-
That's why there is about 10 models (at least) currently none are accurate enough,there is no real consensus yet.
The problem is not the cause but the probable consequences in case GW is really happening.
Will we want to be responsible of GW or not ?
Can we do or do we want to do something against GW ?
Btw what is the hurricane fiasco ?
When knowing we cannot predict accurately how will be the weather during the next 5 days how can someone predict a year before ?
That make no sense.
-
According to GISS, the five hottest years on record are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006.
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif)
CRU: 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006
(http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.gif)
And the NDCC.
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/globanntemp_pg.gif)
1934 certainly was not the hottest year on record.
Your comments on climate models are just as valid.
-
Originally posted by AKH
According to GISS, the five hottest years on record are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2006.
(http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif)
CRU: 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006
(http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/gtc2006.gif)
And the NDCC.
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/globanntemp_pg.gif)
1934 certainly was not the hottest year on record.
Your comments on climate models are just as valid.
A plot hatched by Gore and his way back machine. Follow the money. He want's to destroy the economy of the U.S. to make money, man.
-
i doubt the satellite data from 1860 is very accurate.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i doubt the satellite data from 1860 is very accurate.
How would you know? Gore's evil plot to become the richest man in the world by destroying the global economy was bound to include carrying along a satellite in his way back machine. ;)
-
I live in Iceland, and it's December. I walk around in a T-shirt, but it's all Gore-propoganda, for it really is 75 on Kelvin.
And John, are you really that thick? A 19th century satellite may look like this:
:D
-
Froze my tomato plants night before last.
Damn global warmin.....errrr climate change.
:)
-
You should perhaps grow them up here :D
Or in Greenland....
-
So angus.. what bad things have happened to you in this wonderful and perfectly natural warming period in our climate history?
Wait.. don't tell me.. the ice cube crop production is down 10%... cocktails everywhere are more expensive in bars and homes.
and akh.. guess it was 1936.. better get back there and adjust those pesky models to fit the past.. your charts are simply outdated.. they need to be adjusted to fit the past.
"Ironically, a report issued yesterday by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says that while the summer of 2006 was the second-warmest on record, the hottest year for the contiguous 48 states since statistics began in 1895 was 1936 – seven decades ago."
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51992
lazs
-
For us up here?
Well, we are certainly getting the good end of it :D
I'll give you odds and ends.
We are starting to grow wheat. Barley has done fine for the last 20 years as well.
We are starting to grow peas as well.
My turf-cycle growing speed has increased.
I don't have to do a lot of snow-shoveling in the winter.
I can plough any month of the year instead of having oct-may out.
Unwarmed greenhouses are starting with apples and cherries.
(thermal water has been applied as an addition to the greenhouses "greenhouse effect" :p )
Lots of harnessable hydro-energy, since the glacial rivers are just big and fine.
No more icebergs, or ship-killing drift-ice.
The downside is ...:
Longer periods of same kind of weather, markedly in the summertime.
New insects and Fungi, as well as other organs.
Decreased crops in natural growth (mostly grass) due to the above
Erosion due to the above.
Shrinking glaciers, which means our rivers are going to drop to a leak in incredibly close future, - so hydro power is out.
Anyway, I always thought our country had a naughty climate, and it's getting warmer, and for my egoistic plans that's just delightful.
I always envied my European colleges for their "easy-mode" of agriculture.
So, it's changing, - downside being that in other places it's getting worse.
But at least I realize it....
And that means all 365 days of the year.
-
Well, lazs, I was under the impression that the topic under discussion was MMGW, AGW or global warming:
Another Climate Scientist debunks MMGW
Not that it will convince the die-hard Man-Made Global Warming followers, but hey...I can try.
You, however, seem to be under yet another delusion that we are actually talking about U.S. warming. I know that you usually advance a parochial perspective, so it's natural that you only consider MMUSW.
-
Well, AFAIK, the US mainland is generally not warming, as well as a good chunk of the Asian continent.
But the rest of the globe more or less is, and that's a lot of....area.
-
angus.. and this has been bad for you in what way again?
lazs
-
Me? Not at all, or hardly at all. Quite good actually.
But, I'm not a complete egoist, nor the complete idiot to think that we're just going to up a little hill and stay nice and comfy.
Even if the change will stop where it is, it's going to bring some trouble.
If it carries on, it will even bring us (up here) trouble.
Bottom line is that at least we (up here) realize.
-
why buy trouble? it is great to be alive right now and.. there really is no prediction for next year or 5 years from now sooo... nothing to worry about right?
I mean.. If they really had a clue they would have the nuts to give next years prediction and 5 years from now... Fact is.. every single gloom and doom prediction for the near future has been downgraded.
lazs
-
If they were 100% certain that global warming was man made they would have kept calling it Global Warming instead of Climate Change. This was no accident since now if it should cool the doom sayers are still in business.
I can remember as a kid in the 60s they said a bird was in danger because we had justed ended a warming period and now were in a cooling period. Then in the 80s we were heading for an ice age. Now we are back at it again. Bet anyone that between now and 2017 we will be in a cooling period.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
why buy trouble? it is great to be alive right now and.. there really is no prediction for next year or 5 years from now sooo... nothing to worry about right?
I mean.. If they really had a clue they would have the nuts to give next years prediction and 5 years from now... Fact is.. every single gloom and doom prediction for the near future has been downgraded.
lazs
Wrong. A lot to worry about in just my lifespan.
And then there are generations to come. Ever think of that?
-
getback..you are of course.. correct. we will enter a cooling period in the next few years... the suns activity has gone down.. this always happens before a cooling period.
That is why, as you point out.. the weasels are wanting to call it "man made global climate change" they know as well as we do that they were wrong and it will get cooler. I am shocked that so many seemingly bight people here are suckered by the whole thing.
Can you imagine how crestfallen they will be when they learn how they have been duped?
lazs
-
angus... again.. what are the high priests predicting for next years climate? 5 years from now? don't you even wonder... just a tiny bit... why they don't tell you?
lazs
-
A tad warmer.
Of course we have our "waves". I'd bet that the next "Nino" year will top previous records though.
Just as predicted in the last years actually.
Oh, BTW, I'll jump to my toolshack and get an article about the changes up to date. Some milestone points in there that I'd like opinions on.
BRB.
-
And....I don't wonder so much about inaccuracy, for when I studied the basics of metreology, I finally understood how "elastic" the whole deal is.
As well as .... absolute on the receiving end.
And ungrateful.
I take my hat of for most of those scientists.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
getback..you are of course.. correct. we will enter a cooling period in the next few years... the suns activity has gone down.. this always happens before a cooling period.
That is why, as you point out.. the weasels are wanting to call it "man made global climate change" they know as well as we do that they were wrong and it will get cooler. I am shocked that so many seemingly bight people here are suckered by the whole thing.
Can you imagine how crestfallen they will be when they learn how they have been duped?
lazs
With what stick will you measure this cooling? The Pre-solar forcing (cough) one or just by the fact one year is cooler than this one? I have a feeling you will measure it by the easiest and shortest way you can.
Look at the effects on the "other" inhabitants on the planet.
Global Warming Wreaks Havoc With Nature
By MICHAEL CASEY
BALI, Indonesia - More than 3,000 flying foxes dropped dead, falling from trees in Australia. Giant squid migrated north to commercial fishing grounds off California, gobbling anchovy and hake. Butterflies have gone extinct in the Alps.
While humans debate at U.N. climate change talks in Bali, global warming is already wreaking havoc with nature. Most plants and animals are affected, and the change is occurring too quickly for them to evolve.
"A hell of a lot of species are in big trouble," said Stephen E. Williams, the director of the Centre for Tropical Biodiversity & Climate Change at James Cook University in Australia.
"I don't think there is any doubt we will see a lot of (extinctions)," he said. "But even before a species goes extinct, there are a lot of impacts. Most of the species here in the wet tropics would be reduced to ... 15 percent of their current habitat."
Globally, 30 percent of the Earth's species could disappear if temperatures rise 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit _ and up to 70 percent, if they rise 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit, a U.N. network of scientists reported last month.
It wouldn't be the first time. There have been five major extinctions in the last 520 million years, and four of them have been linked to warmer tropical seas, according to a study published last month in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a British scientific journal.
The hardest hit will include plants and animals in colder climates or at higher elevations and those with limited ranges or little tolerance for temperature change, said Wendy Foden, a conservation biologist with the World Conservation Union, which catalogs threatened species.
Butterflies that lived at high altitudes in North America and southern France have vanished, and polar bears and penguins are watching their habitat melt away.
The carbon dioxide emissions that are a leading cause of global warming also turn oceans more acidic, killing coral reefs and the microscopic plankton that blue whales and other marine mammals depend on for food.
"In the long run, every species will be affected," Foden said.
A few will benefit, chiefly those that breed quickly, already exist in varied climates and are able to adapt swiftly to changing conditions, scientists said. Think cockroaches, pigeons and weeds.
The spread of a deadly fungus that thrives in warmer conditions has decimated some frog populations in South America, Africa and Europe.
Then there are Australia's flying foxes.
More than 3,500 gray-headed and black flying foxes _ huge bats _ died in 2002 after temperatures rose above 107 degrees Fahrenheit in New South Wales, according to a report published last week in the Royal Society B journal.
The rising temperatures are related to global warming, said the author, Justin Welbergen of the University of Cambridge.
"It got really hot and suddenly started raining foxes from the trees," said Welbergen, who witnessed the die-off. "It was quite gruesome. This colony had between 20,000 and 30,000 animals and about 10 percent of those individuals died."
In Australia's Queensland state, temperatures are projected to rise 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit, an outcome that could drive half the species to extinction in a mountainous stretch of tropical rain forest, Williams said.
Even a 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit increase would reduce by half the habitat of the Thornton Peak nursery frog, golden bowerbird and the spotted-tail quoll, a cat-like mammal.
"There are many species and plants that are restricted to the higher altitude areas," he said. "It doesn't take much of an increase in temperature to push them off the mountain. They can't go anywhere."
As temperatures rise, animals are seeking cooler climes. In a study of more than 1,500 species, University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan concluded that 40 percent had shifted their ranges, mostly toward the poles.
A dozen bird species have moved about 12 miles north in Britain, and 39 species of butterflies have shifted north by as much as 125 miles in Europe and North America, according to another study that Parmesan took part in.
Millions of Mediterranean jellyfish have turned up off Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Humboldt squid, which can grow up to 7 feet long, has moved up the California coast as ocean waters warmed.
"It's the latest in a long series of bad news for fishermen," said Stanford University's Lou Zeidberg, adding that squid have been found as far north as Alaska in the past five years.
With warmer weather, 60 percent of plant and animal species are migrating, breeding and blooming earlier in the spring, Parmesan said. But not all are, and that could upset relationships between birds and the insects they feed on as well as insects and the flowers they pollinate.
"Frogs, birds and butterflies are responding more strongly to warming winters and springs than are plants," she said. "The concern is that this will cause population declines for both plants and animals."
With many species unable to evolve fast enough to adapt, conservationists are considering the creation of natural corridors to encourage animals to move and even relocating them to cooler places. The latter is controversial.
"You are effectively playing God. You are effectively changing evolution on purpose," Foden said. "If our job as biologist is to conserve species, then certainly we must move them. But if it's to conserve natural evolutionary processes ... then we have to give them corridors and let them do their thing."
A service of the Associated Press(AP)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, AFAIK, the US mainland is generally not warming, as well as a good chunk of the Asian continent.
But the rest of the globe more or less is, and that's a lot of....area.
No, the US mainland isn't warming.... it's just drying out, exactly as is predicted.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
No, the US mainland isn't warming.... it's just drying out, exactly as is predicted.
]Physical arguments clearly indicate that global warming will cause an increase of evaporation from the ocean. Moreover, a warmer atmosphere can carry more moisture, which leads to larger amounts of precipitable water. Global warming will also induce higher temperature differences between the land and sea surfaces, causing an increased transport of precipitable water to the continents, and an increase of convectional rainfall.--- Greenpeace
According to the predictions presented above an increase of flooding is what we expect as a result of the enhanced greenhouse effect. The recent floods cannot be taken as a proof of climate change as the associated rainfall events still fit in the natural variability of our climate, and floods of comparable magnitude have been observed earlier this century. What can be said is that an increased frequency of unusual amounts of rainfall and floods as we have witnessed over the last decade are consistent with the climate model predictions. --- Greenpeace
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
]
I'll post from the actual paper on government assessment of climate change... not GREENPEACE... you're getting as bad as Laz now.
1:
Brumbelow and Georgakakos’ assessment of the agricultural impacts in the United States
are in agreement with the Canadian climate scenario trends of a wetter climate in the
west, a dryer climate in the east, and warmer temperatures throughout the country.
Depending on which particular factor is most limiting for crop growth over the growing
season (i.e., water availability, temperature, or both) the U.S. agricultural response exhibits
marked regional changes in a west-to-east direction around the 104th meridian for corn, a
north-to-south direction around the 40th parallel for soybeans and durum wheat, and a
northwest-to-southeast direction for winter wheat
2:
The Canadian model results indicate that runoff would decline by 2030 in all
regions except California. In 12 of the 18 regions, runoff declines by more than 20%,
outcomes that could have serious adverse impacts if not addressed by water managers
3:
In the arid and semi-arid western United States, it is well established that relatively
modest changes in precipitation can have proportionally large impacts on runoff. Even in
the absence of changes in precipitation patterns, higher temperatures resulting from
increased greenhouse gas concentrations lead to higher evaporation rates, reductions in
streamflow, and increased frequency of droughts (Schaake 1990, Rind et al. 1990, Nash
and Gleick 1991, 1993). In such cases, increases in precipitation would be required to
maintain runoff at historical levels.
4:
In every one of these studies, an increase in temperature and no change
in precipitation resulted in decreases in runoff. With no change in precipitation,
estimated runoff declines by 3 to 12% with a 2o C increase in temperature and by 7 to
21% with a 4o C increase in temperature. A 10% reduction in precipitation and a 2oC
increase in temperature reduce estimated runoff by between 13 to 40% in most studies.
Increasing precipitation by 10% approximately balances evaporative losses resulting from
an increase in temperature of 4oC
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
]
One more.
Compared to the historical (baseline) response, under the Canadian model results all basins exhibit less precipitation (ranging from 15 to 22% of the historical values), increased evapotranspiration (16 to 22% below historical values), less runoff (28 to 48% below historical values), and smaller runoff coefficients (13 to 35%), below historical values).
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I'll post from the actual paper on government assessment of climate change... not GREENPEACE... you're getting as bad as Laz now.
I posted from their website because I thought maybe Greenpeace was on board the anthropogenic warming train.
Perhaps not.
"The actual paper on government assessment of climate change"
That makes it the absolute truth.
My post was to show that your statement that, "it's just drying out, exactly as is predicted." Is meaninless when there are contradictory predictions.
Just like a Vegas clairvoyant's magic trick, all you have to do is pick the sealed envelope with the correct prediction and leave the incorrect one unopened.
-
USA = getting dryer. Didn't name that, but it remains rather out of the warming, - yet. Not forever.
USA=Landmass mostly, - last time i checked.
Climate=mostly continental.
-
The whole world is getting drier fast.
It probably goes a long way towards this global warming phenomenon.
Less water means less snow.
Even a dry atmosphere around the polar caps will eventually lead to a reduction of the ice caps simply because there is not enough water in the air to make enough snow. Less snow = higher ambient temperature.
Who'd have guessed mankind has drunk itself to extinction :huh
Cheers.
-
Every earthly phenomenon can be traced to global warming
NFL Meteorologists Warn Steaming Black-Guy Heads Occurring Later Every Year
NEW YORK Onion Sports December 06, 2007
—Steaming black-guy heads, the traditional sign of approaching winter for generations of football fans, have been occurring later in the season with every passing year, a fact that may be evidence of a climatic change with long-term effects on football itself, top scientists in the meteorological department of the National Football League said in a study released Monday.
(http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/NFL-Meteorologists-art2.article_large.jpg)
"The phenomenon of weather-related African-American supracranial vaporous emission, or 'Steaming Black-Guy Heads,' as it is colloquially known, occurs when cold dry winter air comes into contact with hot, humid, shaven heads of football players, causing their personal water vapor to condense and rise on a column of heated air," the statement read in part. "It is then observed by network cameramen, who overwhelmingly choose to film African-American players due to the dramatic contrasts that result—especially when the player in question is backlit—and beamed to millions of households during time-outs, replay reviews, and other stoppages of play. The viewers then realize that winter has come to America."
"However, film review reveals that steaming black-guy heads, which during the 1970s were commonplace in mid-September, have in recent years not been sighted until the weeks after Thanksgiving," the statement continued. "Although further study is definitely called for, we conclude that the pronounced trend for steaming black-guy heads to occur progressively later every year—coupled with the phenomenon of giant triangles of ass-sweat persisting well into November—is a possible indication of a slowly warming climate across the entire NFL."
League commissioner Roger Goodell was not available for comment, saying that, although early-season instances of steaming black-guy heads were obviously preferable, the NFL had no official stance on climate change, global warming, or other meteorological phenomena that did not directly affect the scheduling or outcome of games.
Reaction among coaches and players has been mixed.
"When I came into the league with Tampa Bay, steaming black-guy heads were everywhere in October," said longtime NFL veteran and current Carolina Panthers quarterback Vinny Testaverde. "The Bucs were in the NFC Central back then, and we played in Chicago and Green Bay a lot, and to me, they always meant Halloween was coming. But these days, the rookies think of them as the first sign of Christmas. You can't tell me that's not global warming."
"Early on in my career, I saw them a lot, even in September," said Packers quarterback Brett Favre, who still has fond memories of the steaming heads of such Packer greats as Sterling Sharpe, LeRoy Butler, and Reggie White. "But this year we only started getting them just this week, and it's December already. Listen, I don't know anything about climate change, but I'd hate to see my daughters grow up in a world where steaming black-guy heads are just something you see on ESPN Classic."
NFL climatologist Lee Orfordson, one of the authors of the report, advised caution among those worried about the dwindling instances of steaming black-guy heads around the league.
"Remember that there are more domed stadiums now, that Northern-tier teams are being scheduled for more away games in Southern-tier cities during the winter months, and above all, that steaming black-guy heads are a single, if dramatic, phenomenon," Orfordson said. "There are plenty of numbers still to crunch here before we can say the steaming black-guy head has gone the way of the dodo."
Still, for generations of fans for whom steaming black-guy heads were an important symbol of seasonal change, the announcement has inspired a definite feeling of foreboding.
"I was the very first of the steaming black-guy heads," said former Raider defensive end Otis "The Grandfather Of All Steaming Black-Guy Heads" Sistrunk, whose own vigorously steaming head was noted by ABC color man Alex Karras in the early autumn of 1974 and began a winter-onset sideline-camera tradition that continues to this day. "And I'm very, very proud of that. I just hope I don't live to see the last."
Funniest thing is that it's not far from the reality of news reporting.
-
Funniest or saddest?
Every time I make the mistake of watching the news or reading a newspaper I am saddened and disgusted at most of what I see and hear.
The blatant political spins, the glaring grammatical errors, and poor speech habits of most reporters and presenters is pitiful.
These are people whose stock in trade is the written and spoken word. They should be beacons for the rest of us. Seems the main point is getting more readers/viewers and that for most means shock journalism and political spins.
-
Originally posted by SD67
The whole world is getting drier fast.
It probably goes a long way towards this global warming phenomenon.
Less water means less snow.
Even a dry atmosphere around the polar caps will eventually lead to a reduction of the ice caps simply because there is not enough water in the air to make enough snow. Less snow = higher ambient temperature.
Who'd have guessed mankind has drunk itself to extinction :huh
Cheers.
Actually, the middle of the Greenland glacier cap is rising, like the cap in Antarctica.
However, Greenland is being measured out very accurately through GPS (Danish project I think). The results are absolute, Greenland is loosing ice by a multiple quantity compared with the raising cap.
-
Originally posted by SD67
The whole world is getting drier fast.
It probably goes a long way towards this global warming phenomenon.
Less water means less snow.
Even a dry atmosphere around the polar caps will eventually lead to a reduction of the ice caps simply because there is not enough water in the air to make enough snow. Less snow = higher ambient temperature.
Who'd have guessed mankind has drunk itself to extinction :huh
Cheers.
70% of the earth's surface is an evaporation pond.
Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water. Warmer atmosphere means more evaporation.
More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation.
Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow.
Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation.
-
The air is warm in the Sahara, but there is not much rain there.....
Nor is the air anywere near full humidity.
All depends on climate systems.
Total of warmer air may mean that the "dry belt" may expand, while rainfall will increase where there is already much.
-
Originally posted by Angus
The air is warm in the Sahara, but there is not much rain there.....
Nor is the air anywere near full humidity.
All depends on climate systems.
Total of warmer air may mean that the "dry belt" may expand, while rainfall will increase where there is already much.
The Sahara is a local phenomenon. Local conditions are hot and dry.
Globally, 70% of the earth's surface will be putting more water into the atmosphere, which should mean more global average rainfall.
-
so moray.. what bad things have happened so far? you talk about what might happen if we gain 5 degrees... Do you think that man made C02 is causing this warming trend and that we can stop it by some draconian and economy killing 30% reduction in man made c02.. not co2.. man made co2?
I say that it is natural for the very most part and that long before it reaches the 5 degrees warmer... it will get a lot cooler. I say that even if we do get a little warmer first.. the hand wringers will be "surprised to find" that species are hardier than they had guessed.
lazs
-
NFL Meteorologists
:rofl :aok
They would probably have just as good or better chance of predicting long term
climate as a whole than the pay for sayers who are yanking chains now.
-
If the entire north american and asian continents are not getting warmer that is a "local" thing too.
just watch... the real truth is that in five years it will be cooler..
lazs
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The Sahara is a local phenomenon. Local conditions are hot and dry.
Globally, 70% of the earth's surface will be putting more water into the atmosphere, which should mean more global average rainfall.
And Patagonia? The east-Asian steppes? Slabs of the USA? Quite a big local "phenomenon" if you add them up.
Deserts go somewhat by "belts". Yes, - indeed the Equador is more arid than the deserts both north and south of it, - it is so.
70% of earths surface will be putting more water into the air because the air will carry more. Apart from that, there is not much of an exception from the main theme.
What you should notice is that you will get more windforce (hot) when humid air crosses mountains (ever hear of the dry alp winds?) as well as where it is arid, it will rain more. The deserts might actually get even hotter and dryer.....
Increased extremes.
-
Oh, globally, maybe more average rainfall...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
70% of the earth's surface is an evaporation pond.
Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water. Warmer atmosphere means more evaporation.
More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation.
Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow.
Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation.
Everything you just said is of your own conjecture.
What part of the atmosphere warmer? (stratospheric warming generally makes things drier.)
Snow isn't water? Last time I checked it was. We haven't yet had methane snow.
The paper I quoted was generated in order for agencies within the government to plan for future events and is as "middle of the road" as they get. This report was ALSO the one generated by an administration that still says there is no such animal as anthropogenic global climate change. You really need to talk with your biologist girlfriend about what makes a credible source. If anything I just quoted a paper that conflicts with the general scientific consensus.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so moray.. what bad things have happened so far? you talk about what might happen if we gain 5 degrees... Do you think that man made C02 is causing this warming trend and that we can stop it by some draconian and economy killing 30% reduction in man made c02.. not co2.. man made co2?
I say that it is natural for the very most part and that long before it reaches the 5 degrees warmer... it will get a lot cooler. I say that even if we do get a little warmer first.. the hand wringers will be "surprised to find" that species are hardier than they had guessed.
lazs
What bad things have happened.
Mean global air temp has risen. (documented, source debateable)
Mean global sea surface temperature has risen. (documented)
Mean pH in the sea has dropped. (documented, scientifically proven to CO2 )
The ranges of most animals have been moving away from temperature extremes. (documented extensively)
Mean polar ice cover decreasing exponentially ( documented extensively)
Weather patterns changing regionally ( documented, good and bad, depending on localle)
Yes, I believe CO2 is contributing to the change...the solar forcing you speak of has been refuted over and over again.
-
Watch the linked series of four videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI); the whole series is about 30 minutes long. If it doesn't make you at least pause to consider whether man-made, CO2-induced GW is really plausible, then I'll concede defeat and stop trying to convince you any more.
Likewise, I will be happy in return to watch any scientific video that supports the theory of man-made, CO2-induced GW you wish to provide a link to (except "An Inconvienent Truth", as I've already seen the relevant parts, and don't consider it particularly scientific).
-
moray.. not really an answer..or.. to be fair, perhaps I was not clear.
Do you think that man made co2 is the major cause of the warming trend we are in? do you think that reducing mans contribution by as much as 30%.. an almost unobtainable goal... would have any effect at all on global climate?
The solar model has only been "refuted" in that so far.. we know little about it.. we do know that always in the past.. it leads climate change... less activity.. the global temp drops.. more.. it rises.. it did that... the activity increased and the temp did too.
Now.. for a few years.. the activity seems to be down (best we can tell) and temp has leveled off but not gone down sooooo.. the hand wringers say "see..it isn't acting exactly like it did in the past so it can't be true"
By that reasoning.. co2 has nothing to do with anything... it has NEVER led climate change but... now the priests tell us "but everything is different now.. it now leads climate change....everything that happened in the past does not apply"
I would bet we know less about the sun and it's interaction with the planet than we do about co2.
lazs
-
Lazs. to show some consistency you should ask "what global warming".
Or does that only occur on those days of the month?
-
Ok...700+ replies later I think we solved this problem. Whats next?
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
70% of the earth's surface is an evaporation pond.
Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water. Warmer atmosphere means more evaporation.
More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation.
Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow.
Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MORAY37
Everything you just said is of your own conjecture.
70% of the Earth's surface is an evaporation pond: Not conjecture... as a marine biologist Iwould think you knew of the size of the Earth's oceans.
Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water: This is a science called psychrometrics, the study of the phenomemon of humidity. As a professional Mechanical Engineer, I am familiar with this, and use it pretty much daily in my job.
More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation: With more water in the air, when the air cools, cloud formation will occur, and precipitation will follow.
Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow:
MORAYSnow isn't water? Last time I checked it was. We haven't yet had methane snow.
When the air column is above the temperature that can cause freezing, the precipitation will occur as liquid, not solid. Usually, global warming is thought to raise the global temperature, hence the term 'warming'.
Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation: This is simple logic. Once the global balance point is achieved, what goes up must come down.
My conjecture is something called logic and physics.
-
angus... did you watch the vid that sabre linked.. It is Dr Carter and it pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole thing after looking at it over the years. I really would like to hear what you have to say about it.
I just fail to see any convincing evidence by the alarmists.. it seems that every time they get caught in some huge lie it makes me even more disgusted with the whole thing.
I don't see any thing to get shook up about except that maybe we are going to enter into a global cooling period and that my friend... is real trouble. The only other thing I see to get scared of is the "solutions" by the greenies and priests.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray.. not really an answer..or.. to be fair, perhaps I was not clear.
Do you think that man made co2 is the major cause of the warming trend we are in? do you think that reducing mans contribution by as much as 30%.. an almost unobtainable goal... would have any effect at all on global climate?
The solar model has only been "refuted" in that so far.. we know little about it.. we do know that always in the past.. it leads climate change... less activity.. the global temp drops.. more.. it rises.. it did that... the activity increased and the temp did too.
By that reasoning.. co2 has nothing to do with anything... it has NEVER led climate change but... now the priests tell us "but everything is different now.. it now leads climate change....everything that happened in the past does not apply"
lazs
Yes for the thousandth time. I said yes. CO2 is the main contributor. at this point, in climate change. Are you getting more dense by the post?
The question you must ask yourself about CO2 leading the change is this: Maybe the temperature, in this case, is lagging the CO2, due to the rapidity that the CO2 has been dumped into the system. In all other past events, CO2 has been gradually increased in measure, to the earth's climate system. In this case... in 120 years, its been quadrupled. Maybe that might explain the slight "lag" in your argument. Think of it as when you put the pedal on that pickup truck you drive to the floor.... there's a lag in the time it takes the gas to convert to energy, a lag which isn't noticeable when you gently push down on the pedal.
Personally, my take on it is this; When my colleagues that know a hell of alot more than me have pretty much given up, saying we are just about to the point of being just along for the ride now, I will say there's not a whole hell of alot we're going to do to change it. We can say we're gonna do this and we're gonna do that... but we won't. Like a kid who says he's gonna mow the lawn... it doesn't get done until the consequences are upon them. Party it up now, this generation, the collapse is just around the corner... be it from AGW or the pH drop I've already documented... the CO2 thing is going to get our species in a heap of trouble. I'm glad I won't be around in two or three hundred years to see what our "talk" has gotten us.
I personally feel we're already fracked. I can't quote a paper on it, but that's an opinion piece anway. I feel sorry for the generation we will pass this off to... it wasn't all our problem to begin with, but this generation saw the consequence and did nothing...only talked itself into oblivion.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
The question you must ask yourself about CO2 leading the change is this: Maybe the temperature, in this case, is lagging the CO2, due to the rapidity that the CO2 has been dumped into the system. In all other past events, CO2 has been gradually increased in measure, to the earth's climate system. In this case... in 120 years, its been quadrupled.
Hate to keep doing this to ya buddy, but...
Real Climate
Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned.
380 / 280 does not equal 4
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
70% of the earth's surface is an evaporation pond.
Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water. Warmer atmosphere means more evaporation.
More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation.
Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow.
Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
70% of the Earth's surface is an evaporation pond: Not conjecture... as a marine biologist Iwould think you knew of the size of the Earth's oceans.
Warmer atmosphere means the atmosphere can hold more water: This is a science called psychrometrics, the study of the phenomemon of humidity. As a professional Mechanical Engineer, I am familiar with this, and use it pretty much daily in my job.
More water in the atmosphere means more precipitation: With more water in the air, when the air cools, cloud formation will occur, and precipitation will follow.
Warmer atmosphere means more precip as water and not snow:
MORAYSnow isn't water? Last time I checked it was. We haven't yet had methane snow.
When the air column is above the temperature that can cause freezing, the precipitation will occur as liquid, not solid. Usually, global warming is thought to raise the global temperature, hence the term 'warming'.
Local precip patterns could and will change, but the global precip should rise to balance increased evaporation: This is simple logic. Once the global balance point is achieved, what goes up must come down.
My conjecture is something called logic and physics.
Seriously Holden... what is your problem? You've been a dk about things from your first post. Whatever problem you have with me, it's amusing. Keep up the good work, Sir Engineer.
If you're any kind of engineer, then you know that the state of WATER(H2O) means everything. ALL PRECIP on this planet is H2O, state dependant. Whence, in your reply, you restated the solid/liquid state phase, you should re-read your original post and see THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU SAID.
Of course warm air holds more water.... it also doesn't like to RELEASE said water quickly...unless it is cooled.
Transpiration, resulted by climate change, will not turn everything on this planet a lush green....at least not for the first million or so years, as evidenced by the last big climate shift. It will result in greater aridity in the middle and lower latitudes as the water gets shuffled to the higher latitudes.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
If you're any kind of engineer, then you know that the state of WATER(H2O) means everything.
So next time I order scotch on the rocks and get scotch and water, according to you I have no complaint...
You took exception to a colloquialism that we call the liquid phase water and the solid phase is called ice and snow. I am embarrased that I made this horrible mistake.
Transpiration, resulted by climate change, will not turn everything on this planet a lush green....at least not for the first million or so years, as evidenced by the last big climate shift. It will result in greater aridity in the middle and lower latitudes as the water gets shuffled to the higher latitudes.
And when the water gets shifted to the higher latitudes, has it left the globe? Or when it falls as H2O in whatever form is it counted toward the global rainfall total?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So next time I order scotch on the rocks and get scotch and water, according to you I have no complaint...
How does ordering a drink have anything to do with science?
"on the rocks" ...
Not a term used in science, sir. Maybe some of you engineering types...when your bridges come tumbling down...might use it.
And to answer...
Chemistry wise, it's the same thing. Physical state is the only difference.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So next time I order scotch on the rocks and get scotch and water, according to you I have no complaint...
You took exception to a colloquialism that we call the liquid phase water and the solid phase is called ice and snow. I am embarrased that I made this horrible mistake.
And when the water gets shifted to the higher latitudes, has it left the globe? Or when it falls as H2O in whatever form is it counted toward the global rainfall total?
Of course it hasn't left the globe...BUT IT HAS LEFT A GEOGRAPHICAL REGION. (where it once fell, but now, due to transpiration and the shift in weather patterns, IT DOES NOT)
Inititially, water will be redistibuted, and models are predicting, at least in the United States, that you better live on the west coast, or you're gonna be losing out on the H20. (those BIG mountains in the west, the rockies, BLOCK moisture)
-
Hehe, was going to say that. As well as the winds will be hotter once over the bumps ;)
Even hotter...
-
so when do these models predict all this disaster? next year? 5 years?
Oh wait.. let me guess... 20 years or more down the road...
By then we will be in a cooling trend that they will claim will freeze us all in solid block of ice by 2100.
I suggest everyone watch the video of dr carter that sabre linked... especially if you think we are in a catastrophic or even unusual period of climate.
The expression "there is nothing you can do about the weather" is still as true as ever.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so when do these models predict all this disaster? next year? 5 years?
Oh wait.. let me guess... 20 years or more down the road...
By then we will be in a cooling trend that they will claim will freeze us all in solid block of ice by 2100.
I suggest everyone watch the video of dr carter that sabre linked... especially if you think we are in a catastrophic or even unusual period of climate.
The expression "there is nothing you can do about the weather" is still as true as ever.
lazs
Lazs, the fact that you lack the interpretive ability to disect data could be considered "cute" in some circles. This isn't one of them.
When parts of the globe which have had ice covering them for TEN THOUSAND years are suddenly ice free in 25 years... You know you have a problem, and it isn't natural. "Natural" doesn't happen quick, a fact that is lost upon you, sir. Even after the Cretaceous event, dinosaurs held on for a few thousand years... and a rock a few miles wide hit the planet. Change happens slowly, by our standards.
-
did you watch the carter vid? there have been periods of radical change in the past.. the only thing about the weather that is constant is that it changes.
Are you going to tell dr carter that he lacks your grasp of science? watch the video and tell me what you think of it.
His charts and graphs look a lot different than the ones I have seen here.
Sooo is he a liar? Is he wrong? we have seen the alarmists be wrong time after time..
How do you know we won't enter a cooling period? We always have before.
You don't seem to buy into the "man made co2 is causing catastrophic warming" theory.. so what is causing it? The math doesn't add up on Co2.. we have had most of a doubling and it simply isn't doing what they said it would.
We aren't going to have 30' rises in sea level in 20 years.. In fact.. according to dr carter.. we are in about a normal sea rise...nothing unusual.
Doesn't it bother you just a little bit that they aren't using these models to predict next year or five years?
lazs
-
Not to mention when an icecovered sea which has been so for millions of years goes freebee in 100 years...
Actually, from practical experience, I've always been baffled with how much energy you need to thaw something that just "froze" overnight.
Some should check their brain for that :D
-
angus.. did you watch the video?
If you would rather read...
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05carter.pdf
I don't think the vikings farming greenland called it greenland as a real estate scheme.
There have been hotter periods where the temp went up faster.. no polar bears died... nor did "70% of the earths species" did you know that about 85% of things on the "endangered species" list are insects?
lazs
-
this one may be better...
http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf
It is more like the vid.
lazs
-
Lazs:
"I don't think the vikings farming greenland called it greenland as a real estate scheme."
Nice throw. Well, this is a history that I know vastly more about than you do.
"GREENLAND" was perhaps the first succesfull propoganda, and as a contrast to "ICELAND".
When you approach the SE shores of Iceland, the first things you see is the glacial peaks. (I confirm this from my sailor experiences).
When you approach the southern peaks of Greenland, you will have a very nice contast, - the lowland (in summer) is VERY green, and increased by the glacial background.
The real estate call was...Greenland. It was another free colony, and none would guess how far it was to go.
. . .
BRB
Dinner
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Of course it hasn't left the globe...BUT IT HAS LEFT A GEOGRAPHICAL REGION. (where it once fell, but now, due to transpiration and the shift in weather patterns, IT DOES NOT)
Inititially, water will be redistibuted, and models are predicting, at least in the United States, that you better live on the west coast, or you're gonna be losing out on the H20. (those BIG mountains in the west, the rockies, BLOCK moisture)
1. Okay, so it has left a geographical region. My argument was that (I'll capitalize it to use your emphasis technique) GLOBAL rainfall would tend to rise to balance increased GLOBAL evaporation in a warmer GLOBAL climate.
So, you agree with me on that point.... thanks.
2. "Chemistry wise, it's the same thing. Physical state is the only difference."
Really? I was not writing a scientific paper, I was talking off the cuff and used a colloquial term, differentiating state by calling the liquid state water and using another term for solid precip. Once again, I humbly apologize for making such a horrendous faux pas.
3. I notice you do not argue the CO2 quadrupled point. This was not just an error in terms.
4. Mechanical engineers do not design bridges; so when one falls down do not contact me, contact a civil engineer. Mechanical engineers design machinery, mechanical systems, we deal with combustion and heat transfer, ... the old joke is that mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets.
-
Oh my global warming is sinking and island?????
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/12/08/island-shrinking-by-global-warming-but-for-over-100-years/
sorta?
-
Originally posted by Angus
As well as the winds will be hotter once over the bumps ;)
Even hotter...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/22_1197152563_carnac.jpg)
Name 3 things....................... ..........:rofl
-
angus.. did you read the links or watch the vid? And.. are you saying that greenland is greener today than at the time of the vikings?
lazs
-
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c)
Seems more and more people (and scientists) are realizing MMGW is a farce and GW is natural.
T
-
Yep.. the tide is turning...
"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year."
and...
http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html
This peer reviewed paper concludes that... the math does not add up.. the co2 math and the models don't work.
The blowhard priests of MMGW are on the run... they need to get their greedy hands on more power and more of our money quick.. before the whole house of cards falls apart. their "peace prizes" and "conferences" and "documentaries" are all circus and medicine show. They are huge gala events with lots of movie stars and media hacks all designed to hide the fact that... they have no science.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Yep.. the tide is turning...
"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year."
and...
http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html
This peer reviewed paper concludes that... the math does not add up.. the co2 math and the models don't work.
The blowhard priests of MMGW are on the run... they need to get their greedy hands on more power and more of our money quick.. before the whole house of cards falls apart. their "peace prizes" and "conferences" and "documentaries" are all circus and medicine show. They are huge gala events with lots of movie stars and media hacks all designed to hide the fact that... they have no science.
lazs
That's Hilarious....you post an article by S. Fred Singer?
S. Fred Singer
Tobacco Industry Contractor
In 1994, Singer was Chief Reviewer of the report Science, economics, and environmental policy: a critical examination published by the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution (AdTI). This was all part of an attack on EPA regulation on environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. [6] At that time, Mr. Singer was a Senior Fellow with AdTI. [7]
"The report's principal reviewer, Dr Fred Singer, was involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), as discussed by Ong and Glantz. He was also on a tobacco industry list of people who could write op-ed pieces on "junk science," defending the industry's views.39" [8]
In 1995, as President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) S. Fred Singer was involved in launching a publicity campaign about "The Top 5 Environmental Myths of 1995," a list that included the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. Shandwick, a public relations agency working for British American Tobacco, pitched the "Top 5 Myths" list idea to Singer to minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in orchestrating criticism of the EPA. The "Top 5 Environmental Myths" list packaged EPA's secondhand smoke ruling with other topics like global warming and radon gas, to help minimize the appearance of tobacco industry involvement in the effort. According to a 1996 BAT memo describing the arrangement, Singer agreed to an "aggressive media interview schedule" organized by Shandwick to help publicize his criticism of EPA's conclusions.[9]
[edit]Oil Industry Contractor
In a September 24, 1993, sworn affidavit, Dr. Singer admitted to doing climate change research on behalf of oil companies, such as Exxon, Texaco, Arco, Shell and the American Gas Association. [10]
However, on February 12, 2001, Singer wrote a letter to The Washington Post "in which he denied receiving any oil company money in the previous 20 years when he had consulted for the oil industry.
You sir, will listen to anyone you agree with.
-
Originally posted by Terror
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c)
Seems more and more people (and scientists) are realizing MMGW is a farce and GW is natural.
T
Man, it's just funny. You guys really should check out your sources, also know as WHO is saying WHAT....This is the Bio of one Dr. David Evans, who is quoted in your article. A real genius in climatology, at least when it comes to making wool.
Profile - Person
Dr David Evans, investigating biopolymer molecular structure of fibres.
Photo by: Ms Bea LipsonDr David Evans: probing the fundamental science of wool
Dr David Evans investigates the chemical properties of natural fibres to improve the quality and versatility of apparel and other wool and cotton products.
Current activities
Background
Sportwool™
Surface lipids
New technologies
Dr Evans is a Principal Research Scientist with CSIRO Textile & Fibre Technology, based at Belmont, Geelong, Victoria.
Current activities
Dr Evans is currently the Research Capability Leader of a new Fibrous Bio-polymer Science research team with expertise in relating biopolymer molecular structure to fibre properties.
This team will focus on developing new proteinaceous fibres with commercially acceptable properties as well as new dyeing, bleaching and shrink proofing processes for natural fibres.
Background
Advances in wool and cotton processing technology and the creation of new products have often relied on fundamental scientific knowledge of the chemistry and surface properties of the fibres. Dr Evans has researched these topics at CSIRO Textile and Fibre Technology for more than 30 years.
An expert in protein chemistry, Dr Evans leads many of CSIRO’s fundamental science initiatives. He has contributed new knowledge leading to commercial advances in fields such as scouring, wrinkling, dyeing, setting, stain resistance and easy care and quick-dry Merino.
Sportwool™
Dr Evans was a member of the Sportwool™ development team. He worked on improving the sweat transport (‘wicking’) in the twin layer wool/synthetic fabric of Sportwool™ that improves comfort during athletic and sporting activity by drawing sweat away from the skin to the outside of the garment.
More recently Dr Evans played a role in developing a twin layer cotton fabric that employs the same moisture transport idea as is used in Sportwool™.
Dr Evans hopes to offer wool processors more ecologically acceptable fibre treatments, to overcome restrictions on the use of chlorine.Surface lipids
Dr Evans contributed to the discovery that lipids are part of the surface structure of wool fibres. The presence of these lipids, which are attached to proteins, complicates the application of surface modifying treatments.
Harsh chemical reagents, such as chlorine, are required to change the surface properties. 'If we knew more about the structure of the proteins we might be able to modify the surface properties with more benign reagents,' says Dr Evans. This is the goal of one of his current projects on the surface proteins of wool.
New technologies
Other wool science projects are harnessing developments in materials science. Of particular interest is the use of nanotechnology and plasma technology to modify the surface of the wool fibre to produce fabrics that are easier to care for, softer, or can be used in medical and security applications.
Another line of research is investigating whether genetic manipulation of sheep can be used to modify the structure and surface of the wool fibres to enhance coloration, easy care and softness properties
-
Originally posted by Terror
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=c9554887-802a-23ad-4303-68f67ebd151c)
Seems more and more people (and scientists) are realizing MMGW is a farce and GW is natural.
T
And then there's Lord Monckton..the policy advisor to to a lobbying institute. Please find me real sources, guys. It's just too dumbfounding that you post the first thing you find, without even a cursory background check. Where are his climate credentials, exactly?
Lord Christopher Monckton
Chief Policy Advisor
Science and Public Policy Institute
Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, is chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute.
The eldest son of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Monckton was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge and University College, Cardiff. He joined the Yorkshire Post in 1974 and then worked as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office from 1977-79.
In 1979, he became the editor of the Catholic newspaper, The Universe, and then a managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph’s Magazine in 1981. In 1982 he returned to the Conservative offices again, this time as UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s policy advisor, where he served from 1982 to 1986.
While at 10 Downing Street, Lord Monckton gave policy advice on technical issues such as warship hydrodynamics (his work led to his appointment as the youngest Trustee of the Hales Trophy for the Blue Riband of the Atlantic), psephological modeling (predicting the result of the 1983 General Election to within one seat), embryological research, hydrogeology (leading to the award of major financial assistance to a Commonwealth country for the construction of a very successful hydroelectric scheme), public-service investment analysis(leading to savings of tens of billions of pounds), public welfare modeling (his model of the UK tax and benefit system was, at the time, more detailed than the Treasury’s economic model, and led to a major simplification of the housing benefit system) and epidemiological analysis.
On leaving 10 Downing Street, Lord Monckton became assistant editor of the newly-formed (and now defunct) newspaper, Today. His final job in journalism was as a consulting editor of the Evening Standard from 1987 -1992.
Monckton has since been a director of his own specialist consultancy company, giving technical advice to corporations and governments. In 1999, he created the eternity puzzle, a geometric puzzle which involved tiling a dodecagon with 209 irregularly shaped polygons called polydrafters. A £1m prize was won after 18 months. By that time, 500,000 puzzles had been sold. A second puzzle, Eternity II, is to be launched in July 2007, with a prize of $2 million.
Monckton has been in the news in recent months due to his scepticism of global warming. In November 2006, he published in The Daily Telegraph a widely publicized article critical of the prevailing climate change opinions. After U.S. Senators Rockefeller and Snowe wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of ExxonMobil asking him to stop funding scientists who reject global warming, Lord Monckton wrote a letter to the senators reminding them of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and calling on them to reverse their position or resign. In February 2007, he published an analysis and summary of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on climate change.
-
Singer doesn't hold water Lazs, even a layman can see that.
And Greenland greener than in the medievals...probably.
Our temp has spiked beyond what it was back then, but the full effect isn't there yet. Give it some time.
-
so you guys don't like em? but you agree with what he is saying tho right?
the math for Co2 doesn't add up.
you don't want to attack the science tho? just the man? The paper was not written by singer in any case.. he just contributed.
"The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia)."
but.. it was peer reviewed.. his peers weren't moray or angus tho so maybe it wasn't a real peer reviewed paper?
and then there is this... ""Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained. "
sooo.. if any scientist is making money off of carbon emissions idea of global warming then he can be dismissed as self serving too?
lazs
-
"A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions" is being criticised for poor error analysis amongst other shortcomings.
"Tropical vertical temperature trends: A real discrepancy?" by P. W. Thorne, D. E. Parker, B. D. Santer, M. P. McCarthy, D. M. H. Sexton, M. J. Webb, J. M. Murphy, M. Collins, H. A. Titchner,1 and G. S. Jones; GRL VOL. 34, L16702, doi:10.1029/2007GL029875, 2007. Concludes that the uncertainty in the trends from the satellites is large enough that there is no inconsistency.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The Sahara is a local phenomenon. Local conditions are hot and dry.
Globally, 70% of the earth's surface will be putting more water into the atmosphere, which should mean more global average rainfall.
nope , think of the saturation.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so you guys don't like em? but you agree with what he is saying tho right?
the math for Co2 doesn't add up.
you don't want to attack the science tho? just the man? The paper was not written by singer in any case.. he just contributed.
"The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia)."
but.. it was peer reviewed.. his peers weren't moray or angus tho so maybe it wasn't a real peer reviewed paper?
and then there is this... ""Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained. "
lazs
Again, you end an argument with a quote... from a guy who makes new types of WHOOL.
I'm not attacking the man, sir, he's entitled to his own opinion. I'm attacking you for using him as a quoted source. All three of the people you qouted from have been severely compromised, scientifically.
I ask you this.... when are you going to post this math, that "doesn't add up?"
Do you know how to analyze this data for yourself? You and I already know the answer to that question lazs. Rest your opinion on the backs of people you don't know. I can explain my end of the science... can you even begin to?>
-
moray.. are you saying that the "scientists" who advocate MMGW are not making money and power off the deal? Are they flying out to all these conferences and such on their own dime?
aren't we funneling billions of dollars to guys who start out with the conclusion that MMGW exists?
So you don't like the guy.. no big deal.. show me where he is wrong.. show me where the co2 math adds up... but wait... you don't actually believe that man made co2 will cause catastrophic climate change do you?
But...that is what they are trying to ram down our throats.. that somehow.. reducing our econmies to the stone age and some 50% reduction in something that they can't even prove is a cause.. that somehow.. that will overpower all natural science and climate change.
lazs
-
and.. you say that the men have been comprimised.. prove it. Hell.. every pro MMGW scientist that I have seen has had at least some of his work turn out to be gross exaggeration so far. they all seem compromised to me.
I have no doubt you can explain your part of co2 causing man made global warming better than me.. we all await with baited breath. There is so little convincing data out there that yours would be welcome.
lazs
-
Interesting! How many people here think sea levels would rise if all the sea ice melted?
Noted Sea Level Expert Accuses IPCC of Falsifying Data
Claims IPCC estimates are bunk; Observational data shows no sea level rise trend
Note: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has been studying sea level change for 35 years. He is the former head of Stockholm University's department of Paleodeophysics and Geodynamics. Dr. Mörner is and an expert reviewer for the IPCC, leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project, and past president of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes.
A noted expert in sea level change has accused UN's IPCC panel of falsifying and destroying data (PDF) to support the panel's official conclusion of a rising sea level trend. The accusations include surreptitious substitution of datasets, selective use of data, presenting computer model simulations as physical data, and even the destruction of physical markers which fail to demonstrate sea level rise.
The expert, Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, also raps the IPCC for their selection of 22 authors of their most recent report on sea level rise (SLR), none of which were sea level specialists. According to Mörner, the authors were chosen to "arrive at a predetermined conclusion" of global warming-induced disaster.
...
Mörner says it's becoming increasingly hard to perform objective climate research. In the European Community, a prerequisite for research grants is that the focus must be on global warming. Papers which don't support global warming aren't funded. "That's what dictatorships did, autocracies." He added, "They demanded that scientists produce what they wanted."
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=9978
-
Morner is a neocon. Everybody knows that.
He was in the Swift Boat group too.
-
Is he right inspite of being a neocon etc.? Are neocons allowed to be correct?
-
Isn't the ice floating in the sea already displacing water?
Does your glass of ice water overflow when the ice melts?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Isn't the ice floating in the sea already displacing water?
Does your glass of ice water overflow when the ice melts?
It would drop, the amount of the drop would depend on the density of the ice. What most of these environmenalblist wackos are worried about is ice that is on land causing the oceans to rise. That is if the influx of fresh water doesn't screw up the ocean currents and cause an ice age first.
I for one like the winter, so I'm going out to the garage to detune my cars and light an old pile of tires on fire.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.. you say that the men have been comprimised.. prove it. Hell.. every pro MMGW scientist that I have seen has had at least some of his work turn out to be gross exaggeration so far. they all seem compromised to me.
I have no doubt you can explain your part of co2 causing man made global warming better than me.. we all await with baited breath. There is so little convincing data out there that yours would be welcome.
lazs
I just proved three of your sources to be questionable at best... and paid hacks at worst. Three of the past posts were your sources bibliographies, none of which had sht to do with any climate research... yet hacks like yourself see Dr. in front of a name and. since you have already made up your mind, you cite them as a source. What else do you want? You consistently ask for things after people ALREADY did them... are you slightly slower than others?
Ask the guy who makes new forms of wool what he thinks about carbon in the atmosphere... lol.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.. you say that the men have been comprimised.. prove it. Hell.. every pro MMGW scientist that I have seen has had at least some of his work turn out to be gross exaggeration so far. they all seem compromised to me.
I have no doubt you can explain your part of co2 causing man made global warming better than me.. we all await with baited breath. There is so little convincing data out there that yours would be welcome.
lazs
And it's C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E-D.
Compromise (V)to expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.;
I believe a guy who swears under oath he was paid by Exxon Mobil to undertake research for them, under the guise of climate research, then swears under oath 6 years later that he wasn't paid by Exxon Mobil.... He is C-O-M-P-R-O-M-I-S-E-D, and you should probably keep using him as a source of your delusionment.....it makes it easier to prove how little you research things.
-
Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong?
By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 16 July 2007 09:34 am ET
Share this story
Email From catastrophic sea level rise to jarring changes in local weather, humanity faces a potentially dangerous threat from the changes our own pollution has wrought on Earth’s climate. But since nothing in science can ever be proven with 100 percent certainty, how is it that scientists can be so sure that we are the cause of global warming?
For years, there has been clear scientific consensus that Earth’s climate is heating up and that humans are the culprits behind the trend, says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at the University of California, San Diego.
A few years ago, she evaluated 928 scientific papers that dealt with global climate change and found that none disagreed about human-generated global warming. The results of her analysis were published in a 2004 essay in the journal Science.
And the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences and numerous other noted scientific organizations have issued statements that unequivocally endorse the idea of global warming and attribute it to human activities.
“We’re confident about what’s going on,” said climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Science in New York.
But even if there is a consensus, how can scientists be so confident about a trend playing out over dozens of years in the grand scheme of the Earth's existence? How do they know they didn’t miss something, or that there is not some other explanation for the world’s warming? After all, there was once a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. How can scientists prove their position?
Best predictor wins
Contrary to popular parlance, science can never truly “prove” a theory. Science simply arrives at the best explanation of how the world works. Global warming can no more be “proven” than the theory of continental drift, the theory of evolution or the concept that germs carry diseases.
“All science is fallible,” Oreskes told LiveScience. “Climate science shouldn’t be expected to stand up to some fantasy standard that no science can live up to.”
Instead, a variety of methods and standards are used to evaluate the viability of different scientific explanations and theories. One such standard is how well a theory predicts the outcome of an event, and climate change theory has proven to be a strong predictor.
The effects of putting massive amounts of carbon dioxide in the air were predicted as long ago as the early 20th century by Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius.
Noted oceanographer Roger Revelle’s 1957 predictions that carbon dioxide would build up in the atmosphere and cause noticeable changes by the year 2000 have been borne out by numerous studies, as has Princeton climatologist Suki Manabe’s 1980 prediction that the Earth’s poles would be first to see the effects of global warming.
Also in the 1980s, NASA climatologist James Hansen predicted with high accuracy what the global average temperature would be in 30 years time (now the present day).
Hansen's model predictions are “a shining example of a successful prediction in climate science,” said climatologist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University.
Schmidt says that predictions by those who doubted global warming have failed to come true.
“Why don’t you trust a psychic? Because their predictions are wrong,” he told LiveScience. “The credibility goes to the side that gets these predictions right.”
Mounting evidence
Besides their successful predictions, climate scientists have been assembling a “body of evidence that has been growing significantly with each year,” Mann said.
Data from tree rings, ice cores and coral reefs taken with instrumental observations of air and ocean temperatures, sea ice melt and greenhouse gas concentrations have all emerged in support of climate change theory.
“There are 20 different lines of evidence that the planet is warming,” and the same goes for evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere, Schmidt said. “All of these things are very incontrovertible.”
But skeptics have often raised the question of whether these observations and effects attributed to global warming may in fact be explained by natural variation or changes in solar radiation hitting the Earth.
Hurricane expert William Gray, of Colorado State University, told Discover magazine in a 2005 interview, "I'm not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.”
Isaac Newton had something to say about all this: In his seminal “Principia Mathematica,” he noted that if separate data sets are best explained by one theory or idea, that explanation is most likely the true explanation.
And studies have overwhelmingly shown that climate change scenarios in which greenhouse gases emitted from human activities cause global warming best explain the observed changes in Earth’s climate, Mann said—models that use only natural variation can’t account for the significant warming that has occurred in the last few decades.
Mythic ice age
One argument commonly used to cast doubt on the idea of global warming is the supposed predictions of an impending ice age by scientists in the 1970s. One might say: First the Earth was supposed to be getting colder; now scientists say it’s getting hotter—how can we trust scientists if they’re predictions are so wishy-washy?
Because the first prediction was never actually made. Rather, it’s something of an urban climate myth.
Mann says that this myth started from a “tiny grain of truth around which so much distortion and misinformation has been placed.”
Scientists were well aware of the warming that could be caused by increasing greenhouse gases, both Mann and Schmidt explained, but in the decades preceding the 1970s, aerosols, or air pollution, had been steadily increasing. These tiny particles tended to have a cooling effect in the atmosphere, and at the time, scientists were unsure who would win the climate-changing battle, aerosols or greenhouse gases.
“It was unclear what direction the climate was going,” Mann said.
But several popular media, such as Newsweek, ran articles that exaggerated what scientists had said about the potential of aerosols to cool the Earth.
But the battle is now over, and greenhouse gases have won.
“Human society has made a clear decision as to which direction [the climate] is going to go,” Mann said.
Future predictions
One of the remaining skeptics, is MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen. While he acknowledges the trends of rising temperatures and greenhouse gases, Lindzen expressed his doubt on man’s culpability in the case and casts doubt on the dire predictions made by some climate models, in an April 2006 editorial for The Wall Street Journal.
“What the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred,” Lindzen wrote.
To be sure, there is a certain degree of uncertainty involved in modeling and predicting future changes in the climate, but “you don’t need to have a climate model to know that climate change is a problem,” Oreskes said.
Climate scientists have clearly met the burden of proof with the mounting evidence they’ve assembled and the strong predictive power of global warming theory, Oreskes said-- global warming is something to pay attention to.
Schmidt agrees. “All of these little things just reinforce the big picture,” he said. “And the big picture is very worrying.”
-
Increasing Acid Could Kill Most Coral by 2050
By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 13 December 2007 02:01 pm ET
Share this story
Email SAN FRANCISCO — The world’s coral reefs face almost certain death as increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are absorbed by the oceans, acidifying the water in which corals live, a new study warns.
In the past few decades, corals have come under increasing pressure from warming ocean waters, overfishing and disease. A recent study found corals in Pacific ocean were disappearing faster than previously thought.
The new study, to be presented tomorrow at a meeting here of the American Geophysical Union, points to yet another factor plaguing these underwater bastions of biodiversity: carbon dioxide.
As carbon dioxide is emitted through the burning of fossil fuels, some of it is absorbed by the world’s oceans.
“About a third of the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans,” said study team member Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, “which helps slow greenhouse warming, but is a major pollutant of the oceans.”
When the carbon dioxide is absorbed in the water, it produces carbonic acid, the same acid that gives soft drinks their fizz. This acid also makes certain minerals dissolve more readily in seawater, particularly aragonite, the mineral used by corals and many other marine organisms to grow their skeletons.
Caldeira and his colleagues ran computer simulations of ocean chemistry based on a range of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, from 280 parts per million (ppm) (pre-industrial levels) to 5,000 parts per million. (Present levels are 380 ppm and rising.)
Their findings, detailed in the Dec. 14 issue of the journal Science, show that if current emission trends continue, 98 percent of present-day reef habitats will be too acidic by mid-century for reef growth.
“Before the industrial revolution, over 98 percent of warm water coral reefs were bathed with open ocean waters 3.5 times supersaturated with aragonite, meaning that corals could easily extract it to build reefs,” said study co-author Long Cao, also of the Carnegie Institution. “But if atmospheric CO2 stabilizes at 550 ppm—and even that would take concerted international efforts to achieve—no existing coral reef will remain in such an environment.”
At greatest risk of these changes are Australia’s iconic Great Barrier Reef, the world's largest living structure, and the reefs of the Caribbean Sea.
To slow ocean acidification, Caldeira and Cao warn, will likely take more stringent and immediate reductions in carbon dioxide than would be needed to reduce the other effects of global warming.
“The science speaks for itself. We have created conditions on Earth unlike anything most species alive today have experienced in their evolutionary history,” said co-author Bob Steneck of the University of Maine. “Corals are feeling the effects of our actions, and it is now or never if we want to safeguard these marine creatures and the livelihoods that depend on them.”
-
And I'll post, for you, Dr. Michael Mann's research, to save you the trouble, although, Lazs, you won't find any of it in a pop-up book.
Mann, M.E., Sabbatelli, T.A., Neu, U., Evidence for a Modest Undercount Bias in Early Historical Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Counts, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L22707, doi:10.1029/2007GL031781, 2007.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Reply to Comments on “Testing the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-based Reconstructions of Past Climate” by Smerdon and Kaplan, J. Climate, 20, 5671-5674, 2007.
Sabbatelli, T.A., Mann, M.E., The Influence of Climate State Variables on Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Occurrence Rates, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D17114, doi: 10.1029/2007JD008385, 2007.
Mann, M.E., Emanuel, K.A., Holland, G.J., Webster, P.J., Atlantic Tropical Cyclones Revisited, Eos, 88, 36, p. 349-350, 2007.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Reply to Comments on “Testing the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-based Reconstructions of Past Climate” by Zorita et al, J. Climate, 20, 3699-3703, 2007.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Robustness of Proxy-Based Climate Field Reconstruction Methods, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D12109, doi: 10.1029/2006JD008272, 2007.
Mann, M.E., Climate Over the Past Two Millennia, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 35, 111-136, 2007.
[
Mann, M.E., Briffa, K.R., Jones, P.D., Kiefer, T., Kull, C., Wanner, H., Past Millennia Climate Variability, Eos, 87, 526-527, 2006.
Goosse, H., Arzel, O., Luterbacher, J., Mann, M.E., Renssen, H., Riedwyl, N., Timmermann, A., Xoplaki, E., Wanner, H., The origin of the European "Medieval Warm Period", Climate of the Past, 2, 99-113, 2006.
Goosse, H., Renssen, H., Timmermann, A., Bradley, R.S., Mann, M.E., Using paleoclimate proxy-data to select optimal realisations in an ensemble of simulations of the climate of the past millennium, Climate Dynamics, 27, 165-184, 2006.
Mann, M.E., Emanuel, K.A., Atlantic Hurricane Trends linked to Climate Change, Eos, 87, 24, p 233, 238, 241, 2006.
Mann, M.E., Climate Changes Over the Past Millennium: Relationships with Mediterranean Climates, Nuovo Cimento C, 29, 73-80, 2006.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Wahl, E., Ammann, C., Testing the Fidelity of Methods Used in Proxy-based Reconstructions of Past Climate, Journal of Climate, 18, 4097-4107, 2005.
Knight, J.R., Allan, R.J., Folland, C.K., Vellinga, M., Mann, M.E., A signature of persistent natural thermohaline circulation cycles in observed climate, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L20708, doi:10.1029/2005GL024233, 2005.
Cronin, T.M., Thunell, R., Dwyer, G.S., Saenger, C., Mann, M.E., Vann, C., Seal, R.R. II Multiproxy evidence of Holocene climate variability from estuarine sediments, eastern North America, Paleoceanography, 20, PA4006, doi: 10.1029/2005PA001145, 2005.
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Osborn, T.J., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Proxy-based Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Reconstructions: Sensitivity to Methodology, Predictor Network, Target Season and Target Domain, Journal of Climate, 18, 2308-2329, 2005.
Cook, B.I., Smith, T.M., Mann, M.E., The North Atlantic Oscillation and regional phenology prediction over Europe, Global Change Biology, 11, 919-926, 2005.
Frauenfeld, O.W., Davis, R.E., Mann, M.E., A Distinctly Interdecadal Signal of Pacific Ocean–Atmosphere Interaction, Journal of Climate, 18, 1709-1718, 2005.
Mann, M.E., Cane, M.A., Zebiak, S.E., Clement, A., Volcanic and Solar Forcing of the Tropical Pacific Over the Past 1000 Years, Journal of Climate, 18, 447-456, 2005.
D'Arrigo, R.D., Cook, E.R., Wilson, R.J., Allan, R., Mann, M.E., On the Variability of ENSO Over the Past Six Centuries, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L03711, doi: 10.1029/2004GL022055, 2005.
Zhang, Z., Mann, M.E., Coupled Patterns of Spatiotemporal Variability in Northern Hemisphere Sea Level Pressure and Conterminous U.S. Drought, Journal of Geophysical Research, 110, D03108, doi: 10.1029/2004JD004896, 2005.
Schmidt, G.A., Shindell, D.T., Miller, R.L., Mann, M.E., Rind, D., General Circulation Modeling of Holocene climate variability, Quaternary Science Reviews, 23, 2167-2181, 2004.
Cook, B.I., Mann, M.E., D'Odorico, P., Smith, T.M., Statistical Simulation of the Influence of the NAO on European Winter Surface Temperatures: Applications to Phenological Modeling, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D16106, doi: 10.1029/2003JD004305, 2004.
Zhang, Z., Mann, M.E., Cook, E.R., Alternative methods of proxy-based climate field reconstruction: application to summer drought over the conterminous United States back to AD 1700 from tree-ring data, The Holocene, 14, 502-516, 2004.
Andronova, N.G., Schlesinger, M.E., Mann, M.E., Are Reconstructed Pre-Instrumental Hemispheric Temperatures Consistent With Instrumental Hemispheric Temperatures?, Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L12202, doi: 10.1029/2004GL019658, 2004.
Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004.
Mann, M.E., On Smoothing Potentially Non-Stationary Climate Time Series, Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L07214, doi: 10.1029/2004GL019569, 2004.
Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Reply to comment on ‘‘Ground vs. surface air temperature trends: Implications for borehole surface temperature reconstructions’’ by D. Chapman et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L07206, doi: 10.1029/2003GL0119144, 2004.
L'Heureux, M.L., Mann, M.E., Cook B.I., Gleason, B.E., Vose, R.S., Atmospheric Circulation Influences on Seasonal PrecipitationPatterns in Alaska during the latter 20th Century, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D06106, doi:10.1029/2003JD003845, 2004.
Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Mann, M.E., Faluvegi, G., Dynamic winter climate response to large tropical volcanic eruptions since 1600, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D05104, doi: 10.1029/2003JD004151, 2004.
Adams, J.B., Mann, M.E., D'Hondt, S., The Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction: Modeling carbon flux and ecological response, Paleoceanography, 19, PA1002, doi: 10.1029/2002PA000849, 2004.
Shindell, D.T., Schmidt, G.A., Miller, R.L., Mann, M.E., Volcanic and Solar Forcing of Climate Change during the Preindustrial Era, Journal of Climate, 16, 4094-4107, 2003.
Adams, J.B., Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Proxy Evidence for an El Nino-like Response to Volcanic Forcing, Nature, 426, 274-278, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J. T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., Response to Comment on 'On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth', Eos, 84, 473, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Paleoclimate, Global Change, and the Future (book review), Eos, 84, 419-420, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Jones, P.D., Global surface temperature over the past two millennia, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (15), 1820, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017814, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Ammann, C.M., Bradley, R.S., Briffa, K.R., Crowley, T.J., Hughes, M.K., Jones, P.D., Oppenheimer, M., Osborn, T.J., Overpeck, J.T., Rutherford, S., Trenberth, K.E., Wigley, T.M.L., On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late 20th Century Warmth,Eos, 84, 256-258, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Schmidt, G.A., Ground vs. Surface Air Temperature Trends: Implications for Borehole Surface Temperature Reconstructions,Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (12), 1607, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017170, 2003.
Andrews, J.T., Hardadottir, J., Stoner, J.S., Mann, M.E., Kristjansdottir, G.B., Koc, N., Decadal to Millennial-scale periodicities in North Iceland shelf sediments over the last 12,000 cal yrs: long-term North Atlantic oceanographic variability and Solar Forcing, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 210, 453-465, 2003.
D'Arrigo, R.D., Cook, E.R., Mann, M.E., Jacoby, G.C., Tree-ring reconstructions of temperature and sea-level pressure variability associated with the warm-season Arctic Oscillation since AD 1650, Geophysical Research Letters, 30 (11), 1549, doi: 10.1029/2003GL017250, 2003.
Covey, C., AchutaRao, K.M., Cubasch, U., Jones, P.D., Lambert, S.J., Mann, M.E., Philips, T.J., Taylor, K.E., An overview of results from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Global and Planetary Change, 37, 103-133, 2003.
Mann, M.E., Rutherford, S., Bradley, R.S., Hughes, M.K., Keimig, F.T., Optimal Surface Temperature Reconstructions using Terrestrial Borehole Data, Journal of Geophysical Research, 108 (D7), 4203, doi: 10.1029/2002JD002532, 2003.
[Correction(Rutherford and Mann, 2004)]
Braganza, K., Karoly, D.J., Hirst, A.C., Mann, M.E., Stott, P, Stouffer, R.J., Tett, S.F.B., Simple indices of global climate variability and change: Part I - variability and correlation structure, Climate Dynamics, 20, 491-502, 2003.
Gerber, S., Joos, F., Bruegger, P.P., Stocker, T.F., Mann, M.E., Sitch, S., Constraining Temperature Variations over the last Millennium by Comparing Simulated and Observed Atmospheric CO2, Climate Dynamics, 20, 281-299, 2003.
Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Delworth, T.L., Stouffer, R., Climate Field Reconstruction Under Stationary and Nonstationary Forcing, Journal of Climate, 16, 462-479, 2003.
And all this is Peer reviewed... you're so right lazs.. they're all abondoning it.
:noid :noid
-
but moray.. manns hockey stick has been discredited by everyone.. soooo.. he lied.. he is compromised no?
as for the papers.. that is old news.. not only did andrea thompson use flawed methodolgy to review the papers but... it is outdated now.. she could not find a single paper that didn't agree with man made global warming?
but wait.. her outdated study...even if true.. is old news..
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/peer-reviewed-papers-support-climate-sceptics/
latest studies of over 500 CURRENT peer reviewed papers show.....
"2007 alone has provided an abundance of peer-reviewed papers debunking the man-made CO2 “consensus”. A recent survey of peer-reviewed papers from 2004-2007 reveals that less than half of published papers endorse man-made global warming theory. In the past 4 months, there has been a rush of sceptical peer-reviewed papers. A good reference is the US Senate report: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8
Which is interesting in the fact that... if 5 years ago she couldn't even find anyone who didn't believe in catastrohic man made global warming..
It would now appear that the alarmists are losing ground. they are losing priests at an alarming rate.
Imagine the "hockey stick" graph if you used peer reviewed papers from say... 1990 to 2007.. it would show this flat line with all these "scientists" saying it was man made and the end of times for a decade of so.. a nice flat line then... POW the hockey stick.. all of a sudden... only 7% believed it was man made and the end of times.. the rest either don't know or 6% ( a gazillion percent increase) think it is a bunch of alarmist BS.
you guys are losing ground not gaining. You may win but it won't be on the science it will be on bullying and shouting down the people who disagree.
lazs
-
moray..rather than your email.,.. check this site.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/consensus_what_consensus_among_climate_scientists_the_debate_is_not_over.html
It explains the peer reviewed papers you talk about in great detail... 6 pages worth.
it concludes with....
"Oreskes’ essay is now outdated. Since it was published, more than 8,000 further papers on climate change have been published in the learned journals. In these papers, there is a discernible and accelerating trend away from unanimity even on her limited definition of “consensus”.
Schulte (2007: submitted) has brought Oreskes’ essay up to date by examining the 539 abstracts found using her search phrase “global climate change” between 2004 (her search had ended in 2003) and mid-February 2007. Even if Oreskes’ commentary in Science were true, the “consensus” has moved very considerably away from the unanimity she says she found.
Dr. Schulte’s results show that about 1.5% of the papers (just 9 out of 539) explicitly endorse the “consensus”, even in the limited sense defined by Oreskes. Though Oreskes found that 75% of the papers she reviewed explicitly or implicitly endorsed the “consensus”, Dr. Schulte’s review of subsequent papers shows that fewer than half now give some degree of endorsement to the “consensus”. The abstract of his paper is worth quoting in full:
“Fear of anthropogenic ‘global warming’ can adversely affect patients’ well-being. Accordingly, the state of the scientific consensus about climate change was studied by a review of the 539 papers on “global climate change” found on the Web of Science database from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes (2004), who had reported that between 1993 and 2003 none of 928 scientific papers on “global climate change” had rejected the consensus that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years was likely to have been anthropogenic. In the present review, 32 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.”
If we go by your theory that there was a "consensus" that was complete up till 2003
we have to conclude that the alarmists are losing ground at an alarming rate!!!
We might have to give the survivors carbon credits just to keep em going!!!
lazs
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Is he right inspite of being a neocon etc.? Are neocons allowed to be correct?
No, neocons are never correct. In fact, not knowing that proves you are a neocon.
-
Damn, I was afraid of that. I guess I'll never be able to move to Bermuda now....... :cry
-
Originally posted by clerick
It would drop, the amount of the drop would depend on the density of the ice.
The amount of water floating ice displaces is precisely equal to the weight of the entire piece of ice, regardless of density.
When floating ice melts, the level of the water it floats in remains unchanged.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The amount of water floating ice displaces is precisely equal to the weight of the entire piece of ice, regardless of density.
When floating ice melts, the level of the water it floats in remains unchanged.
But, given that water is one of the only few materials that expands when solidifying, if an Ice Cube is under water / at the surface (but not above), it loses volume when it changes back to water.
So under that fact, what is wrong in thinking that the water level would go down upon the melting of the ice, rather than staying at the same level?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The amount of water floating ice displaces is precisely equal to the weight of the entire piece of ice, regardless of density.
Correct, but what takes up more space; a pound of water or a pound of ice? Of course ice's density can vary depending on specific composition and temperature.
*slightly off topic*
IIRC i believe that the Allies toyed with the idea of Ice ships at one point, dont recall if they ever came to be.
-
The world was flat, so flat that bright scientists were hung or quartered for
being heretic's by the leaders of the time...
Today;s green scammer and yesterday's flat world scammer have not changed much. Every time we point out a global warming is man made Lie the reply is generally "thats old news" The idea being that if they interrupt enough with the
"thats old news" line with the spit flying out of their mouths and hitting your face it will get old and you have to walk away.
To believe that Global warming is man made when science has yet to define its cause or without letting science take its natural course would make you green scammers "Science deniers"
TJ
-
Originally posted by T0J0
The world was flat, so flat that bright scientists were hung or quartered for
being heretic's by the leaders of the time...
Today;s green scammer and yesterday's flat world scammer have not changed much. Every time we point out a global warming is man made Lie the reply is generally "thats old news" The idea being that if they interrupt enough with the
"thats old news" line with the spit flying out of their mouths and hitting your face it will get old and you have to walk away.
To believe that Global warming is man made when science has yet to define its cause or without letting science take its natural course would make you green scammers "Science deniers"
TJ
I believe that Rips signature quote is right on the money...
The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:
"It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones. The climate is always changing, so they must be right."
--John Brignill
-
The UN lie?!? UNpossible.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
The world was flat, so flat that bright scientists were hung or quartered for
being heretic's by the leaders of the time...
Today;s green scammer and yesterday's flat world scammer have not changed much. Every time we point out a global warming is man made Lie the reply is generally "thats old news" The idea being that if they interrupt enough with the
"thats old news" line with the spit flying out of their mouths and hitting your face it will get old and you have to walk away.
To believe that Global warming is man made when science has yet to define its cause or without letting science take its natural course would make you green scammers "Science deniers"
TJ
Actually, the thought that people believed the world was flat was a myth created in the 1880's (might be wrong on the decade).
Anyone who spent any time on the water, or even casually looking at the heavens could figure out that the earth wasn't flat.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream
-
the world is flat and unicorns have sticky feet so they can walk on the botton side.
-
Originally posted by clerick
Correct, but what takes up more space; a pound of water or a pound of ice? Of course ice's density can vary depending on specific composition and temperature.
The more space that the ice takes up can be found above the waterline.
Regardless of density, a lb of floating ice displaces a lb of water. When the lbs of ice melts, the lb of melted ice will weigh a lb, and will still displace a lb of water. The level of the water before and after will be exaclty the same.
Google Archemedies. (sp?) he figured this out long ago.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The more space that the ice takes up can be found above the waterline.
Regardless of density, a lb of floating ice displaces a lb of water. When the lbs of ice melts, the lb of melted ice will weigh a lb, and will still displace a lb of water. The level of the water before and after will be exaclty the same.
Google Archemedies. (sp?) he figured this out long ago.
You don't quite have it right. A pound of ice that displaces a pound of water will not float but will be suspended in the water. Place it at any depth and it will stay where you placed it.
There are three states that an object within a fluid can have; positively buoyant, neutrally buoyant and negatively buoyant.
When an object is negatively buoyant it is unable to displace a volume of fluid with a weight at least equal to its own weight.
When an object is neutrally buoyant it is displacing a volume of fluid that weighs exactly the same as its own weight.
When it is positive it is displacing a volume of fluid that weighs more then its own weight.
Density is integral in all of this. By changing the overall density of the object we can make it sink or float or remain neutral. Take a ship for example. It is made out of steel which, when compressed into its desist configuration, will sink in water. However, decrease the ships overall density, by forming a structure with airspaces et.c., and the same weight of steel will float. It is the relative densities that are causing the weight to be displaced.
Ice is no different. It is frozen water that, through expansion and the addition of air spaces, displaces a volume of water that weighs more then the ice itself, which is why it floats. It is the ice's lower density that allows this to happen.
-
Yes or no: There has been a roughly ONE DEGREE rise over the least 100 years?---Is this ONE DEGREE supposed to be causing all this, or is the damage what they THINK will happen in the future as that ONE DEGREE goes to 5 or 10?
Here's some neat debunking/investigation articles
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212201954.htm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/temperature_measurement/index.html
Finding out what is actually happening to the ice is not easy. Radar measurements of the height of the ice over parts of the continent suggest that the huge East Antarctic ice sheet grew slightly between 1992 and 2003.
A more recent study based on satellite measurements of gravity over the entire continent suggests that while the ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica are growing thicker, even more ice is being lost from the peripheries. The study concluded that there was a net loss of ice between 2002 and 2005, adding 0.4 millimetres per year to sea levels (see Gravity reveals shrinking Antarctic ice). Most of the ice was lost from the smaller West Antarctic ice sheet.
Son of a B****......FOUR TENTHS OF ONE MILLIMETER 4 YEARS! In a couple thousand years at current warming trends.....(ahem...which presumes we will still be burning fossil fuels...)
Hmm..was not North America once covered by glaciers? What made them poof?
-
Take into account also that the bulk of the ice in the artic is over solid land.
If it melts it goes into the ocean, raising sea levels.
In any case, the real danger isnt that we'll lose a hundred feet of coastline, its the massive climate change the billions of tons of freshwater falling into the ocean and changing the salinity levels.
It kills the fish, it disrupts the flow the of the currents.. in fact if the gulf stream itself was to fail not only would most species in the ocean either die or significantly decrease in number, it would also alter the climate of the entire planet into an ice age like environment.
this all means starvation, conflict,etc .. a general decline in the # of humans in the planet. Which might not be a BAD thing but it'd be one very unpleasant world to live in while it happens.
-
Originally posted by Tac
Take into account also that the bulk of the ice in the artic is over solid land.
If it melts it goes into the ocean, raising sea levels.
In any case, the real danger isnt that we'll lose a hundred feet of coastline, its the massive climate change the billions of tons of freshwater falling into the ocean and changing the salinity levels.
It kills the fish, it disrupts the flow the of the currents.. in fact if the gulf stream itself was to fail not only would most species in the ocean either die or significantly decrease in number, it would also alter the climate of the entire planet into an ice age like environment.
this all means starvation, conflict,etc .. a general decline in the # of humans in the planet. Which might not be a BAD thing but it'd be one very unpleasant world to live in while it happens.
I'm sorry at the artic, there is very little land, if any.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm sorry at the artic, there is very little land, if any.
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/reference_maps/jpg/arctic.jpg)
-
Originally posted by AKH
(https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/reference_maps/jpg/arctic.jpg)
Thats a nice picture, but I'm sure what Rip was saying is that there is very little, if any, land beneath the ice cap. In effect the ice is floating, unlike the antarctic which has land and even volcanoes underneath it.
-
Exactly Clerick.
Thank you for proving my point, AKH. See that circle? That's the artic circle.
-
The Greenland ice sheet is in the Arctic.
-
but tac.. the rate.. the actual rate of rise in the ocean is the same now as it was 150 years ago... not the 30 feet that gore or the alarmist first said...
Not the 20 feet by 2050 that they all said last year...
Not the 3 feet by 2050 that they said 6 months ago...
Probly not the 2 feet that they said last month but..
just like it always as been as far back as they can measure.... more like..1/10 of an inch a year.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html
"Gore says that a sea-level rise of up to 6 m (20 ft) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise.
The IPCC says sea-level increases up to 7 m (23 ft) above today’s levels have happened naturally in the past climate, and would only be likely to happen again after several millennia. In the next 100 years, according to calculations based on figures in the IPCC’s 2007 report, these two ice sheets between them will add a little over 6 cm (2.5 inches) to sea level, not 6 m (this figure of 6 cm is 15% of the IPCC’s total central estimate of a 43 cm or 1 ft 5 in sea-level rise over the next century). Gore has accordingly exaggerated the official sea-level estimate by approaching 10,000 per cent.
Ms. Kreider says the IPCC estimates a sea-level rise of “59 cm” by 2100. She fails to point out that this amounts to less than 2 ft, not the 20 ft imagined by Gore. She also fails to point out that this is the IPCC’s upper estimate, on its most extreme scenario. And she fails to state that the IPCC, faced with a stream of peer-reviewed articles stating that sea-level rise is not a threat, has reduced this upper estimate from 3 ft in 2001 to less than 2 ft (i.e. half the mean centennial sea-level rise that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago) in 2007.
Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s 2007 sea-level calculations excluded contributions from Greenland and West Antarctica because they could not be quantified. However, Table SPM1 of the 2007 report quantifies the contributions of these two ice-sheets to sea-level rise as representing about 15% of the total change."
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but moray.. manns hockey stick has been discredited by everyone.. soooo.. he lied.. he is compromised no?
YADDA YADDA YADDA
you guys are losing ground not gaining. You may win but it won't be on the science it will be on bullying and shouting down the people who disagree.
lazs
Actually, if you knew what you were taking about, Mann's hockey stick was NOT discredited...it was pointed out there were statistical errors.
"The panel published its report in 2006.[29] The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH (Mann Hockey Stick) analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect."
The National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.";[32] Nature (journal) reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph."
I would like to point out... the Wegman report you trump so much as refuting the Mann report....
"The Wegman report has itself been criticized and supported on several contentious grounds:
The report was not subject to formal peer review [44] [45] However, at the hearing, Wegman lists 6 people that participated in his own peer review process and had no objection to the subcommittee submitting it for another one of their own.[46]
The result of fixing the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the reconstruction. [47]
Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions,[47] although there is some overlap in proxies used.
The social network analysis is not based on meaningful criteria, does not prove a conflict of interest and did not apply at the time of the 1998 and 1999 publications. [46] Such a network of co-authorship is not unusual in narrowly defined areas of science.[48] During the hearing, Wegman defined the social network as peer reviewers that had "activly collaborated with him in writing research papers" and answered that none of his peer reviewers had.[46]
Gerald North, chairman of the National Research Council panel that studied the hockey-stick issue and produced the report Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, stated the politicians at the hearing at which the Wegman report was presented "were twisting the scientific information for their own propaganda purposes. The hearing was not an information gathering operation, but rather a spin machine."[44] However, in testimony when asked if he disputed the methodology conclusions of Wegman's report, he stated that "No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report." followed by the caveat the results could still be correct anyway "But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false."[46]
Mann has himself said that the report "uncritically parrots claims by two Canadians (an economist and a mineral-exploration consultant) that have already been refuted by several papers in the peer-reviewed literature inexplicably neglected by Barton's 'panel'. These claims were specifically dismissed by the National Academy in their report just weeks ago."[49]
You really need to smarten up before you say someone is "lying".
-
Originally posted by clerick
You don't quite have it right. A pound of ice that displaces a pound of water will not float but will be suspended in the water. Place it at any depth and it will stay where you placed it.
I think you need to get a glass of water and put a ice cube in it and see if you can suspend it without any part of it above the water.
Good luck.
Meanwhile google bouyancy and see what you come up with.
My engineering degree says that you will find that an ice cube floats (is bouyant) because it is of greater volume per unit weight than the water it displaces. The a cubic foot of displaced water has a bouyancy capacity of 62.4 lbs. 62.4 lbs of ice will be appx 1.1 cubic feet.
0.1 cubic feet of ice will be above the waterline. When the ice melts, the 62.4 lbs of water that was displaced will be filled with 62.4 lbs of water.
-
Makes sense.
-
Originally posted by straffo
nope , think of the saturation.
Yup. I did think of that.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
just like it always as been as far back as they can measure.... more like..1/10 of an inch a year.
lazs
Even only a foot a year is still like what, 100 feet in 10 years!
-
But the US has just capitulated in Bali after years of GWB heel digging...
Sea levels? Well that's one consideration for climate change. Acidification of the oceans would be a key concern. I just watched a science documentary about climate change etc. There was a lake in Canada somewhere which had no currents, no circulation. And a small temperature increase in the water had led to the near extinction of one particular species of jellyfish there. The lesson here is that we can't just dump on organisms lower down the food chain. Man made CO2 output is now higher than at any time since man evolved, and the CO2 dissolvinginto the oceans is causing a lowering of their pH - acidification - which is adversely affecting the oceans' algae. Pfft you might say. Who cares about algae? Who cares about jellyfish? Hmm, the programme also went on to explain that those algae create about 70% of the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere!
-
The Global Climate manipulates climate data
Tell me Mother Nature doesn't have a sense of irony and humor! :rofl
I think the Climate is having a go with everyone.
TIGERESS
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
But the US has just capitulated in Bali after years of GWB heel digging...
Sea levels? Well that's one consideration for climate change. Acidification of the oceans would be a key concern. I just watched a science documentary about climate change etc. There was a lake in Canada somewhere which had no currents, no circulation. And a small temperature increase in the water had led to the near extinction of one particular species of jellyfish there. The lesson here is that we can't just dump on organisms lower down the food chain. Man made CO2 output is now higher than at any time since man evolved, and the CO2 dissolvinginto the oceans is causing a lowering of their pH - acidification - which is adversely affecting the oceans' algae. Pfft you might say. Who cares about algae? Who cares about jellyfish? Hmm, the programme also went on to explain that those algae create about 70% of the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere!
Yes, because nothing in the history of the earth has EVER evolved, or EVER changed.
The earth is as it is now as it was 4 billion years ago. With man running around talking on their cellphones, and exactly 36.7 thousand jellyfish in that one lake.
-
Oh no, not another thread about this...
-
For me this keeps coming back to: HOW much 'global warming' has happened thus far? ~ 1 degree since the automobile was invented....how much , if any, caused by us? Unknown
EVERYTHING ELSE isn't HAPPENING, it's merely PREDICTED to happen in the future by the SAME @#$ers who couldn't tell me at 9pm Tuesday I was gonna have an ice storm on the way to work Wednesday morning
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Even only a foot a year is still like what, 100 feet in 10 years!
-
Originally posted by Donzo
You would have had to have followed another thread to get that one. I'm not naming names here. :D
-
WOW!
The Anti-Reality Club (usually defined by politics and party affiliation) is thriving.
Denial and Ignorance= Never having to fix anything.
Preventive Maintenance = Never having to spend all your time fixing something in the future, that could have easily been avoided through denial or ignorance.
In the 70s they used a Indian with a tear to express that man poops in his own back yard.
Today they use scientific lingo and data.
Oh I see, because a particular person says it, and the term used is arguable it makes it ok to deny the core problem in the face of political affiliation. That's the saddest part of this whole thing.
If you remove the term Global Warming you still find that man is completely stupid, ignorant and victim to his own vises.
If you remove the term Global Warming, you will still find that where man pollutes the earth cancer is high, lung problems are growing, asthma is seeking our kids, and medical bills are higher and more frequent.
But, we must bow down to the fact, that since a certain person(s) says it, and uses the term Global Warming, that it makes everything "OK" and supports reason to deny it all. Not because it doesn't exist, but because "who" said it, and the term they used. It's not a fact that bothers some it's the messenger who brings it.
Point being, who here can point out to me what so wrong about breathing cleaner air, living on unpolluted land, and eating food from cleaner waters?
Maybe some throw twice as much trash out their car window to spite the messenger?
Pollution won't kill man, his ignorance will.
Even if Global Warming is a complete utter lie, the by-product of the "scare" seems to be worth it to me. Of course some people are glutens and would rather die of some cancer then even attempt to listen to someone who is from a different political party then their own.
IMO, The denial of Global Warming\Polluting the Earth is not based on fact, it's based on affiliation. Because the facts of what man is doing to himself are a bit over-whelming without the term Global Warming.
People who bring bad news are scary and dangerous, people who deny it all are even more so.
Screw the term Global Warming, is man not destroying himself? IMO chances are you'll die of cancer before Global Warming hits.
The Global Warming debate is not so much factual, as it is political. I think we will all find that those who deny it, also have a very strong political opinion, and probably argue every single point presented by the other side.
Animl
-
You missed a group Animal, the group without a religion or cause. Those who had no purpose found a purpose in telling others how to live.
-
too many people, too little planet.
-
Originally posted by john9001
too many people, too little planet.
Well, take some personal responsibility and help solve the problem.
(http://thenewgamer.com/thenewsite/img/screens/000029_2.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
IMeanwhile google bouyancy and see what you come up with.
You'd probably get "Did you mean buoyancy"? :rofl
-
Originally posted by john9001
too many people, too little planet.
Too many people of high consumption. Like REALLY high consuption.
The planet would run nicely with 9KK mixture of...chinese :D. Or Lapplanders :D
Anyway, one contribution:
(http://gbo.blog.is/users/e4/gbo/img/c_documents_and_settings_gunnlaugur_my_documents_my_pictures_paeling.jpg)
-
Gotta love the IMG button :mad:
-
moray.. are you saying that there was no little ice age or medievel warm period as man shows on his laughable hockey stick? even the UN left it out of their latest report. Watch bob carters video that was linked here to see how silly the hockey stick is.. I can't believe you are still thinking that is legit.
FT animal.. pollution is not the same as alarmist global warming shouting. The most savvy environmentalists are now seeing the folly of tying themselves to these guys. To concentrate on C02 and the earths natural climate cycles is to ignore real problems.
At first.. it all seemed good.. heck.. who cared that they were lying.. so long as it all worked out to save the planet? "The end justifies the means" as the commies say.
Then they realized that people got only so much resources and angst to go around.. you can't get too into saving the lemon stripped three eyed newt if you are paying an extra buck or six a gallon at the pump for gas and everything you buy costs 20% more than it did... all to cut down on... LOL... C02.
And.. if co2 is such a big deal.. put out the underground coal fires all around the world first.. one fire in china puts out more co2 in a year than all the light cars and trucks in the U.S. But.. it's not about "solving the problem" now is it? it is about a power grab.
lazs
-
The bali convention capitulated to the US you mean don't you louis? If we wait till 2012 to "chart the change" as they say.. Like the US wanted and got...
Chances are.. we will be in a cooling trend by then and we can all laugh at the alarmists and their "computer models" that can't predict anything but the past and only then.. by "adjusting" the data.
lazs
-
the expression... "you can't do anything about the weather" was, and is correct.
Mother nature will smack these arrogant alarmist fools in the butt.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the expression... "you can't do anything about the weather" was, and is correct.
...but we sure as hell can do something about the billions of tonnes of CO2 we create, much of which gets dissolved into the oceans, much to the detriment of ocean borne micro organisms that are responsible for sustaining all life on this planet.
-
The Mann hockey stick has not been discredited - that's just wishful thinking by deniers.
Bob Carter is a laughing stock.
link (http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/)
His grasp of climatology is about as sound as Monckton's, a journalist who opines:
a very modern notion that you need paper qualifications to pronounce on anything and it comes from the socialist idea that people need to be trained in the official, accepted, dogmatic truths.
He then has the audacity to accuse such qualified professionals of being amateurs.
In the end, the obvious response to Christopher Monckton is to ask why he doesn’t submit his arguments to a scientific journal for publication. After all, this is how science progresses, with new ideas being subject to the scrutiny of scientists via the route of publication in the scientific literature. If he is right that thousands of scientists in half a dozen different disciplines have got it all wrong, the potential rewards for him are enormous; a Nobel prize for overturning a large chunk of atmospheric physics and a Fellowship of the Royal Society are both almost guaranteed. The obvious reason why he doesn’t do this is that he secretly knows that his arguments lack credibility and wouldn’t pass the peer review required by mainstream scientific journals.
Back onto the one coal fire in China rubbish?
That's all we get from you - the same disproved factoids, over and over again.
-
The range of climatic changes anticipated in the United States – from rising sea levels to stronger and more frequent storms and extreme temperature events – will have real impacts on the natural environment as well as human-made infrastructures and their ability to contribute to economic activity and quality of life. These impacts will vary across regions and sectors of the economy, leaving future governments, the private sector and citizens to face the full spectrum of direct and indirect costs accrued from increasing environmental damage and disruption.
The US Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction (http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/index.html)
-
Agreement was reached after a U-turn from the US, which had wanted firmer commitments from developing countries.
...
With delegates anxious to make a deal and catch aeroplanes home, the US delegation announced it could not support the amended text.
A chorus of boos rang out. And a member of Papua New Guinea's delegation told the US: "If you're not willing to lead, please get out of the way."
Shortly after, the US delegation announced it would support the revised text after all.
That sounds like a real victory...
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
Hmm, the programme also went on
This from a fellow livingin Derry, ME?
Who used to use "hmm" a lot?
What US person spells "program" as "programme"?
Shades......... who needs them?
-
Now, first we had no global warming happening. Then it was a natural swing. Then it was all a fake, actually a cooling period. Then it was pointless anyway because it also warmed in the medievals. Then repeate the last 3 lines in an almost closed loop. Then it was actually warming, but because of the chinamen. And now we are back to the medeavals. And back to Singer who sings the song. And then it's cold again, and what next? China?
MEDIC!!!!
-
We really should have recognized him earlier since he used his own portrait for an avatar.
-
Oh we can't do a thing?
I think we have the negative power to turn the planet into a very bad place to live on.
Since we can do it to growing areas, it's just a question about effort....
-
Originally posted by Toad
Who used to use "hmm" a lot?
What US person spells "program" as "programme"?
Shades......... who needs them?
I didn't say that. I think you misquoted.
No shades required -
<--- contact lens wearer
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
...but we sure as hell can do something about the billions of tonnes of CO2 we create, much of which gets dissolved into the oceans, much to the detriment of ocean borne micro organisms that are responsible for sustaining all life on this planet.
Looks like it's time to pay some third world country to plant trees, after all that's what big Al does.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray.. are you saying that there was no little ice age or medievel warm period as man shows on his laughable hockey stick? even the UN left it out of their latest report. Watch bob carters video that was linked here to see how silly the hockey stick is.. I can't believe you are still thinking that is legit.
lazs
I am saying exactly what I said... Mann's "Hockey Stick Graph"
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray.. are you saying that there was no little ice age or medievel warm period as man shows on his laughable hockey stick? even the UN left it out of their latest report. Watch bob carters video that was linked here to see how silly the hockey stick is.. I can't believe you are still thinking that is legit.
lazs
I am saying exactly what I said before, and what you denialists won't actually READ.. Mann's Hockey Stick WAS NOT discredited.
Do you look at anything on a real scientific site, or do you just pick and choose what site you know already agrees with your BIAS.? The following quotes are from after the whole "discredited" issue came up.
What you fail to mention is that when it was claimed as discredited, the issue was a statistical error that DIDN'T EVEN CHANGE THE SHAPE OF THE GRAPH.
"The panel published its report in 2006.[29] The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH (Mann Hockey Stick) analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect
The National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.";[32] Nature (journal) reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph."
Lazs... you are fluff'n dense.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the expression... "you can't do anything about the weather" was, and is correct.
Mother nature will smack these arrogant alarmist fools in the butt.
lazs
Amazing... she trolls and you rise to the bait, Lazs. Too predictable, old man.
-
Originally posted by Louis XVII
But the US has just capitulated in Bali after years of GWB heel digging...
Sea levels? Well that's one consideration for climate change. Acidification of the oceans would be a key concern. I just watched a science documentary about climate change etc. There was a lake in Canada somewhere which had no currents, no circulation. And a small temperature increase in the water had led to the near extinction of one particular species of jellyfish there. The lesson here is that we can't just dump on organisms lower down the food chain. Man made CO2 output is now higher than at any time since man evolved, and the CO2 dissolvinginto the oceans is causing a lowering of their pH - acidification - which is adversely affecting the oceans' algae. Pfft you might say. Who cares about algae? Who cares about jellyfish? Hmm, the programme also went on to explain that those algae create about 70% of the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere!
That's funny... the BBS thinks you said exactly that.
Shades....... how boring.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Interesting! How many people here think sea levels would rise if all the sea ice melted?
LOL, you anti-evironment creeps never fails to amuse. You will believe in anyone who says something you want to believe.
Nils-Axel Mörner, retired in 2005, famous for believing in earth radiation.
Earth radiation is a theoretical geophysical phenomenon described primarily by the German authors Manfred Curry and Ernst Hartmann. They both describe a mystic force field (similar to Odic force, Mana, Qi) that supposedly covers the earth at regular intervals and may be detected by dowsing using a divining rod. It is not supposed to be detectable by common scientific instruments but some still connect it to telluric currents, which are actual phenomena, detectable by scientific instruments.
Ok, so you would expect that to put a dent in his credibility. But there is more. Nils-Axel Mörner believes that "the Japanese pineapple-industry" is responsible for the predicament of the Tuvalu island in the Pacific (famous for becoming the first "nation" to sink in the ocean thanks to the rising sea levels).
Ok, so here we have the anti-environment crowd turning to a well known loon to support their position. Well, I should not be surprised, we all know that lasz is a complete lunatic. Of cource he will seek support among other retards.
-
Lazs:
"Gore says that a sea-level rise of up to 6 m (20 ft) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise"
The volume of the Greenland glacier is well measured, and it's melting fast. But it will take quite some time.
It would raise SL by 6 metres, ecen without melting totally, the volume is increased as soon as ice falls into the water.
Oh, and it happens at increased speed as it seems. I doubt we will see that on a disaster level in our lifetime, but some trouble will be there.
1 meter is a disaster in it self....
-
Originally posted by Angus
The volume of the Greenland glacier is well measured, and it's melting fast.
How fast is "fast"? Can you be specific?
-
bj said...
"For me this keeps coming back to: HOW much 'global warming' has happened thus far? ~ 1 degree since the automobile was invented....how much , if any, caused by us? Unknown
EVERYTHING ELSE isn't HAPPENING, it's merely PREDICTED to happen in the future by the SAME @#$ers who couldn't tell me at 9pm Tuesday I was gonna have an ice storm on the way to work Wednesday morning"
That about sums it up.. the co2 doubling that they are all telling us will end the planet is about 65% of the way through.. yet.. we have only 1 degree.. maybe a hundredth of that caused by us.. the predictions are just that... forced computer models... data on about 11 natural climate forcings of which they know very little and even less about how they interact.
The more co2 you add.. the less the effect.. the first 40 ppm has more effect than the next 300 ppm say... after that.. almost nothing.. it is like painting a window black to keep out the sun.. the first coat does the work.. the next 100 coats do very little. If Co2 is affecting the weather.. it has shot it's wad already
as for louis... if he ain't beetle.. he is a good imitation. guns scare him and he thinks the big bad Americans are making it too hot.
A whole on degree.. if we do everything the kyoto treaty wants... we may.. under the best scenario they can muster... effect the temp a half a degree in 100 years.. for that.. we spend trillions.
lazs
Even the
-
moray... as did you.
louis.. is "tonnes" anything like "tons"?
you can't do anything about the weather.
you can pollute the planet.. which would you guys like to talk about?
lazs
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
she trolls
Teegerette troll?
Who would have thunk it? :rofl
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Even the
Come on now Lazs, don't leave us hanging.
-
it is a hoax as it is presented.. it is also a very small slice of time so far as the planet goes
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/parody/tcs/
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/10/30/arctic-sea-ice-another-hockey-stick/
I mean.. even the UN left the silly thing out of their last report...
lazs
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=502563&in_page_id=1811
He is known as the "hard man"....Yvo de Boer. Breaks down in big sobing tears over UN failure to come to an agreement.:cry :cry
:lol :rofl
Nice shirt you half-a-man. Stop arguing like a child. My kids cry when they don't get their way. for crying-out-loud.
-
Man Made Global Warming is a farce.
-
Take a glass, fill it halfway with water, then add ice.
Mark the level, then wait for the ice to melt..
WOW!!! what do you know the level doesn’t change, Damn that physic stuff real dose work.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Man Made Global Warming is a farce.
So where is your proof? You right wingers always claim there is no proof of man made climate change. So where is your proof that counters what most of the worlds top scientists all agree on?
Don't bring up some crap about Venus or mars either. Lay it down if you know so much more than the worlds scientific community.
-
Originally posted by crockett
So where is your proof?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WEATHER/12/23/winter.storm/index.html
http://www.mlive.com/news/citpat/index.ssf?/base/news-23/119790393239660.xml&coll=3
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7148300.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21942586/
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=2460
:D
Also:
From 2002 to 2006, scientists and researchers from NASA and the University of Washington's Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory observed a meaningful ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation. The cause is atmospheric circulation changes that vary in decade-long periods and the effect is, well, let the scientist who led the study explain it:
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said the University of Washington's James Morison.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2007/11/19/abc-again-ignores-liberal-connections-global-warming-alarmists
-
Originally posted by crockett
Don't bring up some crap about Venus or mars either. Lay it down if you know so much more than the parts of worlds scientific community that support my views.
Fixed.
-
Please post some links of proof Rip.
-
I wonder what size carbon-footprint was created flying all of those delegates to Bali?
-
Originally posted by JBA
Take a glass, fill it halfway with water, then add ice.
Mark the level, then wait for the ice to melt..
WOW!!! what do you know the level doesn’t change, Damn that physic stuff real dose work.
Yes.
On a larger scale the level could actually go down.
Why?
Because of the air trapped in the ice. The air itself has a weight and this contributes to the overall weight of the ice. This in turn displaces a certain volume of water. When the ice melts the air escapes and it's contribution to the weight that displaced the water is gone so less is displaced.
-
they had go to Bali, Stockholm is too cold this time of year.
-
Take a glass, fill it halfway with brine, then add freshwater ice.
Measure the salinity, then wait for the ice to melt..
WOW!!! What do you know, the salinity drops. Damn that physic stuff real does work.
Take a glass, fill it halfway with water, drop a funnel in the glass and put ice in the funnel.
Mark the level, then wait for the ice to melt..
WOW!!! What do you know the level does change. Damn that physic stuff real does work.
-
Originally posted by john9001
they had go to Bali, Stockholm is too cold this time of year.
Damn that global warming!!!!!!!
-
Originally posted by crockett
So where is your proof? You right wingers always claim there is no proof of man made climate change. So where is your proof that counters what most of the worlds top scientists all agree on?
Don't bring up some crap about Venus or mars either. Lay it down if you know so much more than the worlds scientific community.
There is no obligation to prove a negative.
I do not need to prove there are no such thing as Elves. If you make the claim that Elves DO in fact exist, the onus is upon you to provide the proof.
To prove there is such a thing a Man-Made Global Warming, you have to first prove there is a persistent warming trend over and above natural cyclical fluctuations, and then you must prove that Human activity is a signifigant causal factor.
Regards,
Wab
-
Chapter 6, page 466 onwards, you klutz.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I wonder what size carbon-footprint was created flying all of those delegates to Bali?
Estimates are that the Bali Boondoggle dumped as much CO2 in the air as 20,000 autos put out in an entire year.
As for evidence, there's plenty of it out there, with many links in the "Generic Global Warming" thread. And before you reply with "Where is it?", I'd challenge you to ante up first. The ice core data shows that CO2 lags temp, so it can not be driving it. Most of the so-called evidence of global warming is computer models, which ignore key factors affecting atmospheric temps, and have time and again failed when compared with actual historical data.
It is interesting that at the Bali Conference, over seven hundred scientist who came to discuss evidence that MMGW is a sham were not allowed in to state the point of view. I get a mental picture of some Al Gore or some UN stooge standing at a podium and speaking to the cameras:
"The consensus is unanimous; the debate is settled. See, every scientist here agrees that man-made CO2 is to blame for what will be a catastrophic increase in global temps."
Meanwhile, 700 scientist disagreeing with the "consensus" are standing outside the locked door to the conference, security guards blocking the way, and a sign on the door saying, "Dissenters not allowed!"
-
Originally posted by Tac
Take into account also that the bulk of the ice in the artic is over solid land.
If it melts it goes into the ocean, raising sea levels.
In any case, the real danger isnt that we'll lose a hundred feet of coastline, its the massive climate change the billions of tons of freshwater falling into the ocean and changing the salinity levels.
It kills the fish, it disrupts the flow the of the currents.. in fact if the gulf stream itself was to fail not only would most species in the ocean either die or significantly decrease in number, it would also alter the climate of the entire planet into an ice age like environment.
this all means starvation, conflict,etc .. a general decline in the # of humans in the planet. Which might not be a BAD thing but it'd be one very unpleasant world to live in while it happens.
Since its a fact that the world has been warmer numerous times in the past than it is now, and all those species managed to survive (including the much abused polar bears), I'd say the danger is over hyped.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
it is a hoax as it is presented.. it is also a very small slice of time so far as the planet goes
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/parody/tcs/
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/10/30/arctic-sea-ice-another-hockey-stick/
I mean.. even the UN left the silly thing out of their last report...
lazs
Do you read the sites you quote from?
This is from the site you posted above...http://www.realclimate.org.
MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.
This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the "Hockey Stick" is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Yes.
On a larger scale the level could actually go down.
Why?
Because of the air trapped in the ice. The air itself has a weight and this contributes to the overall weight of the ice. This in turn displaces a certain volume of water. When the ice melts the air escapes and it's contribution to the weight that displaced the water is gone so less is displaced.
There is one way to test it. It's not that hard to make pure ice.
Take some water, boil it once. Let it sit. Boil it again. Let it sit. Then freeze it.
It should be free of all the impurities and airbubbles, and be clear.
-
Lazs:
"it is a hoax as it is presented.. it is also a very small slice of time so far as the planet goes"
A small slice of time is the timeframe within we have seen quite some changes.
Or is it that day of your month that there is a no-see?
-
we have more polar bears now than ever before.. they do best during the warm periods of our natural climate cycles...
much like we do and almost every other species.
lazs
-
crock-it... I see you have embraced the new PC "global climate change" now that winter and the ice storms are upon us...
pretty hard to sell that nasty old man made global warming thing when none of the predictions come true... so much better to simply say... "no matter what the weather does.. it is mans fault"
That way... no matter what happens.. the research money doesn't dry up.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WEATHER/12/23/winter.storm/index.html
http://www.mlive.com/news/citpat/index.ssf?/base/news-23/119790393239660.xml&coll=3
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7148300.stm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21942586/
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=2460
:D
Also:
First off I said "climate change" not "Global warming" as I think the term Global Warming is too hard for some people to understand.
The reason it's generally called "Global Warming" is because that's the trend for the overall planet. It doesn't on the other hand mean that it's going to get hot everywhere.
The warming trend causes the weather to go a bit out of whack. Some areas will most definatelly get warmer meanwhile other area will get cooler. The main thing is the weather will likely get more extreme and that's exactly what the scientist have been saying.
The only real issues is if you believe that man is playing a role or not. I think you have to be pretty dumb if you can't see our ice caps and ice packs are melting.
Considering the consequences are pretty drastic is it worth the risk that you maybe wrong? Is spending a few extra bucks really that big of a deal if we might be able to slow it down or stop it?
It's not like making things more environmentally friendly is going to go to waste. It's still going to help the environment and give you and your kids a better place to live.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
crock-it... I see you have embraced the new PC "global climate change" now that winter and the ice storms are upon us...
pretty hard to sell that nasty old man made global warming thing when none of the predictions come true... so much better to simply say... "no matter what the weather does.. it is mans fault"
That way... no matter what happens.. the research money doesn't dry up.
lazs
I've always called it Global Climate Change because guys like you don't understand what "Global Warming" really means. So we have to dumb it down for the typical right winger conservatives to understand.
I guess it's far too hard to put the words "Global + Warming" together and have you understand that it means the entire planet's average temperature..
-
It's not about whether its "Global Climate Change" or "Global Warming".
You'd have to be an idiot to argue that.
The only important part is the "Man-Made" in front of it, and the accuracy of that claim.
-
Scientists expect that global warming will cause a variety of changes to precipitation patterns in the United States. Many areas will receive increased amounts of rain and snow over the course of a year; some areas will receive less. But scientists expect that, all across the country, the rainstorms and snowstorms that do occur will be more intense – increasing the risk of flooding and other impacts.
In this report, we evaluate trends in the frequency of storms with extreme levels of rainfall or snowfall across the contiguous United States over the last 60 years. We analyze daily precipitation records spanning from 1948 through 2006 at more than 3,000 weather stations in 48 states. We then examine patterns in the timing of heavy precipitation relative to the local climate at each weather station.
We find that storms with extreme amounts of rain or snowfall are happening more often across most of America, consistent with the predicted impact of global warming.
link (http://www.environmentmaine.org/reports/global-warming/global-warming/when-it-rains-it-pours)
-
Originally posted by crockett
Considering the consequences are pretty drastic is it worth the risk that you maybe wrong? Is spending a few extra bucks really that big of a deal if we might be able to slow it down or stop it?
Has anyone every considered the consequences of not slowing it down or stopping it (provide, of course, that we could control it)?
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
I wonder what size carbon-footprint was created flying all of those delegates to Bali?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home&sid=aPbfclqokwcw
Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year.
The delegates each will produce an average 4.07 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or CO2,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/12/02/eabali102.xml
The 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green and industry lobbyists and journalists who will fly in are estimated to emit the equivalent of more than 100,000 tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to the annual emissions of the African state of Chad.
And your EU taxes hard at work saving the globle from yourselves.....
with many saying accommodation is only available now at around £400-to £500 a night for a small single room.
The hotel where British ministers will stay, the Westin Resort Nusa Dua, describes the experience of staying there as “sheer indulgence.”
The EU will be sending a delegation of 90 officials with the environment commissioner, Stavros Dimas.
It unclear, however, what 20 MEPs and 18 assistants, who have no formal part in the process, will be doing.
They will be staying, on expenses, at the Conrad Bali Resort and Spa, one of the Hilton Hotel chain’s luxury hotels.
Their itinerary includes a day trip to the fishing village of Serangan with time for surfing
-
Originally posted by indy007
It's not about whether its "Global Climate Change" or "Global Warming".
You'd have to be an idiot to argue that.
The only important part is the "Man-Made" in front of it, and the accuracy of that claim.
Hey we have a winner. Unfortanly the Right wing always has to have something to argue about, so they are willing to ignore the issues at hand just to aruge.
-
Same where I live.
BTW, It's december, and I live close to the polar circle (64+N.Lat).
There is no frost in the ground, and we didn't have anything proper for several years. It's autumn weather, and lots of water and wind.
We are having one low-pressure area after the other with wind speeds up to 60m/sec, typically 30. Both categorize close or into being a Hurricane.
We are now having no.4 in some 10 days!!!
Anyway, I was planning to plow in the winter (which should normally to be considered impossible). I am getting around to it, just too busy yet. Just 10 years ago, you could forget that after october, now you can almost take it for granted.
So, in short it's quite warmer, and the trade is picking up on the reality...
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Has anyone every considered the consequences of not slowing it down or stopping it (provide, of course, that we could control it)?
The range of climatic changes anticipated in the United States – from rising sea levels to stronger and more frequent storms and extreme temperature events – will have real impacts on the natural environment as well as human-made infrastructures and their ability to contribute to economic activity and quality of life. These impacts will vary across regions and sectors of the economy, leaving future governments, the private sector and citizens to face the full spectrum of direct and indirect costs accrued from increasing environmental damage and disruption.
The US Economic Impacts of Climate Change and the Costs of Inaction (http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/index.html)
-
Originally posted by crockett
Hey we have a winner. Unfortanly the Right wing always has to have something to argue about, so they are willing to ignore the issues at hand just to aruge.
I'm not right wing. Socially, I'm one of the most liberal posters on this forum (real liberal, not democrat socialist "liberal"). I'll still call the "Man Made" bit garbage. It's politics, not science.
-
More guff from Lazs
Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized, will result in loss of approximately 2/3 of the world’s current polar bear population by the mid 21st century. Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.
USGS Science to Inform U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Decision Making on Polar Bears (http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/special/polar_bears/docs/executive_summary.pdf)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Same where I live.
I can't say the same in regards to snow as I live in Florida. :D
What I can say is when I was in High School I used to have a lawn service. During the summer it used to be a daily thing that we would have rain and thunder storms everyday about 3pm. It was like clockwork.
Nowadays that's few and far between.
Something else I've noticed, is the beaches are eroding due to sea level rise. Back when I was a kid, I remember coming up to Flagler Beach to go surfing with my brother.
Used to be a sandy beach, now it's almost all washed away and the ocean is almost to the point of washing away parts of Highway A1A during storms. They had to come in and line the entire section of beach with rocks, because the sea level has risen and the beach is pretty much gone.
Makes me wonder what it will be like in another 20 years.
-
Originally posted by indy007
I'm not right wing. Socially, I'm one of the most liberal posters on this forum (real liberal, not democrat socialist "liberal"). I'll still call the "Man Made" bit garbage. It's politics, not science.
Yes I was agreeing with you. on the only real argument is if it's man made or not. :D
-
Originally posted by AKWabbit
There is no obligation to prove a negative.
That's wrong
no need to back this assertion as you know :)
-
dude, where's my hurricane?
oh, beach erosion is natural, you need to read up on littoral drift.
-
Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized
I believe that what Laz was trying to say is nicely encapsulated in your quote. I have made the pertinent parts bold so you can see them. There is no guarantee that this will in fact occur or that it is not part of a natural cycle of climate change the Earth goes through without any help or interference from humans.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
bj said...
"For me this keeps coming back to: HOW much 'global warming' has happened thus far? ~ 1 degree since the automobile was invented....how much , if any, caused by us? Unknown
EVERYTHING ELSE isn't HAPPENING, it's merely PREDICTED to happen in the future by the SAME @#$ers who couldn't tell me at 9pm Tuesday I was gonna have an ice storm on the way to work Wednesday morning"
That about sums it up.. the co2 doubling that they are all telling us will end the planet is about 65% of the way through.. yet.. we have only 1 degree.. maybe a hundredth of that caused by us.. the predictions are just that... forced computer models... data on about 11 natural climate forcings of which they know very little and even less about how they interact.
The more co2 you add.. the less the effect.. the first 40 ppm has more effect than the next 300 ppm say... after that.. almost nothing.. it is like painting a window black to keep out the sun.. the first coat does the work.. the next 100 coats do very little. If Co2 is affecting the weather.. it has shot it's wad already
as for louis... if he ain't beetle.. he is a good imitation. guns scare him and he thinks the big bad Americans are making it too hot.
A whole on degree.. if we do everything the kyoto treaty wants... we may.. under the best scenario they can muster... effect the temp a half a degree in 100 years.. for that.. we spend trillions.
lazs
Even the
FINally! SOMEone realizes my genius!
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Projected changes in future sea ice conditions, if realized
I believe that what Laz was trying to say is nicely encapsulated in your quote. I have made the pertinent parts bold so you can see them. There is no guarantee that this will in fact occur or that it is not part of a natural cycle of climate change the Earth goes through without any help or interference from humans.
I don't suppose that you bothered to read the linked summary? I doubt it, since you don't even appear to have seen the second sentence that I quoted. I have emboldened the important words to aid your comprehension:
Because the observed trajectory of Arctic sea ice decline appears to be underestimated by currently available models, this assessment of future polar bear status may be conservative.
You may prefer to fixate on other words, of course.
Very little is guaranteed. That is why absolute statements are rarely made, even when there is a 0.95 probability of something occurring. Any first year science student knows this.
-
Originally posted by AKH
Very little is guaranteed. That is why absolute statements are rarely made, even when there is a 0.95 probability of something occurring. Any first year science student knows this.
Au contraire, absolutely everything that will be is 100% guaranteed. Now, predicting the future, that's more than a little iffy.
-
AKH,
You also neglected to read the second sentence I posted as well.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Au contraire, absolutely everything that will be is 100% guaranteed. Now, predicting the future, that's more than a little iffy.
Philosophical, bordering on metaphysical.
You have insurance?
How would you define a probability of 1?
-
Originally posted by AKH
How would you define a probability of 1?
Yesterday
-
AKH.. polar bears are more abundant now than 100 years ago...
Polar bears are an offshoot of the brown bear and have survived much warmer natural periods than this (manns silly hockey stick aside).
They will survive the one degree we may get due to natural causes mostly or the 2 degrees cooling that will probly happen in the next century.
the one thing that is certain is.....
you can't do anything about the weather.
lazs
-
And what is the probability of tomorrow, next week, next year and the next century?
-
Let's have some proof Laz, not just hearsay.
-
ok.. there are more polar bears now than ever... they are not dying out.
can you prove that there are less this year than last? We can wait till next year and ask the same question if you like but...
your stupid computer models aren't "proof" of anything. they are a guess. A simplistic guess about a very complex interaction of a lot of poorly understood natural elements and their interactions that make up the climate.
the end does not justify the means.. we only have the means. we have to go by what is really happening.
lazs
-
yet... nothing bad has happened.. the only bad things are far into the future... long after the whole thing has been proven to be a fraud.
The temperature has risen about a degree this century... about in line with other natural warming periods.. its been warmer.. its been colder... colder is worse for all living things.
Truth is.. this warming period has been very very good for everyone. you have to really stretch the old computer model to make it into a bad thing.
If carbon was really the objective.. if they really believed the hype.. they would put out the underground coal fires.. one fire in china for instance puts out more co2 than all the cars and light trucks in America.
What they also don't tell you is that even by their models... they can't make the treaty math work.. the best they can do is spent dozens of trillions of dollars to... to MAYBE under the best of their predictions.... help to reduce the worst case scenario doomsday rise in temp by... a couple of tenths of a degree by 2100.
in other words.. if we spend trillions and BIG if... IF they are right about everything (which they are not) then.. we can spend all this money to do just about nothing.
lazs
-
So another wild claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Not even the sagacious outpourings of H. Sterling Burnett and Mitchell K. Taylor, two more contrarians that "disprove" this particular concensus?
My stupid computer models? Were you stamping your feet in frustration when you said that? Climatology isn't just GCMs - only the naive or idiotic believe that.
Oh, I forgot, it's all a scam so that scientists can amass enormous wealth in preparation for creating a technocratic world government in league with the Marxist United Nations.
You sound a lot like Alex Jones.
:noid
-
Originally posted by AKH
And what is the probability of tomorrow, next week, next year and the next century?
I'll let you know the day after.
-
Yet more repetitions of the same old untruths, factoids and distortions.
Do you know any more tunes?
-
computer models promised me lots of big hurricanes this year. Dude, where's my hurricanes?
maybe next year huh?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll let you know the day after.
You'll still be paying your insurance premiums though?
-
Originally posted by AKH
You'll still be paying your insurance premiums though?
I haven't paid an insurance premium in decades.
My wife pays em.
-
Your wife's the realist then? ;)
-
Originally posted by AKH
Your wife's the realist then? ;)
She's the one with the bank account password, and won't tell me. ;)
-
Originally posted by crockett
So where is your proof? You right wingers always claim there is no proof of man made climate change. So where is your proof that counters what most of the worlds top scientists all agree on?
Don't bring up some crap about Venus or mars either. Lay it down if you know so much more than the worlds scientific community.
I do not need to provide proof. I would expect, as does any logical person, that the doomsayers provide difinitive proof that humans are causing global warming. They can not. All they can say is that the earth's climate is changing. Well, hell, there is a revelation! At times, almost the entirety of the northern hemispere was covered by sheets of ice. Not once, but several different times. Who caused the climate change that allowed that to happen? Was it the aliens?
Tell ya what dim-wit. If you provide a shred of irrefutable evidence that climate is changing because of man made influences, then I might consider believing it. If not, why not just zip the lip and stop cowtowing down to the latest political game...
-
proof? I have shown that the co2 math does not add up.. I have shown that the math on the treaty does not stop what they say will happen if we do nothing.
What proof have the alarmists? they have... ta da.. computer models.. yep.. that is it. nothing else.
The "data" they put into these models can't predict the past even. they take 11 or so natural elements that they don't understand much less, how they work together... and say.. "see.. this is what will happen"
And how do they blame man? well.. since they can't figure out what is happening with the models.. why... it has to be man. really.. that is it. they simply say that the models won't work without mans influence so they just add that in to mask all the mistakes on the natural stuff.
And that is why they never talk about the real science or the proof. That is why they want to "get past the debate" and onto the money... "get past?" they never allowed debate in the first place.
But...more and more scientists are speaking out or.. actually being asked is more like it. every year there are more who say it is all bunk. every year the alarmists have to tone down their doomsday scenarios.
lazs
-
Climate change is like the common cold. You can't stop it, you can only treat the symptoms to alleviate the patient's suffering. Instead of wasting trillions on trying to cure it (since there is not consensus on what is causing it), we should work to alleviate the problems that are truly and demonstrably possible to deal with, such as poverty, hunger, and oppression.
-
Exactly what would constitute evidence refuting global warming? How about the following facts provided in the linked article?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140
I especially like the following quote from the end of the article.
If you think any of the preceding facts can falsify global warming, you're hopelessly naive. Nothing creates cognitive dissonance in the mind of a true believer. In 2005, a Canadian Greenpeace representative explained “global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter.” In other words, all weather variations are evidence for global warming. I can't make this stuff up.
Global warming has long since passed from scientific hypothesis to the realm of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo.
And before you dismiss the author as a mere journalist, I’ll point out that David Deming is a geophysicist, an adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma. In other words, a scientist. At what point do we drop the pretense of a scientific consensus and actually look at the science?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
proof? I have shown that the co2 math does not add up.. I have shown that the math on the treaty does not stop what they say will happen if we do nothing.
ROFL! It was YOU who put great store in a weblink that claimed that the amount of man made CO2 produced annually was 6m tons. The ACTUAL figure, from the US Department of Energy (2004) was 29m tons. The 6m figure is just the US amount, and does not include the rest of the world. When this was pointed out to you, you dismissed it as a "minor error". Apparently, being out by a factor of FIVE is just a small mistake. :lol So don't talk to us about your CO2 math, and how everyone else's "doesn't add up". :D
-
Laz, you have shown nothing more than your gullibility and obstinance. You will quite happily repeat any junk science spoon fed to you by Stephen Milloy and other "scientists" of his ilk. You have demonstrated that you are more than willing to constantly regurgitate the same myths, half-truths and lies, over and over again, is spite of them being refuted, over and over again.
Anyone who thinks that climatology is nothing more than GCMs, is naive or idiotic.
Sabre, contrary to what you believe, ice storms and global warming aren't mutually exclusive - try googling "global warming" "extreme weather events."
-
Originally posted by AKH
Sabre, contrary to what you believe, ice storms and global warming aren't mutually exclusive - try googling "global warming" "extreme weather events."
I rest my case. Looks like Deming hit the nail on the head. :rofl
-
beet... er.. louis... Yeah.. the math doesn't add up but I see you got your yank immitation down a little better with "tons" instead of "tonnes".
it is all well and good to say that we produce this or that tons of co2.. until you realize that it is only a very small fraction of the co2 that is produced by nature and that.... co2 is a very tiny amount of the total of greenhouse gas.
what your huge ton number adds up to is 0.28% of all greenhouse gas...
now you make the math work out that it is causing all the global warming or that cutting that down by 30% or so to.. oh... 0.19% is gonna be worth the dozens fo trillions of dollars the alarmists want to spend.
Tell me though.. If we reduce say..30% (not really possible without real pain)..
How much of a degree will it save us by 2100? half a degree? a quarter of a degree?
that is.. unless nature does what it will do and just decides to freeze us instead by then.
What do you alarmists do if the temp goes down 2 degrees by then? blame co2?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sabre
I rest my case. Looks like Deming hit the nail on the head. :rofl
Good idea. Maybe you should write a song about your "victory?" :rofl
-
Try again Lazs. Your maths fails to account for the spectral overlaps of absorbers, natural sinks, non-linearity and feedback.
For the 30% rise in CO2 there has been so far, that would imply that would represent around 3% of the natural greenhouse effect - a good order of magnitude bigger than that suggested above. Of course, this is at equilibrium and not applicable to a transient change. If one takes into account the human-induced changes in the other GHGs (CH4, N2O, CFCs), you'd get something like double that. Given that even a 5 or 6 ºC cooling was associated with the huge ice sheets 20,000 years ago, and that 33 ºC cooling would reduce our planet to a near-snowball-like state, a potential increase of 5 to 6% of the natural greenhouse effect is not to be sniffed at… nor dismissed as irrelevent with highly misleading arithmetic.
Calculating the greehouse effect (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/)
Only out by a factor of 10. Oh well.
-
akh... read this site instead.. the numbers do not add up for man made global warming so far as co2 is concerned.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
still.. take the highest and the lowest figures out there and reduce em by 30% at a cost of trillions and no end to the misery... and ta da..... under the highest estimates you get a reduction of about a half a degree in 100 years (all else staying equal.. no nasty mother nature involved)... under the lowest estimates... you get a reduction of about a few tenths of a degree...
under both estimates.. the reduction is far less than the margin of error that is aknowledged in global climate calculations.
The site akh shows is pretty dishonest in any case.. it says that we contribute an amount of methane that includes cows and feed crops. are we gonna stop eating meat as part of the "treaty" too? it also adds all the coal fires into man made co2 numbers... one underground coal fire in china puts out more co2 than all of the cars and light trucks in America.. put it out if co2 is such a big deal.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKH
Good idea. Maybe you should write a song about your "victory?" :rofl
Oh, come on, AKH. You got to admit, your timing as a straight man was dead on. And that serious, dead-pan delivery? Priceless, dude! I'll see your :rofl and raise you :rofl :rofl .
-
Little more info?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
-
Dang, Wrag, you beat me to it. I was just about to post the same link. So, are all these scientists shills of Big Oil? Or should we hold off commiting to radical attempts to manipulate the environment via CO2 control, while we hold an honest and transparent debate about the science?
-
When beetles knash their teeth together, does it make a noise? ;)
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appears to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bites the dust.”
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
-
Rip,
Stop posting lies. We all know Al Gore is the world premier scientist who would never lie or mislead us.
-
The great Hoax is coming home to roost.:rofl
-
come on Rip, you know that all those scientist are paid off by big oil companies and used to work for tabacco companies, all lies, lies.... Al Gore is our savior, he shall lead us to salvation from the terrible man-made global climate, warming/cooling end of the world... it is so because the UN said so... resistence is futile... prepare to be assimilated...
-
Originally posted by AKH
Try again Lazs. Your maths fails to account for the spectral overlaps of absorbers, natural sinks, non-linearity and feedback.
Calculating the greehouse effect (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/01/calculating-the-greenhouse-effect/)
Only out by a factor of 10. Oh well.
If you're using the term "greenhouse effect", you're already wrong.
The atmosphere and a greenhouse do not operate on the same principles. Atmosphere is an open system with lots of convection. A greenhouse is a closed system that ramps up heat by blocking convection. To say the atmosphere has a "greenhouse effect" is an intentionally misleading lie perpetuated by alarmists.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
akh... read this site instead.. the numbers do not add up for man made global warming so far as co2 is concerned.
http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Sheesh - the page I linked is a debunk of your favourite CO2 maths page, or did you fail to notice that fact?
one underground coal fire in china puts out more co2 than all of the cars and light trucks in America.. put it out if co2 is such a big deal.
Here we go again... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Sabre
Oh, come on, AKH. You got to admit, your timing as a straight man was dead on. And that serious, dead-pan delivery? Priceless, dude! I'll see your :rofl and raise you :rofl :rofl .
I'm glad you enjoy working together.
I dunno, but I bin told
Global Warming means no cold
I dunno, but I heard it said
It's all a plot by the reds
-
This should finally cause some on the left to reconsider their position. Gore should be stripped of the NOBEL prize, along with the UN.
-
Originally posted by indy007
If you're using the term "greenhouse effect", you're already wrong.
The atmosphere and a greenhouse do not operate on the same principles. Atmosphere is an open system with lots of convection. A greenhouse is a closed system that ramps up heat by blocking convection. To say the atmosphere has a "greenhouse effect" is an intentionally misleading lie perpetuated by alarmists.
You'll find definitions in many science dictionaries. The analogy is poor, but the term is commonly used. For example:
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1)
Going by your logic, the NOAA are also wrong? Do you also insist that the term greenhouse gases is incorrect?
-
Originally posted by indy007
If you're using the term "greenhouse effect", you're already wrong.
The atmosphere and a greenhouse do not operate on the same principles. Atmosphere is an open system with lots of convection. A greenhouse is a closed system that ramps up heat by blocking convection. To say the atmosphere has a "greenhouse effect" is an intentionally misleading lie perpetuated by alarmists.
How open is the atmosphere ????
Is earth releasing tons of gas in space now ?
-
Originally posted by AKH
You'll find definitions in many science dictionaries. The analogy is poor, but the term is commonly used. For example:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q1)
Going by your logic, the NOAA are also wrong? Do you also insist that the term greenhouse gases is incorrect?
Yes. It's like calling a Democrat a liberal, when in fact most of their agenda is socialist. Popularity does not make it right. If you even admit the analogy is poor, why use it? Again, popularity, which, again, does not make you right.
How open is the atmosphere ????
Is earth releasing tons of gas in space now ?
Depends what you define as open. Atmospheric gasses don't really block incoming radiation, and only delay outgoing radiation. Calling the atmosphere a greenhouse implies that it "traps heat". "Trapping heat" says that it can get in, but cannot get out. That's incorrect.
-
Originally posted by indy007
If you even admit the analogy is poor, why use it? Again, popularity, which, again, does not make you right.
For historical reasons, courtesy of Jean Fourier, 1827: "un effet de verre." I don't know if he was a socialist though.
-
Interesting Read (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb)
In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.”
...
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)
-
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/warming.jpg)
-
Originally posted by indy007
Yes. It's like calling a Democrat a liberal, when in fact most of their agenda is socialist. Popularity does not make it right. If you even admit the analogy is poor, why use it? Again, popularity, which, again, does not make you right.
Depends what you define as open. Atmospheric gasses don't really block incoming radiation, and only delay outgoing radiation. Calling the atmosphere a greenhouse implies that it "traps heat". "Trapping heat" says that it can get in, but cannot get out. That's incorrect.
Hmmmm...."delays" thermal radiation long enough to be -273.15 degrees C outside the atmosphere and an "average" of 17.0 degrees C inside the atmosphere... that's a pretty fair swing....and a pretty close description of the "effect" a greenhouse may cause, just not scientifically accurate in principle. I'd call a swing of 290 degrees a fair amount of "trapping".
As well, I would remind you that heat is not "trapped" in a greenhouse, it may still radiate from the panes of glass, which are much less adept at transference than air molecules are. If it could not radiate from the glass, it would not be hot to the touch. (I dunno if any of you ever touched the outside of a greenhouse... it is generally not cold.)
-
Originally posted by indy007
Yes. It's like calling a Democrat a liberal, when in fact most of their agenda is socialist. Popularity does not make it right. If you even admit the analogy is poor, why use it? Again, popularity, which, again, does not make you right.
Depends what you define as open. Atmospheric gasses don't really block incoming radiation, and only delay outgoing radiation. Calling the atmosphere a greenhouse implies that it "traps heat". "Trapping heat" says that it can get in, but cannot get out. That's incorrect.
But a greenhouse is not adiabatic you know ?
-
Originally posted by straffo
But a greenhouse is not adiabatic you know ?
adiabatic means "to create a barrier impassable to heat" I just said that heat does transfer off the panes of glass in a greenhouse.... therefore I will say that a greenhouse is only partially adiabatic.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
adiabatic means "to create a barrier impassable to heat" I just said that heat does transfer off the panes of glass in a greenhouse.... therefore I will say that a greenhouse is only partially adiabatic.
Is that like partially pregnant?
-
no.. believing in computer models is like believing you can be partially pregnant.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Hmmmm...."delays" thermal radiation long enough to be -273.15 degrees C outside the atmosphere and an "average" of 17.0 degrees C inside the atmosphere... that's a pretty fair swing....and a pretty close description of the "effect" a greenhouse may cause, just not scientifically accurate in principle. I'd call a swing of 290 degrees a fair amount of "trapping".
As well, I would remind you that heat is not "trapped" in a greenhouse, it may still radiate from the panes of glass, which are much less adept at transference than air molecules are. If it could not radiate from the glass, it would not be hot to the touch. (I dunno if any of you ever touched the outside of a greenhouse... it is generally not cold.)
Greenhouse accomplishes its goal through a blocking of convection. To cool it, you just open the upper & lower windows. The difference between an open system (atmosphere) and closed (greenhouse) is significant enough to argue that it's a misleading label. I've been in quite a few greenhouses, and have a small one. You can't open a window to cool the planet, and there is no phsyical barrier such as the pane of glass.
Oh, and after opening your windows, when you close them again, don't forget to bring the co2 levels back up to the ideal ppm to greatly increase your plants' yields!
-
Anyone here from OK? Bet you were wondering where all this global warming is when that Blizzard came through last week weren't you?
I'm pretty sure it's been discussed somewhere in the 39 pages here, but how about all the ice ages the earth has had... you know the one's before there were humans... were those Man Made?
What about the 1970's scientists who feared global cooling?
As far as the lovely arguments you hear from for us to prove man-made global warming does not exist. The burdon of proof is on you, not us. Also it's kind of hard to prove a negative, one of those great philosophical problems.
-
Originally posted by MadMan
I'm pretty sure it's been discussed somewhere in the 39 pages here,
This is what you could call a "Threadnaught". Big, slow moving, and more or less useless.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no.. believing in computer models is like believing you can be partially pregnant.
lazs
You're a AH player ,don't you :rofl
-
Here is a little more about someone ELSE saying the CO2 does NOT adding up
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59319
hmmm............
-
Originally posted by MadMan
Anyone here from OK? Bet you were wondering where all this global warming is when that Blizzard came through last week weren't you?
I'm pretty sure it's been discussed somewhere in the 39 pages here, but how about all the ice ages the earth has had... you know the one's before there were humans... were those Man Made?
What about the 1970's scientists who feared global cooling?
As far as the lovely arguments you hear from for us to prove man-made global warming does not exist. The burdon of proof is on you, not us. Also it's kind of hard to prove a negative, one of those great philosophical problems.
Madman...I'm just going to say, grab a book, and start reading. Not an opinion laced OP-ED....just a science book and you make up your mind.
An increase in precipitation, and henceforth blizzards, are seen as an indication of the effect of climate change.... (you consider it a "cold event", when actually it can be a very big sign of warming.) No one ever said winter is going away.... and the climatologists have all said they are just going TO GET WORSE and MORE EXTREME as the planet balances, or attempts to balance, the energy it holds.
I will sit here and post answers to your questions, but honestly, I've already done that at least 15 times on this thread and... to be honest, it's gettin quite tired.
Ice ages....
Came about due to a regular shift in the inclination of the earth's orbit that makes us swing outside our "sweet spot" around the sun regularly, approximately every 20,000 years or so. We are out of that shift, by approximately 10,000 years.
The 1970's fear of a new Ice Age is a BS take that the "disprovers" rely on to make things seem like no one has a clue. It came about from a small group of scientists who postulated that CFC's cool the atmosphere and in a large amount could kick us back into an ice age.... when in their paper it is stated that the effect could and probably WOULD be overshadowed by an increase in carbon concentrations in the lower atmosphere.... a fact none of these idiots on here that use it to prove a point never look into. A couple of papers were published and then TIME magazine ran a story, followed by others... and suddenly eveyone thinks it is a scientific hypothesis..... It has been WAY overexagerated, and it was NEVER a consensus among even the group of scientist that published.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Is that like partially pregnant?
Here we go again sir, with your idioms. An idiot's idioms, one might postulate.
No... it's not like that. You cannot be "partially pregnant". There can, however be something which is "partially adiabatic".
I know you engineers like everything to be cut and dry, but don't change the definitions of terms to make it suit your needs.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
no.. believing in computer models is like believing you can be partially pregnant.
lazs
LAZ...
Stop acting like computer models are the only things that climatologists use. You prove with every statement that you are ignorant of the science behind any of it.
-Tree rings.
-Ice cores
-Habitat distribution
-Species isolation
-Ice cover
-Hydrology
-Limnology
-Botany
And another 15 or so disciplines are all pointing in the same direction. Please, stop acting like it's Windows that's telling us what is going on in the world.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Here we go again sir, with your idioms. An idiot's idioms, one might postulate.
No... it's not like that. You cannot be "partially pregnant". There can, however be something which is "partially adiabatic".
The definition of an adiabatic process is one for which no heat is gained or lost. No heat transfer occurs.
If heat is gained or lost, then the process is not adiabatic.
I have a flaw in my character where I am compelled to point out stupid statements.
Yours qualified.
I predict you will attempt to defend your statement. Let's see if my clairvoyant powers are still intact.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
The 1970's fear of a new Ice Age is a BS take that the "disprovers" rely on to make things seem like no one has a clue. It came about from a small group of scientists who postulated that CFC's cool the atmosphere and in a large amount could kick us back into an ice age.... when in their paper it is stated that the effect could and probably WOULD be overshadowed by an increase in carbon concentrations in the lower atmosphere.... a fact none of these idiots on here that use it to prove a point never look into. A couple of papers were published and then TIME magazine ran a story, followed by others... and suddenly eveyone thinks it is a scientific hypothesis..... It has been WAY overexagerated, and it was NEVER a consensus among even the group of scientist that published.
LMAO
You have just about described the trend in of the Global war..........ummmm Climate Change predictions, recants, readjusting, repredicitng, false data, changing again, reverifying then , falling off the wagon to date.
It has gotten to the point of hilarity in the scientific postering concerning the Iceage predictions in some scientific community statements that it is claimed there were never any published papers to begin with. ("Those calculations were never done by the scientific community. They may have been a group of scientist........errrr Ummmm nevermind. It never happened."
:rofl
View the future of Global Warm..............errrrr Climate Change. :)
In the 1999 Reith Lecture, Anthony Giddens said that "only about 25 or so years ago, orthodox scientific opinion was that the world was in a phase of cooling. Much the same evidence that was deployed to support the hypothesis of global cooling is brought into play to bolster that of global warming - heat waves, cold spells, unusual types of weather."
-
yeah moray.. they plug the data into tree rings and predict the future?
The tree rings and ice cores and such prove my point not yours.. they indicate that the climate changes without us. that it has forever.
You don't think that without people the climate would stay on some even keel year after year after year do you?
The data you cite all proves that it does not. the computer models which... even you are a little ashamed of it seems... they are the only things that they alarmists are using to predict 50 years into the future. not next year mind you.. not 5 years.. nothing that can be checked...
but.. moray.. be honest.. do you think that we are causing catastrophic global warming with our contribution to co2? and...
Do you think that we can avert this coming end of the world scenario if we all just suffer a bit now and spend a few dozen trillions of dollars and live like your-0-peeeans and reduce mans contribution by... oh... 30% or will we have to make even more draconian cuts?
And... lastly... if we go into a cooling period and it looks like we may cool 4 degrees in 100 years... thereby killing millions... what would you suggest we do then?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
LMAO
You have just about described the trend in of the Global war..........ummmm Climate Change predictions, recants, readjusting, repredicitng, false data, changing again, reverifying then , falling off the wagon to date.
It has gotten to the point of hilarity in the scientific postering concerning the Iceage predictions in some scientific community statements that it is claimed there were never any published papers to begin with. ("Those calculations were never done by the scientific community. They may have been a group of scientist........errrr Ummmm nevermind. It never happened."
:rofl
View the future of Global Warm..............errrrr Climate Change. :)
Did you read their paper? I did.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but.. moray.. be honest.. do you think that we are causing catastrophic global warming with our contribution to co2? and...
lazs
Laz... keep asking the same question and I'll keep answering the same.. YES.
How dense are you? Repetitive statements, blatantly false...you consistently spout like a hydrant. You read every word I type and twist meanings of anything I say, and yet can't seem to understand the damn word YES.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The definition of an adiabatic process is one for which no heat is gained or lost. No heat transfer occurs.
If heat is gained or lost, then the process is not adiabatic.
I have a flaw in my character where I am compelled to point out stupid statements.
Yours qualified.
I predict you will attempt to defend your statement. Let's see if my clairvoyant powers are still intact.
They're not. I over debating with someone who can't understand english, and feels compelled to debate the smallest point he can possibly find. Of course, this can be expected from an anally retentive engineer type, who thinks his sht doesn't stink. Your personal attacks notwithstanding, I feel sorry for your girlfriend... because you're obviously way too into yourself.
I'm not defending anything. You win... It's just not worth the effort, debating with a stick in the mud.
And I'm over you....Words I'm sure you've heard before.
-
Ok.. so you do believe that our contribution to co2 is causing a catastrophic increase in the "greenhouse effect" and thus will.. in so many (undisclosed but many decades from now) years will be unbearable.
ok... so then answer the other two questions...
Do you think that us eliminating (or vainly trying to eliminate) even as much as 30% of OUR contribution to co2... at a cost of dozens of trillions of dollars.. do you think that will stop this catastrophy and save the planet from broiling in it's own juices?
and... lastly... what if we go into a natural cooling cycle.. what if it swings the cooling trend to a catastropic 4 degrees colder? what do you suggest we do then?
I know I said lastly but... how much do you think the temp will rise (if everything else remains the same and mother nature just stops doing anything) how much will the temp rise in 50 years if we do nothing.
and.. the 30% thing.. the reduction... how much do you think that will reduce the temp that would have happened by say 2050? or is 2050 too close.. do you need to use 2100 just in case anyone who reads this is still alive in 2050?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.. so you do believe that our contribution to co2 is causing a catastrophic increase in the "greenhouse effect" and thus will.. in so many (undisclosed but many decades from now) years will be unbearable.
ok... so then answer the other two questions...
Do you think that us eliminating (or vainly trying to eliminate) even as much as 30% of OUR contribution to co2... at a cost of dozens of trillions of dollars.. do you think that will stop this catastrophy and save the planet from broiling in it's own juices?
and... lastly... what if we go into a natural cooling cycle.. what if it swings the cooling trend to a catastropic 4 degrees colder? what do you suggest we do then?
I know I said lastly but... how much do you think the temp will rise (if everything else remains the same and mother nature just stops doing anything) how much will the temp rise in 50 years if we do nothing.
and.. the 30% thing.. the reduction... how much do you think that will reduce the temp that would have happened by say 2050? or is 2050 too close.. do you need to use 2100 just in case anyone who reads this is still alive in 2050?
lazs
Laz... it appears from your answer that you are basically just saying "whatever, it's just not worth my SUV in any case."
As I've said before... I already think that it's too late... mostly because people such as yourself bury your heads in the sand and the whole matter became political, rather than scientific. Whether or not CO2 kills us by climate change or by ocean acidification.... it doesn't matter. It's goin to thin the herd.... by our own making.
CO2 may make plants grow better, but our chainsaws cut them down faster than they can grow.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Did you read their paper? I did.
Did you not read what I posted or just not understand it?
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Did you not read what I posted or just not understand it?
I imagine that few other than yourself actually understood your post. Please try to be more coherent in future.
-
Originally posted by AKH
I imagine that few other than yourself actually understood your post. Please try to be more coherent in future.
Your imagination issues are your`s to enjoy as you wish.
It was pretty straight forward, but I will simplify it for you as requested.
The Iceage theory was published, theorized to some extent, then simplified as "climate change". In the end it has been argued over, denied, rehashed and as you have seen here in some cases, denied by some as ever existing period.
Global Warming------------>to Global climate change. ( here it is called CYA)
In between those steps, it has been published, proven innacurate, changed repeatedly to suit the predictions of the day. The same path that will lead to the same destination.
If that doesn`t do it......Both are huge loads of horse droppings.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Your imagination issues are your`s to enjoy as you wish.
It was pretty straight forward, but I will simplify it for you as requested.
I didn't request simplification, just straightforward English in preference to the rambling gibberish that you posted.
A New Ice Age (http://cce.000webhost.org/part07/)
Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No (http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/)
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
They're not. I over debating with someone who can't understand english, and feels compelled to debate the smallest point he can possibly find. Of course, this can be expected from an anally retentive engineer type, who thinks his sht doesn't stink. Your personal attacks notwithstanding, I feel sorry for your girlfriend... because you're obviously way too into yourself.
I'm not defending anything. You win... It's just not worth the effort, debating with a stick in the mud.
And I'm over you....Words I'm sure you've heard before.
Wow...
the old I'm taking my ball and going home trick...
I did not attack you personally, I said your statement was stupid.
You may wish to look over your post that this one is responding to and see who is personally attacking whom.
Saying something is partially adiabatic is like saying the Titanic was partially unsinkable.
If you want to get all hot and bothered about that, be my guest.
-
The man made global warming drama queens are VERY sensitive.. you should watch the robert kennedy interview or listen to that big baby former commie leader balling like a baby at the bali freakshow.
They are smug until challenged then they cry like babies and try to shut the opposition up.. shout em down.
It feels just like it did watching the hippies in the 60's and 70's.. same damn thing.. same damn people too.
lazs
-
butt mode for a few months... will the drama queen alarmists make the not so subtle shift from "man made global warming" to "man made global climate change" or some such?
I mean.. to tell people paying about 50% more for heating oil right now and freezing their butt off that they need to spend another buck and a half a gallon or more and send it to some rich politician to end "global warming".... well..
That is gonna be a hard sell.. So now it's.. too cold? mans fault..give us money... too hot? mans fault..give us more of your money.. too little rain? too much rain? all mans fault... send us more money to jet around and be on TV with...
Make everyone think that the weather never had extremes from one year to another.. that mother nature will just give us some level temp year round and never change if it weren't for us nasty old humans.
When they are cold tell em you can make em hot if they.... give up their freedom and money to the gods...
When they are too hot.. tell em you can make em cold...
People are pretty damn dumb but I can't help thinking they will wake up to this scam.
lazs
-
At least snake oil had liker in it.
-
So... to start with, I'm not convinced yet about global warming, but I think your post is a bit disingenuous, lazs. The global warming folks have described the 'hard winters' as one of the symptoms of the climate change. Where you seem to be assuming that it's a straight 3-4 degree raise, they usually describe something more like a pendulum, where the summers are hotter, then the winters are colder, oscillating back and forth.
So... there are far better arguments to use in criticism of global warming, using one as weak as this just gives more ammo to that crowd (along the lines of "See, they don't even understand what we're arguing, how can you trust their suppositions if they don't even understand the material?"). Unless you're actually a global warming advocate, of course, and trying to use reverse psychology. But that'd just be silly.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
At least snake oil had liker in it.
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/orange-Clark_Stanley_Snake_Oil.png)
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/snakeoilruss_bottle.jpg)
-
I think Lazs is aware of your points Chairboy, I could be wrong. Arguing with the more hardcore Alarmists is futile so it may be that Lazs is just having a little fun with them?
-
yes chair.. I am aware of it. they are saying that any extreme weather no matter what is mans fault... like there never was extreme weather before. I also don't think that it will be anything special this winter.
When it was mild this fall.. it was global warming.. if there is an ice storm it is global climate change... global cooling.. if it suddenly gets a degree or two warmer this winter than last... who's fault will that be?
stronger hurricanes than some made up average that means nothing? our fault.. less hurricanes... our fault...
Would seem to me that if we had colder winters and warmer summers tho.. that the "average" would work out... yet.. they are saying we are warming the planet. would have to be some real extremes in summer (which it has not) in order to make up for extremes in cold in the winter (which it also has not).
The planet doesn't and never has had an "average temp" that it stayed with month after month and year after year.
People always knew this and just said..."what ya gonna do... can't do anything about the weather"
Now.. in their arrogance and desperation.. they are telling us that not only is the weather our fault but that we can change it.
lazs
-
"Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No"
LOL, exactly my thought. Since my memory goes that far I've always been baffled by the claim.
So, what I actually remember from my college years (80's) is a warming prediction.
The only cooling prediction was a cooling from dimming, then estimated to be most probable from nuclear war, or in second case a meteor/volcanic activity. (can be one following the other)
-
Originally posted by AKH
I didn't request simplification, just straightforward English in preference to the rambling gibberish that you posted.[/URL]
If you don`t "get it" just bypass it and carry on.
The world will forgive you.
-
Last night I caught a story that bothered me.
The cost of tamales has risen very sharply because of the demand and shortage of available corn husks and the forcing of the corn production to be pushed towards alternative fuels.
I`m POed. You can carry things too far.
Don`t be messin with my tamales Willis.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Last night I caught a story that bothered me.
The cost of tamales has risen very sharply because of the demand and shortage of available corn husks and the forcing of the corn production to be pushed towards alternative fuels.
I`m POed. You can carry things too far.
Don`t be messin with my tamales Willis.
It ain't just tamales either. We may be painting ourselves into a very painful corner. I hope someone is taking names so we'll know which junk scientists to lynch when the food riots begin.
-
Using corn isn't the most efficient method of producing ethanol. Better options are available.
Twenty years ago, Brazil embarked on a program to make itself independent of outside fuel sources. That program has been a complete success. Brazilians supplement their natural oil supplies with ethanol produced from sugar cane, which is a far more efficient producer than corn.
I see no reason why the U.S. cannot implement a similar program. While we might not become totally independent of foreign fuel nations, we could cut deeply into the amount purchased from our scurrilous middle-eastern suppliers.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Brazilians supplement their natural oil supplies with ethanol produced from sugar cane, which is a far more efficient producer than corn.
I see no reason why the U.S. cannot implement a similar program.
Here's one reason:
Authur Daniels Midland Company
-
Apparently Lazs, this thing would be capable of changing the weather if it was large enough. Interestingly enough, it is referred to as an ionospheric heater. Now I'm not going to speculate on whether this is a contributor to climate change, however it seems to be designed for this purpose. It is an interesting read none-the-less.
HAARP ionospheric heater (http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/VirtualClassroom/HAARP/acf.html)
Les
-
Originally posted by lazs2
butt mode for a few months... will the drama queen alarmists ....etc etc.
Isn't this like the 49th thread where you've posted "Laz=cold means global warming=scam?"
Wouldn't just half that number be just as effective in converting the O-club?
(Oh wait ... finding old threads takes effort and ability)
:aok
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Here's one reason:
Authur Daniels Midland Company
Eh-hmm...Archer Daniels Midland Company.
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
Eh-hmm...Archer Daniels Midland Company.
Oops....thanks for the correction. :D
-
I guess you still didn't figure out what "global warming" means in the last 20 theads larz. So why make a new thread? Oh and btw larz it's about 80 degrees here in Daytona Beach. Yet another Christmass in shorts I guess..
-
I bet Al Gore is turning his thermostat all the way down to 74 degrees now.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I guess you still didn't figure out what "global warming" means in the last 20 theads larz. So why make a new thread? Oh and btw larz it's about 80 degrees here in Daytona Beach. Yet another Christmass in shorts I guess..
What does "global warming" mean, crockett?
-
Well it means absolutely nothing when Laz is cold. 49 threads can't be wrong. ;)
-
Jackal, you really didn't think you'd spent the waiting hours before Christmas with this thread anywhere but on pag one :t
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jackal, you really didn't think you'd spent the waiting hours before Christmas with this thread anywhere but on pag one :t
Angus, this thread was Alpha/Omega before it was even started.
Just cheap entertainment.
The same with the subject of Global War........errr Climate Change push.
It starts, a lot of BS in the middle, absolutely nothing of any substance will come out it, then it will end when enough to discover they have been scammed.
Only difference is the cost and hardship it will cause some is not cheap.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
... then it will end when enough to discover they have been scammed.
Mangled as that bit of wisdom was, bear in mind you don't really know where that two-edged sword is gonna drop yet. ;)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Wow...
the old I'm taking my ball and going home trick...
I did not attack you personally, I said your statement was stupid.
You may wish to look over your post that this one is responding to and see who is personally attacking whom.
Saying something is partially adiabatic is like saying the Titanic was partially unsinkable.
If you want to get all hot and bothered about that, be my guest.
Holden,
It's not the old "taking my ball and going home". My side is more of I'm just tired of our point mongering. Every post, you seem to be on a mission to point out any and every minor flaw, and make it into a mountain.
You are far from perfect and I'm happy enough to let your mistakes go merrily by.... but you seem to use every post as some self serving idiom generating text, one which you use to make yourself seem better than everyone. I'm not talking about my posts only, I'm talking about every time I've seen you post in general, to everyone. Instead of constructive debate, you must always be an omnipotent asss about every subject. You make Lazs look good, in comparison.
I simply choose to opt out of any further debate with you, which is sad. I would have liked to have seen the work your girlfriend is doing with salmonids... as I'm sure she'd like to see the work I do with requiem sharks.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Well it means absolutely nothing when Laz is cold. 49 threads can't be wrong. ;)
That's gotta be the funniest quote I think I've ever seen on the BBS.
-
I'm not funny. Ask the people who don't like me disagreeing with them. :)
-
In this thread I took issue with only two of your points.
The first was debating the ability of taking a small sample and extrapolating a larger truth.
The second was your misinterpretation of 'adiabatic'.
Two points... from here it looks like you are the one generating mountains of text.
I knew you couldn't just let go Moray.
-
Originally posted by Donzo
What does "global warming" mean, crockett?
Evidently it means that it's warm in South Florida in the Winter. Go Figure.
:D
-
Originally posted by Donzo
Here's one reason:
Archer Daniels Midland Company
Sugarcane cultivation requires a tropical or subtropical climate, corn grows well in Indiana.
I don't see how ADM caused that.
-
I'm not funny. Ask the people who don't like me disagreeing with them.
Yep I agree, Arlo is the most unfunniest person I know. Except when he's singing.
:D
RTR
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In this thread I took issue with only two of your points.
The first was debating the ability of taking a small sample and extrapolating a larger truth.
The second was your misinterpretation of 'adiabatic'.
Two points... from here it looks like you are the one generating mountains of text.
I knew you couldn't just let go Moray.
Like I said... your post here shows that you just always have to be correct.. at least to yourself.
You're the one who can't let go.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
And I'm over you....Words I'm sure you've heard before.
Originally posted by MORAY37
I simply choose to opt out of any further debate with you, which is sad. I would have liked to have seen the work your girlfriend is doing with salmonids... as I'm sure she'd like to see the work I do with requiem sharks.
Originally posted by MORAY37
Like I said... your post here shows that you just always have to be correct.. at least to yourself.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
In this thread I took issue with only two of your points.
The first was debating the ability of taking a small sample and extrapolating a larger truth.
The second was your misinterpretation of 'adiabatic'.
Two points... from here it looks like you are the one generating mountains of text.
I knew you couldn't just let go Moray.
Apparently I have a similar misinterpretation of adiabatic.
For the case of moderate p-state fine structure, the high-field passage will be partially adiabatic with respect to ImjI, which is manifested experi
tail for the fully adiabatic gates and extended to include partially ...... adiabatic style, the partially adiabatic can cut down power con- ...
A Quantum-mechanical Model for Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions ...suggested in which the reactions are assumed to be partially adiabatic. The. model takes into account the motion of both incoming and outgoing groups ...
fully diabatic, the partially adiabatic, and the fully adiabatic limits. ..... the partially adiabatic limit, which then follows naturally
With respect to adiabatic compression vs. isothermal compression, ... in a better position for another reason, namely that it is only partially adiabatic. ...
A partially adiabatic engine is thus achieved, using air as the insulating layer, instead of solid ceramic materials, as used in earlier adiabatic engines, ...
... increasing the range of available adiabatic or partially adiabatic expansion; nor is it a consequence, simply, of the reduction of the proportion of ...
In reality, in the aforementioned conventional methods and apparatus the gas expansion will typically be partially adiabatic, resulting in some temperature ...
Kinda funny how many times I can find a scientific paper with the phrase Partially adiabatic in it. I mean, since you say it can't be. I guess alot of people are wrong, Holden, me boy.
-
Originally posted by REP0MAN
Evidently it means that it's warm in South Florida in the Winter. Go Figure.
:D
Daytona is a long way away from South Florida. About the same distance from Miami (which is South Florida, sir) to Daytona, FL. as it is from Washington DC to Bridgeport, Connecticut. (260 miles)
Correct me if I'm wrong... but the weather is just a bit different in those two places... and that is how it is conversely, with Daytona and Miami. Two different weather regimes.... I've lived in both... and 80 degrees in December is not the norm in Daytona.
Avererage Daily Temperatures, US.
DAYTONA BEACH, FL DEC. 70.4 F
MIAMI, FL DEC. 76.7 F
-
Originally posted by REP0MAN
Evidently it means that it's warm in South Florida in the Winter. Go Figure.
:D
Part Two....
BRIDGEPORT, CT DEC 41.0 F
WASHINGTON NAT'L AP, D.C. DEC 47.0
-
Ok.. now I get it... if it is too hot or too cold.. that is mans fault but if it is just right.. that is just a glitch.
It was a perfect day yesterday... most of the year has been better than average.. the summer was not too hot.. about low average.. the fall has been as good as I could ask for.
are not those things our fault too? Most of us have had some of the best weather of our lives...
If that is our fault then I say we deserve a big pat on the back... I think that would be arrogant in the extreme tho.
moray.. are you saying there are less trees in the US than say... 100 or 200 years ago?
I guess we agree on the kyoto etc. treaties tho.. they will do nothing for what they cost. course... we think so for different reasons.. I think it is a waste of time.. a complex solution for a nonexistent problem.. while you think it is simply "too late". either way.. kick back and enjoy mother natures good graces in the weather lately.
lazs
-
~1 degree, 100 years...is that incorrect?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.. now I get it... if it is too hot or too cold.. that is mans fault but if it is just right.. that is just a glitch.
It was a perfect day yesterday... most of the year has been better than average.. the summer was not too hot.. about low average.. the fall has been as good as I could ask for.
are not those things our fault too? Most of us have had some of the best weather of our lives...
If that is our fault then I say we deserve a big pat on the back... I think that would be arrogant in the extreme tho.
moray.. are you saying there are less trees in the US than say... 100 or 200 years ago?
lazs
Am I saying that? UHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH YES. There are less trees in the world, let alone the united states than there were 100 or 200 years ago... I can't even fathom how you will say there are more.
See what you miss is this... yes climate changes...but over time. Not in a generation or even 20 generations. No, it's not always our fault... this time it is, though.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
See what you miss is this... yes climate changes...but over time. Not in a generation or even 20 generations.
I think you'll find many, if not all, scientists completely disagreeing with you.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061004180029.htm
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Daytona is a long way away from South Florida. About the same distance from Miami (which is South Florida, sir) to Daytona, FL. as it is from Washington DC to Bridgeport, Connecticut. (260 miles)
Correct me if I'm wrong... but the weather is just a bit different in those two places... and that is how it is conversely, with Daytona and Miami. Two different weather regimes.... I've lived in both... and 80 degrees in December is not the norm in Daytona.
Avererage Daily Temperatures, US.
DAYTONA BEACH, FL DEC. 70.4 F
MIAMI, FL DEC. 76.7 F
Having never been to, nor had it hold me attention for more than 15 seconds, Floridian geography is truly not my strength. Forgive me.
I do know that it's currently 56˚ in Phoenix. In August it will be 115˚. Seems normal to me. Must be an East Coast thing?
:D
(please tell me satire is not wasted here?)
-
Originally posted by REP0MAN
Having never been to, nor had it hold me attention for more than 15 seconds, Floridian geography is truly not my strength. Forgive me.
I do know that it's currently 56˚ in Phoenix. In August it will be 115˚. Seems normal to me. Must be an East Coast thing?
:D
(please tell me satire is not wasted here?)
Lol... no satire is not wasted...
Especially when you use it to smack down someone commenting on this thread, who says it's 80 in Daytona, and you admit in the next post you have no idea what you're talking about.
Otherwise known as the "Lazs School of Reason"
-
The real data (satellite) shows that there has been no real problem for the last 20 years here in the states.. the weather stations that show some small heating have been shown to be in sad shape and not accurate..
So.. the US is protected by god... we are special. but..
No one on the planet has been affected badly by the heat.. it is much worse to be cold.. many more die in the cold than the heat.
What is funny is that I have been taking rainfall and temp and even wind readings for 15 years (and see the data for a lot longer)for the state where I work.. the numbers go up and down... sometimes we have hot years sometimes cold.. sometimes low rainfall sometimes high..
We use excel so have an average. the only thing certain is that the chance of any temp or rain or anything making the mythical "average" is remote.
Another thing.. they take this "average" then they tell us it too hot in the summer although no one seems to be affected.. but.. that it is extremely cold in the winter yet... the "average" is a warming trend.. it would have to be 10 degrees hotter every day for months to make the average year hotter if it was 10 degrees colder in the winter.. silly.
then.. we are told that any extreme climate is our fault. if all weather is our fault then a good indian summer must be our fault too?
Every day of good weather is our fault too? If that is the case then I am saying we are doing a pretty good job cause the weather has been gorgeous this year.
is there someone here who has suffered in some way that is radical? unprecedented? froze in summer or had their house catch fire from the heat in summer? hurricanes and tornado season that is extreme? unprecidented? 1950.. 6 tornados all converged on one little town in arkansas.. any of you have this happen lately?
What bad things are happening to us? people are enjoying the natural warm spell.. crops are up 15% from increased C02 ... the only doom and gloom is in a computer readout.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
What bad things are happening to us? people are enjoying the natural warm spell.. crops are up 15% from increased C02 ... the only doom and gloom is in a computer readout.
lazs
I understand that it was easy to find a great table in the lounge of the Titanic in that final hour too.
Again, Lazs, you can do better. Are you a shill for the global warming advocates?
-
I repeat, what quantifiable warming has happened thus far?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The real data (satellite) shows that there has been no real problem for the last 20 years here in the states.. the weather stations that show some small heating have been shown to be in sad shape and not accurate..
So.. the US is protected by god... we are special. but..
No one on the planet has been affected badly by the heat.. it is much worse to be cold.. many more die in the cold than the heat.
lazs
You just wrote that? "The US is protected by god"? You are more of a nutjob than I gave credit, if you are actually using that in the discussion, in a serious manner. How neo-con can you get.... I guess everything is now attributable to god, in your book. I sure hope God doesn't read your posts.... It'll know it's time to push the reset button for sure.
I think you should look in the numbers of heat related deaths, worldwide, and see who isn't being affected... Europe has had a decade of incredibly deadly summers. Now you'll say "it's just the elderly and sick..." I suggest you look up the human body's heat tolerance....you may be in for a surprise.
No, everything is not man's fault... but in the lack of any sort of credible information to the contrary... THIS is. You can't expect to change the consistency of the atmosphere and the makeup of the fauna in the planetary biota in 200 years and think that things won't change. You have your head in the wrong book, sir.
-
so chair.. if things are ever going well it just means that we are fooling ourselves? that it always becomes a disaster? that every ship that set a table ended up hitting an iceberg and sinking?
Or perhaps you are saying that a group of scientists told the titanic owner that at the exact time an iceberg would hit the titanic and sink it?
I don't get your reasoning. We have about half the scientists saying that they don't believe in a man made catastrophe do to warming by co2 and only about 7% that are true believers. yet.. that is good enough for you?
The computer models are good enough for you? even tho they aren't telling us what will happen this winter or next summer or 5 years from now? even tho they have been "adjusted" to less spectacular and sensational predictions dozens of times already?
Even tho.. nothing bad is happening right now because of this normal and natural warming period....no matter how much they try to make it seem so?
The truth is.. mother nature will put us into a cold cycle soon enough and then we will see real suffering and.. there won't be a damn thing we can do about it.
What your example of the titanic says to me is different than what it says to you ... it was the "scientists" arrogance that sunk it.. the feeling that they were better than nature.. that they were unsinkable and that they controlled the weather and what it brought.
And that was tiny compared to the arrogance that says we control the actual weather.
lazs
-
moray.. well.. if our data is not the same as the world.. if we are having normal weather then what else could it be? we are such producers of co2 yet... god loves us and simply gives us good weather while the rest of the world boils to death... oh.. well.. maybe they really aren't boiling to death but they have gone up a half a degree...never mind that is less than the margin of error.
and.. sure... I will buy that things will be different in 200 years...or not.. not our call if it is only weather changes tho.. that is mother natures call... Nothing we can do about it. We certainly can't predict what the weather in 200 years will be like. every disaster prediction we have ever made about anything has always turned out to be a WHYTOOOKAY crapola alarmist BS.
Admit it.. we don't have a clue as to what next summers weather will be much less 5 years from now. 50 years from now? LOL the models can't predict the past without constant adjustment.
even if you bought into it.. you couldn't do a damn thing about it.. not unless you think there is some magic co2 level that we must maintain and that once we do that... the weather will just stay at some arbitrary "average" forever?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Or perhaps you are saying that a group of scientists told the titanic owner that at the exact time an iceberg would hit the titanic and sink it?
Even tho.. nothing bad is happening right now because of this normal and natural warming period....no matter how much they try to make it seem so?
What your example of the titanic says to me is different than what it says to you ... it was the "scientists" arrogance that sunk it.. the feeling that they were better than nature.. that they were unsinkable and that they controlled the weather and what it brought.
lazs
Hmm.... maybe you could get the story straight... engineers build ships, Lazs. Engineers said that the Titanic was unsinkable... actually one said that.
And HALF, HALF.... of the scientists don't believe in AGW???? UNBELEIVABLY NOT EVEN CLOSE
Keep pulling sht outta your azzz.
-
moray.. I didn't come up with the flawed analogy.. chair did. I was only making it as relevant as I could. I also trust engineers more than scientists... and I know that they are wrong countless times. neither are saints.
Oh.. of the last 548 peer reviewed papers on global warming only 7% say it is for sure man and that it will end in disaster. 6% say it is not us at all and we have no effect worth mentioning.. the vast majority say that they can draw no conclusions either way..
That simply means that they are not convinced either way.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/peer-reviewed-papers-support-climate-sceptics/
"2007 alone has provided an abundance of peer-reviewed papers debunking the man-made CO2 “consensus”. A recent survey of peer-reviewed papers from 2004-2007 reveals that less than half of published papers endorse man-made global warming theory. In the past 4 months, there has been a rush of sceptical peer-reviewed papers. A good reference is the US Senate report:"
It would appear that only up till about 2005 was there any real majority.. more and more scientists are becoming skeptics every day.
You can't have it both ways.. if you say that the study done of over 900 peer reviewed papers in 2005 said NONE nada.. zilch.. no scientist didn't think that we weren't causing global warming.. if you look at that and then the hundreds of "deniers" now... well.. you are losing momentum at an astronomical rate!
lazs
-
they are dropping like flies.. when no one was really looking at data it was fine to have a "consensus" of the few alarmists all making the news..
Now, more people.. more scientists are getting involved now that "doing something" is a real possibility.. something that may cost trillions and may cause more harm than good.
This is as it should be. things are going as they should.. the facts are being looked at and some debate is happening.
The fact is.. there never was a consensus.. just some alarmists and everyone else not really paying to much attention..
now they are and they are taking the alarmists to task.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
"U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"
Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)
INTRODUCTION:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.
Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK) "
lazs
-
MERRY CHRISTMAS :D
(BTW, I have WHITE Chritsmas this time by a margin) :O
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Lol... no satire is not wasted...
Especially when you use it to smack down someone commenting on this thread, who says it's 80 in Daytona, and you admit in the next post you have no idea what you're talking about.
Otherwise known as the "Lazs School of Reason"
LoL!
You're right, I've been a resident of Phoenix since 1975 (birth year), minus 7 years I lived in the Great State of Oklahoma. I wouldn't know anything about Florida except sun tan sells well and thats where old people go to wait for God. Otherwise, couldn't care less. I do, however, know that it is the same in Phoenix today as it has been for the last 30 years. Hot in the summer, mild in the winter. Sometimes it rains, most times not. This Global warm....errr.....climate change BS is just another way to make money. But look on the bright side; if I can somehow get in on the cut, I'll be your biggest supporter! Go Green!
[/extrahelpingofsatire]
:D
-
Note that the doubters of global warming mostly come from areas that have now shown warming. Notably on the continents, like the USA.
Bear in mind that most of the globe is neither USA or a continent....
-
I'll ask aGAIN...HOW much global warming has occurred? (this would be worldwide)
-
Quite a bit ;)
-
snow blower for sale, low hours, cheap. make offer.
-
How is it on Carbon Emissions? What's it's MPG?
:aok
-
Originally posted by john9001
snow blower for sale, low hours, cheap. make offer.
Not interested....snow blowing business here has been very idle for some 17 years, with only one proper punch as an exception, that one was in 1999....
You will need patient finance for snowblower business in .... Iceland :D
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Apparently I have a similar misinterpretation of adiabatic.
Kinda funny how many times I can find a scientific paper with the phrase Partially adiabatic in it. I mean, since you say it can't be. I guess alot of people are wrong, Holden, me boy.
Yes they are.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/adiab.html)
http://buphy.bu.edu/~duffy/semester1/c27_process_adiabatic_sim.html (http://buphy.bu.edu/~duffy/semester1/c27_process_adiabatic_sim.html)
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Adiabatic.html (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Adiabatic.html)
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0015923.html (http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0015923.html)
Q=0 Adiabatic; Q not = 0 not Adiabatic. Show me how zero can be equal to non zero, an I will accept your misuse as proper.
Of course you could have opted out of the discussion altogether by letting an offhand retort go.I can go for a while with posting definitions, not improper usage of the word.
Lets look up another word.
An argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion. The premises are those statements that are taken to provide the support or evidence; the conclusion is that which the premises allegedly support. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/argument.htm)
So far been arguing with me for what three or four posts after you said, "I simply choose to opt out of any further debate with you, which is sad." Unless you've not been arguing.
-
Debating about the debating?
Here is a christmas cookie about climate change caused by a big volcanic eruption in recent human history. Sort of a mini-global nuke-war unleashing the force of global dimming, so the primary effect was cooling, and poisoning.
Hmm, just a minute, didn't someone here claim that volcanoes were the contributers of warming no one? (Although same person might be claiming cooling).:O
Anyway, from the Economist:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10311405
BTW, I recommend the scenery of the lavafields, look magnificent...
Just a tad more than 200 years ago....
-
Oh, an add-on.
This was meant to show what gasses in big quantities can do to the global climate in just a short time. This works with dimming, and it works with greenhouse gasses the other way as well.....
This struck me a bit, for after all the "global" deal does not hit everyone with the same force:
"Polluting gases can change global temperatures a lot (in this case by cooling, not warming). Volcanic gases can do as much damage as any amount of human activity. But the poisonous cloud was only part of the story. Weather patterns mattered too. Stable anti-cyclones brought the gas to earth in Europe and stratospheric currents then spread it over a third of the globe. And the connections between pollution and weather are complex and unpredictable: people at the time understood the link between the volcano and the haze, but not the connection with events the other side of the globe. Societies are hit very differently: the impact was modest in most of Europe, but devastating in Egypt, Japan and Alaska. Lastly, people react to environmental disruption in ways that are themselves disruptive."
In our world some weather patterns simply change more than others. And our crew of GW denialists mostly live in (and even scarcely venture out of) areas where the GW is not detectable.
-
As from Lazs...might I add....
"The real data (satellite) shows that there has been no real problem for the last 20 years here in the states.. "
-
In our world some weather patterns simply change more than others. And our crew of GW denialists mostly live in (and even scarcely venture out of) areas where the GW is not detectable.
Ummm...the "G" stands for GLOBAL, not REGONAL
-
And global stands for the total effect.
-
Originally posted by Angus
And global stands for the total effect.
As used in Global Scamming.
-
Like I said angus.. The US must be blessed by god... unless of course you use ground weather station info.. that data is all screwed up with about half or more of the stations reading higher than they should do to urban sprawl and poor maintenance of the stations. poor placement.
If you look at that data... we are having about a degree change in the last century.. If you look at the more accurate satellite data... not so much.. no real warming for the last couple of decades... guess god must keep the co2 level down here.
I guess god hates the rest of you since you are all living on scorched earth in famine and plague with no water and all. That one degree this century has pretty much wiped out the rest of you.
sorry about that.. if we could just get 4 more people to not drive SUV's in America... it would probly save one or two million lives by the year 2100. If only the US would give a paltry few dozen trillions of dollars to the UN we could slow this catastrophe that has fried so many and drown so many others so far.
lazs
-
Like I said Lazs, the USA is a continent, and on some continental areas there seems to not so much warming trend. Maybe more spiky in time periods where no big events like the Laki eruption occure.
And the US is just not very big compared to the oceans.
So, basically you have idle blocks smaller in size, and big bodies that are warming.
-
even more odd than that.. the areas that keep the best records have the least warming.
We have had some natural warming.. it has been good for us.. unfortunately it is about over and we will start into a cooling trend.. cooling is worse than warming..
with luck.. it will not get too cold before it gets warm again.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Like I said Lazs, the USA is a continent, and on some continental areas there seems to not so much warming trend. Maybe more spiky in time periods where no big events like the Laki eruption occure.
And the US is just not very big compared to the oceans.
So, basically you have idle blocks smaller in size, and big bodies that are warming.
The USA is on a continent but share it with a few other countries such as Canada and Mexico.
-
And landmass as a total is only some 30% of the globe.
-
angus.. my point is.. the better the records.. the less "catastrophe" you see. we are talking one degree here in a century.. it is less than the margin of error.
We are talking very accurate data for the last 20 years from sats and the more accurate the data.. the less scary it is. Use the land based data here and it is a disaster... till you realize it is all worthless data. just like the computer models.. they have predicted the past.. until you find out that the past isn't the same as they said... the computer shows this nice even rise with no spike in the 30's.. then... when they find out the 30's were the hottest years ever.. they just change the computer model to show how they had "predicted" that.
But... what bad things have happened so far? due to any warming... man made or natural? will you admit that 2 degrees below "normal" would be one hell of a lot worse?
lazs
-
We are also talking of no margin of error in SL rise, Ice melting, Ice melting speed acceleration and.......SL rise matching with Ice melting.
Anyway, 1 degree is like 1 degree, but it is aqtually quite a bit.
2 degrees more would be fine for where I live thank you (;)), however not so nice for southernmore areas when it sets in...
-
sea level is rising at exactly the same rate today as it was 150 years ago.
lazs
-
A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise (http://www.pol.ac.uk/psmsl/author_archive/church_white/GRL_Church_White_2006_024826.pdf)
-
That settles that Lazs. Please stop repeating wrong statements.
Amd where do you suppose the water is coming from anyway...
-
Originally posted by Angus
That settles that Lazs.
One study settles it? is there an independant review of this study since Jan 2006? Repeatablity is still part of the scientific method isn't it?
-
Well, at the very minimum that report should give New Orleaners plenty of time to evacuate before their city becomes the next Atlantis.
Maybe.
But probably not.
-
Or you could believe this study that makes more sense.. Just like "man made global warming" they really can't figure it out with any confidence.. but it looks to be nothing special...
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/dougla01/node3.html
"What are we to make of this? Unfortunately, there are complicating factors beyond the issue of PGR, and published results reflect a lack of consensus as to how to deal with them as well. In addition to whether or not PGR was explicitly modeled, differences between analyses include data record length, tide gauge station selection criteria, and analysis method. The inability of investigators to arrive at a consensus concerning the rate of global sea level rise, or even how to approach the problem, has led some authors to conclude that global sea level rise cannot be measured at all. Barnett [1984] states that ``it is not possible to uniquely determine either a global rate of change of sea level or even the average rate of change associated with the existing inadequate data set.'' Emery and Aubrey [1991] state that (p. 176) ``At present, we cannot discover a statistically reliable rate for eustatic rise of sea level alone'' Pirazzoli [1993] is the most pessimistic, declaring that ``the determination of a single sea-level curve of global applicability is an illusory task.''
some things are certain.. there were no accurate measurements before 1990... some areas are rising and others are sinking.... Ocean levels have risen at a faster rate in the past.
and... every predicition that has been made for the rate we have today has been greatly exaggerated.
they take us for suckers cause we are...
every article you read tells you the horror that will happen decades from now.. none is honest enough to tell you nothing bad or unusual has happened yet or.. will happen next year.
lazs
-
2007 a Year of Weather Records in U.S.
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP
4 hours ago
WASHINGTON — When the calendar turned to 2007, the heat went on and the weather just got weirder. January was the warmest first month on record worldwide — 1.53 degrees above normal. It was the first time since record-keeping began in 1880 that the globe's average temperature has been so far above the norm for any month of the year.
And as 2007 drew to a close, it was also shaping up to be the hottest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere.
U.S. weather stations broke or tied 263 all-time high temperature records, according to an Associated Press analysis of U.S. weather data. England had the warmest April in 348 years of record-keeping there, shattering the record set in 1865 by more than 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit.
It wasn't just the temperature. There were other oddball weather events. A tornado struck New York City in August, inspiring the tabloid headline: "This ain't Kansas!"
In the Middle East, an equally rare cyclone spun up in June, hitting Oman and Iran. Major U.S. lakes shrank; Atlanta had to worry about its drinking water supply. South Africa got its first significant snowfall in 25 years. And on Reunion Island, 400 miles east of Africa, nearly 155 inches of rain fell in three days — a world record for the most rain in 72 hours.
Individual weather extremes can't be attributed to global warming, scientists always say. However, "it's the run of them and the different locations" that have the mark of man-made climate change, said top European climate expert Phil Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in England.
Worst of all — at least according to climate scientists — the Arctic, which serves as the world's refrigerator, dramatically warmed in 2007, shattering records for the amount of melting ice.
2007 seemed to be the year that climate change shook the thermometers, and those who warned that it was beginning to happen were suddenly honored. Former Vice President Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar and he shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of thousands of scientists. The climate panel, organized by the United Nations, released four major reports in 2007 saying man-made global warming was incontrovertible and an urgent threat to millions of lives.
Through the first 10 months, it was the hottest year recorded on land and the third hottest when ocean temperatures are included.
Smashing records was common, especially in August. At U.S. weather stations, more than 8,000 new heat records were set or tied for specific August dates.
More remarkably that same month, more than 100 all-time temperature records were tied or broken — regardless of the date — either for the highest reading or the warmest low temperature at night. By comparison only 14 all-time low temperatures were set or tied all year long, as of early December, according to records kept by the National Climatic Data Center.
For example, on Aug. 10, the town of Portland, Tenn., reached 102 degrees, tying a record for the hottest it ever had been. On Aug. 16, it hit 103 and Portland had a new all-time record. But that record was broken again the next day when the mercury reached 105.
Daily triple-digit temperatures took a toll on everybody, public safety director George West recalled. The state had 15 heat-related deaths in August.
Portland was far from alone. In Idaho, Chilly Barton Flat wasn't living up to its name. The weather station in central Idaho tied an all-time high of 100 on July 26, Aug. 7, 14 and 19. During 2007, weather stations in 35 states, from Washington to Florida, set or tied all-time heat records in 2007.
Across Europe this past summer, extreme heat waves killed dozens of people.
And it wasn't just the heat. It was the rain. There was either too little or too much.
More than 60 percent of the United States was either abnormally dry or suffering from drought at one point in August. In November, Atlanta's main water source, Lake Lanier, shrank to an all-time low. Lake Okeechobee, crucial to south Florida, hit its lowest level in recorded history in May, exposing muck and debris not seen for decades. Lake Superior, the biggest and deepest of the Great Lakes, dropped to its lowest August and September levels in history.
Los Angeles hit its driest year on record. Lakes fed by the Colorado River and which help supply water for more than 20 million Westerners, were only half full.
Australia, already a dry continent, suffered its worst drought in a century, making global warming an election issue. On the other extreme, record rains fell in China, England and Wales.
Minnesota got the worst of everything: a devastating June and July drought followed by record August rainfall. In one March day, Southern California got torrential downpours, hail, snow and fierce winds. Then in the fall came devastating fires driven by Santa Ana winds.
And yet none of those events worried scientists as much as what was going on in the Arctic in the summer. Sea ice melted not just to record levels, but far beyond the previous melt record. The Northwest Passage was the most navigable it had been in modern times. Russia planted a flag on the seabed under the North Pole, claiming sovereignty.
The ice sheets that cover a portion of Greenland retreated to an all-time low and permafrost in Alaska warmed to record levels.
Meteorologists have chronicled strange weather years for more than a decade, but nothing like 2007. It was such an extreme weather year that the World Meteorological Organization put out a news release chronicling all the records and unusual developments. That was in August with more than 145 sizzling days to go.
Get used to it, scientists said. As man-made climate change continues, the world will experience more extreme weather, bursts of heat, torrential rain and prolonged drought, they said.
"We're having an increasing trend of odd years," said Michael MacCracken, a former top federal climate scientist, now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington. "Pretty soon odd years are going to become the norm."
___
On the Net:
U.S. National Climatic Data Center's searchable records web site:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/
U.S. National Climatic Data Center on August heat wave: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/aug/aug-heat-event.php. rec ords
World Meteorological Organization on 2007 weather extremes:
http://www.wmo.ch/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_791_e.html
The record for shrinking sea ice: http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/20071001_pressrelease.html
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
google SETH BORENSTEIN
-
Originally posted by john9001
google SETH BORENSTEIN
Yep...he's a science writer. He writes about scientific stuff. He isn't writing opinion pieces. He's writing about science. Science, like, biology and climateology and paleontology and alot more -ologies than I care to list. He isn't a researcher.....he's a writer.
-
Utilities Paying Global Warming Skeptic
Utilities giving big bucks to global warming skeptic
WASHINGTON, Jul. 27, 2006
By SETH BORENSTEIN AP Science Writer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) Coal-burning utilities are passing the hat for one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport)
"One of the few remaining" is possibly maybe a slightly slanted phrase which gives clues as to the opinion of the writer.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport)
"One of the few remaining" is possibly maybe a slightly slanted phrase which gives clues as to the opinion of the writer.
Wow... 400... huh. That's an aweful lot, from "more than two dozen countries". Especially when compared with this...
In the United States the estimated population of science doctorates[1] in 1995 was 542,500
-
We have half a million climate scientists? wow.:rolleyes:
400 to sign a paper and put their names into the skeptics column is more than a few.
when I googled "Population of science doctrorates", I came up with this interesting quote:
The estimated population of science and engineering doctorates [1] in 1995 was 542,500. (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9524&page=3)
Now I am sure you didn't edit that...
-
How having a B.A in Classics, a B.Sc in Chemistry, or a B.Arch. makes someone a prominent scientist confounds me.
Going by those criteria, we must have lots of prominent scientists on this board.
-
All of this debate is going to be totally irrelevant if we do not get the growing world population under control. There is only so much one can do to reduce pollution, and conserve on energy.
The simple fact is this: the more people you have, the more energy you will need for them to be able to live. And more things like food, housing, and consumer products will be needed
Unless we can figure out a way to stop people from having so much sex, the world is doomed. We simply have to stop making so many babies.
Urban population growth is really growing out of control. World wide major city dwelling population back in 1900 was only 220 Million. By 1999 it was 2.8 Billion. In 2007, it is now 3.3 Billion. Predictions for as early as 2030 are looking very grim. By 2050, population levels may make the world a much different place to live in, compared to how things are today.
Mass Starvation and diseases could start to limit population growth by then. Or the pressures caused by such overpopulation could perhaps eventually contribute to the start of major new wars, as nations compete for the meager resources that are still available.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by AKH
How having a B.A in Classics, a B.Sc in Chemistry, or a B.Arch. makes someone a prominent scientist confounds me.
Did you read the 400 link? Notice "former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology.." or "retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki," or "past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979", or "president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy", or "director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics", or "a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling"
Several impressive resume's are listed among the 400...
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Several impressive resume's are listed among the 400...
And many not so impressive, or did you fail to notice that they were included in the list of "Over 400 Prominent Scientists?"
-
I saw it, I was just wondering whether you were seeing both sides.
So how many do you take out of the list? Does it add up to more than just a few remaining?
Skepticism used to be good. It used to be a significant part of science.
In climate science, skepticism seems to be something that is unwelcome.
The consensus is that, the vast majority of scientists believe...
It doesn't matter what a scientist believes, it matters what he can prove.
That there is a debate at all shows that the science is not in.
There is no debate on the 2nd law of thermo. There is no debate on Ohms law or F= Ma
Here the science has shown, you and I can come to agreement, we can use these tools to predict the future within several decimal places.
The chaotic system that is our weather and climate is still very much in debate.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Did you read the 400 link? Notice "former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology.." or "retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki," or "past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979", or "president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy", or "director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics", or "a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling"
Several impressive resume's are listed among the 400...
Many of them look to be folks who no longer have an important position to protect by keeping their mouths shut---we've seen what happens to scientists who don't go along with the program
-
Yes, including those who make reports for big corporations :D
Anyway:
"Unless we can figure out a way to stop people from having so much sex, the world is doomed. We simply have to stop making so many babies.
Urban population growth is really growing out of control. World wide major city dwelling population back in 1900 was only 220 Million. By 1999 it was 2.8 Billion. In 2007, it is now 3.3 Billion. Predictions for as early as 2030 are looking very grim. By 2050, population levels may make the world a much different place to live in, compared to how things are today."
1. you can shoot without hitting the target if you know what I mean.
2. with mostly urban population going too high, can we country folks keep....errr...copulating?
:D
-
Originally posted by Angus
2. with mostly urban population going too high, can we country folks keep....errr...copulating?
Yes as long as you do it slowly so as not to raise the temperature globaly. :D
-
Oh, that would be ....local...sir :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Oh, that would be ....local...sir :D
:rofl :aok
Ooops sorry.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I saw it, I was just wondering whether you were seeing both sides.
So how many do you take out of the list? Does it add up to more than just a few remaining?
Skepticism used to be good. It used to be a significant part of science.
In climate science, skepticism seems to be something that is unwelcome.
The consensus is that, the vast majority of scientists believe...
It doesn't matter what a scientist believes, it matters what he can prove.
That there is a debate at all shows that the science is not in.
There is no debate on the 2nd law of thermo. There is no debate on Ohms law or F= Ma
Here the science has shown, you and I can come to agreement, we can use these tools to predict the future within several decimal places.
The chaotic system that is our weather and climate is still very much in debate.
As you are no doubt aware, there is a well established mechanism within science for expressing scepticism - the peer review process. This process makes use of credible and respected journals and does not incorporate mainstream media at all. Yet, these sceptics choose to debate the science almost exclusively via the mainstream media. Why is that? After all, their science is sound, isn't it?
-
Not sure....but how do you explain the SL rising without ice melting, or SL not rising with Ice melting :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
Not sure....but how do you explain the SL rising without ice melting, or SL not rising with Ice melting :D
Depends. Some coastlines rise while others fall. To get a really accurate picture of an overall global change may require satellite data which of course we've been collecting for less than 50 years.
-
I don't see why the 400 or more scientists mentioned... plus all the peer reviewed papers that put doubt on the whole man made global whatever scam...
I don't see why I should believe the "scientists" on this board more. I don't see any "scientist" on this board who is in the climate science business.
Of the last 548 peer reviewed papers.. all of em.. in the last 2 years... only 7% are as sure as the "scientists" here. 6% say it is pure bunk and the remaining either say they don't know or that the evidence is too weak to say it is happening.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't see why the 400 or more scientists mentioned... plus all the peer reviewed papers that put doubt on the whole man made global whatever scam...
I don't see why I should believe the "scientists" on this board more. I don't see any "scientist" on this board who is in the climate science business.
Of the last 548 peer reviewed papers.. all of em.. in the last 2 years... only 7% are as sure as the "scientists" here. 6% say it is pure bunk and the remaining either say they don't know or that the evidence is too weak to say it is happening.
lazs
So, lets start by removing all of the "400 prominent scientists" who aren't in the climate science business. Of course, that will mean removing the vast majority from the list, won't it?
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
You're still having problems with the concept of neutrality, I see.
Interestingly enough, this survey has not been published by any journal. Even Energy and Environment (which does not appear in the ISI database) rejected it.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Depends. Some coastlines rise while others fall. To get a really accurate picture of an overall global change may require satellite data which of course we've been collecting for less than 50 years.
That both adds and subtracts to the SL depending on the cases.
In our country the land is rising due to the decrease in glacial weight.
Anyway, hasn't SL been measured with GPS during the last years?
-
Oh, for interest, we've had unusual climate this year, breaking records as far as I know.
The autumn is still on in winter, but that's rather becoming the norm.
Storms are very frequent, 4 of them (hurricane strength) in a couple of weeks.
That one was on yesterday:
(http://www3.vegag.is/faerd/linurit/vindur049.gif)
(hope the link works)
Spiking at some whooping 90 m/sec...that's 324 kph, 201 mph, or 175 kts.
-
:rofl
There are tons and tonnes of steaming BS here so for.......................... ....
and the level is most certainly rising.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Mass Starvation and diseases could start to limit population growth by then. Or the pressures caused by such overpopulation could perhaps eventually contribute to the start of major new wars, as nations compete for the meager resources that are still available.
SIG 220
This fact has been know to mankind for decades. But the problem is that it shatters the illusion of world being nice place to live in. It might be nice place when you live in developed evinroment but those are hard to come by. Weaker parts of this world are getting what has been coming to them for some time, sooner or later.
Its not the mother nature that will end the luxorious lives we have here, its the jealous or suffering population that will not accept their fate. I know i wouldn't.
The more money we pump into these global social pet projects like prevention of something as absurd as climate change the more terrible suffering there will be. (with absurd i mean how optimistic we are about our abilities to wish away the reactions of actions, may they be caused by us or not)
Huge man made events, like world wars are mostly just outbursts from ignoring the obvious outcome for decades. We are playing with fire and our clothes are soaked with gasoline.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
:rofl
There are tons and tonnes of steaming BS here so for.......................... ....
and the level is most certainly rising.
So, stop posting :t
-
Originally posted by AKH
As you are no doubt aware, there is a well established mechanism within science for expressing scepticism - the peer review process. This process makes use of credible and respected journals and does not incorporate mainstream media at all. Yet, these sceptics choose to debate the science almost exclusively via the mainstream media. Why is that? After all, their science is sound, isn't it?
Are you saying that those who are solidly on the Anthropogenic bandwagon are not using the mainstream media?
-
Tonne and ton.....just a little difference :D
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Are you saying that those who are solidly on the Anthropogenic bandwagon are not using the mainstream media?
WTF?
I'll clear it up for you, and explain what he meant.
Louis was simply stating that you, Holden, certainly act like you know it all. You pick apart every post with your vast knowledge, and cunning reparte. We are mere mortals to your godliness.
BTW, how many peer-reviewed papers have you published? I know how many I have, sir.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I saw it, I was just wondering whether you were seeing both sides.
So how many do you take out of the list? Does it add up to more than just a few remaining?
Skepticism used to be good. It used to be a significant part of science.
In climate science, skepticism seems to be something that is unwelcome.
The consensus is that, the vast majority of scientists believe...
It doesn't matter what a scientist believes, it matters what he can prove.
That there is a debate at all shows that the science is not in.
There is no debate on the 2nd law of thermo. There is no debate on Ohms law or F= Ma
Here the science has shown, you and I can come to agreement, we can use these tools to predict the future within several decimal places.
The chaotic system that is our weather and climate is still very much in debate.
Yep, and gravity IS STILL A THEORY. I wonder how that can be, in your universe of certainty?
The thing you missed, that you are discussing now, approximately 11 years late, was the debate portion of the scientific discussion on AGW. The debate that exists now, is a political one... a "please mommy, I want to keep burning carbon later". political argument.
-
i say old boy, how many tonnies does that lorry hold?
-
A one-and-a-half-deuce.
Oh, probably misspelled :D
A juice-and-a-half?
-
Originally posted by Angus
So, stop posting :t
Why in the hell would I want to do that and spoil all the fun? :rofl
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I'll clear it up for you, and explain what he meant.
Louis was simply stating that you, Holden, certainly act like you know it all. You pick apart every post with your vast knowledge, and cunning reparte. We are mere mortals to your godliness.
Didn't you accuse me of personal attacks?
Good to see you are beyond reproach.
By the way, the Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory?
It works much better than ALL the global climate models out there. It can predict to within several decimal places what will happen in the future.
Einsteins modifications refine the prediction even better.
Show me a climate model that gets anywhere close to the confidence of gravitation, and you may have a point. Otherwise you're just wasting time.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Didn't you accuse me of personal attacks?
Good to see you are beyond reproach.
By the way, the Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation is a theory?
It works much better than ALL the global climate models out there. It can predict to within several decimal places what will happen in the future.
Einsteins modifications refine the prediction even better.
Show me a climate model that gets anywhere close to the confidence of gravitation, and you may have a point. Otherwise you're just wasting time.
I never said I was beyond reproach... I have said repeatedly that I'm sick of your crap.
Yep, because Newton's "law" cannot be tested properly and proven beyond reproach. Hence, it is a "theory"..... although it is an amazingly accurate one. Besides, since when is a law refineable, scientifically? I mean, Avogadro's law has never been refined....Why exactly do you think Einstein "refined" it?
hint: he was trying to prove it.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I never said I was beyond reproach... I have said repeatedly that I'm sick of your crap.
Yep, because Newton's "law" cannot be tested properly and proven beyond reproach. Hence, it is a "theory"..... although it is an amazingly accurate one. Besides, since when is a law refineable, scientifically? I mean, Avogadro's law has never been refined....Why exactly do you think Einstein "refined" it?
hint: he was trying to prove it.
What do they call it when you criticize in someone else the very thing that you are doing? Hyp.... hypoc... something...
You also said you wern't going to debate with me anymore, and that statement was apparently hollow.
So you agree that gravitation is an amazingly accurate theory, even though it's called "Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation".
OK I'll give you that one. Still, is there a climate model that is even in the same neighborhood?
-
Gravity is yet an unexplained force.
And Jacka1, - I get your point, - why spoil the fun :D
-
Question...would setting a few Nukes off say, in the middle east area cause enough of a shock wave to move us away from the sun, therefore lowering the temp abit and stop all this warming nonsense.... I'm just asking. :p
-
Originally posted by Angus
Gravity is yet an unexplained force.
okay. But it can be quantified.
-
Rather accurately yes, however not completely ;)
As for the Nukes, if they get nuked where there is more than sand, say urban areas and lots of stuff to burn, well with enough soot that wil cause measurable global dimming and the result is cooling.
And then you don't have so many humans either :t
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
OK I'll give you that one. Still, is there a climate model that is even in the same neighborhood?
Serious issues in logic stream there, Holden.
There might be...how can we know? It takes time to prove out models, and the experimental design is limited by the time period it takes to "proof" the model. Besides, the ideology isn't looking to one model in particular for answers....Just like the hurricane forecasters use multiple models to get a better picture of a hurricane's course, climatologists are using many models (and many runs of those models) to get a better grip on direction of climate.
I find it quite interesting that many predictions made by those inept climatologists are seemingly coming to fruition... Namely, large extremes in weather. Many of them were saying that it wasn't all warming, but rather larger examples of extremes... Extreme hots and colds, dryness and sudden large amounts of precip.. The southeast missed it's driest year in recorded times by a hundredth of an inch... The Pacific Northwest is expecting it's largest recorded snowfall ever this week... 4 feet.
Where is all this energy coming from? Your thoughts?
-
Originally posted by Gwjr2
Question...would setting a few Nukes off say, in the middle east area cause enough of a shock wave to move us away from the sun, therefore lowering the temp abit and stop all this warming nonsense.... I'm just asking. :p
Well if you wait until after dark and the position of detonation is exactly opposite that of the sun it's conceivable that the detonations would push us CLOSER to the sun.
:O :O :O :noid
-
I'm amazed this thread is still going. I'm not going to read 45 pages of it either. The topic has probably turned into half a dozen diffrent topics by now.
One thing I will say, is I know there are many people on the forum whom still refuse to believe that humans can affect this planet on a global scale. Much less fix it if we did.
Then it came to me, we have already done it and we have already fixed it once in the last 20 years.
Anyone remember the hole in the ozone? That was a serious global issue caused by chemicals that man produced. Back in the early 80's the US took the lead and said we need to fix this, because if we don't we are all dead.
Guess what 20 years later we have for the most part fixed it.
So those of you that still stick your head in the sand and claim man can't effect the Earth.. Well you are wrong and history and science can and has already proven we did it.
There is all the proof in the world, but if you choose to ignore it by sticking your head in the sand. Well then nothing will ever change your mind because you aren't actually willing to have your mind changed.
-
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
My cat's breath smells like cat food.
Global Tunarising.
-
can i quote a college professor, " if your model does not give you the results you were looking for, change your model".
-
Have fun Morons.... :)
Guess I'm to lazy to read so many pages .....
I hope we all drown in happiness.
-
ok moron... have fun drowning in your angst and fear.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok moron... have fun drowning in your angst and fear.
lazs
Well, that's why you have a gun collection and a bolt lock, right?
SHOOT THE GW!!!!
-
Originally posted by crockett
I'm amazed this thread is still going. I'm not going to read 45 pages of it either. The topic has probably turned into half a dozen diffrent topics by now.
actually it has stayed pretty much on topic, except for it started out about Global Warming in the summer, but now its winter so the topic is Global Climate changing/shifting...no hurricanes to point at so now we can blame the cold and the snow... in winter ...
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
actually it has stayed pretty much on topic, except for it started out about Global Warming in the summer, but now its winter so the topic is Global Climate changing/shifting...no hurricanes to point at so now we can blame the cold and the snow... in winter ...
Don`t forget the global leaf falling in the fall.
-
"actually it has stayed pretty much on topic, except for it started out about Global Warming in the summer, but now its winter so the topic is Global Climate changing/shifting...no hurricanes to point at so now we can blame the cold and the snow... in winter ..."
LOL
That is the silliest thing I've heard on these boards...especially since THIS (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/) has been brought up many times and yet you guys refuse to acknowledge it.
The site is the United States Environmental Protection Agency's site. It is THEY who refer to the term Global Climate Change.
It is likewise HILARIOUS that many here will say that hundreds of years of statistics are to be ignored because in the grand scheme of things the time-frame is a *blip* and yet if it snows alot for a few weeks the same people will say it means that GW is a myth.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Serious issues in logic stream there, Holden.
I find it quite interesting that many predictions made by those inept climatologists are seemingly coming to fruition... Namely, large extremes in weather.
There was a man named Kreskin (sp) who made predictions on many things.
Several came true. He did it by making so many predictions that he just had to be correct on some of them.
When I make a prediction based upon Newtons Universal law of Gravitation, I can be correct within 99.99999% 99.99999% of the time.
This theory works this well on anything with mass. Pretty good.
Hurricane models for 2007 predicted the Cont US was to be hit with a couple cat 5, and a few smaller category storms last season. Pretty poor.
That is a serious issue in the logic you used, comparing the theory of gravity to climate models.
I can predict that ... lets see ... in 2008, drought will continue in Ethiopia this next year, Western Australia will continue to be dry, The Amazon basin will flood, and in late autumn, Southeren California will experience wildfire. Lets see how many come true. Large extremes in weather have always happened. The last time a record setting temperature, rainfall, or drought occured, that was a weater extreme.
I am glad to have this continuing non-debate with you.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Hurricane models for 2007 predicted the Cont US was to be hit with a couple cat 5, and a few smaller category storms last season. Pretty poor.
Two cat 5 storms hit land in 2007....first time that has EVER happened. They struck just to the South of the Continental US. There were quite a few named storms too...but I guess because they didn't hit the US they didn't happen?
-
curval.. the only thing about the climate that is constant is that it changes.
No year was ever the same as any other... never.. no year was ever average.
sooo.. whenever the weather is off the average one way or the other... that is now our fault?
Would that not mean that every time is is good that is our accomplishment too?
So far.. this natural warming period we have enjoyed for a few decades has been very very very good to us.. are you saying it has all been our doing?
That coming out of the ice age was our "fault"? fine with me.
no hurricanes... our fault.. more hurricanes... our fault.. "normal" amount of hurricanes... some sort of glitch.
doom and gloom for next year? well.. can't predict that.. doom and gloom for 50 years away unless we send a check? for certain.
good weather.. enjoy it. it will get cold soon enough.
Here.. it was global warming that gave us our summer that was...well.. mild but dry.. no snow pack!!! end of the world!!! drought and plague caused by global warming!!!!
This week.. storm rolls in (weaker than some in the past but stronger than others) and lo and behold!!!! snow pack is restored.
So is all this our fault? which part? the good parts or the bad parts?
If we can't predict what will happen next year or in five years then maybe we don't even know all the particulars? Maybe it is too complex and maybe.. we simply can't do anything about it?
If we don't understand it maybe we should spend more time trying to understand and less time trying to panic people and do something about what we don't understand.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval.. the only thing about the climate that is constant is that it changes.
No year was ever the same as any other... never.. no year was ever average.
sooo.. whenever the weather is off the average one way or the other... that is now our fault?
Would that not mean that every time is is good that is our accomplishment too?
So far.. this natural warming period we have enjoyed for a few decades has been very very very good to us.. are you saying it has all been our doing?
That coming out of the ice age was our "fault"? fine with me.
no hurricanes... our fault.. more hurricanes... our fault.. "normal" amount of hurricanes... some sort of glitch.
doom and gloom for next year? well.. can't predict that.. doom and gloom for 50 years away unless we send a check? for certain.
good weather.. enjoy it. it will get cold soon enough.
Here.. it was global warming that gave us our summer that was...well.. mild but dry.. no snow pack!!! end of the world!!! drought and plague caused by global warming!!!!
This week.. storm rolls in (weaker than some in the past but stronger than others) and lo and behold!!!! snow pack is restored.
So is all this our fault? which part? the good parts or the bad parts?
If we can't predict what will happen next year or in five years then maybe we don't even know all the particulars? Maybe it is too complex and maybe.. we simply can't do anything about it?
If we don't understand it maybe we should spend more time trying to understand and less time trying to panic people and do something about what we don't understand.
lazs
Where did I blame the US for anything lazs?
I like your last paragraph though...I think you are absolutely right. How does this fit in with your adamant denial that GW or climate change exists though?
-
curval... I have never said that we are not in a normal warming trend or that the climate does not "change".. the only constant is change.
we have never had 2 years in a row that were the same or... even "average" hell.. there has never even been an "average" week I bet.
So who takes the blame? well.. in the past.. we simply said... "you can't do anything about the weather" now.. in our arrogance and ignorance.. we claim that we can change the climate of the globe...
But of course.. only for the worst.. everything we do is bad.. if the weather is nice... it is in spite of us...if it is bad... it is because of us.
Truth is.. it has been nothing but.... very very good for everyone... you have to really dig to be upset.. or.. you have to go to a computer and "predict" gloom out far enough that you won't get caught.. say a couple of decades.. that way... anything you do.. will be given credit for the natural cooling cycle we are about to enter.
lazs
-
Lazs
Rightly or wrongly there is a huge debate on global warming/climate change. Your own EPA highlights its existance.
You say this in one breath "If we don't understand it maybe we should spend more time trying to understand and less time trying to panic people and do something about what we don't understand." and then in the very next post you say this: "in our arrogance and ignorance.. we claim that we can change the climate of the globe". [Meaning clearly that you do not think mankind can change the weather...right?]
Which is it?
Do you want to even TRY to understand it...or do you just want to keep honking "It's the sun stupid"? That isn't trying to understand anything.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Two cat 5 storms hit land in 2007....first time that has EVER happened. They struck just to the South of the Continental US. There were quite a few named storms too...but I guess because they didn't hit the US they didn't happen?
ACTUAL COLORADO STATE PRESS RELEASE
DENVER April 3, 2007 -
EXTENDED RANGE FORECAST OF ATLANTIC SEASONAL HURRICANE ACTIVITY AND U.S. LANDFALL STRIKE PROBABILITY FOR 2007 :
We have increased our forecast for the 2007 hurricane season, largely due to the rapid dissipation of El Niño conditions. We are now calling for a very active hurricane season. Landfall probabilities for the 2007 hurricane season are well above their long-period averages.
The probability of U.S. major hurricane landfall is estimated to be about 140 percent of the long-period average. We expect Atlantic basin Net Tropical Cyclone (NTC) activity in 2007 to be about 185 percent of the long-term average.
Hitting Nicaragua qualifiys as making this prediction accurate?
"The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season produced the predicted number of named storms, but the combined number, duration and intensity of the hurricanes did not meet expectations,” said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. “The United States was fortunate this year to have fewer strong hurricanes develop than predicted. Normally, the climate patterns that were in place produce an active, volatile hurricane season.”
The climate patterns predicted for the 2007 hurricane season – an ongoing multi-decadal signal (the set of oceanic and atmospheric conditions that have spawned increased Atlantic hurricane activity since 1995) and La Niña – produced the expected below-normal hurricane activity over the eastern and central Pacific regions. However, La Niña’s impact over the Atlantic was weaker than expected, which resulted in stronger upper-level winds and increased wind shear over the Caribbean Sea during the peak months of the season (August-October). This limited Atlantic hurricane formation during that period. NOAA’s scientists are investigating possible climate factors that may have led to this lower-than-expected activity.
Seems NOAA is dissatisfied with their predictive abilities.
-
LOL Holden...
Nice cherry pick on the bolding. You missed this:
The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season produced the predicted number of named storms
Which contradicts what you said in your initial post.
You seem only concerned with predictions of storms hitting the US, which figures. I'd say predicting that a couple of Cat 5s would make landfall is pretty darn good, yes, even if they hit south of where they were predicted to....it has never happened before.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
When I make a prediction based upon Newtons Universal law of Gravitation, I can be correct within 99.99999% 99.99999% of the time.
This theory works this well on anything with mass. Pretty good.
That is a serious issue in the logic you used, comparing the theory of gravity to climate models.
Large extremes in weather have always happened. The last time a record setting temperature, rainfall, or drought occured, that was a weater extreme.
I am glad to have this continuing non-debate with you.
#1... I didn't use Newton's law of Gravitation at any point in time...YOU brought that into the conversation... and it is nowhere near the same thing. Newton's law works because gravity is a CONSTANT...acted upon by one variable, itself. There will never be a climate model come close to that degree of accuracy, the variables are just too many.
Repeated runnings of models that use these variables gets you into the ballpark, but it will never find you home base.
#2. As for your..."weather extremes" definition... I will go with your advertised definition and now show you something which merits a look.
According to an AP analysis of U.S. weather data, a total of 263 all-time high temperature records were broken or tied in 2007. In August alone, 8,000 new heat records were broken or tied in the US alone. In addition that same month saw more than a hundred all time records broken, regardless of month. Either for the highest temperature or the warmest low temperature by night, it was definitely a weird August for America.
Also, watch the news and see the west coast get upwards of 10 FEET of snow this next few days... tell me that's normal and I have you by the gonads.
-
Originally posted by Curval
I, Curval, do hereby promise not to make any more posts in any thread based on determining if GW is manmade or a naturally occuring cycle.
Sorry lazs...a promise is a promise.
:)
-
Originally posted by Curval
Lazs
Rightly or wrongly there is a huge debate on global warming/climate change. Your own EPA highlights its existance.
So now we know. Laz bought the EPA.
So at least we know who to send the complaints concerning the total ridiculousness of some of the laws they have forced through to.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
So now we know. Laz bought the EPA.
So at least we know who to send the complaints concerning the total ridiculousness of some of the laws they have forced through to.
That is just dumb Jackal. When lazs refers to the royal "we" you don't question it.
When I said "your own EPA" I OBVIOUSLY meant the United States, being that I don't live there...but you knew that. You just don't want to comment on the points I've made.
-
Is there someone here trying to derail the actual subject of general climate discussion, and if so, why?
-
lol Toad.
Nice stalk.
I'm sorry, you are right, I did make that promise. I'll just go away now and stop pointing out manipulations of the truth and total inconsistancy of the main protagonist posting here.
Then you can go back to watching out for any further breaches in my former promises.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
[BAlso, watch the news and see the west coast get upwards of 10 FEET of snow this next few days... tell me that's normal and I have you by the gonads. [/B]
Tell us how its abnormal.
-
Anecdotal evidence--i.e. the occasional huge storm, or LACK thereof, has naught to do with globa-- I mean, Climate Change
-
Originally posted by Curval
lol Toad.
Nice stalk.
I'm sorry, you are right, I did make that promise. I'll just go away now and stop pointing out manipulations of the truth and total inconsistancy of the main protagonist posting here.
Then you can go back to watching out for any further breaches in my former promises.
I hardly stalked you.
I continue read this thread in absolute awe of how long some people can beat a dead horse. It's also a useful tool to sort out those who can actually make a cogent argument from those whose best move is an ad hominem.
I just found it interesting that you had to jump back into the soup after swearing off. :)
-
moray.. I live in northern kalifornia and this storm is nothing that we have not seen before nor is it anything we will not see again.
some years it rains here in july... some it does not. which times is it our fault and which times is it just the unpredictable nature of.... nature?
Is it gonna rain next july? will there be a storm just like this next year? Of course you don't know.. of course your computer models that we have spent billions on (that is billions with a b) cant tell us. they can only predict gloom far enough out that no one can dispute it.. or.. with enough adjustment.. they can "predict" what has already happened.
we were in a "drought".. happens round here all the time.. now the storm has put the snow pack at about "normal" things are.... "normal" whatever that is..
which was our fault and which is the bad stuff?
Nothing bad is happening anywhere do to this warming trend.
When it gets colder it will be worse.. fortunately.. the computer models offer a solutution when it gets too cold....
burn the rain forests and start using nothing but coal for power.
fortunately.. we have lots of coal.
see... everything will work out. you have wrung your hands raw for nothing. like a little girl.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
When I said "your own EPA" I OBVIOUSLY meant the United States, being that I don't live there...but you knew that. You just don't want to comment on the points I've made.
If you ever make one, let me know. I`ll see if I can scrounge up a comment.
I think your first mistake was to hold the EPA up as some holy grail. It`s far from it. Pain in the arse maybe. Holy grail...no.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
If you ever make one, let me know. I`ll see if I can scrounge up a comment.
I think your first mistake was to hold the EPA up as some holy grail. It`s far from it. Pain in the arse maybe. Holy grail...no.
The point is really quite simple. Holden made the comment along the lines of that now that it is cold the GW alarmists will claim Global Climate change rather than Global Warming.
The fact of the matter is that it is climate change that is the concern according to the UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. It is hardly *my* holy grail. It is the organisation that YOUR tax dollars support on the subject at hand.
Try and scrounge up a comment on that.
-
I see it`s gonna be a while.
Tis OK. I can wait.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
I see it`s gonna be a while.
Tis OK. I can wait.
LOL
I'm sorry, I just can't come up with the kind of brilliant insight and amazing point making ability as you displayed when you suggested lazs bought the EPA.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Curval
LOL
I'm sorry, I just can't come up with the kind of brilliant insight and amazing point making ability as you displayed when you suggested lazs bought the EPA.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
We know, but we overlook it.
Now......for that point?
-
I shrug my shoulders and look out the window.
Nice, I think, I can start ploughing tomorrow.
It's been stormy, so I'm happy not to be at sea.
The ground is barren, there is no frost in it and the newest fields are still green.
I think "would this hit the news, ploughing in January", but discard the idea.
Ploughing at this time of year was indeed a frontpage issue some 20 years ago, but not any more...
-
Originally posted by Angus
Ploughing at this time of year was indeed a frontpage issue some 20 years ago, but not any more...
Ahhhhhhhhhhh the good old days before Britney and Hillary, when plowing was all the rage.
-
Originally posted by Curval
LOL Holden...
Nice cherry pick on the bolding. You missed this:
The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season produced the predicted number of named storms
Which contradicts what you said in your initial post.
And you missed this:
April 3We expect Atlantic basin Net Tropical Cyclone (NTC) activity in 2007 to be about 185 percent of the long-term average.
November summaryThe 2007 Atlantic basin hurricane season had activity at near-average levels. This activity was less than predicted in our seasonal forecasts.
185% vs Near Normal.
Look at the November season summary (http://typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu/forecasts/2007/nov2007/nov2007.pdf) even they chide themselves with the large text statement, “Meteorologists are known to be absolutely brilliant at after-the-fact explanation of weather phenomena … but please don’t press us too hard on future events!!”
-
Originally posted by MORAY37 #1... I didn't use Newton's law of Gravitation at any point in time...YOU brought that into the conversation... and it is nowhere near the same thing. Newton's law works because gravity is a CONSTANT...acted upon by one variable, itself. There will never be a climate model come close to that degree of accuracy, the variables are just too many.
Really?
Originally posted by MORAY37
Yep, and gravity IS STILL A THEORY. I wonder how that can be, in your universe of certainty?
I guess you were talking about something else.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Ahhhhhhhhhhh the good old days before Britney and Hillary, when plowing was all the rage.
Maybe it's Britney's heat added by Hillary's fury that makes Icelandic ground plougable in January?
:D
Indeed, in the time of Bush (Kate), it was colder.
-
curval.. we are spending billions a year on these computer models.. I really don't have much problem with that tho.. It is probly a good thing to understand the weather.
I have nothing against "study" but I do against the half baked conclusions and solutions.
As for the EPA... this may surprise you but many of our tax funded operations here are wasteful and greedy and self serving and not very efficient or even right very often... It may surprise you that the EPA has very little scientific expertise (I deal with them on a day to day basis) and that most are simply girls fresh out of berkley or some liberal institution.. they have a lot of lawyers and administrators but... not too heavy in the science dept. they parrot studies handed to them and....
They are reactionary.. they react to "groups" they are constantly threatened with lawsuits by activist "environmental" groups for not doing "something" about.. whatever.. even if it is wrong and no matter how much it costs.
A lot of these activist "environmental" groups are nothing but packs of lawyers looking for a big fat sick elk to bring down. They get their 33% the easy way since... they are unopossed.. the EPA will never fight for the people.
I think it wise to look at all the mistakes the EPA has made in the past because of just such activism as I have described.. Look at MTBE for instance... To me.. the EPA is mostly a very bad thing for the country.
lazs
-
As I recall, in the late '60's and early '70's the concern was about the coming Ice Age.
Our collective pollution was reflecting the Sun's energy and preventing it from reaching the surface.
There must of not been any money in this theory. Thus, it went away.
Here it is as I see it. The Sun's activity is causing the ice cap melt. The ice cap melt will dilute the salinity of the seas. This reduction in salinity will interrupt the ocean streams that bring warmth to the northern reaches of the northern hemisphere. We get an "ice age" of some sort.
With the increase in the polar ice caps, the salinity of the oceans increases. The ocean streams, such as the Gulf Stream, resume operation. We get warm again.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I have nothing against "study" but I do against the half baked conclusions and solutions.
Any results are half-baked if they don't agree with your opinion lazs. You have shown that to be the fact by poo pooing any such study that has been shown to you here.
As to the EPA....I neither support them or pay any attention to them.
I was merely showing Holden that Climate Change as a concept is not something new that replaces GW due to a period of cold weather. Simple as that.
-
MTBE, the EPA's poster child.
-
Not the first john.. they caused mudslides because they felt salinity in wastewater was a bad thing.. unfortunately.. the salinity held the clay together (simplified version) and... as usual.. they caused more harm than good.
The early smog devices they mandated caused more pollution than they cured.. it was only the invention of computer controlled fuel injection that made smog devices workable. and that would have happened no matter what the EPA said or did. They are simply a big, clumsy, and stupid agency who can be jerked around at will by politicians and activists and lawyers seeking a buck.
That is why study is not a bad thing but hysteria always is. Study all you want but make sure you have the answer or.. even understand the question before you go ham fisting it on the environment. "doing something" often results in disaster.
I think we should study everything about climate. no problem but.. as has been shown.. more and more scientists are getting off the whole man made c02 causing global warming thing. the more it is studied the more the need for debate is clear.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
I was merely showing Holden that Climate Change as a concept is not something new that replaces GW due to a period of cold weather. Simple as that.
My point was not that the earth has cooled and GW/CC is therefore not a problem.
I brought up the CSU hurricane prediction model because it is much less complex than any global warming model. It needs only look out a year or a few months, is concerned with only a specific regoinal weather phenomenon, and last year was off (admitted by Colo State Univ) by close to 85%!
Now that is a single season and they might be within only a few percentage points on other years, but the precision of the model must be somewhat in question.
I doubt Global climate models can be much closer...
I got within 35% on my company NFL pool this year and still lost.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Also, watch the news and see the west coast get upwards of 10 FEET of snow this next few days... tell me that's normal and I have you by the gonads.
The party reached the base of the steep summit on October 31, just as snow was beginning to fall. And although some in the group were able to reach the summit, they were forced to turn back as there was no way the whole party could get through. Heavy snow continued falling overnight and by morning the pass was completely blocked by snowdrifts over twenty feet high. They had come 2,500 miles in seven months to lose their race with the weather by one day, only 150 miles from their destination of Sutter's Fort (what is now Sacramento) in California
Blue Canyon, California is the snowiest city in the country and averages 240.8 inches of snow each year.
Blue Canyon is in Placer County, in the Sacramento-Arden-Arcade metro area.
-
You too?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Really?
I guess you were talking about something else.
Holden seriously... could ya stop with the splitting of the hairs? I'm starting to think I gave you too much credit... or perhaps you didn't spend a whole lotta time actually studying what you spout. (Perhaps you're still in college?) I don't know which.
Gravity is a constant. That cannot be argued... nor am I. It can be measured and predicted to the n'th degree... but why it exists IS still a theory. There has not been a proof yet that has yielded an all encompassing reason why gravity can even exist.
If you can't see the difference in this statement, and its implications therein, I have to say then, that the conversation is way over your head.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Blue Canyon, California is the snowiest city in the country and averages 240.8 inches of snow each year.
Blue Canyon is in Placer County, in the Sacramento-Arden-Arcade metro area.
I suppose it's routine to get half of it in one storm.
-
Originally posted by 2Slow
As I recall, in the late '60's and early '70's the concern was about the coming Ice Age.
Our collective pollution was reflecting the Sun's energy and preventing it from reaching the surface.
There must of not been any money in this theory. Thus, it went away.
Here it is as I see it. The Sun's activity is causing the ice cap melt. The ice cap melt will dilute the salinity of the seas. This reduction in salinity will interrupt the ocean streams that bring warmth to the northern reaches of the northern hemisphere. We get an "ice age" of some sort.
With the increase in the polar ice caps, the salinity of the oceans increases. The ocean streams, such as the Gulf Stream, resume operation. We get warm again.
It is true that there were some predictions of an "emminent ice age" in the 1970's but what does this tell us about today's warnings?
A very cursory comparison of then and now reveals a huge difference. Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions solidy behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the cause and the warming will worsen unless we reduce emissions. In the 1970's, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. No daily headlines. No avalanche of scientific articles. No United Nations treaties and commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers.
There quite simply is no comparison, I'm sure you could find better evidence of a "consensus" of a coming alien invasion.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I got within 35% on my company NFL pool this year and still lost.
Beat you badly then, just using statistics.
Placed 2nd out of 94. Actually knowing math got me $3,000.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I suppose it's routine to get half of it in one storm.
If you would have read the rest of my post, you would have understood that 1847 Donner Party apparently had drifts of 20" drop on them in a single day.
Originally posted by MORAY37
Holden seriously... could ya stop with the splitting of the hairs? I'm starting to think I gave you too much credit... or perhaps you didn't spend a whole lotta time actually studying what you spout. (Perhaps you're still in college?) I don't know which.
Gravity is a constant. That cannot be argued... nor am I. It can be measured and predicted to the n'th degree... but why it exists IS still a theory. There has not been a proof yet that has yielded an all encompassing reason why gravity can even exist.
If you can't see the difference in this statement, and its implications therein, I have to say then, that the conversation is way over your head.
Splitting Hairs? You brought up gravity into this, and then accuse me of doing it by deftly only discussing the Universal Law of Gravity.
Intresting that it took you several days to come up with this BS about what you really meant. If it were obvious, you would have said something about it your first reply post, but instead you debate (or are you still not debating?) Newtons law, not the ephemeral reason of gravity's existance.
Originally posted by MORAY37
Beat you badly then, just using statistics.
Placed 2nd out of 94. Actually knowing math got me $3,000.
That's 30% (actually I was 68.75% correct so 31.25% wrong) away from getting all the NFL games correct. The winner was only two games away from me. I was third of 25. Ours was all or nothing for the season, about $70 each week. I netted 2 weekly wins and made enough to come out about $25 in the black.
-
moray... you don't know much about northern kalifornia weather do you?
But.. what is "normal" to you? have we ever had a normal year? to you.. even if the rainfall or snowfall is "normal"... it isn't... cause it fell at the wrong day or over the wrong time frame.
There is no normal weather... I have decades of data for every day.. no day is like another.
But... if we are to blame for the bad things then surely..... we are to be credited for the good?
It has all been good too hasn't it? 15% increase in crop failures... less people died of cold than ever before.. nice pleasant warm summers...
and.. the predictions of an ice age before the year 2000 were by 250 "leading" scientists. they were as wrong as all the scientists that predicted mans internal organs could not stand a speed of 70 mph.
lazs
-
And because of the increased crops and food production due to this better climate, production prices are rizing :confused:
-
It's more like food is being redirected from normal uses to production of ethanol, causing prices in all related areas to rise.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
If you would have read the rest of my post, you would have understood that 1847 Donner Party apparently had drifts of 20" drop on them in a single day.
Yep... drifts of 20 feet. (" means inches, by the way. ' means feet) You can get drifts of 20' with as little as 2 1/2 feet of snowfall, with the right wind and topographical features.
Yes, I do know about California's snowfall in the higher elevations lazs. I also know, that statistically, the now..14 total expected feet in those elevations, 10 of which were in the first 48 hours,
is significant .
That equals out to 168 inches. Blue Canyon... the "snowiest city in the US" gets 240" of snowfall per YEAR. That makes this last 72 hours..70% of their yearly snowfall in one storm. Where do you think all that moisture is suddenly coming from? Why now, with all the rest of this crazy weather?
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Blue Canyon... the "snowiest city in the US" gets 240" of snowfall per YEAR. That makes this last 72 hours..70% of their yearly snowfall in one storm. Where do you think all that moisture is suddenly coming from? Why now, with all the rest of this crazy weather?
240" per year is an average. Sometimes it may even be more than average.
Winter Storm Batters Western US
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7173149.stm)
High Winds Brought Down Trees Across California
A winter storm is sweeping the western states of the US, bringing heavy rain, snow and high winds. Avalanche warnings were posted in the Sierra Nevada mountains after up to 5ft (1.5m) of snow fell. There were fresh flood warnings in southern California.[/b]
February 17, 1990 - The biggest winter storm of the season hit the Pacific Coast Region. In northern California, snow fell along the coast, and two day totals in the mountains ranged up to 67 inches at Echo Summit. (The National Weather Summary) (Storm Data)
February 22, 1986 - A twelve day siege of heavy rain and snow, which produced widespread flooding and mudslides across northern and central California, finally came to an end. The storm caused more than 400 million dollars property damage. Bucks Lake, located in the Sierra Nevada Range, received 49.6 inches of rain during the twelve day period. (Storm Data)
March 12, 1967 - A tremendous four day storm raged across California. Winds of 90 mph closed mountain passes, heavy rains flooded the lowlands, and in sixty hours Squaw Valley CA was buried under 96 inches (eight feet) of snow.
Second greatest United States 24-hour snowfall record: 67 inches (5.6 ft.) January 4-5, 1982. The old California record of 60 inches in 24 hours was recorded at Giant Forest in the southern Sierra Nevada in January 1933.
Mount Shasta Ski Bowl, California, Single storm snowfall record: 189 inches (15.75 ft.) February 13 – 19, 1959. There were 103 inches of snowfall measured from Feb. 15–17 during this event, which holds both the United States and the world’s greatest two-day snowfall on record.
A comparable snow event occurred near Donner Pass in mid-February 1999, when a powerful winter storm dumped 168 inches (14 ft.) at Sugar Bowl Ski Resort from Feb. 6 to 9.
Tamarack, California--U.S. snowfall record for one month: 390 inches (32.5 ft.) January 1911
Tamarack, California--Sierra Nevada record snowfall during one season: 884 inches (73.7 ft.) 1906-07
Oh my God! The snow is as bad as it's been several times before! What should we do? This one storm is at least 60% of what happened in 1959 at Mount Shasta!
Perhaps we should calm down.
-
Washington is definitely having winter. My daughter got a couple of her pics posted on a local weather site:
http://www.krem.com/weather/pix/?image_id=135219
http://www.krem.com/weather/pix/?image_id=135218
-
Have you guys seen the oil price forecast for the next year or so? I've heard double!
While it will not affect me too much personally (I don't have a car, hehe), it will hit the farm purse when I tank up them tractors.
-
My ecology instructor had worked for a few years in the private sector doing environmental consulting. He said that the scientists who worked for the environmental company he worked for were instructed on what outcomes to recomend, even before they had done the research. He also said some of those guys would sell their own grandmothers for enough money.
So in short, you can get a scientist to say whatever you want for enough money.
-
A sidenote to all of this energy-use issue as well as offer vs demand is that most of the energy we burn goes to waste.
Just read a little breakup about aluminum. All our tincans you see. Ok, let's have numbers:
4-5 tons boxite = 1 tonne pure Al.
1 tonne pure al = 60.000 cans.
Energy needed for 1 ton Al = energy needed for 30 tons of steel.
U.S. Al as waste every year = 2.5 million tons.
Guess how many Boeing 737's it takes to dump.....roughly 30.000!
CURSE ON LAGERCANS! USE KEGS!!!
-
lol
Yup...that is what the whole debate is about. Everyone is jealous of your cars so they made up GW to take them away from you.
:noid :noid :noid
-
I just emailed a link of this thread to the White House. Hopefully, they will see that we solved Global Warming. What should we tackle next?
-
They'll have something to do then :D
-
...which by the way mostly do not come from the Persian Gulf :D
-
I'm not going to read every post through a 1000+ thread but imho man made global warming is a scam.
There is nothing unusual about the present climate. The Earth has been far, far warmer than today and far, far colder. It's just that Gore decided to make a film about it.
As for all the computer models, models from my understanding only attempt to forecast based on a set of rules and assumptions. If your rules and assumptions are wrong, so is your computer model.
I can't even get an accurate forecast 7 days ahead for my state, how can I get an accurate forecast 20 years ahead for the planet?
Global warming has turned into a political bangwagon, and as it swings into gear more and more politicans have jumped onto it to please the left and greenies.
But most of all, as with anything in politics it's all about money. They see man made global warming as a new age Boogie Man to scare the masses. They see trillions of dollars in new taxes and the government agencies see billions of dollars of funding research grants. Furthermore, there's so much money at stake the politicians can feather their nest and their supporter's nests too!
It's about $$$, power and control. The perfect scam. After all, who doesn't want to save the earth !
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I already feel it's too late for any measure to significantly impact the changes already in motion. But then again...there's always been 104 tornados in January. :noid It's all a big scam...if that's what lets you wake up happy in the morning lazs, you ostrich.
(http://www.tornadochaser.net/images/january.gif)
50 years of Historical January Tornadoes---
1999- A record-breaking 141 tornadoes ripped through Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee in January. More tornadoes occurred on Jan. 21 — a preliminary total of 87 — than on any previous January day on record.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
(http://www.tornadochaser.net/images/january.gif)
50 years of Historical January Tornadoes---
1999- A record-breaking 141 tornadoes ripped through Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee in January. More tornadoes occurred on Jan. 21 — a preliminary total of 87 — than on any previous January day on record.
Holden, facts and common sense have no place int eh MMGW debate.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
50 years of Historical January Tornadoes--- [/B]
So how many Tornadoes were there 55,100,150 years ago? So in the 50 years of recorded Tornadoes, we currently have an increase. I'm sure there has been increases and decreases in Tornadoes for the last few thousand years and long before Man was even here let alone knew anything about Co2.
...-Gixer
-
I just wanted to be the 1200 post :)
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
I just wanted to be the 1200 post :)
Bastage, that was my goal... guess I'll shoot for #2000
-
Lazs you keep repeating yourself.
OK, drama queens...hmm...they have a point in metreological highpoints being topped with increased frequency, as well as the absolute measure of Ice melting take us back into a non-existant condition for millions of years.
Doom and gloom, well it's happened before, and what was prosperous life for some species a long time ago would be doom for human civilization.
As for predictions, I am sure that you can better predict that you live through the year, rather than you get sick or not next week. I can expect to live longer as well, but I am not sure, and I might get ill tomorrow. Have some hint of it too......
shhh,,,,doctors.....medicine.....
-
Originally posted by Angus
Lazs you keep repeating yourself.
OK, drama queens...hmm...they have a point in metreological highpoints being topped with increased frequency, as well as the absolute measure of Ice melting take us back into a non-existant condition for millions of years.
They, who's they? They have no point that proves (without doubt) Co2 emissions cause global warming, which will therefore cause the icecaps to melt and for all of us to drown within the next 50 years.
What Melting Ice? The Artic? So what, it's floating Ice and only makes up about 0.01% of the worlds Ice. The worlds sea levels aren't going to increase and drown us all due to floating ice melting. :lol
What about the dramatic Gore film of the Antartic Shelf collapsing. That's what the shelf edges do in Spring/Summer and it reforms again over the winter. The Antartic isn't melting it's too bloody big and cold. Even if it was melting with the most extreme computer models it would still takes 10's of thousands of years.
I have no problem with environmentalist causes, but global warming is taking this idea to the extreme and is a political scam. I'm not going to let people like Al Gore and politicans tell me what type of light bulb to use.
...-Gixer
-
drama queens? have you seen gores movie? it is nothing but BS and drama.. bad science.. not even allowed in british schools except as being bad drama...
All the outrageous predictions that have been made by the alarmists? are those not drama? and insulting I might add. We will not have 30 or 20 or even 10 foot rises in the ocean by 2050.. no one can even predict what the weather will be in 2050 but it does seem that it will be cooler.. the globe is cooling. suns activity has gone down.
Why do the alarmist always feel that they have to say the most exagerated things? drama queens.
lazs
-
Here is something about the coming Ice Age?????????????
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/01/10/ice-age-cometh-by-steve-farrell/
I do remember the cryin about an Ice Age back around then.
Seems this guy does too.
OOPS edit to point at he REPORTS OF DARKNESS INCREASING!!!
It's at the bottom!
-
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jan11/0,4670,IraqFirstSnowinMemory,00.html
BAGHDAD — After weathering nearly five years of war, Baghdad residents thought they'd pretty much seen it all. But Friday morning, as muezzins were calling the faithful to prayer, the people here awoke to something certifiably new.
For the first time in memory, snow fell across Baghdad.
Although the white flakes quickly dissolved into gray puddles, they brought an emotion rarely expressed in this desert capital snarled by army checkpoints, divided by concrete walls and ravaged by sectarian killings _ delight.
"For the first time in my life I saw a snow-rain like this falling in Baghdad," said Mohammed Abdul-Hussein, a 63-year-old retiree from the New Baghdad area.
"When I was young, I heard from my father that such rain had fallen in the early '40s on the outskirts of northern Baghdad," Abdul-Hussein said, referring to snow as a type of rain. "But snow falling in Baghdad in such a magnificent scene was beyond my imagination."
Morning temperatures uncharacteristically hovered around freezing, and the Baghdad airport was closed because of poor visibility. Snow is common in the mountainous Kurdish areas of northern Iraq, but residents of the capital and surrounding areas could remember just hail.
"I asked my mother, who is 80, whether she'd ever seen snow in Iraq before, and her answer was no," said Fawzi Karim, a 40-year-old father of five who runs a small restaurant in Hawr Rajab, a village six miles southeast of Baghdad.
"This is so unusual, and I don't know whether or not it's a lesson from God," Karim said.
Some said they'd seen snow only in movies.
Talib Haider, a 19-year-old college student, said "a friend of mine called me at 8 a.m. to wake me up and tell me that the sky is raining snow."
"I rushed quickly to the balcony to see a very beautiful scene," he said. "I tried to film it with my cell phone camera. This scene has really brought me joy. I called my other friends and the morning turned to be a very happy one in my life."
An Iraqi who works for The Associated Press said he woke his wife and children shortly after 7 a.m. to "have a look at this strange thing." He then called his brother and sister and found them awake, also watching the "cotton-like snow drops covering the trees."
For a couple of hours anyway, a city where mortar shells routinely zoom across to the Green Zone became united as one big White Zone. As of late afternoon, there were no reports of violence. The snow showed no favoritism as it fell faintly on neighborhoods *****e and Sunni alike, and (with apologies to James Joyce) upon all the living and the dead
-
It is hard to keep up with the hand wringers and drama queens who push man made global warming but...
Now it is "man made global climate change" every event that is different than one last year.. every high or low and every record.. is our fault.. except for the good ones..
And that is the problem.. the global temps have been great for decades.. it has been a time of prosperity. This happens from time to time.. we are lucky to live in such a time..
It will get cold soon enough. We wont be able to do anything about that either.
lazs
-
It snowed and you are showing your ignorance in assuming one day of snow makes GW a myth. As stated numerous times by your buddies no-one is denying that GW exists, the debate focuses upon whether or not it is man made.
So...I'm not getting your point.
What it does show is that there has been some incredibly freakish weather in December and January, worldwide. Maybe you could explain to us the reasons?
-
the idea behind weather records is that from time to time.. they are broken...
Ever since the beginning of time people have said "hottest damn year I can recall" or.. "coldest march I can recall" or "least rain ever" or "most rain ever" or... the real truth behind all of em... "cant do anything about the weather"
lazs
-
Originally posted by Curval
It snowed and you are showing your ignorance in assuming one day of snow makes GW a myth...
1970's Global Cooling™©® / 1980's Hole In The Ozone Layer™©® / 1990's Global Warming™©® / today's Climate Change™©® is a myth ... or more precisely, a theory ... or more accurately, a scam.
-
more and more people are realizing this.
lazs
-
There are many things in the past that have triggered catastrophic weather changes, only morons would think that man won't!:aok
-
Global Climate Change......OWNS<-----------------Skyrock.
:aok
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
There are many things in the past that have triggered catastrophic weather changes, only morons would think that man won't!:aok
Many things? What catastrophic weather change? Triggered by what?
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by lazs2
(everyone got the same rebate.. good or bad) and they stopped development because the goal was to screw the cash cow while you could.
lazs
No, screwing the "cash cow" was the US invasion of Iraq.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
No, screwing the "cash cow" was the US invasion of Iraq.
Yes but in doing so they got their hands on an even bigger cash cow. Iraqi Oil! Unfortunetly thing's didn't quite go as planned and they haven't been able to fully open that treasure chest, but it's only a matter of time.
And with oil at $100 a barrel plus, it's a great future investment and will make the money spent to date on the war small change.
...-Gixer
-
"Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes," said Rignot, a senior scientist with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "We believe it is related to global climate forcing."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22643132/
On this same subject we had dinner Saturday with a family friend who just left a research job with NASA was working on research data from satellites and comparing it with ice core and wetland core samples from thousands of years ago. His words to us at the dinner table were; "This sort of S*** just happens and we couldn't stop it if we tried." BTW he worked at the NASA facility in Huntsville, AL
-
Originally posted by Reschke
"Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes," said Rignot, a senior scientist with NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "We believe it is related to global climate forcing."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22643132/
On this same subject we had dinner Saturday with a family friend who just left a research job with NASA was working on research data from satellites and comparing it with ice core and wetland core samples from thousands of years ago. His words to us at the dinner table were; "This sort of S*** just happens and we couldn't stop it if we tried." BTW he worked at the NASA facility in Huntsville, AL
Exactly ... we haven't been around long enough and kept records long enough to make a valid statement as to what is really happening. We could actually be going thru a climate phase that is not within our scope to comprehend, but may have happened thousands of times over the past 4 BILLION years.
IMHO ... Global warming is nothing but hype by those who need to justify their "scientific" existence to keep getting paid or receive grant money to keep the wheels turning.
Who knows ... if we stop doing what we are doing ... we might just cause another Ice Age ... I'd rather be warm than freezing cold.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Exactly ... we haven't been around long enough and kept records long enough to make a valid statement as to what is really happening. We could actually be going thru a climate phase that is not within our scope to comprehend, but may have happened thousands of times over the past 4 BILLION years.
IMHO ... Global warming is nothing but hype by those who need to justify their "scientific" existence to keep getting paid or receive grant money to keep the wheels turning.
Who knows ... if we stop doing what we are doing ... we might just cause another Ice Age ... I'd rather be warm than freezing cold.
Stop making sense. Gore and the Clinton's will have you killed.
-
If you have your mind made up that it doesn't exist ... or that it does and nothing can (or should) be done ... or you can't make up your mind between the two but you just know .... deep down ... one rationalization or the other has to be clung to at any given moment or the fabric of your reality will be forever torn (the "worst thing" imaginable) .... avoid clicking here at all costs. (http://www.climatecrisis.net/trailer/)
Here, as well. (http://www.climatecrisis.net/)
And here. (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)
And here, too. (http://www.koshlandsciencemuseum.org/exhibitgcc/index.jsp)
Another. (http://www.nasa.gov/lb/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html)
Disclaimer: If you didn't want to see or hear it and you clicked anyway, the poster takes no responsibility for rise in blood pressure, loss of hair, broken keyboards, spousal or child or pet abuse, carpal tunnel syndrome or hyper-excitability on the part of the person or persons electing to ignore the plainly stated warnings. All sales final. Product offered, as is. Additional side effects may include (but are not limited to): illumination, revelation, loss of self absorbtion, compassion, eco-activism, a change of lifestyle, responsibility and reduction of emmisions.
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.
If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.
You didn't see that. Hype is all.
Hehe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skhq5U9Q3GM)
-
The number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the last 30 years.
And maybe 300 years ago, Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes was triple the amount in the last 30 years ... sadly to say ... no one kept track back then and weather satellites hadn't been invented yet.
Malaria has spread to higher altitudes in places like the Colombian Andes, 7,000 feet above sea level.
Could it be due to it's genetic evolution ?
The flow of ice from glaciers in Greenland has more than doubled over the past decade.
And maybe 1000 years ago ... it did the same thing.
At least 279 species of plants and animals are already responding to global warming, moving closer to the poles.
Could that have also happened 600 years ago ?
If the warming continues, we can expect catastrophic consequences.
WOW ... there is some hard core stuff ... I guess I'll change my mind.
Deaths from global warming will double in just 25 years -- to 300,000 people a year.
What deaths are actually attributable to global warming ?
Global sea levels could rise by more than 20 feet with the loss of shelf ice in Greenland and Antarctica, devastating coastal areas worldwide.
Then I guess maybe then I just might be able to live on the ocean.
Heat waves will be more frequent and more intense.
Some more hard core stuff there.
Droughts and wildfires will occur more often.
Yet again ...
The Arctic Ocean could be ice free in summer by 2050.
Operative word here is "could" ... which means it's a guess.
More than a million species worldwide could be driven to extinction by 2050.
Again ... another "could" statement ... so they "could" be wrong.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
And maybe 300 years ago ...
Could it be .... ?
And maybe ....
Could that have .... ?
WOW ...
What deaths are actually attributable to global warming ?
Overall or just due to heat?
"The number of people killed by heat waves between 2000 and 2006, for example, reached 52,000 while during the whole decade of the 1970s this figure was around 800 people."
And since global warming actually is a climate change that involves a degree of oscillation:
"Even though the human costs of cold spells are not as high as heat waves, it has also increased 20-fold in the last 35 years from around 300 people being killed by cold waves in the 1970s to almost 7,000 between 2000 and 2006."
And more "guesses" here (again, don't click if your mind is already made up and you're prone to just getting upset at the ecoloonies for speaking up):
http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2007-2008/papers/carvajal_liliana.pdf
It's U.N. originated, though. :)
Originally posted by SlapShot
Then I guess ....
Some more hard core stuff there.
Yet again ...
Operative word here is "could" ...
Again ... another "could" statement ...
Don't say I didn't warn ya. :D
Ahem .... when rationalizing .... one way or the other .... a wise man would "err" conservatively* (especially if the future of his children may be at stake). ;)
*Meaning, in this case, erring on the side of caution versus dismissing on the side of profit.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Heaven forbid it might actually cause more damage to the atmosphere than fossil fuels
...-Gixer
The "Sky Is Falling" sheeples do not like to hear this and they also will not consider that you can`t start at point D with anything.
The manufacturing of most of these so called earth saving proposals would set us back a few hundred years, pollutionwise to begin with.
And don`t even mention where big industry will end up when regs get too tight.
In reality, not much will change due to the latest doomsdayers since they are falling off the cart like a wagon overloaded with melons.
As usual, the fad will die. In the meantime it will cost a few folks, but in the end it will amount to nothing but the scam it is.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
As usual, the fad will die. In the meantime it will cost a few folks, but in the end it will amount to nothing but the scam it is.
In the mean time Al Gore will be shopping for a much bigger house with a mantle good enough to stick his Nobel Prize on... :rolleyes:
...-Gixer
-
and arlo... I don't know how you are able to missread numbers so badly but more people die of cold than heat.. in the US alone....
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2007/2007-12-31-096.asp
"""BERKELEY, California, December 31, 2007 (ENS) - Fatalities in the continental United States tend to climb for several weeks after severe cold spells, numbering 360 per day and 14,380 per year, according to a new study co-authored by two University of California economists.
Deaths linked to extreme cold account for 0.8 percent of the nation's annual death rate and outnumber those attributed to leukemia, murder and chronic liver disease combined, the study reports.
Cold-related deaths reduce the average life expectancy of Americans by at least a decade, it says. """"
And that is just America.
Soooo... It would seem that if we are indeed responsible for this balmy and pleasant warm spell that the earth is seeing then we are saving lives and making it a better place to live with 15% more crop production to feed the people not killed by mean old mother nature.
Unfortunately.. it can't last.. the earth is already starting to cool... people will freeze.. and there will be nothing we can do about it.
lazs
-
and of course this....
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/h/summaries/samerhotvcold.jsp
""derived daily numbers of deaths from all causes, excepting violent deaths and deaths of babies up to one month old, from Sao Paulo, Brazil's mortality information system for the period 1991-1994, after which they analyzed them for three groups of people - those less than 15 years of age (children), those 15-64 years of age (adults), and those 65 and above (the elderly) - with respect to the effects of air temperature relative to "change points" at which warming and cooling begin to influence death rates. This work revealed that the change points for heat- and cold-induced deaths were identical, i.e., 20°C; and for each 1°C increase above this value for a given and prior day's mean air temperature, they observed a 2.6% increase in deaths from all causes in children, a 1.5% increase in deaths from all causes in adults, and a 2.5% increase in deaths from all causes in the elderly. For each 1°C decrease below the 20°C change point, however, the cold effect was much greater, with increases in deaths from all causes in children, adults and the elderly being 4.0%, 2.6% and 5.5%, respectively, which cooling-induced death rates are 54%, 73% and 120% greater than those attributable to warming for people in these three respective age groups.""
cold kills... more than heat.
lazs
-
After reading the supposedly irrefutable referenced article ... all I can say is ... you have got to be chitting me.
The “unequivocal” part is only referencing the fact that things are getting warmer ... whats not “unequivocal” is that "man" is causing this phenomenon or is it really just a weather/climate phase that is happening regardless of human input or not.
"the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and that “human activity is the main driver, very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.
"very likely" ... impressive, but it doesn't cut the mustard for me ... what it says is that the really don't know for sure.
"The report is the panel’s fourth assessment since 1990 on the causes and consequences of climate change, but it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming in the past half century.
"very likely" ... "near certainty" ... and "more than 90 percent" ... those terms mean ... they really aren't 100% sure them selfs and they could be wrong ... commonly known as CYA.
That article is not one that I would bank my argument on.
-
The simple fact is this people and you will not like it because it isn't built on proof it is built on common sense.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING!
SO shut up and move on to something different!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and arlo... I don't know how you are able to missread numbers so badly ...
Dunno how you come to a conclusion that when I post a source it involved me "misreading" it. Or are you thinking that when you post one in response that it trumps mine because you like it better and I obviously saw your's before you posted it and just as obviously already misread it and ignored it's truthiness?
It's certainly a window into how you think but that's beside the point. And ... I warned ya. You can't say I didn't. ;) :aok :D
-
Originally posted by Reschke
The simple fact is this people and you will not like it because it isn't built on proof it is built on common sense.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING!
SO shut up and move on to something different!
Or we do but there's some debate on the cause, effect and necessity of action?
Why? This debate's been going on almost as long as the O-Club's been around and it's the member's most fervent to debunk global warming that give it the most print here. *ShruG*
If one side or another finds it either of pressing enough importance to try to influence other Aces High players (or former/inactive players ... or even just O-Club groupies that like to argue politics alone here) or gather forces together to build support around the subject (either side of it) here .... or even those that find it amusing enough to jump in and play .... I don't think you or I or even a dozen more grouped and armed to the teeth can build sufficient momentum to gag an individual or group no matter what their say or motivation.
It's a current topic. It's a "heated" debate (ptp). ;) Many on both sides feel it's important to support or oppose the activism or the anti-activism. It's only worth the aggravation one feels (if they feel such) if they're truly committed to one side or the other of the crusade and they feel the threat posed by the other side to their personal core.
Other than that ... it's just one more argument in the O-Club that some may be deluded enough to think they'll win single-handedly (or maybe even as a tag-team in a death match or a feud `tween hillbillies), relishing the accolades of their perspective like-minded peers for the rest of their days, afterward.
:D
(It's really just bs over drinks and cards) <- :cool:
Damn, Skipper. I'll agree with a part of your point. I really do need something better to do with my time, sometimes. Like ... I dunno ... VF-17 in AHII? (There's not a smiley big nuff on short notice)
-
Guys,
Lets do a peer review on this thread.
I say at this point it's degenerated down to the basic statement:
"My willy is bigger than yours and if your wife\girlfreind\boyfriend\gerbil meets me she will agree and tell you to hit the road and become my love slave. All of the google hits I can reference support I'm better hung than you so now tiss off and die a horrible death because you are ignorant because of your microscopic willy!"
If you gents are slinging the mud at this point after all the declarations of Ivory Tower brain farting in this thread that has been whipped out from some geniuses trowsers. Just think how scewed and big willy biased the whole scientific world must be over it.
As of yet science dosent even know which scientist has the biggest willy. That would seem to be alot simpler to scientificly determin than who had the biggest willy or weather pattern wise 1M years, 100K years, 500 years, or when ever they didn't keep records ago.
Arlo do you think the genius's in this thread will ever figure out which one has the biggest willy?........:rolleyes:
-
Dangit, and you guys can't even organise a peer review to see who got the biggest willy let alone if we are all gonna die by drowning Jan 1, 2020. I thought some of you were claiming certanty by association to google threads that say we are doomed......:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by lazs2
oh.
A better one would be that people are getting fatter. The scientists computer models show that by the year 2100 they will be fat enough to throw off the rotation of the planet....
lazs
There are no computer models of the sort Lazs.
That's pretty funny since it directly conflicts with a tenet of science... Matter can neither be created nor destroyed...it can only be changed.
More people could never throw off the rotation of the earth... simply because that matter came from what was already here.
You consistently continue to spout the same vehement stream of idiocy as when I first met you. I will say it is nice to see some things don't change.
-
a·nal·o·gy [uh-nal-uh-jee]
–noun, plural -gies.
Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
A comparison of two different things that are alike in some way (see metaphor and simile). An analogy attributed to Samuel Johnson is: “Dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true.”
Are dictionaries like watches? Not really. you can't tell time from a dictionary.
-
moray... correct me if I am wrong but I don't believe that I have ever "met" you.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
More people could never throw off the rotation of the earth... simply because that matter came from what was already here.
I beg to differ as that is my plan to alter the path of any asteriod that is passing near us before returning to smash into us. Move everyone in the world into say, Texas, and you've altered the gravitational force of the earth felt by that asteroid. Of course the amount would be miniscule and I'm not serious about it have a significant effect on an asteroid. A prolonged visit to Texas by 6 billion people might have an effect on the rotation of the earth though.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Arlo do you think the genius's in this thread will ever figure out which one has the biggest willy?........:rolleyes:
Of course! (No.) :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Of course! (No.) :D
Arlo,
It's getting bad when I'm asking for your ever impish sage advice. But this thread is bringing out the willies in anyone who gets snared by it. Oh gawd someone intervein and save these poor souls..........:huh
-
Originally posted by bustr
Arlo,
It's getting bad when I'm asking for your ever impish sage advice. But this thread is bringing out the willies in anyone who gets snared by it. Oh gawd someone intervein and save these poor souls..........:huh
LOL. I take it as a good sign. Not so much a meeting of political preferences or ideals but a more realistic approach to how much our differences shouldn't threaten our similarities. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
LOL. I take it as a good sign. Not so much a meeting of political preferences or ideals but a more realistic approach to how much our differences shouldn't threaten our similarities. :D
Ok loquatiously orative one.....nudge nudge push push wink wink......can even you save these lost souls from this plauge O'Willyeeshness?????????:rolleyes:
It's your style of human folly to imp upon.........:noid
-
No saving .... but I may expound later. Boss expects work for now. Damned bosses. ;)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
a·nal·o·gy [uh-nal-uh-jee]
–noun, plural -gies.
Logic. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basis of the known similarity between the things in other respects.
A comparison of two different things that are alike in some way (see metaphor and simile). An analogy attributed to Samuel Johnson is: “Dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true.”
Are dictionaries like watches? Not really. you can't tell time from a dictionary.
Oh.. I get it.
Because there is a scientific tenet that debases anthropogenic global warming.
If there is... please share now.
-
Oh the Orriibbly Willy O it allllllllllllllll............ .........:t
-
imop,the Sun is responsible for climate change , the Earth is just a satellite , small pice of dust comparing , and any variation in Sun activity has huge impact here. The CO2 emission story is just an organized global bs, to scare peoples and make them conserve the limited fuel resouces until other new sources of energy are going to be discovered
(http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/sun_earth_comparison.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
A better one would be that people are getting fatter. The scientists computer models show that by the year 2100 they will be fat enough to throw off the rotation of the planet....
lazs
:rofl
Global Marbling !
Gore`s gonna need a new jet.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
the 2 degrees you talk about... it is a good thing.. nothing bad has happened so far.
...relax and enjoy it..
(http://www.hurricanekatrina.com/images/hurricane-katrina-category-5.jpg)
-
(http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bay_environment/blog/morewarming%20005.jpg)
-
"Help Stop Climate Change"
Putting aside the argument that global warming is even cause by C02 just for a second. The idea that we can reverse global warming is even more absurd.
We could shut down all the factories and all ride bicycles for the next 20 years isn't going to make a scrap of difference. Other then to produce a greenie "look what we've done" warm feeling for ourselves.
The planet is getting warmer, that's what it does just as it gets colder as well. Nothing WE can do about it!
Ironic that they are standing in a blizzard. Have they even agreed on whether the warming is going to cause a ice age or melt the antartica and drown us all? Atleast answer that.
Now I care just as much as the next person when some arse throws rubbish out their car window or a oil spill kills birds along the coast. But reversing global warming is just taking the scam to the extreme end of the scale.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
(http://www.hurricanekatrina.com/images/hurricane-katrina-category-5.jpg)
Nice picture but I'm sure Hurricanes like that have been around long before statellites.
...-Gixer
-
hortlund.. are you saying the mild hurricane season we just had is because of the 2 degree temp change that is claimed?
So who has been hurt so far? we have had less hurricanes... is that not a good thing?
That is really a stretch.. 15% increase in crop production is nothing I guess compared to one photo? Nothing but good has happened so far.. fewer people have died of the cold.
relax and enjoy it.
lazs
-
What Im saying is the same thing I have been saying something like five times in this thread on the topic of hurricanes.
1) We know that hurricane strenght and wind speed is dependent on sea temperature. To put it in laymans terms, the warmer the water, the stronger the hurricane.
2) Its getting warmer.
Now, you have failed repeatedly to put 1 and 2 together, so Im not expecting you to succeed this time either. But still, there you have it.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
"Help Stop Climate Change"
Ironic that they are standing in a blizzard. Have they even agreed on whether the warming is going to cause a ice age or melt the antartica and drown us all? Atleast answer that.
...-Gixer
Although I already agree with your previous post... I don't think we can affect any change upon what is already happening. That's a personal observation and feeling, due to what I see as ineffectual education and lacking of understanding by both our leaders and the populace at large.
It makes me laugh, though, when you tout a blizzard as proof that global climate change isn't happening. First of all... a single weather event isn't indicative of anything.
Second of all, Snowfall, and precipitation patterns in general, are serious signs of warming. I know in your feeble understanding of climate change, this may go against your pre-conceived notion that we're all going to just have one big day at the beach if climate change is real. Do yourself a favor and google the coldest places on earth... find out how much precipitation they get....Answer your own question.
Any strange precipitation in strange locales... ie snow yesterday in South Carolina, should be noted as well.
Maine, for instance.... has had one of the snowiest winters in memory. The really strange thing, from relatives that live there, is that for the first time they can remember, none of the snow stays. They keep getting dumped on, 30... 40 inches.... and it's all gone in 4 days. In winters past....it snowed and the snow STAYED till spring.
I find that very interesting.
-
and so to prove global warming moray uses the single event of one of his relatives in North America where sat data shows no real warming in the last two decades. strange.
Yes.. there is an average year... average day even. I track weather for work.. Have decades of data.
Guess what? no year or day is average. every year has unprecidented events. it is the nature of weather to change and to set records.. for as long as records have been kept.. they have been broken every year.
There is no year that has average anything. no year is like any other... that would be true if every human on the planet slit his throat this afternoon.
moray uses his great aunt and one place to show how the weather has gotten strange... beet and angus use greenland as proof and then say no warming in the US is "local" but greenland somehow is.. the universe.
People that expect the weather to never break records are the naive ones.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund.. are you saying the mild hurricane season we just had is because of the 2 degree temp change that is claimed?
So who has been hurt so far? we have had less hurricanes... is that not a good thing?
That is really a stretch.. 15% increase in crop production is nothing I guess compared to one photo? Nothing but good has happened so far.. fewer people have died of the cold.
relax and enjoy it.
lazs
Lazs... your overt stupidity is noted.
Heat is much more troublesome for the human body....you can figure the physical dynamics simply from looking at our temperature ranges. We're generally comfortable at 80 degrees.... subract 30 degrees... at 50 degrees (in air) we deal quite well, with only a light layer of clothing.. add a little exercise and the body warms itself easily...
ADD 30 degrees... at 110 degrees.... our bodies lose the ability to cool themselves, and we become reliant on powered means to sustain core temp (air conditioning) without which as little as 24-48 hours you can be in complete renal failure.
The fact is.. deaths due to either are a regional occurence. No comparison can be drawn between them statistically.
The physical reality is the body deals better with being cooler than it does with being warmer, and that is something you cannot argue.
-
That Greenland ice sheet just grew to something like 50cm thick in the same place Al Gore jumped up and declared was disappearing and the sign of the end times.
Funny stuff.
-
hortlund.. of course it is getting warmer.. no one knows how much and no one knows why and no one knows when it will get colder.. the suns activity has slowed tho so it will get colder soon.
in the meantime... why go all drama queen on us? the warming must be slight if you go by hurricanes.. we have had real mild seasons. What has it harmed?
I had asked you.. what is the harm of this natural and pleasant warm period we are experiencing? You give us a pic of a hurricane.. we have always had hurricanes. If that is the worst thing this pleasant warm spell brings then I for one am a happy man.
Face it.. nothing bad is happening.. nothing bad next year will happen or the year after.. it will get colder tho eventually.. enjoy the warmth while you can.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray uses his great aunt and one place to show how the weather has gotten strange... beet and angus use greenland as proof and then say no warming in the US is "local" but greenland somehow is.. the universe.
lazs
I could use alot more, sir.. and have.. you just ignore the facts
-
and moray.. your stupidity and desire above all else to look good and make me look bad are noted.
We are not talking about a 30 degree increase in temp.. we are talking about the 2 degrees that is about what the margin of error is. I have also said that within this margin and the normal fluctuation of global temp..
A few degrees hotter is much better than a few degrees colder so far as people living through the season.. more people die of cold than heat. Cold is the real killer.
Now.. are you going to dispute what I said? that more people die of the cold than the heat?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund.. of course it is getting warmer.. no one knows how much and no one knows why and no one knows when it will get colder.. the suns activity has slowed tho so it will get colder soon.
lazs
Again... reality is completely at odds with you...
WASHINGTON - A new solar cycle is under way. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Friday that the first sunspot of a new 11-year cycle has appeared in the sun’s northern hemisphere.
The frequency of sunspots rises and falls during these cycles, and the start of a new cycle indicates they are likely to begin increasing.
The height of solar activity is expected to come in 2011 or 2012.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
A few degrees hotter is much better than a few degrees colder so far as people living through the season.. more people die of cold than heat. Cold is the real killer.
I think you could argue either way on this. Yes, both tax the body in either direction. However, a sustained temperature change in either cold or heat would have a greater effect on vegetation. I.e. crops would fair and a domino effect from there.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and moray.. your stupidity and desire above all else to look good and make me look bad are noted.
We are not talking about a 30 degree increase in temp.. we are talking about the 2 degrees that is about what the margin of error is. I have also said that within this margin and the normal fluctuation of global temp..
A few degrees hotter is much better than a few degrees colder so far as people living through the season.. more people die of cold than heat. Cold is the real killer.
Now.. are you going to dispute what I said? that more people die of the cold than the heat?
lazs
I'm sure the people dying right now in the African heat might disagree.
-
ah... so you believe that heat kills more people every year than cold?
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/h/summaries/samerhotvcold.jsp
http://www.globalwarming.org/node/28
http://sharpgary.org/Warm%20Vs%20Cold%20Deaths.html
"They found that mortality was lowest at 14.3-17.3°C in north Finland but at 22.7-25.7°C in Athens. Mean annual heat related mortalities were 304 (95% confidence interval 126 to 482) in North Finland, 445 (59 to 831) in Athens, and 40 (13 to 68) in London. Cold related mortalities were 2457 (1130 to 3786), 2533 (965 to 4101), and 3129 (2319 to 3939) respectively in these regions. Generally - there are from ~5-15X more deaths due to Cold, than due to Warm Events. Populations in Europe have adjusted successfully to mean summer temperatures ranging from 13.5°C to 24.1°C, and can be expected to adjust to global warming predicted for the next half century with little sustained increase in heat related mortality. "
another fun thing is to just do a google for "death toll from cold" and see for yourself how serious cold is compared to heat.
lazs
-
and.. from the American meteorology society (are they as smart as you?)
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175/BAMS-86-7-937&ct=1
"ABSTRACT
Studies, public reports, news reports, and Web sites cite a wide range of values associated with deaths resulting from excessive heat and excessive cold. For example, in the United States, the National Climatic Data Center's Storm Data statistics of temperature- related deaths are skewed heavily toward heat-related deaths, while the National Center for Health Statistics Compressed Mortality Database indicates the reverse—4 times more people die of “excessive cold” conditions in a given year than of “excessive heat.” "
got any more insights on negros in africa to add?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and moray.. your stupidity and desire above all else to look good and make me look bad are noted.
We are not talking about a 30 degree increase in temp.. we are talking about the 2 degrees that is about what the margin of error is. I have also said that within this margin and the normal fluctuation of global temp..
A few degrees hotter is much better than a few degrees colder so far as people living through the season.. more people die of cold than heat. Cold is the real killer.
Now.. are you going to dispute what I said? that more people die of the cold than the heat?
lazs
I laugh that you looked RIGHT PAST the post where I proved your BS about the sun's activity slowing down to be full of sht.
Anyway...
No.. I already said death from cold and heat are two things that you cannot statistically compare. People in Cold climates die from COLD. People in Warm climates DIE FROM HEAT. Hypothetically, the death could be a result of simply more people going to where it was COLD... and therefore you could not compare the two, as they are not equals under the same conditions.
I do say that heat is more damaging. If you could put 100 people in each clime, I would guarantee a higher overall mortality in the 110 degrees versus the 50 degrees.
For humans the normal body, or core, temperature is 37 degrees C, with a diurnal variation of plus or minus 0.5 degrees C. A temperature below 35 degrees C defines the onset of hypothermia. At 30 degrees C the human body stops generating heat by shivering , and assumes the temperature of the environment; it becomes poikilothermic. Death from cardiac rhythm disturbances (ventricular arrhythmia) can occur at any time. On the other hand, a temperature above 38 degrees C at rest is considered fever, unless it has been caused by exercise or heat exposure. During sustained heavy exercise, body temperature may reach 40 degrees C. However temperatures above 41 degrees C cause heatstroke, which may be fatal. The death rate approaches 100% when the temperature reaches 44 degrees C. Thus, the rangee of body temperatures tolerable for human life is astonishingly narrow, approximately 30 to 41 degrees C, on the absolute scale a variance of only 3.5%
-Biology of Human Survival
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and moray.. your stupidity and desire above all else to look good and make me look bad are noted.
lazs
Actually. it's my desire to make your repetitive false facts be known. I don't care about you.... you're a lost old man in a cabin on a hill. The world passed you by a long time ago. You employ the 4 year old's method of debate... repeat repeat repeat until people just agree to shut you up. I won't be that person. Your opinion is yours and you can keep it...
I will stand up and make sure it is known you are inconsistent, and that your "facts" are blatant repetitive falsehoods, that are easily debunked.
-
moray.. again.. you accuse me of what you do.
You are being myopic. climate.. global or otherwise... kills more with heat than cold. I thought the topic was about real world climate and real world results not extremes..
the changes we are talking about are not lab results but real world.. people in hot climes get into the shade or turn on the airconditioner.. people in cold climes try to get warm. the cold kills em more than the heat.
Read the links.. cold IS killing more people and always has. This pleasant warm spell is not killing people like you claim.. negros in africa aside.
I showed you the proof.. you can do what you want with it.
I will concede that the link you quoted is correct but it is not real world and has nothing to do with the subject of death by climate change.
Real world... more people.. 4-5 times as many.... die from cold than heat.
This pleasant and natural warm period we are having is saving lives.
lazs
-
and... I did miss the post about the suns activity slowing being bs.. if that is true then temps will continue to get higher till it slows.. it is for sure due to slow if you follow the cycles.. show me again where you seen that.
This seems odd tho since earlier the suns activity was said to not be a factor and to "prove" it.. the alarmists here said... and linked... that the suns activity had slowed for 17 years now.. I had said at the time that suns activity was complex and involved solar winds and such but....
There you have it.. you can't have it both ways.. if it is the sun then we are right back to.... ITS THE SUN STUPID.
If not.. then.. time will tell..
If you have ever proved anything that I have said was wrong.. then I have to say I am sorry but I missed it.. All I recall is you declaring how much more educated you are so therefore.. you are right and then pretty much calling yourself triumphant based on (as yet unnamed) experience in the global climate field.
I know I have not been impressed with your simple bluster technique.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
moray.. again.. you accuse me of what you do.
You are being myopic. climate.. global or otherwise... kills more with heat than cold. I thought the topic was about real world climate and real world results not extremes..
I will concede that the link you quoted is correct but it is not real world and has nothing to do with the subject of death by climate change.
lazs
Lazs... Extremes are what kills people.
-
moray.. more people die in the cold than in the heat. why are you not grasping that.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and... I did miss the post about the suns activity slowing being bs.. if that is true then temps will continue to get higher till it slows.. it is for sure due to slow if you follow the cycles.. show me again where you seen that.
This seems odd tho since earlier the suns activity was said to not be a factor and to "prove" it.. the alarmists here said... and linked... that the suns activity had slowed for 17 years now.. I had said at the time that suns activity was complex and involved solar winds and such but....
There you have it.. you can't have it both ways.. if it is the sun then we are right back to.... ITS THE SUN STUPID.
If not.. then.. time will tell..
If you have ever proved anything that I have said was wrong.. then I have to say I am sorry but I missed it.. All I recall is you declaring how much more educated you are so therefore.. you are right and then pretty much calling yourself triumphant based on (as yet unnamed) experience in the global climate field.
I know I have not been impressed with your simple bluster technique.
lazs
That's exactly why I've been calling out your BS.... solar activity through this "warming" has been at a minimum... The sun is JUST NOW entering it's 11 year period of high activity.
NASA Satellites Capture Start Of New Solar Cycle
The first official active region of solar cycle 24 as it appeared to the STEREO behind spacecraft observing in ultraviolet light on January 4, 2008. (STEREO)
by Staff Writers
Huntsville AL (SPX) Jan 14, 2008
NASA scientists say a new solar cycle is beginning, and this could have important repercussions for space-based technology ranging from GPS navigation to weather satellites. On Jan. 4, a reversed-polarity sunspot appeared, signaling the start of Solar Cycle 24. A sunspot is an area of magnetic activity on the surface of the sun that appears as a dark spot on its surface.
Solar activity waxes and wanes in 11-year cycles and the previous solar cycle, Solar Cycle 23, peaked in 2000-2002 with many furious solar storms.
Lately, the sun has been experiencing very few flares, sunspots, or activity of any kind -- a period of quiet called solar minimum. Now, the sun's seasons are changing again. David Hathaway, solar physicist at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., says, "New solar cycles always begin with a high-latitude, reversed polarity sunspot."
"Reversed polarity" means a sunspot with opposite magnetic polarity compared to sunspots from the previous solar cycle. "High-latitude" refers to the sun's grid of latitude and longitude. Old cycle spots congregate near the sun's equator. New cycle spots appear higher, around 25 or 30 degrees latitude.
The sunspot that appeared Jan. 4 fits both these criteria. It is high latitude (30 degrees N) and magnetically reversed. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has named the spot AR10,981, or "sunspot 981" for short. Sunspot 981 was small --only about as wide as Earth, which counts as small on the grand scale of the sun -- and it has already faded away. But its three-day appearance Jan. 4-6 was enough to convince most solar physicists that Solar Cycle 24 is underway.
The onset of a new solar cycle is significant because of our increasingly space-based technological society.
"Solar storms can disable satellites that we depend on for weather forecasts and GPS navigation," says Hathaway. Radio bursts from solar flares can directly interfere with cell phone reception while coronal mass ejections (CMEs) hitting Earth can cause actual power outages.
Air travel can be affected, too. When airplanes fly over the poles during solar storms, they can experience radio blackouts, navigation errors and computer reboots all caused by space radiation. Avoiding the poles during solar storms solves the problem, but it costs extra time, money and fuel to take the longer route.
NASA is gearing up to study the active sun during Cycle 24 with the launch of a new spacecraft, the Solar Dynamics Observatory. "SDO is a very special observatory," says project scientist Dean Pesnell at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "Using a technique called helioseismic imaging, the spacecraft will be able to look inside the sun where solar activity begins. SDO will join SOHO, STEREO, Hinode and other missions already in orbit to improve our understanding of solar storms and lay the groundwork for better space weather forecasts."
"The beginning of the new solar cycle occurs just as the STEREO Mission is completing its first year of operation," said Mike Kaiser, STEREO Project Scientist at NASA Goddard. "The twin STEREO spacecraft are now 45 degrees apart and are in good position to triangulate on solar activity from the new cycle to provide better understanding of solar storms that can disrupt our electronic lives. Ultimately, the research done by STEREO and other solar missions will lead to more accurate predictions of when solar storms will impact Earth."
"Intense solar activity won't begin immediately," notes Hathaway. "Solar cycles usually take a few years to build from solar minimum (where we are now) to Solar Max, expected in 2011 or 2012."
-
Ok.. so this is wrong?
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/
This shows very low activity.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/today.html
This shows reduced activity at present. (from nasa)
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
This article give a good explanation of how the sun is the major player..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1026375.stm
"Little effect
The other side of this coin is that reducing greenhouse emissions will have much less effect in halting rising temperatures than some people think, and it might have hardly any effect at all.
Cooling towers AP
Our continued use of fossil fuels could make little difference to the climate
The energy emitted from the Sun drives the climate system, and natural changes in its behaviour can have a far greater effect than human behaviour.
Thus, some people may ask: "So why bother worrying about greenhouse gases, and adding billions to the costs of industry to force them to cut emissions, when it could well be a pointless exercise?"
If the Sun is indeed the main contributor to the recent climate change, the money may be better spent providing clean air in big cities and clean drinking water to the Third World. "
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.. so this is wrong?
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/
This shows very low activity.
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/today.html
This shows reduced activity at present. (from nasa)
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
This article give a good explanation of how the sun is the major player..
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/climate_change/1026375.st
"Little effect
lazs
LAZS..exactly... we're coming out of a SOLAR MINIMUM and now moving toward a MAXIMUM .
Why is is so hard to get through to you?
You consistently post that the sun is doing exactly the opposite...and that is why the earth is warming...
Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund.. of course it is getting warmer.. no one knows how much and no one knows why and no one knows when it will get colder.. the suns activity has slowed tho so it will get colder soon.
It is incredible how much you contradict yourself. Now you post correct data and go against YOUR OWN posts... and act like you are correct in both.
-
Guys both sides of this thread have referenced and positioned on so much data that the argument is morphing itself into how much each of you think the other is a mongloid ideiot.
1. When was the last time in our known history that the planet cooled with global consiquenses to humans? How many times has the planet cooled?
2. When was the last time in planetairy history that the planet heated up and globaly affected the flora and fuana? How many times has the planet heated up?
3. No matter what the human race does, will planet earth continue to cycle cold and then hot? Yes or No?
-
Earth has cooled and warmed. No news. Violent swings in climate have occured. However, no proper intelligent life got a foothold during these periods, - civilization is younger, and never in the time of civilization, has much properly extreme happened, - regarding the climate that is.
You hade "humans" before the last ice-age. But on the stone age level.
Anyway, here is something about warming. Seems that the "belts" of the earth are actually changing, as well as Antarctica actually joining in.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo102.html
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/abs/ngeo.2007.38.html
-
Angus,
Answer question 3, yes or no please. "Here is something about warming" will not get you out of answering it. That isnt even a very good debat team tactic. Will the planet cycle on regardless of us? Simple question, doesnt need any monolouges or embelishment, or googling to answer.
3. No matter what the human race does, will planet earth continue to cycle cold and then hot? Yes or No?
Angus if you or someone from yours and morays side won't answer question 3 with a yes or no, then this whole thread is moot and crashes right here. Laz you wanna answer also?
-
Oh, it will cycle. So the answer is yes.
But the big thing is HOW MUCH!
If you have enough swings in climate, civilization is dead. Civilization only thrived in a very good period. As it is now, mankind could not take 1 year of proper disaster without incredible losses.
-
This Just In................again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The climate has changed on earth since the first recording.
It will continue to change.
That is all.
-
well....
And, as well, in human civilization history, it may not have changed that swiftly at all.
No civilization thrived under swift climate changes. Sorry, but it just takes a wee to completely raze the USA down to practically nothing.
As an example...
-
moray... it is not I that is contradicting myself.. I have only quoted "scientists".
I notice you are not jumping all over hortlund and company because they used that british article to show that "the great global warming swindle" was wrong because it said solar activity was up.. the article said it couldn't be the sun because the suns activity had gone down sooo...
I guess it really is the sun stupid. I guess the debunkers of the documentary "the great global warming swindle" were wrong.
The cycles you talk about are 11 year there are other cycles and.. solar wind in not measured or taken into account in the links you show.. only sun spot activity. I would have thought you would have seen that.
In any case.. none of this shows that man made c02 is causing anything but better crops.
lazs
-
angus.. don't get upset.. more and more scientists are telling the truth about the whole scam.. the alarmists can only make things worse for mankind with totalitarian socialism and greed..
"Physicist John W. Brosnahan, who develops remote-sensing tools for clients like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says: "Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling -- all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by cyclical variations in solar output."
Brosnahan says he has "not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case." Those models, he says, leave out too many variables.
Indeed, a study in the Royal Meteorological Society's International Journal of Climatology looked at 22 computer models used by the IPCC. Most of the models couldn't even predict the past.
Predictably, after a quick review of the report, Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said 25 to 30 of the scientists may have received funding from Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) , though she didn't name which scientists she thinks were bribed to distort the truth. Wise move.
This is not like Al Gore getting 75 hours of free airtime on NBC, a unit of General Electric (NYSE:GE) , which stands to make wads of cash on things like solar panels and wind turbines. Or Gore being involved with a company that sells carbon offsets.
Heartland Institute senior fellow James Taylor has noted that more than 600 scientists at the Bali gathering could have debunked Gore's warming theories, but the U.N. "censored" them.
By the way, Gore and his statist friends in Europe repeatedly have criticized the U.S. for its "failure to act" on warming. But new data show the U.S. in 2006 slashed output of greenhouse gases by 1.3%, while Europe's output continued to grow. So who's failing to act?"
lazs
-
Originally posted by bustr
Guys both sides of this thread have referenced and positioned on so much data that the argument is morphing itself into how much each of you think the other is a mongloid ideiot.
1. When was the last time in our known history that the planet cooled with global consiquenses to humans? How many times has the planet cooled?
2. When was the last time in planetairy history that the planet heated up and globaly affected the flora and fuana? How many times has the planet heated up?
3. No matter what the human race does, will planet earth continue to cycle cold and then hot? Yes or No?
#1. The last cooling was due to the elongation and orbital mechanics of the earth. It caused the previous ice age.... also known as the population bottleneck through which this species barely passed. Genetically, it homogonized our genes so radically that it can be determined that under 10,000 individuals, of the approximately 3 to 5 million preceding the event, survived the ice age.
#2. It's planetary... lose the i. Following the last ice age the globe warmed up and reached a form of equilibrium.(due to our orbit "tightening") But look at the Jurassic and Cretaceous and find out what large doses of CO2 and more importantly NH4, in concentration, can do to the climate.
#3. Absolutely correct. No matter what we do, the earth will do it's own dance. I see where you are taking this... and you seem to not realize two critical factors... a.humans do not tolerate any shifts in climate well b. natural climate shifts take thousands of years, on average to occur. What is occuring presently is not natural . The sun has been at solar minimum (for about 11 years)... our orbit isn't closing.. it's actually expanding slightly. (We're about midway through the orbital mechanics that started the last ice age.)
-
so any climate that breaks records is not natural?
lazs
-
Lazs. - even in my short lifespan I can see that it is warming, and fast. Looking deeper into it reveils it even better.
So, I take the uncomfortable stance of facing the facts and pondering on why, rather than denying just about everything.
If you are in free fall, you can debate it with yourself, but you will keep falling. Looking down is uncomfortable. Time to open chute?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so any climate that breaks records is not natural?
lazs
Climates don't break records.
Individual events do.. and when there is a pile of records being broken, you can figure that your "climate" is changing. (Climate henceforth represented as the "mean" of individual statistics.)
Again...pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.
-
Hehe, I always scratch my head about the same people denying GW as a measured unit as well as promoting GW as a natural swing.
Ahhh, the humanity....and the records fall.....
-
Well, well, well. :rofl
Interesting wording indeed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massive volcano exploded under Antarctic icesheet, study finds
Sun Jan 20, 1:43 PM ET
PARIS (AFP) - A powerful volcano erupted under the icesheet of West Antarctica around 2,000 years ago and it might still be active today, a finding that prompts questions about ice loss from the white continent, British scientists report on Sunday.
The explosive event -- rated "severe" to "cataclysmic" on an international scale of volcanic force -- punched a massive breach in the icesheet and spat out a plume some 12,000 metres (eight miles) into the sky, they calculate.
Most of Antarctica is seismically stable. But its western part lies on a rift in Earth's crust that gives rise to occasional volcanism and geothermal heat, occurring on the Antarctic coastal margins.
This is the first evidence for an eruption under the ice sheet itself -- the slab of frozen water, hundreds of metres (feet) thick in places, that holds most of the world's stock of fresh water.
Reporting in the journal Nature Geoscience, the investigators from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) describe the finding as "unique."
It extends the range of known volcanism in Antarctica by some 500 kilometres (300 miles) and raises the question whether this or other sub-glacial volcanoes may have melted so much ice that global sea levels were affected, they say.
The volcano, located in the Hudson Mountains, blew around 207 BC, plus or minus 240 years, according to their paper.
Evidence for this comes from a British-American airborne geophysical survey in 2004-5 that used radar to delve deep under the ice sheet to map the terrain beneath.
Vaughan's team spotted anomalous radar reflections over 23,000 square kilometres (8,900 sq. miles), an area bigger than Wales.
They interpret this signal as being a thick layer of ash, rock and glass, formed from fused silica, that the volcano spewed out in its fury.
The amount of material -- 0.31 cubic kilometres (0.07 cubic miles) -- indicates an eruption of between three and four on a yardstick called the Volcanic Explosive Index (VEI).
By comparison, the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980, which was greater, rates a VEI of five, and that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 is a VEI of six.
"We believe this was the biggest eruption in Antarctica during the last 10,000 years," BAS' Hugh Corr says.
"It blew a substantial hole in the icesheet and generated a plume of ash and gas that rose around 12 kms (eight miles) into the air."
The eruption occurred close to the massive Pine Island Glacier, an area where movement of glacial ice towards the sea has been accelerating alarmingly in recent decades.
"It may be possible that heat from the volcano has caused some of that acceleration," says BAS professor David Vaughan, who stresses though that global warming is by far the greater likelier cause.
Volcanic heat "cannot explain the more widespread thinning of West Antarctic glaciers that together are contributing nearly 0.2mm (0.008 of an inch) per year to sea-level rise," he adds.
"This wider change most probably has its origin in warming ocean waters."
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Climates don't break records.
Individual events do.. and when there is a pile of records being broken, you can figure that your "climate" is changing. (Climate henceforth represented as the "mean" of individual statistics.)
Again...pointing out your fundamental misunderstanding of the topic.
Or perhaps more information is being collected.
If it is 50C in the Sahara and no one is there to record it is it still hot?
-
Jacka1, at it with the GW underwater volcanoes again?
Tell you what. Out of my window I can see a volcano, who's plume in a one nights eruption was already close to 14 km high.
If I turn my head, I see a glacier, under which there is a volcano, the sheet of Ice between them is 600 metres thick. When that one blows (and she's overdue), all that ice melts in a whiff! It's some 80 km's away, and from eruption untill the water is here (where I live) there are but 4 hours. So I am on an evac list. The water volume, although short-lived is furious, some 300.000 cubic metres per second.
Since this one in Antarctica didn't melt through recently, I wonder how you can explain recent rises in SL, melting on the N-hemisphere and also the sea-ice melting near Antarctica (look above where I posted links) with this.
However, this is interesting information.
BTW, we had an eruption in our biggest glacier some years back. The sheet was thick, but it got melted through all the same. When there was enough water there, the glacier "lifted" with the water passing under it to the coast. It was the biggest river on the planet at the time as far as I know, - for a day, or a couple. I will gladly post links to that.
You had 1000 tonnes icecubes floating around that mess as if they were made of cork!
The glacier has AFAIK some 7000 sq. km.
-
Angus, some of the studies of the thermohaline circulation system in the North Atlantic are showing some disturbing trends.
For the last four decades, the coastal waters of the North Atlantiac have been freshening. Decreasing salinity levels have been detected to depths varying from 1,000 to 4,000 meters. In the last ten years especially, the amount of fresh water detected in this region has grown alarmingly.
If the trend continues, which it gives every indication of doing, this increasing volume of fresh water threatens to form a cap over the warmer, more salty water being brought up from the Gulf Stream. In that event, those warm, temperature moderating waters would subsume, and the northern circulatory ocean currents would shut down. Such a change would cause temperatures in Northern Europe and the United States to drop by at least 5 degrees Celsius.
That drop of 15 degrees Fahrenheit or more would prove disastrous for the northern hemisphere, reducing the length of the growing season, and would increase not only the length of our winters but also the severity.
According to scientists studying this potential event, it could happen within a decade, in which case, the warming trend for Greenland and Iceland, your home digs, would come to an abrupt end.
The studies also suggest that global warming is exacerbating the problem, but the main cause cannot be determined.
By the by, during this current cold snap, temperatures for the entire U.S. are at least 10 degrees below normal. Some areas have temperatures nearly 30 degrees lower than the average, and freezing temperatures can be found as far south as the Gulf of Mexico.
What's it doing in Europe?
-
In Europe? Warming.
As for the salt levels, that is normal, for there is a lot of freshwater (from ice) melting together with the sea.
Although the melting of the sea ice does not raise SL, it certainly affects the salt levels!
Now, the sea ice, while being cooler than the ocean, still does not manage to cool the ocean.
I am aware of the possible change of the Gulf stream, and it has actually split up like once. That would make my home pitch into a tundra in one go :(
In the meantime you have other parts warming, as well as the tropical areas (belts) expanding.
-
geeze moray.. of course climate changes.. it always has... there is no norm. There is nothing normal about climate or weather. There is nothing normal about climate change. this is no different than other times. There is no such thing as a "normal" rate of climate change. We haven't even tracked it for long enough to know... some alarmists like mann... don't believe in the little ice age or medievel warm period even... most do.. Those were rapid climate changes and they were completely natural.
angus... there you go again.. it is warming cause it is warmer where you live. Why is it local when it is the entire North American continent but "global" when it is greenland?
Fact is.. for good or bad.. it is going to be hard to sell people on "man made global warming" and the need to tax us into oblivion and add another buck or two onto the heating oil they use when they are freezing.
Fact is.. more and more scientists are saying it is BS and that it is natural or that at least.. the co2 hoax is just that.. reducing co2 will have little or no effect.. most of the effect of a doubling of co2 has already happened. Nothing bad has happened.. we are doing fine.. better than fine.. we are better off a degree of two warmer than a degree of two colder than their "average".
lazs
-
Greenland probably holds more energy bound in ice than the USA.
The Oceans hold more energy than the atmosphere. The world Ice holds more mass than the atmosphere.
The North Atlantic is very much bigger than the USA.
USA = local.
However, a degree or two as a plus suits me (in my local area) just fine :D
p.s. make up your mind wether it's warming or not.
-
angus.. I have said that we are in a warming period and that it is a good thing.
It may have warmed a whole 0.4 degrees in the last century.. this is well below the margin of error. We simply don't know everything about it.
In some places.. where real accurate data is taken.. there has been no real warming in decades.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
again... don't believe me.. read what these experts in the field are saying.. many of whom were involved in the original study..
Many give algore credit for being such a liar and a blowhard that they had to speak out.
read it.. only a page or two. Follow the links if you want or the reference sitings all of it is peer reviewed as moray likes to say.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Jacka1, at it with the GW underwater volcanoes again?
You mean the ones you denied existed earlier? :)
I didn`t write the article. I didn`t do the research. I didn`t release the results.
The guys you build shrines to did.......................... .2000 years after the fact.
The wording is what I found interesting. The same old "maybe/maybe not - could be/could not be - possibly/possibly not" BS.
It`s called CYA here.
Possibly in another thousand to two thousand years they might actualy have a clue about what they are doing and discussing without having to try to sell BS for facts. These cats remind me of a bunch of second rate Electrolux salesmen.
Then again....possibly not. :rofl
-
Lazs:
"angus.. I have said that we are in a warming period and that it is a good thing. "
And in the next sentence you refer to the possible warming as being within a measurable margin of error....
But indeed, it's a good thing for me, but not everybody else....
Anyway, there is nothing in a "marginal" scale occuring on the arctic areas, and although Jacka1 tries to explain that with undersea volcanoes I think that is nonsense. BTW, I do not deny underseas volcanoes, - I practically live on top of one- but them melting the arctic Ice as well as warming the sea in the last sudden 30 years or so, - I rather think not. Especially when they don't get spotted so easily. Here's a picture of one that I can see out of my window. It was underwater untill it reached the surface. That was in 1963 if I remember correctly...
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Surtsey_eruption_1963.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Angus
[B
Anyway, there is nothing in a "marginal" scale occuring on the arctic areas, and although Jacka1 tries to explain that with undersea volcanoes I think that is nonsense. [/IMG] [/B]
:rofl No Jackal doesn`t try to explain that..
Once again, it`s not my article or research. It`s your heroes.
I hardly ever try to explain scams with smoke and mirrors.
What it does point out, however, is the CYA factor. I don`t think you are getting that.
Since the bandwagon is falling out from under the promoters of this crap, most are trying to find an out so they will have at least an out .--------->CYA
It also shows that some people are thinking for a change and want answers, real answers instead of some half baked shell game for money.
People are seeing just how much has not been factored in and how little is known on the subject in general.
-
Source?
Most of the "heroes" I read from seem to blame GW on greenhouse effect.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Greenland probably holds more energy bound in ice than the USA.
The Oceans hold more energy than the atmosphere. The world Ice holds more mass than the atmosphere.
The North Atlantic is very much bigger than the USA.
USA = local.
By the same logic, Antarctica holds 10 times the energy bound up as ice as Greenland.
So Greenland = local?
-
Local about 6 metres of SL...globally :D
-
Well darn.... 2 more big Global Warming conferences postponened due to cold weather. They are hoping it will warm soon so the conferences can go on.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Source?
Most of the "heroes" I read from seem to blame GW on greenhouse effect.
Source for what?
I believe you mean Global Climate Change instead of GW. Remember they changed that to...........CYA. :)
The climate will change.........big news. :rofl
They are actualy defeating their own scam by admitting that they have not factored in ..........well what they do not know and don`t have a clue about to, once again do the CYA dance.
One would think that any rational human could see by the many manipulations and changes in their own predictions, because they have found to be innacurate and false, would have a light bulb go off over their head. A real "This is your sign" moment.
You simply cannot predict the future actions of anything when you do not have and have not factored in all information. In this case they cannot due to the unknown.
-
Disko Bay in Greenland has frozen over this winter for the first time in a decade.
'The ice is up to 50cm thick,' said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark's Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. 'We've had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.'
just something interesting.
-
About time it froze over, it used to be the norm.
And Jackal, - source for seawater warming mainly because of recent underseas volcanoes spawning.
If there is seawater warming....
-
Originally posted by Angus
About time it froze over, it used to be the norm.
And Jackal, - source for seawater warming mainly because of recent underseas volcanoes spawning.
If there is seawater warming....
Angus go back and read please. This is getting boring.
-
Originally posted by Angus
About time it froze over, it used to be the norm.
...after it wasn't the norm.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Angus go back and read please. This is getting boring.
I reply this with "go back and think"
It must be hard for you and Lazs to desperately debate that there is indeed a warming trend (local<>global, in air sea or melting ice) while grabbing anything to explain what is denied in the first place, with straws such as increased solar activity, and now again the not melting ice with not occuring increase in SL absolutely due to swiftly increased underwater volcanic activity.
Not boring at all. Quite interesting really.
-
Originally posted by Angus
I reply this with "go back and think"
It must be hard for you and Lazs to desperately debate that there is indeed a warming trend (local<>global, in air sea or melting ice) while grabbing anything to explain what is denied in the first place, with straws such as increased solar activity, and now again the not melting ice with not occuring increase in SL absolutely due to swiftly increased underwater volcanic activity.
Not boring at all. Quite interesting really.
Yeah..well if "I" had said any of that, then you might have a point, but as it is you missed the boat, the dock and are rowing down a dirt road. :)
The point is, was and will be the CYA factor from your guys.
Can`t blame them though. They got theirself into a sinking ship. They have to try to patch the life rafts somehow.
Predictions based on whims are like dog farts. Stink real bad now, but are quickly blown away at the first sign of wind. :rofl
BTW Angus the "get it" part is still evading you.
Let me recap for you.......................... ........
Interesting wording indeed.
I didn`t write the article. I didn`t do the research. I didn`t release the results.
Possibly in another thousand to two thousand years they might actualy have a clue about what they are doing and discussing without having to try to sell BS for facts.
That help you any?
-
Oh well.. the good thing is we won't hear much about man made global warming until summer comes again.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Yeah..well if "I" had said any of that, then you might have a point, but as it is you missed the boat, the dock and are rowing down a dirt road. :)
The point is, was and will be the CYA factor from your guys.
Can`t blame them though. They got theirself into a sinking ship. They have to try to patch the life rafts somehow.
Predictions based on whims are like dog farts. Stink real bad now, but are quickly blown away at the first sign of wind. :rofl
BTW Angus the "get it" part is still evading you.
Let me recap for you.......................... ........
Well, I guess I can also make a sillly joke about "get it" in Swedish and you would not "get it", but I can see no promotion from your behalf on the debated issue (ocean perhaps warming up because of recently appearing underseas volcanoes- or not), so I rather see you with a straw than a raft, and thereby I promote you to monty Python's sillest contest :D
That help you any?
-
The answer.
(the site seems to have some problems with it)
Well, I guess I can also make a sillly joke about "get it" in Swedish and you would not "get it", but I can see no promotion from your behalf on the debated issue (ocean perhaps warming up because of recently appearing underseas volcanoes- or not), so I rather see you with a straw than a raft, and thereby I promote you to monty Python's sillest contest :D
-
There was no joke Angus.
The issue you seem to be debating is in your head.
It`s black and white.
They are doing the CYA dance.
Simple.
-
In my head?
Would you answer if you belive that possible ice melting and ocean temperature rise is due to recent underseas volcanoes or not?
Or do I have to go browsing to find quotes from you?
-
Oh, and CYA too :p
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
By the same logic, Antarctica holds 10 times the energy bound up as ice as Greenland.
So Greenland = local?
Both are big enough to count as global. You simply cannot count Greenland wiping out it's stock of ice as a "local" object.
6 m of SL that would make. And 60 on top of that is of course...global too!
-
ah.. so greenland and what you can see out your backdoor is "global" and the entire North American continent is "local"?
lazs
-
6 metres of sea level is global.
Nothing in the whole of the USA has the potency for that mass of water, and your brain might have a good go at calculating how much 6m. of water on 70% of the globe actually count for.
And if/while you're at it, try to fathom why just the Norther arctic areas would be due to melting..........
-
Originally posted by Angus
In my head?
Would you answer if you belive that possible ice melting and ocean temperature rise is due to recent underseas volcanoes or not?
Or do I have to go browsing to find quotes from you?
When you get this argument settled that you are having with yourself let us know.
Once again.........the ice is melting . We get it.
Ice has been known to melt before.
Is your ice special in a way we don`t know about.
-
Hehe, this status of melting actually has never been witness by civilization.
Which makes it...special.
And it also makes it even funnyer when people state that there is no GW.
-
angus.. is there anyone left on the planet that still buys into the algore "20 foot rise in the ocean by 2100" thing? admit it... it's a tenth of an inch a year.. it has been for as long as people cared to check.
lazs
-
Haven't got a clue. I wouldn't. Did he claim that?
Maybe a foot or so?
However the Ice mass in Just Greenland is enough for 20 feet.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Hehe, this status of melting actually has never been witness by civilization.
Which makes it...special.
And it also makes it even funnyer when people state that there is no GW.
So..........some ice melts in Iceland and that proves Global warming.
Is that what you are saying?
BTW.......you need to get with it and switch over to Global Climate Change.
You are living in the past. :)
-
Back at it again, eh. Ice melting in most places where there is ice at all, resulting in an accelerating rise in SL. Were do you expect to find Ice on a large scale anyway? In Tennesee?
And that exact climate change is...warming.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Were do you expect to find Ice on a large scale anyway?
I get all I need from the fridge unless I`m going to ice down some brew. Then I go down to the local Frisk `n Rob to pick up a couple of bags.
Ice has been known to melt before.
Ice has melted. Ice has reformed. It`s not a first.
-
Bush called for cleaner autos to cut down on polution that adds to global climate change. I guess he's on Gore's bandwagon now, huh?
-
Who cares what Bush thinks?
-
Originally posted by rpm
Bush called for cleaner autos to cut down on polution that adds to global climate change. I guess he's on Gore's bandwagon now, huh?
i agree with bush, everyone should wash and wax their cars, it reduces the aerodynamic drag and you will get better mileage.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i agree with bush, everyone should wash and wax their cars, it reduces the aerodynamic drag and you will get better mileage.
.......................and chicks dig it.
-
angus.. you are missing the point.. if greenland ice is almost gone... where is the horrific sea rise so far? Nothing has changed... one tenth of an inch a year no matter what.. the feared 2000 ice age didn't change it and neither has the almost doubling of c02.
That is the point..the hand wringers and high priests and entertainers all say that we are headed for disaster.. some time far far far into the future.. their computer models tell them so...
computer models that can't even predict the past without constant "adjustment"... and what do they say is the cause of this looming disaster?
why.. co2.. man made co2 no less.. utopia postponed by individuals and libertarians... the doubling of co2 will fry us all according to the computer models...
the only problem is.. the doubling is about 60% done already and nothing bad has happened... every year.. the bad stuff doesn't happen.. no one is hurt.. the planet goes on and enjoys a warm period in it's natural cycle. every year we get closer to the doomsday years yet... nothing bad happens..will it all happen in one year in 2050 or 2100? of course not. The far off dates are a matter of convienience... to hide the fact that they don't have a clue.
every time they open their mouth about next year they are wrong... you would think a guess would have a better chance.. they are never right. Nothing bad ever happens... hell.. more bad stuff happened before they started predicting it.
If half of greenland has melted and nothing has changed... I guess the other half can melt with about as little effect.
lazs
-
You are missing the point Lazs and so is Jackal.
Just the Icelandic glaciers would give you a bigger rise in SL than all the last century together.
Greenland would be some 20 feet.
You'd have 20 feet way before Greenland was gone though, for proportionally you'd be at 20 feet with 1/10th of the Greenland gone, with a mere 10% melting in Antarctica, - or so.
Add them up and you have some 200 feet.
You'd not fancy a trip to many an area after just a couple of feet, say alone 20, except for scuba diving down to remains of human habitat, - this is not new......
Ang Jackal's fridge has to be quite big to counter this.
Bottom line, Greenland's Glacier is still in place, but it's shrinking at a scary speed, - speed increasing.
Like riding in 60 mph then 70, then 80, and noticing you went from 60 to 70 in 200 secs, 70 to 80 in a 100, and 80 to 90 in 30, - where does that point you?
-
i would welcome the global warming,at this moment,i'm on transcanada hwy, west of Winnipeg,MB it's about minus 47 degrees Celsius here ,
-
Would you welcome it with generally more windspeed and weather energy?
-
I rember talking about sea level changes as related to Global warming in Geology last week. From what I can remember the instructor was explaining that the increase in sea level, even a minute one, increases the surface area of the ocean, and decreases that of the land. Land reflects more heat energy back into the atmosphere where greenhouse gasses (CO2 , Methane, and Water Vapor) trap some from escape the atmosphere. Water has a tendancy to absorb more energy than it reflects, thus increasing the temperature of the oceans, but also decreaseing the affect that greenhouse gasses have on the situation.
So what this theory means is that you can reduce emissions alll you want, but it won't do much untill the changes in ocean temperature and salinty cause a refreezing of the polar regions.
-
angus... you are still missing the point.. co2 has about shot it's wad so far as any affect on global climate.. the lions share of it's ability to do anything at all has already happened and no sea rise above the normal amount has happened.. nothing bad has happened..
the temp of the globe has risen maybe half a degree.. less than the margin of error.. the remaining ability of co2 to raise temp by even the most alarmist predictions is tiny... maybe another couple of tenths of a degree. maybe not even that.
lazs
-
Don't get me wrong, I'm not an extremist MMGW fellow. However I just hate when people get into their trenches and don't see above their tin-hats.
I zoom out and what I see is that the seas are rising and warming. The atmosphere seems to be warming. Which is normal, since the arctic icecaps are shrinking.
Looking better in and doing some basic maths, I get to realise that the mass of the landbound ice surpasses the mass of the atmosphere. So does the equivalent of (760 mm hg/approx 0,7) of water in SL.
So...I see...hmmmm..it's warming.
Some scientists have predicted this due to over releases of co2 which we know as a greenhouse gas, and I know that those should better be there in at least some quantity, for otherwise the earth would be mostly or all frozen over.
Then I look at the debaters. I see a camp that seems to fight against every inch of fact. One day there is no GW, the oher it's in a natural cycle, and on the third day it's a climate change, on the fourth no GW etc etc.
The other camp seems to be concerned, and clings on to scientific data, sometimes to the extreme. Camp one laughs.
I think "alas", - well what did Nero do while Rome burned. Que Vadis my mates?
-
what i found is that worst case scenario the SL will rise 20 feet/600cm in 1000 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Greenland_ice_sheet_melt_figure.gif
call me unfeeling, but i don't care where the SL is in 1000 years.
-
Another little bit to add from geology today.
We looked at a graph of the earth's temperature fluctuations over the last 100,000 years and saw something quite interesting. Prior to the evoloution of humans there were dramatic changes in climate, the temperature flutuated as much as 40 degrees celcius above and below today's current average temperature. The only reason human's exsist in the numbers that we do is that there was an anomaly in the fluctuations, allowing man to flourish.
Therefore it is possible that our emissions are keeping us from plummiting into a Glaciation.
Thought that was interesting and may put this 0.5 degree warming into a better perspective.
-
Originally posted by Angus
You are missing the point Lazs and so is Jackal.
Just the Icelandic glaciers would give you a bigger rise in SL than all the last century together.
Greenland would be some 20 feet.
You'd have 20 feet way before Greenland was gone though, for proportionally you'd be at 20 feet with 1/10th of the Greenland gone, with a mere 10% melting in Antarctica, - or so.
Add them up and you have some 200 feet.
You'd not fancy a trip to many an area after just a couple of feet, say alone 20, except for scuba diving down to remains of human habitat, - this is not new......
Ang Jackal's fridge has to be quite big to counter this.
Bottom line, Greenland's Glacier is still in place, but it's shrinking at a scary speed, - speed increasing.
Like riding in 60 mph then 70, then 80, and noticing you went from 60 to 70 in 200 secs, 70 to 80 in a 100, and 80 to 90 in 30, - where does that point you?
No......I believe it is you who are missing the point.....entirely.
I expect change.in all forms. The climate is and has been constantly in a state of change as long as it has been recorded.or in this case guessed at.
All your figures amount to naught, nada, zilch. They are based on what ifs, maybe/maybe nots, could be/could not be BS that has been instilled in you by the Sky Is Falling For Lunch Bunch.
They can`t predict and nobody can simply because you cannot come up with any prediction that holds water unless everything is factored in. In this case it is totaly impossible due to the many, many, many unknowns.
The light bulb just doesn`t seem to come on for some even after they have witnessed the complete fiasco and constant stammering, changing, making excuses for, etc. of their own making.
They have even screwed up the known .
You really better get with it and go with the big change from GW to Climate Change.
-
Todays climate change is a global shift totalling as warming. Do you have allergy for the letters G & W?
And what is happening in the arctic areas is quite big. If this carries on (for me it would be nice if it carried on a little more and then stopped, say in 10 years :D), our children and/or grandchilfren are going to see and feel a vlimate that was never so in the story of our last 7000 years or so, - I am only counting backwards to civilization there.
Actually the arctic change might be unique for very much longer time.
And even today, we are getting to see exposed waters and areas that were not so since civilizarion.
But I guess you'll never get that.....
-
A little paper came across the Smithsonian pipeline...(That's where I work, for those that don't know already) about CO2 and plant growth. It hasn't been published as of yet (currently in peer review) so I cannot post it or quote specifically from its' text. It may answer a question to those that say productivity will go up with higher CO2 levels.....
Short, abridged story...
Botanist have been lookin at what increased CO2 (undeniable, that levels have increased, we can argue all day about warming) concentrations do to the internal workings of plants. It was thought that yield would increase as well as static margin of growth. That was, in fact, what their hypothesis was...
They took different species of plants... harvested crop types and those that were natural occuring "cover" species. Shortened version, is they studied the growth of these species and found that their hypothesis was partially correct...these species did indeed grow faster than those that were not exposed to higher levels of CO2.
There was a big surprise though...
All of the tested members of species which were exposed to high CO2 levels stopped growth earlier... and were smaller than those that were grown without high CO2. Furthermore, when tested, it was found that all of the CO2 subjects were significantly lacking in nutritional substance. It was figured that the "commercial harvest" subjects were 30% to 50% less nutritious than the non-CO2 exposed crop.
This outcome was found to be due to the increased CO2 load. The plant simply never needed to store any nutrients for later and metabolized everything it could gather. (metabolic pathways were 92% to 95% efficient) Furthermore, levels of Chlorophyll A and B were significantly deficient, meaning the plants also began to shut down photosynthetic pathways due to the lack of need to keep them. (It was thought that CHL A (C55 H72 O5 N4 Mg) was first manufactured by plants in response to the marked decline in CO2 concentrations in past eras.) The study went on to postulate that plants may well "revert" to their old metabolic set-up when exposed to high levels of CO2. I wish I could post the pictures... they are really eye opening. One side looks green and healthy, (regular, "normal" CO2) the other, smaller and spread out with yellow and brown leaves, with highly abnormal palisade parenchyma. (High CO2 exposure)
Take with it what you will. I personally think it's eye opening. When it clears peer review... I will post it.
-
it most certainly is eye opening! It means that all farming practice for the last 30 years or so has been wrong and the farmers are simply imagining the extra growth.
I would be interested in seeing the paper...
In any case... right or wrong.. crop production is up 15% on available land from before the high rates of co2. maybe it is just the longer growing seasons..
no matter what.. less people freezing and more food is better.
lazs
-
MORAY37
so you are saying all the scientists were wrong about plant growth, but the scientists are right about man made global warming?
do your "scientists" do anything besides publish peer review papers and collect government grants?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
it most certainly is eye opening! It means that all farming practice for the last 30 years or so has been wrong and the farmers are simply imagining the extra growth.
I would be interested in seeing the paper...
In any case... right or wrong.. crop production is up 15% on available land from before the high rates of co2. maybe it is just the longer growing seasons..
no matter what.. less people freezing and more food is better.
lazs
Lazs, it means at a certain point, the plant stops storing nutrients... the same ones we need to eat, and simply become metabolic factories.
Like I said, witch hunt me all you want... It just caught my eye.
-
Originally posted by john9001
MORAY37
so you are saying all the scientists were wrong about plant growth, but the scientists are right about man made global warming?
do your "scientists" do anything besides publish peer review papers and collect government grants?
No, that's just it... they weren't wrong. The study was meant to confirm it... and the results were correct, to a point.
The secondary effects (lack of nutrients, shorter growth) were not foreseen, due to the fact that it was not postulated previously that plants would lessen their use of chlorophyll for energy production. It was thought that CO2 would be just another fertilizer and would let the plants simply grow faster and larger.
I was surprised as much as anyone. I would have thought that any multicellular organism would just take up the extra fuel and convert it to growth.... this is very interesting, to me, that they were not.
-
Originally posted by john9001
MORAY37
?
do your "scientists" do anything besides publish peer review papers and collect government grants?
And those government grants got you most of the things you take for granted every day, sir.
-
moray.. this is not new by any means.. many studies have been done on it and say essentially what you have said.. the degree is not clear tho.
there are peer reviewed papers out there already. There is no doubt that longer growing seasons are better for yeild.
Yeild is up.. the worst I have heard is that the rate of rise of yield is not as high as expected.
lazs
-
Can't believe this threadnaught continues to roll on...
Here's a novel idea.
Build some cheap greenhouses, and test it yourself.
I've found higher co2 levels increase yield. 500ppm gave me an 18% growth increase in the same period of time as plants in an identical rig, using cloned plants, without the co2.
-
Originally posted by john9001
MORAY37
do your "scientists" do anything besides publish peer review papers and collect government grants?
Hey, without those grants I never woulda been able to afford my 1998 Civic... so back off!
:)
-
Originally posted by indy007
Can't believe this threadnaught continues to roll on...
Here's a novel idea.
Build some cheap greenhouses, and test it yourself.
I've found higher co2 levels increase yield. 500ppm gave me an 18% growth increase in the same period of time as plants in an identical rig, using cloned plants, without the co2.
Yeah I've heard the same... This paper really turned my head though. The growth increase is in the initial stage of stem formation... and net yield still goes down after a margin. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. The levels they tested at were just above 500ppm... so I don't know if that is the mitigating facto or not. I will post more about it in the future.
-
Never gone past 500ppm, and eventually scaled back to 300ppm once the nearbye paintball shop closed and it became a hassle to fill 20oz tanks. :(
Eventually I'm going to have to switch to the freakishly heavy cylinders and run steel braided hose around the house. Will eventually beat dropping tablets into the fish tanks... and I can setup a soda/beer tap... mmmmm
Everything I grow is done aeroponically with scratch-built bits, so I geuss the next step is probably to try and introduce co2 directly into root zone, which I haven't done yet. No clue if that'll help out any, but that's an experiment for another day.
Either way, it's a good feeling heading to my little garden and pulling up a bunch of Thyme & Basil, and taking it straight to the kitchen to cook with. Doesn't get fresher & tastier than that :)
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
And those government grants got you most of the things you take for granted every day, sir.
Nope. The overwhelming majority of innovation and invention in the US is market driven, as is the vast majority of spending on research and development.
I liked the "threadnaught" comment by indy:aok . Totally amazed that this thread's life continues to roll on.:O
-
roots do not want co2..they want O2...now the foliage wants co2
the reason why Hydro setups do so wells is your giving the roots great access to oxygen...not suffocating them in clay-soil mixes...or starving them by drowning in water
-
introduce an aerator to your nutrient mixture(water)...like an air stone and a fish pump..Big Difference
-
Moray,- these tests actually are against farming practice results, and there is a lot of experience behind that.
I speak of my homeland only in terms of greenhouse growing, so in the equation are plants like cucumbers and tomatoes, etc etc, many short lived, the humidity is regulated, but is high, the temperature is high, and the daylight exposure is sometimes as far as around the clock.
(Now let us realize that on this thread we are dealing with people that have debated carbon binding of vegetation as well as the function of greenhouse effect, so this is all a tad funny).
Anyway, up here the Greenhouse farmers apply co2 as a growth enhancerer. Well, they used too.
And Lazs, as a contrary to what you claim, crops have NOT gone up, but down. TOTAL crops have gone up, while crops pr. square have gone down.
(Well, I get the farming news through the mailbox, and BTW, this is a worldwide figure).
And BIGBMAW, - Oxygen, or actually just air is necessary for good soil break-down.
Absolute absence of air + lots of carbon = pH problems.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Moray,- these tests actually are against farming practice results, and there is a lot of experience behind that.
.
I'm not saying they aren't...that's what I found surprising, trust me. I would go with "farm knowledge" in most cases on this....and I thought conventional wisdom would bear out that the uptake of CO2 and conversion of it into metabolic products would support greater net growth.
This study seems to find that plants stop or put a severe restriction on synthesis of Chorophyll A and B once levels of CO2 rise past a certain level.... (I really wish I could post exact numbers here) and revert to a straight respiration pathway.... They also apparently stop the storage of nutrients for later use, yielding a net decrease in the nutrients "available for secondary consumption". (ie. "Edible nutrients")
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
roots do not want co2..they want O2...now the foliage wants co2
the reason why Hydro setups do so wells is your giving the roots great access to oxygen...not suffocating them in clay-soil mixes...or starving them by drowning in water
Hey BigBMAW...now how would you possibly know all that?
Got a little "operation" running in the attic?
;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Todays climate change is a global shift totalling as warming.
And what about tomorrow`s? Nothing to go on there because it is not known and can`t be predicted.
Do you have allergy for the letters G & W?
No, but you should be. :)
If this carries on (for me it would be nice if it carried on a little more and then stopped, say in 10 years :D), our children and/or grandchilfren are going to see and feel a vlimate that was never so in the story of our last 7000 years or so, - I am only counting backwards to civilization there.
Actually the arctic change might be unique for very much longer time.
And there you have it................IF and MIGHT all rolled up in a neat package.
IF a rabbit had wings it`s arse might not hit the ground so much.
-
Well IF you drop a hand grenade, and MAYBE walk away 5 yards, you MIGHT die.
So I guess it's all okay :D
-
And more:
"And what about tomorrow`s? Nothing to go on there because it is not known and can`t be predicted."
I looked at the weather forecast, cursed, closed tractor windows, made sure all stable doors were closed, for the forecast was a storm. They seem to be arriving in big package deals, well som GW alarmist said they would.
And...Storm came allright.
Have you ever tried a dice against the weather forecast?
Since it is a hobby of mine to ponder on the climate (sort of comes automatically when your business relies on it), I predict: SPRING IN THE SPRINGTIME! Okay, the ground will thaw quickly this year, and field work will start in March. We will have a wetter spring than last year. So will June be, as well as slightly cooler.
Remind me in July to look over this, for we MIGHT POSSIBLY both be alive.
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
introduce an aerator to your nutrient mixture(water)...like an air stone and a fish pump..Big Difference
Way ahead on that step. I actually got a bunch of cheap ultrasonic foggers, so even when the pump for the mist nozzles isn't running, there's a nutrient rich fog hovering in the root zone, in addition to the air pump running a 12" stone in each container.
Had good luck finding them at a store in the china-town part of Houston for cheap. The commercial, multi-head versions can get pretty expensive fast.
Didn't think co2 would help in the root zone... but I've been getting pretty bored with my little setups. :)
-
angus.. I think you will find that not only total crops but crop yield has gone up.
The worst that can be said is that crop yield has not gone up as much as expected.. there have been somewhat longer growing seasons worldwide due to this natural mild climate cycle we are enjoying.
Unfortunately... most studies are now saying that we are headed for a cooling trend.. the latest russian study shows cooling for the last 5 years.
lazs
-
This isn't the exact graph I was looking for but it does support what Myself and laz are saying.
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/9523/image6ml6.gif) (http://imageshack.us)
As you can see the earth's temperature has been flactuating quite a lot for the last 3 million years, but with an overall net decrease in temperature. Obviously humans did not cause this as they are not 3 million years old
Humans may have caused the flat, stable section over the last 150 years, to last longer than it naturally would, but that is just atheory.
-
Originally posted by Angus
[BRemind me in July to look over this, for we MIGHT POSSIBLY both be alive. [/B]
And we might not be. Possibly /Possibly not . Maybe /Maybe not.
Just like long term climate, it cannot be predicted with anything nearing accuracy due to the unknowns.
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Hey, without those grants I never woulda been able to afford my 1998 Civic...
That`s a pretty rad ride for a fish butt prober. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
That`s a pretty rad ride for a fish butt prober. :rofl
lol exactly.. my job isn't making me rich.
-
yeah but without the grants... you would have to work for a living.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
angus.. I think you will find that not only total crops but crop yield has gone up.
The worst that can be said is that crop yield has not gone up as much as expected.. there have been somewhat longer growing seasons worldwide due to this natural mild climate cycle we are enjoying.
Unfortunately... most studies are now saying that we are headed for a cooling trend.. the latest russian study shows cooling for the last 5 years.
lazs
Absolutely the opposite from the newest news I have seen. Yeald has gone down.
Bear in mind that as the temperate belts retreat to hot belts, so do cold to temperate. Except the areas are smaller. On dry land.
As for somebody with grants, they are a part of the pay. It's still work you see. Rather a cheap remark IMHO. Oh, and you have to be worthy of a grant by the way....
Of course this must be rubbish, since the newest news from seabass claim we've been cooling all the time :p
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yeah but without the grants... you would have to work for a living.
lazs
Lol.. lazs.. don't ever try to quantify a person you've never met, with so broad a statement.
You couldn't keep up with me sir.
I'm shocked one of you more informed people didn't try to attack me about that post... using grant money for a personal purchase is against the law. Sir, I'm a salaried employee. The grants are used to fund research, and research alone. I must account for every dollar.
But, then again, you don't understand the process to begin with.
-
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c140/Javadran/die-thread.jpg)
-
course I do moray... you are "quantify a person you've never met, with so broad a statement.".....something you don't know about.
I have worked in both the private and the public sector. I very much know how it works.. I have been around department heads of universities all my life.
The grant money keeps em working.. it grows their importance.. the more people under them and the bigger the budget.. the higher the salary.
sometimes they are very busy.. mostly justifying a bigger budget..
If they research the effect of roads on the three eyed newt for instance... they have to make that seem like the most important thing in the world.. that the 3 eyed newt is the corner of the universe and.. that roads are the most important thing to the lives of the three eyed newt.
Yeah.. I know how it works.
lazs
-
And that's why go get things like....space travel :D
BTW, did anyone see the Russian statement about the upcoming global cooling. Sort of baffles me, they say greenhouse effect hardly works at all and it's all the sun, and now a reduction in sunspots (which are cold areas) is going to cool the planet so well that the UK will have a similar climate to Siberia.
I guess they got grants and used them all on vodka :D
-
Originally posted by Angus
And that's why go get things like....space travel :D
BTW, did anyone see the Russian statement about the upcoming global cooling. Sort of baffles me, they say greenhouse effect hardly works at all and it's all the sun, and now a reduction in sunspots (which are cold areas) is going to cool the planet so well that the UK will have a similar climate to Siberia.
I guess they got grants and used them all on vodka :D
Actually they may have a point, as sunspots are thought to be one of the causes of "the little ice age" during the middle ages. We know thats sunspots a cyclical and do affect climate to a degree. How much is debatable though.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Moray,- these tests actually are against farming practice results, and there is a lot of experience behind that.
I speak of my homeland only in terms of greenhouse growing, so in the equation are plants like cucumbers and tomatoes, etc etc, many short lived, the humidity is regulated, but is high, the temperature is high, and the daylight exposure is sometimes as far as around the clock.
(Now let us realize that on this thread we are dealing with people that have debated carbon binding of vegetation as well as the function of greenhouse effect, so this is all a tad funny).
Anyway, up here the Greenhouse farmers apply co2 as a growth enhancerer. Well, they used too.
And Lazs, as a contrary to what you claim, crops have NOT gone up, but down. TOTAL crops have gone up, while crops pr. square have gone down.
(Well, I get the farming news through the mailbox, and BTW, this is a worldwide figure).
And BIGBMAW, - Oxygen, or actually just air is necessary for good soil break-down.
Absolute absence of air + lots of carbon = pH problems.
err...Well im not sure if this is about global warming still, but the mt st helens eruption of 1980 spewed more dust and bad things than humanity has EVER in its entire existance......something they dont tell you on CNN or NBC....
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
err...Well im not sure if this is about global warming still, but the mt st helens eruption of 1980 spewed more dust and bad things than humanity has EVER in its entire existance......something they dont tell you on CNN or NBC....
Most of what is ejected during and eruption, ash and dust, is rather heavy and falls out of the atmosphere within a year or two.
To make this post at least somewhat relative, volcanoes also spew out alot of water vapor, which IS a greenhouse gas.
-
Originally posted by angelsandair
err...Well im not sure if this is about global warming still, but the mt st helens eruption of 1980 spewed more dust and bad things than humanity has EVER in its entire existance......something they dont tell you on CNN or NBC....
I would like to see a source for that.
As for both Volcanoe inputs here, unlike greenhouse gas emissions, there is NOTHING we can do to stop them.....
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
Actually they may have a point, as sunspots are thought to be one of the causes of "the little ice age" during the middle ages. We know thats sunspots a cyclical and do affect climate to a degree. How much is debatable though.
Did you spot the paradox? The predict decreasing of sunspots,which actually means a hotter sun......
But it could be a journalist error,- not the first time.
-
I am trying to get a copy of the russian document but.. it seems that they are saying that.....
CO2 MATH DOES NOT ADD UP
and
ITS THE SUN STUPID.
I would tend to believe them since their scientists get money no matter what.. they do not work on grants.
It is funny that those here who believe the UN and algore all say that the scientists who say the math doesnt work are all corrupted because they take money from a company (oil) so they can't possibly tell the truth..
yet.. the "scientists" who are drama queen alarmists are also taking money in the form of grants.. the bigger the drama.. the more they get... yet somehow... they can transend the money.
Not only that but.. I am told that scientists are saints... except of course the hundreds of ones who say that the math doesn't add up and are amoung the most experienced and brightest in their fields.. they are somehow not as good. corrupt...
lazs
-
Yeah, they're telling us that the sun is warming so that we're jumping into a new cooling period. Call me stupid,but how does that add up?
-
Like most scientist have said all along.. the suns activity leads climate change.. its not immediate but it is fairly rapid. We don't understand all there is to know about it but we do understand that the co2 math doesn't add up.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I am trying to get a copy of the russian document but.. it seems that they are saying that.....
I would tend to believe them since their scientists get money no matter what.. they do not work on grants.
Not only that but.. I am told that scientists are saints... except of course the hundreds of ones who say that the math doesn't add up and are amoung the most experienced and brightest in their fields.. they are somehow not as good. corrupt...
lazs
1#...Actually, you believe them because you've already decided what "your" opinion is, and it just backs up your argument. You have admitted already to not even seeing the document.... how can you agree with something you haven't seen, sir? That's just plain stupid.
#2... Russia is still having issues with paying ANYONE, military included. Scientists there are held even lower than here. By them saying this, they almost guarantee that those who argue AGW will fund them. That's right... the oil companies will seriously loook into funding them now... it was a calculated risk on their part.
#3. You still go on about the hundreds or the 17,000 who signed that petition.... about 2% of the total number of atmospheric scientists in the world. Many of the petitioners on that document worked on anything BUT climate... I've already shown you three that signed it and were.. in order.. A journalist, a lobbyist and a PhD that worked in making new forms of wool.
I'll go through the rest if time allows. I actually just randomly picked out those names.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Like most scientist have said all along.. the suns activity leads climate change.. its not immediate but it is fairly rapid. We don't understand all there is to know about it but we do understand that the co2 math doesn't add up.
lazs
We understand enough.
The researchers took core samples of sediments off the coast of Suriname and analyzed the composition of fossilized plankton, whose oxygen isotope and magnitude-to-calcium ratios reflect the temperature at the time of their formation, and whose carbon isotope ratios reflect the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air. Interpreting these ratios involves a number of assumptions about, for example, the composition of the ancient seawater and the effects of pH on the isotope enrichment process. So the team considered a range of assumptions and was able to put a floor of 33 degrees on the temperature during the Cretaceous (5 degrees warmer than the same region is today) and about 600 parts per million on the CO2 level (roughly one and a half today's concentration). The warming could have been as much as 14 degrees, but a conservative interpretation of the data is worrisome enough.
According to most current models, doubling the present concentration of CO2 raises the temperature by only about 3 degrees. In the specific model that Bice's team applied, the 5-degree rise would require 2500 ppm of CO2, which is above the likely range of values for the Cretaceous. In short, CO2 seems to pack a bigger punch than expected, perhaps because the warming becomes self-reinforcing.
On the other hand, if the proxy reconstructions are largely correct, then a severe deficiency exists in our model and in similar general circulation models. In that case, the data-model comparison could be interpreted as evidence that the model sensitivity to CO2 is unrealistically low, such that not enough warming occurs when CO2 is increased. If correct, this conclusion would have serious implications for future climate studies in which the actual future warming from elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations may be much greater than that predicted by the models.
Finally, if the temperature and CO2 proxy data and our interpretations of them are accurate, and the model sensitivity to CO2 is accurate, our results indicate that some additional climate forcing is required. A plausible explanation is increased atmospheric methane, sourced from either decreased methanotrophy in the Cretaceous ocean oxygen minimum zones or from terrestrial wetlands. There is currently no proxy record for paleomethane concentrations and so we have no direct way to access the plausibility of increased methane for the black shale intervals.
Skeptics often invoke uncertainty as a reason to defer action because global warming may not be as bad as the headline predictions. But uncertainty equally well means that the outcome could be even worse. Our response should be neither complacency nor panic, but risk-management -- exactly what we do when we buy insurance or strap on seat belts. As David Wasdell of the Meridian Programme said at a workshop I went to last weekend, the scenarios are alarming but not alarmist
-
Originally posted by Angus
As for both Volcanoe inputs here, unlike greenhouse gas emissions, there is NOTHING we can do to stop them.....
Angus is getting the idea......................... .....he just doesn`t know it yet. :)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Yeah, they're telling us that the sun is warming so that we're jumping into a new cooling period. Call me stupid,but how does that add up?
Lazs, come on and READ this. Warming of the sun causing cooling on earth?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
And as for you here Jackal, I am getting it. I get it that you guys refuse or haggle about human impact on global atmosphere (well that is what I tend to call it, since it's much more complicated than just burning petrol), and consistently try to derail the discussion from getting to "advanced" by jumping in with things we can do nothing about.
And, BTW, a reminder, the immediate impact of a large volcanic eruption is....cooling. And...the eruptions are not all the same, neither in time effect, combination of pollutants, time rythm,or ..size.
The big one from 1783 caused vast cooling in the northern hemisphere...
-
moray... so you quote someone who relies on computer models? models that so far.. can't even predict the past with any degree of accuracy?
I have no problem with anyone laying out these theories... or even saying that it is possible that they are "alarming" or even that they don't really understand what is going on.
The problem comes with the leap about what to do about it or even if anything really can or needs to be done.
If those suggestions involve wrecking whole economies or even placing huge burdens on the middle class.. say that they cost each of us $5,000 a year extra just to live at the level we are at now.. say it bankrupts economies..
Then you better have a lot better reason and proof than what I have been shown so far...
Of course I believe the russian thing based on an outline.. it is just saying what a lot of the scientists I trust have been saying.
As for how they get paid or not.. that is the point. you get paid by grants and have an agenda just as the alarmists everywhere do... no trips to bali for the "deniers" eh? no promotions and perks for them...
The russians would then be the only "pure" uncorrupted scientists right? no money or power... just pure science for the love of it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
And as for you here Jackal, I am getting it. I get it that you guys refuse or haggle about human impact on global atmosphere (well that is what I tend to call it, since it's much more complicated than just burning petrol), and consistently try to derail the discussion from getting to "advanced" by jumping in with things we can do nothing about.
Things you can do nothing about--------------> Weather and climate.
Sorry that facts rock your fictional boat.
And, BTW, a reminder, the immediate impact of a large volcanic eruption is....cooling. And...the eruptions are not all the same, neither in time effect, combination of pollutants, time rythm,or ..size.
Yep. One of the many, many , many unknowns that make any climate predictions a total farce.
You can`t predict anything with any degree of accuracy or plausibility without factoring everything involved into the mix. In this case, impossible.
Like I said...you are getting it.........you just don`t know it yet.
-
(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg)
If current trends continue, we could have an Arctic sea ice extent which would be larger than it was last winter.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Things you can do nothing about--------------> Weather and climate.
Sorry that facts rock your fictional boat.
Yep. One of the many, many , many unknowns that make any climate predictions a total farce.
You can`t predict anything with any degree of accuracy or plausibility without factoring everything involved into the mix. In this case, impossible.
Like I said...you are getting it.........you just don`t know it yet.
Sorry, but you have to be a complete ostridge to belive that humans have no IMPACT on the globe's climate.
If you belive so, you are stating that the composition of the atmosphere has no impact on the weather and/or life on earth has no impact on the atmosphere.
Funny seeing that one coming from a guy who once stated that (rotting) rainforests contributed to GW by emitting greenhouse gasses....if there was such a possibility.
HUmans have the power to deforest the planet, and are doing it as we speak at a reasonably good pace. Humans also have the power to nuke out the planet at the flick of a switch, presumably causing a short, but violent ice-age.
So, in short, humans can affect climate, but it's not just your car.....
And Holden,the curve you show is an annual curve, a curve of the seasons basically,and this one is quite stable. If you want to show something that rocks, you'd need to extend it to 30 years.
We did have some cold shift over the sea this winter, so Ice increased again, which is good, for what you didn't mention is that we might climb above winter ice at historical MINIMUM.
Here is a link to a weather website over the N-Atlantic and partially arctic area. You can use the scroll bar to reflect the forecast in temperature. Although not in English, this is cool to watch:
http://www.vedur.is/vedur/spar/atlantshaf/#teg=hiti
-
Like here...
(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg)
Or here:
(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg)
BTW, nice website there;)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Funny seeing that one coming from a guy who once stated that (rotting) rainforests contributed to GW by emitting greenhouse gasses
Nice twist. You should be working for the media. :)
What was said was rotting forests and vegetation produce CO2, which it does along with other emissions. How much is not really known nor can be predicted from year to year. Just one of the unknowns which prevents any kind of long range forecast.
Humans also have the power to nuke out the planet at the flick of a switch, presumably causing a short, but violent ice-age.
Beginning to see the light?
Yet another of the many, many, many unknowns.
-
Your light must be ultra-violet.
Here:
"Nice twist. You should be working for the media.
What was said was rotting forests and vegetation produce CO2, which it does along with other emissions. How much is not really known nor can be predicted from year to year. Just one of the unknowns which prevents any kind of long range forecast."
You forgot to enter the zone of the balance,- forests in general, as vegetation is in the state of binding CO2 at a faster pace than they release it, - hence the added masses of biomass in deep forest bottoms. That is actually why they ARE forests,- it's nature's tool of harnessing solar energy into the use of photosynthesis.
You forgot to mention if you still understand the concept of photosynthesis...
You also forgot to mention that a "rotting fores emitting CO2" in our days is probably a forest that has been bulldozed or burned down, so that it's gathered up fertile soil can be used for "cheap" agriculture, yealding amazingly "cheap" products....coffee....tobacco ....beef....etc...
-
No, I didn`t forget. That was your line. :)
-------->
:rofl
You also forgot to mention that a "rotting fores emitting CO2" in our days is probably a forest that has been bulldozed or burned down
Maybe in Iceland, but not here.
-
Our woodland(25% of coverage down to 1%) actually got worked down, used for fuel and wood. Now it's increasing again.
In Europe it is increasing, while rapidly DECREASING in every continent of the world.
So, wherever your "here" is, your woodland is on the down slope.
BTW, where did that carbon tied up in wood come from and how? Care to shed some light from your bulb on that?
-
China battles "coldest winter in 100 years" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080204/lf_nm_life/china_weather_dc)
Good thing they changed the name of their pet fear from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change."
-
Originally posted by Angus
BTW, nice website there;)
Quite informative:
(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg)
Looks like Global sea ice dropped for 3 or 4 years, but is back to normal this year if I read the anomoly line correctly.
Looks like its been pretty close to the average of 18 to 19 Million sq KM since 1979.
-
I agree with holden, I mean those charts dont lie
-
Originally posted by balance1
I agree with holden, I mean those charts dont lie
Here ya go balance1 check out Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/) don't take it at face value.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Our woodland(25% of coverage down to 1%) actually got worked down, used for fuel and wood. Now it's increasing again.
In Europe it is increasing, while rapidly DECREASING in every continent of the world.
So, wherever your "here" is, your woodland is on the down slope.
BTW, where did that carbon tied up in wood come from and how? Care to shed some light from your bulb on that?
Flip/Flop.
Do try to keep up Angus instead of attempting to put words in my mouth.....or in this case, fingers. :)
-
There is something that jostles the sea ice quantity a bit, - that's the breakoffs. Those have been quite impressive in recent years, thereby temporarily filling in the gap. I wonder if there is some hint for quantity rather than area.
-
Ah, good old Wiki, - nice animation here.
Here is something graphically demonstrating the volume.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_ice_packs
And a graph :D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7b/Record_Arctic_Sea_Ice_Soll_in_2007.jpg)
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Northern_Hemisphere_Sea_Ice_Extent_Anomalies_Oct_2007.png)
"Arctic Sea ice reached record lows in September, 2007. The Northwest Passage opened for the first time during satellite recordings."
So, I was right, - it was the all time low on Holden's Graph, and for me it's neither big nor bad news if we don't beat the record again.
But didn't the NW passage open some hundreds of years ago?
-
Looks like some new reports are coming in...............
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
interesting?
-
Even if your link worked, it would be a link to an articleabout global cooling, which is change, which is due to us burning fossil fuels.
This is just another nail in the coffin of the so called debate about global climate change.
-
Global Warming....Global Cooling....Climate Change.....
Yep, they got it all covered!!
(http://xs224.xs.to/xs224/08093/carbonoffsets666.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Even if your link worked, it would be a link to an articleabout global cooling, which is change, which is due to us burning fossil fuels.
This is just another nail in the coffin of the so called debate about global climate change.
How strange?
Got the article link from the Drug Report?
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
-
Hmmm
Linky no worky
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
It's just above this article on the Drudge Report
http://www.drudgereport.com/
-
Originally posted by wrag
Looks like some new reports are coming in...............
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
interesting?
Very.
It just shows that you truly didn't even try to understand what factors were behind anthropogenic global warming. You simply lean on.. if it's showing cooler this week... it all must not be true. You are dealing in one dimension (oh my it's cold right now), with a problem which is multi-dimensional.
Large swings in both positive and negative should be expected, with the increases of total energy contained within the system (earth). It really isn't up for debate... it's obvious that climate worldwide is CHANGING. We can debate what is changing it... yet the fact it is happening is irrefuteable. Storms (NOT HURRICANES) are getting more intense and not being defined by their seasons anymore. (tornadic activity in Midwest in... FEBRUARY...Pacific Northwest has had the worst winter on record... most coastal erosion recorded.)
Doesn't anyone else just feel things are "off"?
In 2006, five states had their warmest December on record (Minnesota, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire) and no state was colder than average. The Japan Meteorological Agency reported that January 2007 was the world's hottest January on record, with temperatures across the planet registering 0.45 degrees Celsius (0.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above average. Residents of the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area have this week been hit by a 'gusty wintry wallop' and are experiencing below-average temperatures for this month. Yet, the deviation below the average temperature for February is still less than the above-average deviation that D.C. residents experienced during the month of January. While the climate change trend is clear, the weather patterns at different moments in time will be hard to predict.
(2008)The world's land areas were on average 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer last month than a normal January, a major increase since 'such records are often broken by hundredths of a degree at a time.' With the help of El Nino, which the scientists assert was only partial, traditionally frigid areas of the world witnessed huge temperature spikes, such as Siberia, where January temperatures were recorded as much as 9 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. While global warming skeptics have cited the colder February air as evidence against global warming, climate scientist David Easterling said the patterns witnessed last month are indicative of man-made climate change. Larger increases in temperature farther north, compared to mid-latitudes, is 'sort of the global warming signal,' Easterling countered. The scientists warn that such records could become commonplace as the Earth continues to warm."
I don't think we're going to fix it, and I'm not putting forth any ideas to do so. I simply think the time for debating it's happening has long passed.
-
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/significant-extremes2007.gif)
And this is from the government that refuses to acknowledge a problem.
Source:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007
-
so global warming really means climate change which really means global warming which really means the weather is going to be wet and dry, cold and warm, windy and calm.
-
Originally posted by john9001
so global warming really means climate change which really means global warming which really means the weather is going to be wet and dry, cold and warm, windy and calm.
Don't you see? Thats the beauty of it. No matter the contradictory evidence, its still considered proof!
I think Psychologists call that a Self-Reinforcing Delusion.
:cool:,
Wab
-
but.. isn't it predicted that 2008 will be the coolest year in a decade? there is global cooling. the suns activity is in 200 year cycles and the russian study shows that man made co2 and greenhouse gas is insignificant compared to suns activity.. the russian study says... "IT'S THE SUN STUPID"
I predicted that the "scientists" would not be talking about man made global warming this winter.. they will trot it out again after the first big heat wave next summer.
The only thing that is constant about the weather is that it is never average...
moray tells us how we should not take one small event and use it to say anything about the "global climate" and then... trots out a silly picture of a bunch of small weather events... If you take the American continent for instance.. nasa data shows no real warming for almost two decades.. why get upset about "records"
Name one time in the history of weather that records were not broken.. it is the nature of weather records to be broken.
lazs
-
Plastic Al Bore statues are being ripped off the dashes of cars at an alarming rate.
Sidenote: Sales of Al Bore statues on eBay have fallen sharply.
I predict Global Gorelessness in 2009.
Cute cartoon charts and bogus statistics to follow shortly.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but.. isn't it predicted that 2008 will be the coolest year in a decade? there is global cooling. .
The only thing that is constant about the weather is that it is never average...
moray tells us how we should not take one small event and use it to say anything about the "global climate" and then... trots out a silly picture of a bunch of small weather events... If you take the American continent for instance.. nasa data shows no real warming for almost two decades.. why get upset about "records"
lazs
Density is obviously the one physical property which cannot be overcome.
First...NASA RECORDS, for your debunking on your last line.
The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990. -National Aeronautics and Space Administration, GISS
When you have the "coolest year in a decade" (something which I have not checked up on, your statement), and then run into the fact below...how can you call that a good thing?
:rolleyes:
Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1995. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html
Second...
That map is not showing singular events only. It is showing a detailed composite of an overall picture. Single events are not, BY THEMSELVES significant. It is their application into an overall picture that gives them any weight.
Not that you'll read it but...it is only elementary statistics in application.
The simple theory behind the iid-test is that we have a number of N observations of the same object. If all the values represent a variable that follows the same distribution (i.e. exhibits the same behaviour), then the probability that the last observation is a record-breaking event (the highest number) is 1/N. It is then easy to estimate the expected number of record-events (E) for a series of length N: E = 1/1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + … + 1/N (the first observation being a 'record-event' by definition). It is also easy to estimate the likelihood that the number deviated from E by a given amount (i.e. using an analytical expression for the variance of E or so-called 'Monte-Carlo' simulations). The probability for seeing new record-events diminishes for an iid variable as the number N increases.
Benestad, R.E. (2004) Record-values, non-stationarity tests and extreme value distributions Global and Planetary Change vol 44, issue 1-4, p.11-26
It is not possible to apply the iid-test to one single event, but the test can detect patterns in a series of events. The test requires a number of independent observations of the same variable over a (sufficiently long) period of time. Since climate encompasses a large number of different parameters (temperature, precipitation, wind, ice extent, etc), it is probable that a climate change would affect the statistics of a number of different parameters simultaneously. Thus, the iid-test can be applied to a set of parallel series representing different aspects of one complex system to examine whether its general state is undergoing a change. Satellite observations tend to be too short for concluding whether they are consistent with null-hypothesis saying there is no climate change (i.e. it being iid) or the alternative hypothesis that the climate is in fact changing (or the observations are not independent). Nevertheless, the record-low sea ice concentration is consistent with a shrinking ice-cap due to a warming. Rainfall observations tend to be longer and therefore more appropriate for such tests, but, such an analysis has not yet been done on a global scale to my knowledge. Results of an iid-test on series of maximum monthly 24-hour rainfall within the Nordic countries (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark & Iceland) could not rule out the null-hypothesis (i.e. the possibility that there is no change in the rainfall statistics), but this case was on the border line and the signal could also be too weak for detection. In a recent publication, however, Kharin & Zwiers (2005) analysed extreme values from model simulations of a changing climate and found that an enhanced greenhouse effect will likely lead to 'more extreme' precipitation. This would imply an anomalously high occurrence of record-high rainfall amounts. They discussed the effect of variables being non-iid on the extreme value analysis, and after taking that into account, propose that changes in extreme precipitation are likely to be larger than the corresponding changes in annual mean precipitation under a global warming. Thus, new record-high precipitation amounts are consistent with the climate change scenarios.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
but.. isn't it predicted that 2008 will be the coolest year in a decade? there is global cooling. the suns activity is in 200 year cycles and the russian study shows that man made co2 and greenhouse gas is insignificant compared to suns activity.. the russian study says... "IT'S THE SUN STUPID"
I predicted that the "scientists" would not be talking about man made global warming this winter.. they will trot it out again after the first big heat wave next summer.
The only thing that is constant about the weather is that it is never average...
moray tells us how we should not take one small event and use it to say anything about the "global climate" and then... trots out a silly picture of a bunch of small weather events... If you take the American continent for instance.. nasa data shows no real warming for almost two decades.. why get upset about "records"
Name one time in the history of weather that records were not broken.. it is the nature of weather records to be broken.
lazs
Hey Laz go here and look at the link titled
http://www.drudgereport.com/
"Temperature Monitors Report Worldwide Global Cooling"
I tried to post it to the BBS but dang doesn't seem to work.
Anyways it states that the latest temps are way down and China is having it's coolest temps in over 100 years!
and this
"Record levels of Antarctic sea ice"
And
"No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously."
and
"Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news. "
Even has a part that talks about
"Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it."
VERY INTERESTING.................. .......
-
Wow, the temperature of planet earth changes, such revelations:
(http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif)
-
Following a rapid rise between 1978 and 1998 corresponding to exceptionally high solar activity, global temperatures were flat between 1998 and 2006 and the planet has just experienced its coldest January in 15 years. China is suffering through its coldest winter in 100 years, the same winter which saw the first snow ever recorded falling on Baghdad. Antarctic ice is currently at record levels. New Englanders are digging out nonstop from record snowfall. And similar signs of a cooling trend are being reported worldwide.
Full article here: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/here_come_the_green_carjackers.html
Discuss!
-
Evil :D
-
The sun can warm the Earth... Who would have though...
-
So, that makes Al Gore a hero for having a huge estate and for burning so much fuel travelling around the world?
Who woulda thunk he'd be a hero to both sides of the argument!
-
Not much of an arguement. But we won't be around to find out who's wrong.
-
Coming to a General Climate Discussion thread near you soon. ;)
-
Ah yes, global climate change (that is the correct terminology this week isn't it?).
Can't you see that this just means that man is responsible for making the globe cooler?
Maybe we should launch some satellites with massive mirrors to reflect sunlight on the earth constantly to warm it up...I mean MY GOD we HAVE to do something to combat this cooling that we caused by combating the warming!
Oh the humanity (or lack thereof).
-
Yeah........a few hundred grants are in order to study this. ;)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Yeah........a few hundred grants are in order to study this. ;)
Screw that!
I'm going out and replacing ALL of my "green" light bulbs with 100 watt incandescent ones, and I'm leaving them on ALL of the time! We gotta stop this coming ice age! WARMING NOW!
-
people are waking up to the scam... scientists are bucking the peer pressure and coming out with real science disproving at least... co2 causing warming...
more and more they are saying... "ITS THE SUN STUPID"
the bad part is that the "do something even if it is wrong" crowd always... does something wrong and the rest of us have to clean up the mess they made of our lives.
I told you that winter would put a big chill on the whole thing. I told you that temperatures have been flat or falling. We are more likely headed for a very cold spell.
Instead of enjoying the bounty of this mild warm spell we had.. the hand wringers did their best to ruin it..
Doesn't matter.. in a couple of decades we will forget and the same players will have some new doomsday scenario and the same suckers will worship at their altar.
Someone should do a study on what kind of people buy into doomsday scenarios.
lazs
-
now what do i do with all my carbon credits? :confused:
-
That report has been getting a lot of play in the media lately.
Essentially, according to one summary, the global drop in temperature during the last two years wiped out all the gains of the last century. The growth in the size of the Antarctic ice pack has been reported numerous times in the past, and since it is the world's largest, that fact ought to raise some eyebrows.
As some scientists have maintained all along, the earth appears to be at a tipping point, and climate change could go either way.
RPM, that change, as they have said, could come quickly, if the past is any indication, and within a few years. So, it is possible that we could see it within our lifetime.
-
It's the Global Warming that causes the Global Cooling.
If you don't buy into that, it means you are obviously in the pocket of big oil.
:cool:
Wab
-
Well, not to downplay the importance of man's impact on the climate, I've felt that all the hoopla was premature. There's still a lot we do not know about the multitude of factors that cause climate change. Arguments to the effect that the debate is finished aside, there have always been reputable scientists who believed their colleagues who jumped on the global-warming bandwagon were about to drive it over a cliff.
Furthermore, I think it is ludicrous that these scientists have shown total disdain for the impact that the sun was having on the situation. The arrogance of that stance is unseemly. The possibility has always existed that they were wrong. But, the press has been on their side from the beginning, and so voices to the contrary have been shouted down.
As I said previously, the tipping point could happen soon, and the change could go either way.
If it does, and if it tips toward global cooling, it would be much more of a disaster for mankind as a whole. The only satisfaction I could draw from such an event would be to see it wipe the supercilious grin off of the algore's face.
-
You guys are missing the point...
At the current rate of global cooling... we will be 10 degrees cooler by 2050 and maybe 30 by 2100.. it is time to weep and knash teeth and make documentaries!!!
It is time to watch the sky for falling chunks.
Life will cease to exist as we know it. we will have to give the oil companies huge amounts of cash to find new oil to burn and maybe save the planet.
I don't know about you but.. I don't like being cold.
somebody do something.. even if it is wrong!
make the government do something before we all become meatcycles.
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm
Not much of an arguement. But we won't be around to find out who's wrong.
I'm not so sure about that. There is a lot of evidence (flattened villages under glaciers, un-harvested crops, historical records on migratory movements, etc) that points to the fact that ice ages happen FAST. None of this degree or so per year warming stuff, just one year winter starts in August and then it doesn't thaw the next year.
Like Pournelle noted recently, global warming can be uncomfortable and nasty for those who live on coastlines, but you can still grow crops when it's warmer and you actually get higher crop yields when it's warmer and when you have a bit more CO2 in the air. When it gets colder, everyone moves towards the equator because nothing grows in frozen ground.
Give me global warming any day... At least it's survivable.
-
Follow the links.................
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/03/01/god-to-gore/
Seems the Suns activities have already slowed and become less.....
it's cooling down now considerably.
Perhaps we need to put out more CO2?
-
OOPS I put this up in another thread but maybe I should have put it here?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/03/01/god-to-gore/
-
yep.. while I was outside enjoying a mild and long summer.. others were wringing their hands and shaking like scolded puppies over the "man made global warming"... afraid to leave their homes and enjoy..
Now it will be getting cold. I will miss the mild summers and mild winters. I don't like being cold but.. short of moving.. there isn't much we can do about it.
We are headed for global cooling and that is just the way it is.
lazs
-
cant wait till they get the new readings from mars!
-
So has Lazs's propoganda repetition "stupid" machine connvinced you that there is serious global cooling going on?
It's the SUN, Stupid, for the solar warming is at low.
Or did everyone forget that there are always spikes in the temp?
Do those only count on one side?
In the meanwhile the arctic areas are loosing Ice, raising SL a tad, and while those icecubes are melting the sea is still warming.
The forces at work there will dwarf the cooler pockets of climate (air) in some areas (while hotter than usual are forgotten).
Just read up on the newest data on the ocean temp around antarctica. Average warming in 1deg celcius. While not looking much, it's from 1 to 2. Get to 4 and you have a different situation. Moray could tell you why :D
Hehe, even my countrymen are complaining about a cold winter, and WTF happened to GW, while forgetting that most of the problem is extreme windforce all the time, as well as violent swings in temp, for it is a short way from rain to snow, and snow + wind is a bad mixture.
In the meantime, the ground beneath remains unfrozen, and even at the age of just above 40, I recall 50 cm of absolute Iceblock as a norm.....
-
See how they run.......................... ................:)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Or did everyone forget that there are always spikes in the temp?
One of my problems with the certainty of the GW rhetoric is how do we know a spike is not a century in duration when we are talking timescales of 100,000 years?
-
Originally posted by wrag
OOPS I put this up in another thread but maybe I should have put it here?
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/03/01/god-to-gore/
You're right. Since last January, the average global temperature has dropped to the point that the past 100 years of warming has completely reversed. The ice is back in the northern seas, up to 20 cm thicker than three years ago. The northern hemisphere has experienced the greatest amount of snowfall and ice accumulation since 1951.
Russian scientists are saying that this period of sunspot inactivity should last 30 to 50 years, over which the average global temperature may decline to levels of the "mini ice-age" of the 17th thru 19th centuries. Moreover, any warm up would take as much as 200 years to get back to current levels.
One more exceptionally cold year and we can declare global warming (especially the presumed man-made type) over for the foreseeable future.
It looks like the Chicken Little crowd will have to find some new doom to whine about.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You're right. Since last January, the average global temperature has dropped to the point that the past 100 years of warming has completely reversed. The ice is back in the northern seas, up to 20 cm thicker than three years ago. The northern hemisphere has experienced the greatest amount of snowfall and ice accumulation since 1951.
Russian scientists are saying that this period of sunspot inactivity should last 30 to 50 years, over which the average global temperature may decline to levels of the "mini ice-age" of the 17th thru 19th centuries. Moreover, any warm up would take as much as 200 years to get back to current levels.
One more exceptionally cold year and we can declare global warming (especially the presumed man-made type) over for the foreseeable future.
It looks like the Chicken Little crowd will have to find some new doom to whine about.
My regards,
Widewing
Here everyone goes. 1,000 posts of people telling us that "one hot year doesn't Global warming make...a decade of hotter years doesn't make a trend...And now you declare AGW a hoax from...yep you guessed it.
ONE COLD WINTER.
Nevermind that this "one cold winter" is only "colder" due to the past 15 being inanely warmer. The warmest ten years on record were the last TEN.
So this year is cooler than the warmest ten years on record...
Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
One of my problems with the certainty of the GW rhetoric is how do we know a spike is not a century in duration when we are talking timescales of 100,000 years?
I will agree with you there. Our scale could be completely off. Yet with the data sets available to us (roughly 1 million solid years, with sketchy data prior), you must admit there is foundation to the idea.
-
Don't be silly, Moray, anyone who knows global warming must be fake also knows that the world is only 6,000 years old.
-
Originally posted by Widewing
You're right. Since last January, the average global temperature has dropped to the point that the past 100 years of warming has completely reversed. The ice is back in the northern seas, up to 20 cm thicker than three years ago. The northern hemisphere has experienced the greatest amount of snowfall and ice accumulation since 1951.
Russian scientists are saying that this period of sunspot inactivity should last 30 to 50 years, over which the average global temperature may decline to levels of the "mini ice-age" of the 17th thru 19th centuries. Moreover, any warm up would take as much as 200 years to get back to current levels.
One more exceptionally cold year and we can declare global warming (especially the presumed man-made type) over for the foreseeable future.
It looks like the Chicken Little crowd will have to find some new doom to whine about.
My regards,
Widewing
Also, the new sunspot cycle JUST STARTED THIS MONTH.
MSFC Solar Physics Branch members Wilson, Hathaway, and Reichmann have studied the sunspot record for characteristic behavior that might help in predicting future sunspot activity. Our current predictions of solar activity for the next few years can be found at this link. Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.
(http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif)
-
Now, to get this straight, - Sunspots = cooler = less heat from Sun? Or is it the other way around (like the Russians had it)??
So, no we are at the bottom of the curve...which means?
-
And...
"Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels."
So, lots of Sunspots = lots of i.e. Aurora Borealis.
A friend of mine was working on a theory on connecions of solar weather with earths geological activity, as well as gravitational links.
He died from his project, but his theory has been promoted elsewhere,
Moray, PM me if you are interested in knowing more. It was a bit crazy to listen to it at times, but the guy's predictions turned quite solid!!!
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
I will agree with you there. Our scale could be completely off. Yet with the data sets available to us (roughly 1 million solid years, with sketchy data prior), you must admit there is foundation to the idea.
Foundation for an idea... sure.
But we are making treaties and we are sure because we have a scientific consensus and the debate is over: deniers are up there with holocaust deniers and flat earth believers, because we have a foundation for an idea.[/b]
-
Ahh, flat earth.
Well, they have impressive logics:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
:D
-
And here is the proof!!!
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Flat_earth.jpg)
-
Jokes aside, of course the sun is the main factor. We have sun + position + atmosphere, - yes position, for the Earth does not orbit completely circularly, it is slightly elliptical, errenous and wobbling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
That little wobble wobble can affect solar input to what, - some 25% I think.
And AFAIK, our greenhouse gases keep us away from being frozen stiff, so their contribution is not to be underestimated.
As for now the Sun is close to an absolute minimum in its short cycle, while in the same time we have the hottest years on record, - but this is just a short cycle, there are many others too, fun isn't it :D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Solar-cycle-data.png)
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
That report has been getting a lot of play in the media lately.
Essentially, according to one summary, the global drop in temperature during the last two years wiped out all the gains of the last century. The growth in the size of the Antarctic ice pack has been reported numerous times in the past, and since it is the world's largest, that fact ought to raise some eyebrows.
As some scientists have maintained all along, the earth appears to be at a tipping point, and climate change could go either way.
RPM, that change, as they have said, could come quickly, if the past is any indication, and within a few years. So, it is possible that we could see it within our lifetime.
The cooling is due to so much of the ice caps melting. The ice cools the water which cools the climate because of the circulating water. The real question comes in after there is no more ice or not enough ice left to continue or stabilize the warming.
By that time we will either be at the no stop point for global warming as there wont be any ice left.. or all the melted ice will effect the oceans currents and possibly cause an ice age.
Guess we get to wait to see which happens, one thing is for sure the ice is mealting and it's going to cause drastic changes.
-
"Russian scientists are saying that this period of sunspot inactivity should last 30 to 50 years, over which the average global temperature may decline to levels of the "mini ice-age" of the 17th thru 19th centuries. Moreover, any warm up would take as much as 200 years to get back to current levels."
Well, if the Russians are saying this it will definately get lazs' seal of approval.
Funny, a bunch of socialist scientists say something MAY happen and it is enough to justify GW advocates being chicken littles?
One minute everything socialist is bad...the next minute they say something the right wing hand wringers agree with and they are 100% correct...despite the fact that there is a big (little) word in there.....MAY.
Pure science at its most hilarious.
-
It's not just the russians.. more and more scientists around the world are pulling away from the man made global warming tit. Latest studies of the last few years of peer reviewed papers on the subject showed that only 7% felt it was man made and of catastrophic proportions.. 6% felt we had no effect. the rest felt that our effect varied from "too little data to tell" to "probly some but not enough to matter much".
crock-it.. are you saying that there is less ice on the planet every year? I think the ice pack is growing everywhere except one small area.
Saying that the reason the planet is cooling is because the oceans are warming is not too easy to understand.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It's not just the russians.. more and more scientists around the world are pulling away from the man made global warming tit. Latest studies of the last few years of peer reviewed papers on the subject showed that only 7% felt it was man made and of catastrophic proportions.. 6% felt we had no effect. the rest felt that our effect varied from "too little data to tell" to "probly some but not enough to matter much".
I'm not going to spend any time looking for it but I recall those percentages have already been debunked.
Honestly, when you throw out statistics they are simply not believable. Even when someone proves them wrong in one thread you raise them again in another as if you are providing solid evidence.
-
Originally posted by Curval
"Russian scientists are saying that this period of sunspot inactivity should last 30 to 50 years, over which the average global temperature may decline to levels of the "mini ice-age" of the 17th thru 19th centuries. Moreover, any warm up would take as much as 200 years to get back to current levels."
Well, if the Russians are saying this it will definately get lazs' seal of approval.
Funny, a bunch of socialist scientists say something MAY happen and it is enough to justify GW advocates being chicken littles?
One minute everything socialist is bad...the next minute they say something the right wing hand wringers agree with and they are 100% correct...despite the fact that there is a big (little) word in there.....MAY.
Pure science at its most hilarious.
You can give guys like him all the proof in the world and if it don't fit his ideas, then nothing in the world will ever change his mind. Yet all it takes is one wacko in a barn as long as it's the same idea he belives in then it's all the proof he needs.
-
Originally posted by crockett
The cooling is due to so much of the ice caps melting. The ice cools the water which cools the climate because of the circulating water. The real question comes in after there is no more ice or not enough ice left to continue or stabilize the warming.
By that time we will either be at the no stop point for global warming as there wont be any ice left.. or all the melted ice will effect the oceans currents and possibly cause an ice age.
Guess we get to wait to see which happens, one thing is for sure the ice is mealting and it's going to cause drastic changes.
Not so much Crockett.
It should cool the water, but it is still warming up. On both polare areas!
Arctic sea has been warming, and now data from the south shows one deg celcius warming in a short span of time. From 1 to 2 as mentioned earlier in this thread.
That's plain scary if you think of it! But now, a somewhat more normal winter (People are quick to forget) is causing an outcry, lol.
Fish memory :D
-
Originally posted by lazs2
crock-it.. are you saying that there is less ice on the planet every year? I think the ice pack is growing everywhere except one small area.
Saying that the reason the planet is cooling is because the oceans are warming is not too easy to understand.
lazs
where did you get that non sense on ice pack growing.. :rofl
Ever drink a glass of Ice tea lardz? Ever notice that the ice makes it cold?
Now look into how the ocean currents work on how cold water from the poles circulates around the ocean like a big conveyor belt. Now add in more ice than normal and it's simple the water is cooler which effects the planet's temperature on a global scale.
Back to the glass of ice tea.. Once the ice melts, there is nothing left to cool the tea, the tea will then get warm. The same thing will happen to our oceans, once the ice is no longer there to cool it and be the engine for the conveyor belt.
Well, when that happens, it's going to change the oceans currents on a global scale. The reason we have ocean currents is because the cold water at the poles sinks while the warm water from the tropics and else where rises. This causes a giant conveyor belt effect that circulates throughout all of the worlds oceans.
Once the ice is gone at the poles there will be no more cold water. No one really knows what will happen as a result of this. (other than a lot of flooding of course)
Some theories say it will cause the Earth to keep warming, some say it may trigger a global ice age. Either way the change will be drastic if we lose the ice at the poles and places like greenland.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Not so much Crockett.
It should cool the water, but it is still warming up. On both polare areas!
Arctic sea has been warming, and now data from the south shows one deg celcius warming in a short span of time. From 1 to 2 as mentioned earlier in this thread.
That's plain scary if you think of it! But now, a somewhat more normal winter (People are quick to forget) is causing an outcry, lol.
Fish memory :D
no I'm just saying that's likely the reason for the slight global cooling over the last year.
-
Well..........since the workings of the environment, climate and atmosphere has been explained with the Iced Tea theory, it all becomes clear.
Great googly woogly, where do they come from?:rofl
-
curval.. I think that you read what you wanted to read in the "debunking" the numbers I gave are exact. you might look at this latest study too..
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
but.. you can read the original text of the other study I cited here...
http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/global_warming_majority_of_scientists_do_not_support_man_made_warming.htm
"Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results."
You can take what you want from this of course but the fact remains that just about no one is publishing papers these days that claim man made global warming is significant much less enough to cause any catastrophe.
fact is... more and more are falling off the tit.
lazs
-
wow croc-it... ice tea theory asside... if the melting ice is making the planet colder then how does the ocean remain warmer than before?
the fact is that there is more total ice on the planet than before.. most of the ice is in the south pole.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/1727
lazs
-
Well, those who cannot understand the function of an icecube into tea should maybe just stick at reading this thread...Jacka1 :D
Anyway Crockett:
"where did you get that non sense on ice pack growing..
Ever drink a glass of Ice tea lardz? Ever notice that the ice makes it cold? "
The packs measure out shrinking from the finests volume measurements and calculations. Period. The only twist from this are some points, especially in Antarctica, but even there, the pack is declining. And the Sl is rising, accordingly. It will be slow in the beginning, for water has a special trend with 4 degs celcius, which is more than the polar sea temps....I am sure it will do you good to look it up ;)
In the North it is quite evident, no debate I'm afraid.
What I was pointing out was that although the ice is melting, the seawater surrounding it is NOT cooling. It is not certain what is happening, but the cooler and warmer sea has a "weather" system on it's own, slow, but really heavy. Some recent fluctuations in ocean currents, notably the Gulf-stream would perhaps be related to this? Or is the heating simply enough to overcome this, - and THEN you have something to think about.
For the Ice that is disappearing should do 2 things.
1. cool the seawater surrounding it for a short while.
2. expose more seawater to the SUN (stupid), which absorbs a lot more solar energy than Ice, which has the tendency to bounce it into space again.
So, while #1 seems a bit under the weather, #2 stands firm. Bad bad
Equally bad, BTW, (Lazs will like this) a fast growing Ice sheet encourages cooling, - for the same reason....the SUNNNN!
-
wow... "it is not certain what is happening" yet... you blame co2 and man? "the ocean seems to have a weather system of it's own" yet you blame man and co2?
no wonder so many every day are falling out of step with the man made global warming religious parade.
The whole idea behind man made global warming was that since they couldn't understand the climate and what made if work... since it didn't act like the limited expertise they had said it should....
That therefore.. it had to be man.. nothing else could explain it. course.. the only thing we could be doing was co2 so it had to be that right?
wrong.. the math doesn't add up sooooo.. they simply say that it must be co2 but it is acting in a way that they don't understand.
They don't understand water vapor which is 75% of all greenhouse gas effect and is not affected by man... they don't understand how the sun works and very little about suns activity.
The more they do.. the less man made the whole thing seems yet... they waste all their time chasing the co2 boogeyman..
and many are dumb enough to listen and not question.
Their big problem is that they figured the lie would work if they put it off 50 or 100 years into the future...
The planet cooling is a nasty betrayal for them....
I could say that it is cooling at an alarming rate.. that at this rate... if we don't add ten times the co2.. we will be 30 degrees cooler by 2100
lazs
-
Originally posted by Angus
Well, those who cannot understand the function of an icecube into tea should maybe just stick at reading this thread...Jacka1 :D
Well I have to admit the Ice Tea theory makes about as much sense as the theories, BS, miscalculations, changes, rechanging, backpedaling, etc. of the Global War......errr climate change for lunch bunch. That being none in the scheme of things. :)
-
DEBUNK #1.
REALCLIMATE.org
"All of the models, and the observations, have the central parts of Greenland and Antarctica growing faster because of global warming. This is a consequence of warmer air holding more moisture, thus increasing snowfall. But the net effect of warming on both continental ice sheets is mass loss, the increased melting being a larger effect than the increased snowfall.
DEBUNK #2.
Specifically, the "consensus" about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend beyond the range of natural variability;
the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2;
the rise in CO2 is the result of burning fossil fuels
if CO2 continues to rise over the next century, the warming will continue; and
a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment.
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by ...
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
In addition to these national academies, the following institutions specializing in climate, atmosphere, ocean, and/or earth sciences have endorsed or published the same conclusions as presented in the TAR report:
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
American Institute of Physics (AIP)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
If this is not scientific consensus, what in the world would a consensus look like?
-
Objection: The sun is the source of warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is likely due to changes in solar radiation.
Answer: It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.
Turns out it's more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere -- after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun -- versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution -- is by taking readings from space.
This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the 1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.
RealClimate has a couple of detailed discussions on what we can conclude about solar forcing and how science reached those conclusions.
For story: 'It's the sun, stupid'
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/)
-
Just saw this on another fourm....
Have fun.
Interesting things happen when you solve a differential equation and use invalid boundary conditions.
You get the runaway greenhouse effect so loved by by Big Government.
Put the right values in, and the problem goes way. Poof.
***********
Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations "Totally Wrong"
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm
New derivation of equations governing the greenhouse effect reveals "runaway warming" impossible
Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher. He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.
That was until he learned the details of a new theory of the greenhouse effect, one that not only gave far more accurate climate predictions here on Earth, but Mars too. The theory was developed by another Hungarian scientist, Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist with 30 years of experience and a former researcher with NASA's Ames Research Center.
After studying it, Zágoni stopped calling global warming a crisis, and has instead focused on presenting the new theory to other climatologists. The data fit extremely well. "I fell in love," he stated at the International Climate Change Conference this week.
"Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.
How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.
Miskolczi's story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution -- originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today -- ignored boundary conditions by assuming an "infinitely thick" atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.
So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.
NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. "Money", he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.
Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, "Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results."
His theory was eventually published
<http://met.hu/omsz.php?almenu_id=omsz&pid=
references&mpx=0&kps=1&pri=2>
in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.
Rgeards,
Kevin
-
Even some guys in there that are morays superiors.. guys who have ten times his experience.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12
"Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said. "
lazs
-
"Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.”
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005. "
and many many more.. the site shows 400 of the top people in their fields who are skeptics.
More every day.. that is the main thing.. it is not that more scientists are coming on board with the whole man made global warming hoax.. it is that more are becoming skeptics or.. more accurately.. more are finding the courage to speak out.
lazs
-
Interesting Lazs.
I start searching these people... and come up with things like this...
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Currently an adjunct professor? For someone who is so incredibly qualified...he's just an adjunct professor now?
Then you quote BOTANIST Dr. David Bellamy.
Third... you quote a guy whom you refer to as a whack job for promoting the "ice age" of the 1970's.
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson)
Cmon bro. Get real. You can't have it both ways.
You surely realize your source is defunct from the beginning....oh, wait... you don't... otherwise you wouldn't have pasted 3 pages of it.
-
Al Gore invented the Ice Age to promote his Global Warming theory.
I'm beginning to see how this all works.
Mac
-
gee moray.. that is kinda the point.. he believed one thing and now he believes something else. I was talking about ones that have changed their minds about man made global warming.
lazs
-
gee moray.. that is kinda the point.. he believed one thing and now he believes something else. I was talking about ones that have changed their minds about man made global warming.
lazs
Well, you seem to pick nicely, for you have not discussed little of those stupid scientists promoting that 70's or 80's iceage.
I was always curious on that, for I missed it alltogether. I recall GW being predicted in some little time to come.
BTW, I mentioned that our winter was cool. Numbers have come through now, and it wasn't. Just colder than the last one, but not below average.
People...and their short memories....
-
As much as it pains me to admit it, it would appear the case for sun based global warming is looking less likely with another piece of research that can't corroborate the theory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm)
-
BUT... since you live in England, a place that sees probably 3 sunny days a year, you'd be used to warming without it though wouldn't you? :devil
-
sure its a legitimate theory alright. Its obvious the sun is getting hotter but does it corrolate? does anyone have real concrete data to support the theory. Its obvious the sun is getting hotter as it ages, deviance aside what is the gradual increase in relation to earths warming? personally I dont think about this much myself. great you brought it up to give the forum heads something to consider. personally i find it interesting myself.
-
The article is about the cosmic ray thoery, which is just one of a number of theories on how the sun affects climate.
Sun spots have been proven to change climate, and they have nothing to do with cosmic rays. So no matter what the article is trying to say, the sun definetly does have an effect.
-
That`s about as in-depth as Oprah reporting on bon bons.
-
yeah I can see it now, dowding sparks interest in astrology by global warming and gets half the forum green heads on there telescopes watching the night sky for signs of impending end. See that, that was a solar flare!
-
The article is about the cosmic ray thoery, which is just one of a number of theories on how the sun affects climate.
Sun spots have been proven to change climate, and they have nothing to do with cosmic rays. So no matter what the article is trying to say, the sun definetly does have an effect.
Do you even read?
Cosmic rays are deflected away from Earth by our planet's magnetic field, and by the solar wind - streams of electrically charged particles coming from the Sun.
The Svensmark hypothesis is that when the solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays penetrate to Earth.
That creates more charged particles in the atmosphere, which in turn induces more clouds to form, cooling the climate.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/c2.mpg
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/c3.mpg
-
Do you even read?http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/c2.mpg
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/hotshots/2003_11_04/c3.mpg
Like I said, sunspots are totally unrelated to what the article talks about
-
it's a good job the earth is only 2 sunspot cycles old or you could accuse those scientists of plucking conclusions out of their arse
-
You:
"Sun spots have been proven to change climate, and they have nothing to do with cosmic rays. "
The article:
"Cosmic rays are deflected away from Earth by our planet's magnetic field, and by the solar wind "
The article refutes a study that supposed solar wind's deflection of extra-solar cosmic rays was corelated to cloud density over the earth, with some effect on earth's climate. The first part is true, solar wind effectively reduces external cosmic rays, so they do have something to do with cosmic rays. In fact if the article and your post weren't so imprecise, it could be said that the two were the same, solar and external cosmic rays.
-
You:
"Sun spots have been proven to change climate, and they have nothing to do with cosmic rays. "
The article:
"Cosmic rays are deflected away from Earth by our planet's magnetic field, and by the solar wind "
The article refutes a study that supposed solar wind's deflection of extra-solar cosmic rays was corelated to cloud density over the earth, with some effect on earth's climate. The first part is true, solar wind effectively reduces external cosmic rays, so they do have something to do with cosmic rays. In fact if the article and your post weren't so imprecise, it could be said that the two were the same, solar and external cosmic rays.
Again, solar winds/ cosmic rays, have zilch to do with sun spots. No where in the article does it even mention the words sun spot.
-
Regardless, what are the lasting affects? Sun and solar flares affect, the earth recovers balances, where is the data that matters?
-
Again, solar winds/ cosmic rays, have zilch to do with sun spots.
http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/vvc/cosmicrays/crsun.html
Coffee at this point if anyone knew, you'd definitely have heard of it.
-
This subject could easily become some sort of debate where people trade theories facts and issues for agendas. It would be interesting to know a bit more. I have to admit I dont know much about it myself.
-
You mean this thread? There's been a long one before this one already, it shouldn't be too many pages back.
-
This one?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,218081.0.html
-
Your link just states what I was saying. I think you misinterpreted a part of it. During a solar maximum, when sun spots are more prevelent, the solar winds are stronger. If you do more research into it you will find that the solar winds are not stronger because of the sunspot, and the sunspots are not more widespread because of the solar winds. They are both caused by separate phenomina. The causing factors for each are unrelated. I can remeber exactly what the causing factors are, but I remember going over this last month in one of my classes.
-
Without our planet's magnetic field, Earth would be subjected to more cosmic radiation. The increase could knock out power grids, scramble the communications systems on spacecraft, temporarily widen atmospheric ozone holes, and generate more aurora activity.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/09/0909_040909_earthmagfield.html
-
Well, the magnetic poles do hop-&-bop arond, and,,,???
It's been moving quite a bit in the last year, and will continue to do so.
However the climate is another...issue..
-
I can't wait for the polls to shift, it's been my whole life's dream to watch this great train wreck/catastrophe :uhoh I mean come on as a kid didn't you think the world could just somehow, spin out of control! for a day or two? when you spin a top, does it not spin strait then curve and shake, then spin strait again? surely the world could not be that much different atleast i hope not! I want too see all these brilliant minds just go plumb goofy :rofl :rofl :rofl when the poop really hits the fan< just to let them know, what morons they really were!! :huh :aok :aok :aok
-
Then you don't have to wait, for now La Nina is active, so a slight cooling may be expected.
Then the polls will change again :D
BTW, newest research from the Univerity of Lancaster gives the result that recent warming has nothing at all to do with swings in solar activity....
-
I'm not sure I want to be here when the poles shift again.
So much of our everyday life will be effected by such an event. navigation as we know it will be impossible. Anything that depends on the magnetic field will be affected. It'll be interesting, but not in a "hey this is cool" way :(
-
CBass the spots are an index to solar activity, elements of which solar wind is one of. The first mention of spots was by you; why, I don't know. Regardless, cosmic rays onto earth from outside the solar system are deflected by solar wind, which itself has similar particles. Said particles are ejected in, among other occurences, coronal mass ejections, an illustration of which I linked to.. In which you can see some sort of corelation with sunspots, namely that sunspots are the mag field locations which CMEs belch from.
See this: http://www.cosmicrays.org/muon-rays.php
On average, every eleven years solar activity is high. The magnetic field of the sun increases, solar flares are more common, which produce magnetic clouds and therefore cosmic rays are deflected stronger than during a solar minimum. Thus, when the sun is active, fewer galactic cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere in order to produce secondary particles.
Maybe you got confused with flares? Flares also happen in sunspot regions.
-
I'm not sure I want to be here when the poles shift again.
So much of our everyday life will be effected by such an event. navigation as we know it will be impossible. Anything that depends on the magnetic field will be affected. It'll be interesting, but not in a "hey this is cool" way :(
You ARE here, and the magnetic poles ARE shifting ;)
Nothing compared to the axis properly shifting though ...
-
Hmmm, no increase in temp in 10 years.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346310,00.html
-
Well, in short:
"You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
Anyway, El Nino & La Nina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Nino
-
Well, in short:
"You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
Anyway, El Nino & La Nina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Nino
"pretty long", but not so long that you see wild fluctuations in temperature long before humans were emitting co2.
-
Well, in short:
"You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."
Anyway, El Nino & La Nina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Nino
and just how long are we talking200 or 500 years?1000 years? the industrial revolution is what most of use are concerned with, because, if there is man made global warming, then it had to be created in that time period !most testing and studies that i have seen show the air quality too be better than the mid 1800's (samples found in sealed containers).
most people believe that floro carbons (i probably misspelled that) are the cause of man made global warming,yet in the time frame for that product the temp has not increased more than at any other period
(side note mars temp rises and falls just as ours does because of the sun or so nasa say's) and most climate specialist's were under the impression that the stuff we put into the air would actually cause cooling instead of heating hence the ice age theory after nuclear war(nuclear winter) up until the 1970's when global warming was first introduced as nothing more than a theory and pretty much debunked as totally backward thinking!
my personal opinion is that man made global warming does not exist! :devil
-
and just how long are we talking200 or 500 years?1000 years? the industrial revolution is what most of use are concerned with, because, if there is man made global warming, then it had to be created in that time period !most testing and studies that i have seen show the air quality too be better than the mid 1800's (samples found in sealed containers).
most people believe that floro carbons (i probably misspelled that) are the cause of man made global warming,yet in the time frame for that product the temp has not increased more than at any other period
(side note mars temp rises and falls just as ours does because of the sun or so nasa say's) and most climate specialist's were under the impression that the stuff we put into the air would actually cause cooling instead of heating hence the ice age theory after nuclear war(nuclear winter) up until the 1970's when global warming was first introduced as nothing more than a theory and pretty much debunked as totally backward thinking!
my personal opinion is that man made global warming does not exist! :devil
Whiskey, with all due respect... you are entitled to your opinion. This opinion above has absolutely zero basis in any sort of fact whatsoever. Fluorocarbons have nothing to do with global warming. (they were theorized to cool the atmosphere, but CO2 overpowered their effect)
Mars is warming due to an entirely different process. (a period of intense storms in the 90's uncovered darker sand which absorbs radiation (sunlight) better)
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
April 4, 2007
Temperatures on Mars have increased slightly over a 20-year period due to the action of Martian winds, scientists have found.
New research has shown that dusty tornadoes called dust devils and gusty winds have helped the surface of Mars become darker, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's rays.
RELATED
Dry Ice Storms May Pelt Martian Poles, Experts Say (December 19, 2005)
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (February 28, 2007)
Mars Photo Gallery
Lori Fenton at the NASA Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, and colleagues used a computer model to study the effect that winds have had on Mars's climate.
During the 1970s Mars experienced several large wind storms that stirred up bright, shiny dust particles and redistributed them around the planet, the team explained.
In the 1980s and 1990s smaller-scale processes like dust devils tidied up the planet, the researchers said, pushing the bright dust aside to expose the darker rocks below
With all due respect... Please join a few others still confused in the reading room.
-
I'm not sure I want to be here when the poles shift again.
So much of our everyday life will be effected by such an event. navigation as we know it will be impossible. Anything that depends on the magnetic field will be affected. It'll be interesting, but not in a "hey this is cool" way :(
there is an upside to the magnetic poles doing a 180
(http://www.zorno.de/tagebuch/images/20070108_weltkarte_xl.gif)
-
Jee, what do we do if our AH maps go upside down!
-
Jee, what do we do if our AH maps go upside down!
From the trend I`ve seen recently................most wouldn`t notice. ;)
-
Whiskey, with all due respect... you are entitled to your opinion. This opinion above has absolutely zero basis in any sort of fact whatsoever. Fluorocarbons have nothing to do with global warming. (they were theorized to cool the atmosphere, but CO2 overpowered their effect)
Mars is warming due to an entirely different process. (a period of intense storms in the 90's uncovered darker sand which absorbs radiation (sunlight) better)
With all due respect... Please join a few others still confused in the reading room.
ok your the guy i want to talk to, were is the evedince of man made global warming?I.E. last 150 years, as opposed to natural warming and cooling of the earth? what hard facts? and which doctors and scientist's have found these hard facts! why is it that the air is cleaner now than 150 years ago? why is it that mars temp can raise and or lower on its own, but the earth can only do so because of man made global warming? why is it that no one will report about the volcanic activity under the ice caps, and or what effect it is haveing? co 2 levels could easely be related to many natural causes such as polar melting. i have read that not to long ago during testing that they found sections of ice that had way higher co-2 levels than at current, and as that ice melts the gas is released.
i dont really think we can effect the changes that some seem to think. i dont mind you showing me the cold hard facts! if you really want to fix the problem that is what it will take, along with a general consensus from the world of science! not vinager, but honey!Question is: Can man affect global warming?
From the global record
Many prominent climate scientists say no. They say the idea of man changing the global climate is a fallacy and the promotion of the idea is a fraud.
Professors Carl Wunsch of MIT, Richard Lindzen also of MIT, Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia and Syn-Ichi Akasofu of Arctic Research, find evidence that changes in Earth’s climate are affected far more by the sun than man’s activities.
The sun is huge; it has 99.8 percent of the mass of our solar system. Its mass is 330,000 times that of the Earth. Its diameter is 110 times that of the Earth. If the earth was the size of an orange, the sun would be the size of a two-story house. Its surface temperature is about 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit with its core at over 20 million degrees; an enormous fire ball with its sun spot activity changing and affecting Earth’s climate. It’s fair to say it dominates our solar system.
Consider what the sun does in a single day in the United States alone. The average daily temperature swing of a particular week in central Washington was about 18 degrees. Assume an average temperature increase of 10 degrees over the whole United States. That is an increase of 10 degrees over 3 million square miles. Does all of our combined energy consumption in a single day raise the temperature over the whole United States? Would a man try to raise the atmospheric temperature around his house by opening his doors and windows and turning up the thermostat? The sun does it in hours.
CO2 is about half of one per cent of all green house gases. Water vapor is huge at 95 percent.
CO2 produced by natural processes on the earth, including the ocean, are very huge compared to the CO2 produced by people. It does not make sense that something very small can overwhelm something very large.
Is man’s attempt to alter global climate change like a man who would try to stop an 8,000 ton freight train by driving his car on to the track?
Maybe the global warming hype is like the Chicken Little story. We should not be suckered into the fox den. Instead Al Gore could do like Chicken Little and carry an umbrella then he could calm down and feel safe.
Those are not my words i gave the source info.
-
Whiskey there are such things as a proportionaly small chemical imbalance starting a domino-like cascade of gradualy larger consequences, like a sort of butterfly effect across many otherwise unrelated systems.
No one knows for sure. All the resources being fed into either side of the campaigning should instead be put into researching the matter so that we'd know for sure.
-
Moot
i agree but some do not, they want to run around like chickens with there heads cut off ,wrecking our economy while they do it!
From The Earth TimesWASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.
Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.
Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."
The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.
"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."
"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.
The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.
Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.
Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172 /ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6773465-0779318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603742&sr=1-1
For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: cgfi@hughes.net
Hudson Institute
-
whiskey.. the computer models and the handwringer socialists who program em can't (and won't) predict the climate for next year or the year after. It has to be 50 years from now or longer so that they can get theirs before it all blows up in their faces.
The accuracy rate for "end of the world" scenarios over the last thousand years or so is.. zero frigging percent.
If these guys were around in 1900 they would have predicted that the horse crap in our streets would be 30 feet high by the year 2000 and that there would be the extinction of cows because of the buggy whip industry.
Just as we have gone to the moon from not even being able to go 50 feet in the air in 100 years and now travel at 40,000 feet for thousands of miles as a routine matter and get our entertainment and communications from satelites.. We probly won't be driving 1999 chevy luminas in 2100.
But.. they will not use any less energy.. that is for the little folks.. and they will make their livelyhood out of the panic mongering.
Notice not much was said about global warming this winter and cool year? they will ramp it up at the first heat wave anywhere in the world.. probly about june they will start trying to scare the poodle people.
We have enjoyed a wonderful (least I have) warm period of our natural climate cycles.. it has been a very productive and healthy thing.. many have missed the mild winters and summers because they were so scared to go outside and enjoy.. too bad.. we are headed for a cooling cycle that won't be quite as pleasant.
I hope this warming cycle lasts a few more years but doubt it.
Moot.. certainly small amounts of a chemical can tip things but.. the C02 math does not add up.. at least 60% or more of the doubling effect.. the most potent part.. has happened.. the rest will have much less effect.. even the most rabid alarmists have backed off predictions they made even 5 years ago.
lazs
-
I didn't mean CO2 specificaly.. I mean that such patterns are as likely to happen as any other, and that I doubt anyone knows what all the cogs are, that make global climate as a whole turn one way or another.
-
From Sepp Hasslberger
shortened to fit
Climate chaos? Don't believe it
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph
The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon.
the UN undervalued the sun's effects on historical and contemporary climate, slashed the natural greenhouse effect, overstated the past century's temperature increase, repealed a fundamental law of physics and tripled the man-made greenhouse effect.
the UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.
Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period (the global warming at the end of the First Millennium AD). In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "
So they did. The UN's second assessment report, in 1996, showed a 1,000-year graph demonstrating that temperature in the Middle Ages was warmer than today. But the 2001 report contained a new graph showing no medieval warm period. It wrongly concluded that the 20th century was the warmest for 1,000 years. The graph looked like an ice hockey-stick. The wrongly flat AD1000-AD1900 temperature line was the shaft: the uptick from 1900 to 2000 was the blade. Here's how they did it:
• They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).
• The technique they overweighted was one which the UN's 1996 report had said was unsafe: measurement of tree-rings from bristlecone pines. Tree-rings are wider in warmer years, but pine-rings are also wider when there's more carbon dioxide in the air: it's plant food. This carbon dioxide fertilisation distorts the calculations.
• They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".
• They used a computer model to draw the graph from the data, but scientists later found that the model almost always drew hockey-sticks even if they fed in random, electronic "red noise".
The large, full-colour "hockey-stick" was the key graph in the UN's 2001 report, and the only one to appear six times. The Canadian Government copied it to every household.
Four years passed before a leading scientific journal would publish the truth about the graph. Did the UN or the Canadian government apologise? Of course not. The UN still uses the graph in its publications.
The UN, echoed by Stern, says the graph isn't important. It is. Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.
The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air.
In some places it was also warmer than now in the Bronze Age and in Roman times. It wasn't CO2 that caused those warm periods. It was the sun. So the UN adjusted the maths and all but extinguished the sun's role in today's warming. Here's how:
• The UN dated its list of "forcings" (influences on temperature) from 1750, when the sun, and consequently air temperature, was almost as warm as now. But its start-date for the increase in world temperature was 1900, when the sun, and temperature, were much cooler.
• Every "forcing" produces "climate feedbacks" making temperature rise faster. For instance, as temperature rises in response to a forcing, the air carries more water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas; and polar ice melts, increasing heat absorption. Up goes the temperature again. The UN more than doubled the base forcings from greenhouse gases to allow for climate feedbacks. It didn't do the same for the base solar forcing.
Sami Solanki, a solar physicist, says that in the past half-century the sun has been warmer, for longer, than at any time in at least the past 11,400 years, contributing a base forcing equivalent to a quarter of the past century's warming. That's before adding climate feedbacks.
The UN expresses its heat-energy forcings in watts per square metre per second. It estimates that the sun caused just 0.3 watts of forcing since 1750. Begin in 1900 to match the temperature start-date, and the base solar forcing more than doubles to 0.7 watts. Multiply by 2.7, which the Royal Society suggests is the UN's current factor for climate feedbacks, and you get 1.9 watts – more than six times the UN's figure.
The entire 20th-century warming from all sources was below 2 watts. The sun could have caused just about all of it.
Next, the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent from 33C in the climate-physics textbooks to 20C, making the man-made additions appear bigger.
Then the UN chose the biggest 20th-century temperature increase it could find. Stern says: "As anticipated by scientists, global mean surface temperatures have risen over the past century." As anticipated? Only 30 years ago, scientists were anticipating a new Ice Age and writing books called The Cooling.
In the US, where weather records have been more reliable than elsewhere, 20th-century temperature went up by only 0.3C. AccuWeather, a worldwide meteorological service, reckons world temperature rose by 0.45C. The US National Climate Data Centre says 0.5C. Any advance on 0.5? The UN went for 0.6C, probably distorted by urban growth near many of the world's fast-disappearing temperature stations.
Even a 0.6C temperature rise wasn't enough. So the UN repealed a fundamental physical law. Buried in a sub-chapter in its 2001 report is a short but revealing section discussing "lambda": the crucial factor converting forcings to temperature. The UN said its climate models had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per watt of forcing.
You don't need computer models to "find" lambda. Its value is given by a century-old law, derived experimentally by a Slovenian professor and proved by his Austrian student (who later committed suicide when his scientific compatriots refused to believe in atoms). The Stefan-Boltzmann law, not mentioned once in the UN's 2001 report, is as central to the thermodynamics of climate as Einstein's later equation is to astrophysics. Like Einstein's, it relates energy to the square of the speed of light, but by reference to temperature rather than mass.
The bigger the value of lambda, the bigger the temperature increase the UN could predict. Using poor Ludwig Boltzmann's law, lambda's true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt. In 2001, the UN effectively repealed the law, doubling lambda to 0.5C per watt. A recent paper by James Hansen says lambda should be 0.67, 0.75 or 1C: take your pick. Sir John Houghton, who chaired the UN's scientific assessment working group until recently, tells me it now puts lambda at 0.8C: that's 3C for a 3.7-watt doubling of airborne CO2. Most of the UN's computer models have used 1C. Stern implies 1.9C.
On the UN's figures, the entire greenhouse-gas forcing in the 20th century was 2 watts. Multiplying by the correct value of lambda gives a temperature increase of 0.44 to 0.6C, in line with observation. But using Stern's 1.9C per watt gives 3.8C. Where did 85 per cent of his imagined 20th-century warming go? As Professor Dick Lindzen of MIT pointed out in The Sunday Telegraph last week, the UK's Hadley Centre had the same problem, and solved it by dividing its modelled output by three to "predict" 20th-century temperature correctly.
Finally, the UN's predictions are founded not only on an exaggerated forcing-to-temperature conversion factor justified neither by observation nor by physical law, but also on an excessive rate of increase in airborne carbon dioxide. The true rate is 0.38 per cent year on year since records began in 1958. The models assume 1 per cent per annum, more than two and a half times too high. In 2001, the UN used these and other adjustments to predict a 21st-century temperature increase of 1.5 to 6C. Stern suggests up to 10C.
Why haven't air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN's models predicted? Because the science is bad, the "consensus" is wrong, and Herr Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, FRS, was as right about energy-to-temperature as he was about atoms.
-
From Sepp Hasslberger
shortened to fit
Climate chaos? Don't believe it
By Christopher Monckton, Sunday Telegraph
The Royal Society says there's a worldwide scientific consensus. It brands Apocalypse-deniers as paid lackeys of coal and oil corporations. I declare my interest: I once took the taxpayer's shilling and advised Margaret Thatcher, FRS, on scientific scams and scares. Alas, not a red cent from Exxon.
Ok...you are late to this party. Do a little background on Monck. His article is already debunked. Read thoroughly and ask questions as needed.
Cuckoo Science
Filed under: Sun-earth connections Greenhouse gases Climate Science— gavin @ 7:55 AM - ()
Sometimes on Realclimate we discuss important scientific uncertainties, and sometimes we try and clarify some subtle point or context, but at other times, we have a little fun in pointing out some of the absurdities that occasionally pass for serious 'science' on the web and in the media. These pieces look scientific to the layperson (they have equations! references to 19th Century physicists!), but like cuckoo eggs in a nest, they are only designed to look real enough to fool onlookers and crowd out the real science. A cursory glance from anyone knowledgeable is usually enough to see that concepts are being mangled, logic is being thrown to the winds, and completetly unjustified conclusions are being drawn - but the tricks being used are sometimes a little subtle.
Two pieces that have recently drawn some attention fit this mould exactly. One by Christopher Monckton (a viscount, no less, with obviously too much time on his hands) which comes complete with supplematary 'calculations' using his own 'M' model of climate, and one on JunkScience.com ('What Watt is what'). Junk Science is a front end for Steve Milloy, long time tobacco, drug and oil industry lobbyist, and who has been a reliable source for these 'cuckoo science' pieces for years. Curiously enough, both pieces use some of the same sleight-of-hand to fool the unwary (coincidence?).
But never fear, RealClimate is here!
The two pieces both spend a lot of time discussing climate sensitivity but since they don't clearly say so upfront, it might not at first be obvious. (This is possibly because if you google the words 'climate sensitivity' you get very sensible discussions of the concept from Wikipedia, ourselves and the National Academies). We have often made the case here that equilibrium climate sensitivity is most likely to be around 0.75 +/- 0.25 C/(W/m2) (corresponding to about a 3°C rise for a doubling of CO2).
Both these pieces instead purport to show using 'common sense' arguments that climate sensitivity must be small (more like 0.2 W/m2, or less than 1°C for 2xCO2). Our previous posts should be enough to demonstrate that this can't be correct, but it worth seeing how they arithimetically manage to get these answers. To save you having to wade through it all, I'll give you the answer now: the clue is in the units of climate sensitivity - °C/(W/m2). Any temperature change (in °C) divided by any energy flux (in W/m2) will have the same unit and thus can be 'compared'. But unless you understand how radiative forcing is defined (it's actually quite specific), and why it's a useful diagnostic, these similar seeming values could be confusing. Which is presumably the point.
Readers need to be aware of at least two basic things. First off, an idealised 'black body' (which gives of radiation in a very uniform and predictable way as a function of temperature - encapsulated in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation) has a basic sensitivity (at Earth's radiating temperature) of about 0.27 °C/(W/m2). That is, a change in radiative forcing of about 4 W/m2 would give around 1°C warming. The second thing to know is that the Earth is not a black body! On the real planet, there are multitudes of feedbacks that affect other greenhouse components (ice alebdo, water vapour, clouds etc.) and so the true issue for climate sensitivity is what these feedbacks amount to.
So here's the first trick. Ignore all the feedbacks - then you will obviously get to a number that is close to the 'black body' calculation. Duh! Any calculation that lumps together water vapour and CO2 is effectively doing this (and if anyone is any doubt about whether water vapour is forcing or a feedback, I'd refer them to this older post).
As we explain in our glossary item, climatologists use the concept of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity because it provides a very robust predictive tool for knowing what model results will be, given a change of forcing. The climate sensitivity is an output of complex models (it is not decided ahead of time) and it doesn't help as much with the details of the response (i.e. regional patterns or changes in variance), but it's still quite useful for many broad brush responses. Empirically, we know that for a particular model, once you know its climate sensitivity you can easily predict how much it will warm or cool if you change one of the forcings (like CO2 or solar). We also know that the best definition of the forcing is the change in flux at the tropopause, and that the most predictable diagnostic is the global mean surface temperature anomaly. Thus it is natural to look at the real world and see whether there is evidence that it behaves in the same way (and it appears to, since model hindcasts of past changes match observations very well).
So for our next trick, try dividing energy fluxes at the surface by temperature changes at the surface. As is obvious, this isn't the same as the definition of climate sensitivity - it is in fact the same as the black body (no feedback case) discussed above - and so, again it's no surprise when the numbers come up as similar to the black body case.
But we are still not done! The next thing to conviently forget is that climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept. It tells you the temperature that you get to eventually. In a transient situation (such as we have at present), there is a lag related to the slow warm up of the oceans, which implies that the temperature takes a number of decades to catch up with the forcings. This lag is associated with the planetary energy imbalance and the rise in ocean heat content. If you don't take that into account it will always make the observed 'sensitivity' smaller than it should be. Therefore if you take the observed warming (0.6°C) and divide by the estimated total forcings (~1.6 +/- 1W/m2) you get a number that is roughly half the one expected. You can even go one better - if you ignore the fact that there are negative forcings in the system as well (cheifly aerosols and land use changes), the forcing from all the warming effects is larger still (~2.6 W/m2), and so the implied sensitivity even smaller! Of course, you could take the imbalance (~0.33 +/- 0.23 W/m2 in a recent paper) into account and use the total net forcing, but that would give you something that includes 3°C for 2xCO2 in the error bars, and that wouldn't be useful, would it?
And finally, you can completely contradict all your prior working by implying that all the warming is due to solar forcing. Why is this contradictory? Because all of the above tricks work for solar forcings as well as greenhouse gas forcings. Either there are important feedbacks or there aren't. You can't have them for solar and not for greenhouse gases. Our best estimates of solar are that it is about 10 to 15% the magnitude of the greenhouse gas forcing over the 20th Century. Even if that is wrong by a factor of 2 (which is conceivable), it's still less than half of the GHG changes. And of course, when you look at the last 50 years, there are no trends in solar forcing at all. Maybe it's best not to mention that.
There you have it. The cuckoo has come in and displaced the whole field of climate science. Impressive, yes? Errrr…. not really.
-
This just in..........................
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm
hmmmm since 1998?
Then follow the money?????
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSBKK28941120080404?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews&rpc=22&sp=true
and then follow mpre of the money........................ .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/apr/04/insurance.insurance
interesting?
-
Monk is one person, over five hundred scientist's have declared the falt in this theory as have they also found the fault in the U.N. data, but fill me in, how was he debunked? as with most scientist's the argument is part of the fact finding mission , to just accept that man made global warming exist is to go against everything that science stands for! why on earth then would you put stock in that theory? there is more than one way to prove this type of problem yet you have yet to put one forth.
"this guy is a fraud!" or "that has too be!" that is all i hear !there are no absolutes in this yet, exept for the fact that politicians push the man made global warming theory, and scientist disprove it!
Show me real data source material and the formula it was derived from if it is for real and the numbers have not been "fixed" in a way that skewws either way, then you will have done more than anyone else to support your cause! you will have been truthfull. as i said i dont know for sure one way or another but the science sure looks like it goes against man made global warming!
-
100 yea ! o and i was wandering if you found any dirt on david deming?
i bet you will have a feild day with him!
-
New talk by Al Gore, at TED, again about Global Warming, but back with a vengeance:
In Al Gore's brand-new slideshow (premiering exclusively on TED.com), he presents evidence that the pace of climate change may be even worse than scientists were recently predicting, and challenges us to act with a sense of "generational mission" -- the kind of feeling that brought forth the civil rights movement -- to set it right. Gore's stirring presentation is followed by a brief Q&A in which he is asked for his verdict on the current political candidates' climate policies and on what role he himself might play in future.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/243
-
So long as Gore is himself producing as much carbon as a small country no one who takes any of this seriously should give him a second glance. Of course they will. We need a lemmings smiley.
-
That's no argument, Iron... So what if he's a dirty carbon pig? His arguments are what need to be refuted for his credibility to really croak over and die.
IMO people need to wake up and smell the roses.. So long as we don't understand what makes the climate tick, we are incapable of affecting it and are just along for the ride, for better or worse. It's high time we got off this rock and spread our eggs to other baskets.
-
Gore's (and all the other GW nut jobs) recent sense of unrgency and "it's worse than previously predicted" mantra stems from the simple fact that they HAVE to get something started in order for them to be able to point back to this period of time and claim responsibility for curbing global warming. They have to do that NOW because it looks like mother nature is the one curbing the warming.
-
And they won't have any good reason not to, in the eyes of the public, until a valid, factual, refutal of their assertions is brought up. Or failing that, a clear demonstration that there's no grounds for any sort of conclusions, yet.
"Who dares, wins".
-
That's no argument, Iron... So what if he's a dirty carbon pig? His arguments are what need to be refuted for his credibility to really croak over and die.
IMO people need to wake up and smell the roses.. So long as we don't understand what makes the climate tick, we are incapable of affecting it and are just along for the ride, for better or worse. It's high time we got off this rock and spread our eggs to other baskets.
His argument is full of holes that have already been debunked repeatedly. He appears to be the self proclaimed high priest of the Global Warming Alarmists. I am addressing his hypocrisy.
-
Look, many of those who have swallowed the bait hook line and sinker did so because they want to have a purpose, be part of something larger than themselves. They want someone who will lead them to the promised land. This requires trust and faith but they are putting it in someone who has demostrated clearly that he is not trustworthy. They should at least crown someone who is not so obviously unfaithful to their religion.
-
It's just proof that Gore's version of the facts is more credible than the others, in that vast public's case... Ron Paul is just one of many other instances of the truth just not being appealing enough.
The truth needs to be made clear enough that anyone will recognize it for what it is. One of the easiest methods in showing the holes in a bad theory's hull is to ride it on out into the sea..
-
Smell the roses.
Then smell the roses where they didn't grow since civilization....
-
Look, many of those who have swallowed the bait hook line and sinker did so because they want to have a purpose, be part of something larger than themselves. They want someone who will lead them to the promised land. This requires trust and faith but they are putting it in someone who has demostrated clearly that he is not trustworthy. They should at least crown someone who is not so obviously unfaithful to their religion.
Again your vast conspiracy theorist thinking puts itself face forward. The problem with Gore is he tried to "dumb down" a difficult to understand concept, in layperson's terms. He simply stood up for what he thinks is right. That people agree with him, as far as responsible stewardship of this planet, is pretty self explanatory.
I find it most telling to talk to those who have been a part of this countries manned space missions. I have been lucky enough to talk with a few, and their perspective gave me pause to consider exactly what all of this means, in context.
The overwhelming consensus from those I've spoken to has seemed to be of wonder, awe and stark reality. Displaced from the surface of the planet by a mere 200 or so miles, and the entire ball that we live on already seems incredibly small. The atmosphere that we rely on for everything.... paper thin. You can see through it, edge on, from space. Basically, 100,000 feet of mixed gases seperate us from 0 degrees Kelvin. (-273.15 C)
Is it truly far fetched that changing the composition of this layer is not going to produce effects upon the climate under it?
In science, changing one part, one letter in an equation, almost invariably changes the downstream accummulation of readings. The picture geologically shows us what increased CO2 load and CH4 load does to the planet's temperature.
The National Center for Atmospheric Research Climate System Model (CSM) is used to evaluate estimates of Cretaceous atmospheric carbon dioxide. The CSM is a comprehensive coupled atmosphere, ocean, land surface, and sea ice model. It has been integrated for the Late Cretaceous (80 Ma) with atmospheric CO_2 concentrations of 1120 and 1680 ppmv. The model-predicted ocean temperatures, surface and deep-water, are compared to published estimates of ocean temperatures from DSDP and ODP sites in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. For the higher CO_2 integration, the CSM Cretaceous tropical sea surface temperatures (SSTs) average 31-33^oC, a warming of 3-4^oC compared to simulated present-day values. These predicted SSTs are consistent with the inferred upper ocean temperatures from the newest analyses of core data. Considerable east-west asymmetries exist across the ocean basins, with equatorial SSTs of 29.76oC in the eastern Pacific to 34^oC in the western Pacific
7. Atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial concentration of about 280 ppmv to about 367 ppmv at present (ppmv= parts per million by volume). CO2 concentration data from before 1958 are from ice core measurements taken in Antarctica and from 1958 onwards are from the Mauna Loa measurement site. The smooth curve is based on a hundred year running mean. It is evident that the rapid increase in CO2 concentrations has been occurring since the onset of industrialization. The increase has closely followed the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.
We seem to be looking at the same picture and arguing over the artist, not the paint, which is on the wall.
CO2 is tied explicitly to warmer periods of our earth. CH4 is even more powerful. We belch out billions of tons of CO2 emissions each year, and yet some can attempt to argue, with a stunning lack of sane rationality, that we are at the very least (I would argue moreso) somewhat responsible for what is happening?????
It truly is the death of thought, whence dogma and preconception becomes the norm.
-
Again your vast conspiracy theorist thinking puts itself face forward. The problem with Gore is he tried to "dumb down" a difficult to understand concept, in layperson's terms. He simply stood up for what he thinks is right. That people agree with him, as far as responsible stewardship of this planet, is pretty self explanatory.
Like when he skipped the part about co2 lagging temperature increases by simply saying it was "complicated". Yeah, he dumbed it down alright, so people would believe what he was selling. If he is standing for "what he thinks is right" then why does he continue to contribute far more co2 to our atmosphere than the average Joe?
-
Gore's (and all the other GW nut jobs) recent sense of unrgency and "it's worse than previously predicted" mantra stems from the simple fact that they HAVE to get something started in order for them to be able to point back to this period of time and claim responsibility for curbing global warming. They have to do that NOW because it looks like mother nature is the one curbing the warming.
Yet another reach for vanity. The north pole puts on 6 inches of ice in the solar minimum and suddenly it's all over, in a season. Don't fret sir. The new sunspot cycle just started in January. Ask me about it in 5 years. Heck, ask me about it after the summer melt, and all of that "new ice" and more "old ice" goes away. It's kind of scary that most of this warming has occurred during a solar minimum in activity.... you know, the upturn in the frequency of El Nino, the retreating of every glacier on the planet save for, five that are being tracked. Go ask the scientists studying glaciers in Montana. 100 years ago.... 150 glaciers. This year? 27. A total loss of 90% of ice mass... half of that in the past 25 years. You might be happy in that respect... in another 5 years they all might be out of a job.
(http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20030320/sun5m_tn.jpg)
One warm year does not make a shift. (30 or so..... still no, by your measure) One cold year at the sun's least active period of time in 14 years...(and ostensibly, cold when compared by the previous 30)... and the whole idea is out the window and all the scientists are nuts.
Still, while you argue, My own measurements have sea level going up by .368 centimeters last year, incredibly almost exactly what was predicted. Since water does not accumulate from space appreciably, nor without notice (I didn't see any comets 20 miles wide hit us this year), that rise has been from meltwater. Meltwater comes from melting. Source can be arguable... unless you can find evidence of some melting somewhere...http://www.livescience.com/environment/060324_glacier_melt.html (http://www.livescience.com/environment/060324_glacier_melt.html)
Hmmm... i'm stumped. :huh
-
This is like game developers commiting to a deadline. The global climate model shouldn't be grounds for any decision, nevermind public propaganda, until it's done. In the mean time, though, it is common sense not to poop where we eat. It's also common sense not to waste the resources we have; we'd have more of whatever product those resources are spent on producing (e.g. fast quarter miles) if waste was reduced.
It's also common sense to improve energy harvesting technology.. There's enough coming out of the sun to dwarf any expense we make now, even in a wasteful energy diet. Same with hard resources in the asteroid belt, on the moon, etc.
Angus - Meaning?
-
27 April 2007
The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)
On the face of it, it sounds like a reasonable question. It is no surprise that it comes up because it is one of the most popular claims made by the global warming deniers. It got a particularly high profile airing a couple of weeks ago, when congressman Joe Barton brought it up to try to discredit Al Gore’s congressional testimony. Barton said:
In your movie, you display a timeline of temperature and compared to CO2 levels over a 600,000-year period as reconstructed from ice core samples. You indicate that this is conclusive proof of the link of increased CO2 emissions and global warming. A closer examination of these facts reveals something entirely different. I have an article from Science magazine which I will put into the record at the appropriate time that explains that historically, a rise in CO2 concentrations did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1,000 years. CO2 levels went up after the temperature rose. The temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa. On this point, Mr. Vice President, you’re not just off a little. You’re totally wrong.
Of course, those who've been paying attention will recognize that Gore is not wrong at all. This subject has been very well addressed in numerous places. Indeed, guest contributor Jeff Severinghaus addressed this in one of our very first RealClimate posts, way back in 2004. Still, the question does keep coming up, and Jeff recently received a letter asking about this. His exchange with the letter writer is reproduced in full at the end of this post. Below is my own take on the subject.
First of all, saying "historically" is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn't really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts.
Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature. In that paper (Lorius et al., 1990), they say that:
changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing
What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.
Several recent papers have indeed established that there is lag of CO2 behind temperature. We don't really know the magnitude of that lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores, due to the time delay in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice (the ice at any time will always be younger older than the gas bubbles it encloses, and the age difference is inherently uncertain). Still, the best published calculations do show values similar to those quoted by Barton (presumably, taken from this paper by Monnin et al. (2001), or this one by Caillon et al. (2003)). But the calculations can only be done well when the temperature change is large, notably at glacial terminations (the gradual change from cold glacial climate to warm interglacial climate). Importantly, it takes more than 5000 years for this change to occur, of which the lag is only a small fraction (indeed, one recently submitted paper I'm aware of suggests that the lag is even less than 200 years). So it is not as if the temperature increase has already ended when CO2 starts to rise. Rather, they go very much hand in hand, with the temperature continuing to rise as the the CO2 goes up. In other words, CO2 acts as an amplifier, just as Lorius, Hansen and colleagues suggested.
Now, it there is a minor criticism one might level at Gore for his treatment of this subject in the film (as we previously pointed out in our review). As it turns out though, correcting this would actually further strengthen Gore's case, rather than weakening it. Here's why:
The record of temperature shown in the ice core is not a global record. It is a record of local Antarctic temperature change. The rest of the globe does indeed parallel the polar changes closely, but the global mean temperature changes are smaller. While we don't know precisely why the CO2 changes occur on long timescales, (the mechanisms are well understood; the details are not), we do know that explaining the magnitude of global temperature change requires including CO2. This is a critical point. We cannot explain the temperature observations without CO2. But CO2 does not explain all of the change, and the relationship between temperature and CO2 is therefore by no means linear. That is, a given amount of CO2 increase as measured in the ice cores need not necessarily correspond with a certain amount of temperature increase. Gore shows the strong parallel relationship between the temperature and CO2 data from the ice cores, and then illustrates where the CO2 is now (384 ppm), leaving the viewer's eye to extrapolate the temperature curve upwards in parallel with the rising CO2. Gore doesn't actually make the mistake of drawing the temperature curve, but the implication is obvious: temperatures are going to go up a lot. But as illustrated in the figure below, simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the Antarctic temperature in the near future somewhere upwards of 10 degrees Celsius warmer than present — rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here).
Global average temperature is lower during glacial periods for two primary reasons:
1) there was only about 190 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, and other major greenhouse gases (CH4 and N2O) were also lower
2) the earth surface was more reflective, due to the presence of lots of ice and snow on land, and lots more sea ice than today (that is, the albedo was higher).
As very nicely discussed by Jim Hansen in his recent Scientific American article, the second of these two influences is the larger, accounting for about 2/3 of the total radiative forcing. CO2 and other greenhouse gases account for the other 1/3. Again, this was all pretty well known in 1990, at the time of the Lorius et al. paper cited above.
In summary, the ice core data in no way contradict our understanding of the relationship between CO2 and temperature, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with what Gore says in the film. Indeed, Gore could have used the ice core data to make an additional and stronger point, which is that these data provide a nice independent test of climate sensitivity, which gives a result in excellent agreement with results from models.
A final point. In Barton's criticism of Gore he also points out that CO2 has sometimes been much higher than it is at present. That is true. CO2 may have reached levels of 1000 parts per million (ppm) — perhaps much higher — at times in the distant geological past (e.g. the Eocene, about 55 million years ago). What Barton doesn't bother to mention is that the earth was much much warmer at such times. In any case, more relevant is that CO2 has not gone above about 290 ppm any time in the last 650,000 years (at least), until the most recent increase, which is unequivocally due to human activities.
-
Many words there Moray but in essence it does not deny that co2 lags temperature increase. It claims (unproven) that the increased co2 resulting from an increasing temperature amplifies the effect. While that may be true it may also be true that the increasing level of co2 has no significant effect on the temperature. Fact is, Gore skipped over it because it was an "inconvenient truth".
-
Well.............
here it goes......................
http://www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/global_3006___article.html/warming_tax.html
-
Well.............
here it goes......................
http://www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/global_3006___article.html/warming_tax.html
Yep....here we go. Gotta get that tax in force so that it will look like it was man made global climate control that caused a reverse in warming.
Do think that this will be the end of it.
Cap and trade...someone's has to administer the exchange of carbon credits. And guess what...I'm sure there will be a fee and someone will make money off it.
-
http://www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/global_3006___article.html/warming_tax.html
[HIJACK] Hm. Desert Dispatch? I thought I was the only viewer of that small town newspaper. :)
[/HIJACK]
-
[HIJACK] Hm. Desert Dispatch? I thought I was the only viewer of that small town newspaper. :)
[/HIJACK]
NOPE!!! :O
NEENER NEENER :D
-
Lagging or leading, it's basically known how it works, and without greenhouse effect we'd be frozen all over.
-
Lagging or leading, it's basically known how it works, and without greenhouse effect we'd be frozen all over.
funny and yet plausable
-
moot has it right..
It matters not. What matters is who has the best show. Who can give the best performance.
No one knows.. no one can even predict next year or five years.. in 1900 it could be said that the streets would be 30' deep in horse dung by now.
What will matter is this.. if the hand wringers try to bleed too much out of the people.. they will not buy the con. They will say... "not worth it" or.. they will run to the skeptics for comfort.
If we have a few cold years.. the marks won't buy the con.
If we have a real hot summer and the handwringers get a big enough push right in the middle of a heat wave and exaggerate it enough.. they will be able to fleece a big chunk of change out of the sheeple.. even get some laws passed that generate billions or trillions of bucks a year for decades.
One thing is certain.. Mother nature will rule.. if it gets cold too soon.. the whole thing will fall apart. they need to work fast but.. if they work too fast.. it will allow the sheeple to see what a hit to their lives they are taking.
Hence.. no real pushing during this winter.. They kept pretty darn quite you might have noticed all winter. Hard to make people beg to pay more to end the warming when they are paying three bucks a gallon for heating oil to heat a frozen home
it will come this summer.. a few mild summers and cold winters like the last few and no one... NO ONE is gonna go for a couple thousand dollars a year hit on their income to maybe save (or not) a few polar bears.
In the end.. the worst thing for the hand wringers is that it has been very pleasant in the US.. mild summers and winters with no end in sight.. no green areas turning to desert.
Myself... I have been enjoying this mild and pleasant warm period in our climate history... it will get cold soon enough.. I feel sorry for those of you who haven't got out and enjoyed it.
lazs
-
Hehe, Lazs, I'm going to save your day :t
Al Gore was in Iceland, I think he left yesterday. In his wake came some cold air, and a blizzard, leaving some 6 inches of snow.
Not joking! It's a fact!
Maybe just me, and I still basically disagree with you on the major climate issues, but I still thought I'd please you with this one :devil
-
Lagging or leading, it's basically known how it works, and without greenhouse effect we'd be frozen all over.
Certainly the greenhouse effect keeps us warm. Not so certain is what role co2 plays in this.
-
It is one of the gases included in the effect, and not the strongest at it.
-
Many words there Moray but in essence it does not deny that co2 lags temperature increase. It claims (unproven) that the increased co2 resulting from an increasing temperature amplifies the effect. While that may be true it may also be true that the increasing level of co2 has no significant effect on the temperature. Fact is, Gore skipped over it because it was an "inconvenient truth".
It says, just as the science does, that during interglacial warming CO2 can be predicted to lag until the retreat of the ice sheets worldwide.
changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing
What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.
Why even attempt to show you where science is at if your preconceptions get in the way all the time? Marine biological photosynthesis is a major user of carbon. While the levels go up, the microscopic plants in the ocean that do most of this, increase in population as well, due to higher levels of raw material for metabolic process, IE CO2. At some point this population slows and or crashes, due to another mitigating population control. (surging water temperatures are most likely to be this) Thus CO2 will lag until this happens, which in some newer papers, is around 200 years, maybe less.
Here is the problem with your types. Arguing a point that is 17 to 20 years past argument.... It's already been agreed upon. Yet denialists can't wrap their minds around it, as par for most issues that deal with anything scientific.
-
It says, just as the science does, that during interglacial warming CO2 can be predicted to lag until the retreat of the ice sheets worldwide.
Why even attempt to show you where science is at if your preconceptions get in the way all the time? Marine biological photosynthesis is a major user of carbon. While the levels go up, the microscopic plants in the ocean that do most of this, increase in population as well, due to higher levels of raw material for metabolic process, IE CO2. At some point this population slows and or crashes, due to another mitigating population control. (surging water temperatures are most likely to be this) Thus CO2 will lag until this happens, which in some newer papers, is around 200 years, maybe less.
Here is the problem with your types. Arguing a point that is 17 to 20 years past argument.... It's already been agreed upon. Yet denialists can't wrap their minds around it, as par for most issues that deal with anything scientific.
Uh, did you just agree with me that co2 lags temperature rise? I never argued as to why this is. Arguing with you is like arguing with Arlo except he doesn't get quite so insulting.
-
Uh, did you just agree with me that co2 lags temperature rise? I never argued as to why this is. Arguing with you is like arguing with Arlo except he doesn't get quite so insulting.
Yes, just as is was said, "DURING INTERGLACIAL WARMING". That caveat is very important. In historical context, CO2 leads. On interglacial contexts, it lags. There is a reason for that and I just explained it to you..... Yet you still feel the point is important without obviously recognizing the difference.
-
Yes, just as is was said, "DURING INTERGLACIAL WARMING". That caveat is very important. In historical context, CO2 leads. On interglacial contexts, it lags. There is a reason for that and I just explained it to you..... Yet you still feel the point is important without obviously recognizing the difference.
On the chart Al Gore used in his presentation every instance of increasing co2 was preceeded by temperature increases, every single one. Do you deny this or that he ignored this?
-
Hehe, being in all those threads, I must confess that I have not completely seen Gore's film. Just slabs from it.
-
angus.. it is awful.. in england they have to show it as fiction at schools.
I think that what the alarmists are saying is... "we don't understand all the things that change climate and we don't understand greenhouse gas.. even water vapor so.. we will take the one thing that we can change and say it is to blame."
What they say is that they don't understand how say... water vapor works but.. they assign a value to it.. they say that so much of it is responsible for so much warming.. they do that with dozens of factors.. they then say that since none of these factors in their mind account for the warming they are seeing.. it must be the one, in this case co2 that has changed the most.. even tho.. it is one of the tiniest of all possible warming effects.
They don't pretend to know how the others work or interact. But all of a sudden.. they know exactly how co2 works... how even the tiniest percent difference in the atmosphere causes some sort of "tipping point" while.. all the while.. the other variables that they don't understand are interacting and changing.
I just think that they are pretending to one hell of a lot more understanding than they really have. They, those who believe (an ever dwindling cadre of scientists) pretend that the science is exact and undeniable.
lazs
-
Well, there is you and "they" Lazs, but remember I stated that I disagree with you on most of the issue.
IMHO CO2 is overrated while the total human impact is underrated. So while the "fight" goes on, I feel sad that issues closer to reality do not make it there.
What I saw of Gore's movie was IMHO a simplified version (or an attempt for that) of what is happening and why.
While I have no problem with the "what", - his "why" was IMHO too simple.
Maybe just me....but anyway, we can merrily jostle on with the "what" while doing more gentle wrestling on "why" :cool:
-
are we going for 200 :aok :aok :aok o boy, well atleast we are on the right topic for it! no naked lady's to get Skuzzy'd (soo far)
-
In addition to the bulk mailing, OISM's website enables people to add their names to the petition over the Internet
When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list
You mean to tell me that someone out ther was putting fake names on the list? Come on, if you open the list up to online name additions, you are going to get that.
It was probably Al Gore that did it so that he can run his Ponzi scheme business. :D
-
What I find disturbing in particular is the number of people out there making a lot of money out of MMGW. They won't want that particular fire hose turned off.
And there ya have it ... the absolute root of all the GW hub-bub.
Scientist, in general, aren't stupid people ... they know how best to butter their "grant" bread and the GW "the sky is falling" is something that can make butter for them for quite some time ... at least until the global weather trends start to show a decline in the global temperature and then they will find some reason for that that will continue to generate butter for them.
I guess all the GW components don't affect the atmosphere over the state of Connecticut ... we are -15 degrees below the average temperature for Connecticut so far for 2008 ... go figure.
-
In order to gain some understanding of the global climate system, we must first understand what the earth has been capable of, regarding climate change, before, man could have possibly had an effect, so that current trends can be examined in the right context.
So I emplore all of you, please google, "laurentide ice sheet" and "wisconsin glaciation"
The web sites that come up under these searches will give you a good feel for climate history, and put the current Al Gore claims in the right context.
The only downside is you will have to read, and learn to make your own opinion based on facts, rather than accept someone else's opinion.
Enjoy.
-
ok forget the 31000 names on the list just focus on the 9000 phd's !
how many phd's does algore have on his side?
-
The scientists are not that smart.. but they are getting smarter.
The man made global warming thing has some downsides for grant money.. if you make too wild a claim for too soon.. you will be proven wrong most of the time and people will quit listening.. if you predict that say.. man made co2 is the cause and co2 goes up but temps do not.. you have some splaining to do!
Now they are starting to realize that and the new one is "earthquakes" bush cut eathquake study funds in half.. two days latter a "study" by the worlds leading "experts" came out.. it said, essentially that.. "you are all gonna die!!!!"
in the next 50 years of course.. now.. the beauty of this is that.. we need to "fund" them to save our lives but... no matter what happens.. they are covered.. right up until 49 years 364 days from now.. when they are dead or retired on your dime..
Global warming is trickier.. they can and do look like buffoons most of the time when they have to retract their wild eyed panic monger crap.
lazs
-
More fuel for the fire....
It is kinda long but pulls a lot together with access to source material.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
Regards,
Kevin
-
Ok this is for u vegetarians out there
Ok I eat cows, cows fart and release methane into the air furthuring globalwarming why you vegetarians eat plants which turn the methane into perfectly breathable oxygen.
Im eating the problem, your eating the salution.
Think about that
-
I got tired of that crap and deleted every account I had there. Thank goodness I did that now I can have my life back.
-
yep.. it depends on what scientist you listen to.
If you listen to the ones that have never even been outside to feel any kind of weather but can really soup up a computer... we are doomed by C02.
If you listen to the ones with decades of real life climate experience who are out in the trenches.. we are going through another weather phase just like we always have and always will/
lazs
-
Here you go............
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/08/climate-prediction-summary-notes-on-global-warming/
The part about Greenland is interesting and I SEEM to recall posting about it in the thread on Global Warming.
IMHO the Global Warming is just another attempt at controlling us through the use of FEAR!
I've also come to look at the housing crash as someone or a group of someones trying to make money and creating a situation that led to it.
The oil problem is another thing and I find myself wondering if the Bilderberger types aren't neck deep in the thing............... doing their best to create a situation where they will come on and OFFER to fix everything .... all we need to do is give them CONTROL of the world?
-
fear can turn people into sheep. it was the basis of power for many a tyrant
-
fear can turn people into sheep. it was the basis of power for many a tyrant
Of course no one here believes themself to be one of the flock. I believe you're right though and I think few if any are immune when it comes to providing for the survival of their families.
-
"I've also come to look at the housing crash as someone or a group of someones trying to make money and creating a situation that led to it.
"
Ya Think?
I suppose you even blame all those banks that lent out sub prime mortgages? They were just doing what they could to "stimulate" the economy......... I think it got stimulated all right....
Now guess who is buying all those forclosed homes at such rock bottom prices?
It is a Conspiracy I tell you !!!!!
:noid
Newbs
:)
-
Waky waky!
The newest of all news from the northern Icecap is that despite a reasonably cold winter, as well as conditions that should mean "cold", there is an all out record in the maps with the low icelevels.
It is now expected that the melting might be complete (for summertime) in as little as 10 years.
i.e., no cap in 10 years, just some ice bobbing about here and there.
-
Is the ice melting Angus?????????????? :devil
:rofl
-
THIS just in!!!!!!!!!!!
Scientist: 'Global warming'
scheme to push global tax
Blames U.N. for using scare reports,
'mob rule,' to bully through agenda
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67509
So that's how they got all those people to sign on!
"31,000 scientists – with more names arriving daily"
Ya I know some don't care for the site BUT it has been reported from other sources!
-
And what now? Iceage?
*click* (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html)
-
Is the ice melting Angus?????????????? :devil
:rofl
Yes it seems to be so.
Claim as you like, but a floating chunk of Ice, the size of the USA melting down in some odd 40 years, after being there for some odd millions of years, well, points to.....global warming. :devil
-
Yes it seems to be so.
Claim as you like, but a floating chunk of Ice, the size of the USA melting down in some odd 40 years, after being there for some odd millions of years, well, points to.....global warming. :devil
Its not melting. *click* (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html)
-
well.. if it is colder and the ice is still melting then I would look to some other source for it than man. You might ban underwater volcanoes for instance.
lazs
-
well.. if it is colder and the ice is still melting then I would look to some other source for it than man. You might ban underwater volcanoes for instance.
lazs
He can`t. He doesn`t believe they exist.
An underwater volcano atheist of sorts. :lol
-
Seems those of us on this BBS are NOT the only ones saying I don't think so to GW...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions
-
Seems those of us on this BBS are NOT the only ones saying I don't think so to GW...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/22/climatechange.carbonemissions
They overlooked some things in that article. For instance last year was so cold that it wiped any gain in global warming for, I think, the last 40 years. I heard that somewhere on the radio. Also, the computer models were found to be in error.
-
I'd say that the results of the poll mentioned in the article would be reflected in most countries. So it seems us skeptics are in fact the majority. Part of the reason is hysterical doomsday predictions we have to put up with. Most people are not that stupid. Angus has been completely sucked in by it
It is now expected that the melting might be complete (for summertime) in as little as 10 years.
Really that is the kind of thing that make the whole global warming idea seem highly implausible. Sorry Angus but haven't you heard the latest? There is a temporary reprieve for the next ten years or so, due to natural cooling cycle.!
I actually believed at one point that we are in fact going through a warming phase but was skeptical about whether we humans caused it. Now I even doubt that. I have come to the conclusion that some years from now. The 'consensus' will finally conclude that while indeed we humans caused a warming effect. It was negligable and cancelled out by natural cycles.
-
Its not melting. *click* (http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/02/15/arctic-ice.html)
Shame on you. This is from february, my input is brand new. A cold winter helped it growing, but the summer has already made it up, and more. The record will fall now, if it already hasn't.
-
IMHO the Global Warming is just another attempt at controlling us through the use of FEAR!
I've also come to look at the housing crash as someone or a group of someones trying to make money and creating a situation that led to it.
The oil problem is another thing and I find myself wondering if the Bilderberger types aren't neck deep in the thing............... doing their best to create a situation where they will come on and OFFER to fix everything .... all we need to do is give them CONTROL of the world?
You are thinking in the right way here, but looking for the wrong answers.
-
He can`t. He doesn`t believe they exist.
An underwater volcano atheist of sorts. :lol
Oh, jackie, this is actually a rude comment.
Of course there are, and many. One that used to be is visible from my living room, - it popped up from SL in 1963.
I actually live on top of another one, - well, it was a rift.
This comment of yours is a cheap slash, for I recall challenging you for data about sudden underseas volcanoes swiftly melting the N-Icecap from below.
I call for your source there again. Is the N-Icecap melting because of sudden underseas volcanoes?
I actually think that some of you guys are afraid of facing things. Just like the silly guys that always die in disaster movies.....
-
I actually think that some of you guys are afraid of facing things. Just like the silly guys that always die in disaster movies.....
This is funny, and I agree. Denial is a well known psychological defensive mechanism and conciously or unciously it's one of the most common, if not the most common one. It has the potential of playing a big part in evolution of mankind, as those who choose not to face facts could put themselves in a very nasty corner. Also, some industries are smart enough to promote this approach as it benefit their business.
-
This is funny, and I agree. Denial is a well known psychological defensive mechanism and conciously or unciously it's one of the most common, if not the most common one. It has the potential of playing a big part in evolution of mankind, as those who choose not to face facts could put themselves in a very nasty corner. Also, some industries are smart enough to promote this approach as it benefit their business.
Indeed. As are power hungry individuals and governments looking for more influence and control through inciting fear.
-
Waky waky!
The newest of all news from the northern Icecap is that despite a reasonably cold winter, as well as conditions that should mean "cold", there is an all out record in the maps with the low icelevels.
It is now expected that the melting might be complete (for summertime) in as little as 10 years.
i.e., no cap in 10 years, just some ice bobbing about here and there.
source please???
-
Oh, jackie, this is actually a rude comment.
Of course there are, and many. One that used to be is visible from my living room, - it popped up from SL in 1963.
I actually live on top of another one, - well, it was a rift.
This comment of yours is a cheap slash, for I recall challenging you for data about sudden underseas volcanoes swiftly melting the N-Icecap from below.
I call for your source there again. Is the N-Icecap melting because of sudden underseas volcanoes?
I actually think that some of you guys are afraid of facing things. Just like the silly guys that always die in disaster movies.....
LOL
Joke Angus. Lighten up bud.
But...........that`s just the point. Nobody can answer the question. Too little is known.
All that has been put forth so for has been total garbage and seems to change on a month to month basis.
Straw grasping at it`s best in the quest for the all mighty buck.
Ice has formed and melted since recorded history began. I see no reason why it would stop for us at this point.
Doomsaday for bucks. It`s big business..................... ...for the naive suckers.
-
.....errr
-
Ice has formed and melted. But something 1.000.000 years old whipping away in some 40 years points at fast warming.
And guess what. Of course the oil companies have realized and accepted this, and are now searching areas that were non-accessible before with one side, while denying warming with the other.
Soooo funny......
-
Ice has formed and melted. But something 1.000.000 years old whipping away in some 40 years points at fast warming.
What it points at is what has always happened on earth and always will. Change in structure.
-
The ice is still there.
North *click* (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/n_extn.html)
South *click* (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_extn.html)
-
Hmmmm.............
So someone is now pointing a finger.....................
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
I notice the U.S. media isn't touching this stuff with a 10 ft. pole?
-
Would you care to comment on the thickness...pallero?
And the N-Pole lines are showing...shrinking as far as I can see....
-
I notice the U.S. media isn't touching this stuff with a 10 ft. pole?
We have too many comedians in the media now. ;)
-
Then enjoy the show :D
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7303385.stm
I mentioned thickness. The lack of it sends the lighter driftice further with currents, so now we get polar bears on our coasts all the time....
Anyway...thicknessssss:
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44501000/gif/_44501559_ice_graph416.gif)
-
LOL.. "150 scientists including hansen" But the sceptics can scrape up 30,000..
He wants them tried for crimes against humanity and he can't even prove that co2 causes any significant warming.
They are really getting desperate now... Like I said.. the first warm spells of summer would bring all these scumbags back out into the light.
We heard nothing from them all winter.
At least they now admit that all their lying and exaggeration has hurt their case (as was linked in the article about how even the brits mostly don't trust em anymore).
The brits were the staunchest supporters of the whole scam and they are starting to wise up now with more than half thinking it is bs or at least highly exaggerated.... the whole house of cards won't survive another cold winter unless they push like crazy this summer. A cool summer will doom the whole phony co2 movement.
lazs
-
I know that I have posted this before. CO2 is produced by every living animal in the form of exhaling your breath. Basic science class in the first few grades taught us that through photosynthesis, plants use carbon dioxide and turn it into oxygen. How can too much CO2 be an issue if it is used by all plant life on earth? Wouldn't the key to solving this issue, be to plant more trees and gardens? I personally think that this is all a bunch of bunk. History shows that the earth has gone through natural ebbs and flows in climate change. Prime example. Take a look at Minnesota. That whole state was carved by glaciers thousands of years ago. Those melted. Did anyone sue the caveman for his aircondition cave or for having the fire too big? Did anyone sue the bedouin when the Sahara desert expanded and bagan to cover northern Africa? How can NASA sue anyone anyways? If they want to go after CEO for this, than what about the pollution created by a shuttle launch? Why are we turning into such a sue happy society?
-
Why are we turning into such a sue happy society?
I think it all started when Johnny Cash came out with A Boy Named...................Sue.
The suit will get tossed. Lame attempt at sticking bubble gum in a whale size hole of a sinking cruise liner.
The scam is falling apart and they know it.
-
Laugh as you like, the Ice mass and thicness does not go by remote vote.
Us up here have no trouble seeing what's up.
And no gum will fix this...
Oh, as promised BTW, I did break my records not only with early seeding, but also in early harvest. Might turn out that I actually know what I'm speaking off.
Oh, and for the source...soft version of the news...
Here:
http://www.natturuverndarsamtok.is/loftslagsbreytingar/page.asp?ID=2559
-
.........................whil e the Hubbard glacier gains mass.
-
Waky waky!
The newest of all news from the northern Icecap is that despite a reasonably cold winter, as well as conditions that should mean "cold", there is an all out record in the maps with the low icelevels.
It is now expected that the melting might be complete (for summertime) in as little as 10 years.
i.e., no cap in 10 years, just some ice bobbing about here and there.
Well, if all indicators show that the winter was cold, including the temp, yet the ice was melting , then it would lead you to believe something else might be too blame!! i mean if conditions were for cold , and it was cold and we thought it would be cold, and it was , then it must be melting from some other reason, say under water? or space alien rays after all we are only supposedly responsible for global warming, not internal global warming!
if it ain't coming from the top then it must be coming from underneath!
-
before the flood was not raining as described in the Bible, the water was in atmosphere and this warming may cause the oceans to vaporize again,leading to the same conditions like in the beginnings, John in Revelation 21.1 has an interesting prophecy:
Chapter 21
"1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth. The former heaven and the former earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. "
-
Well, if all indicators show that the winter was cold, including the temp, yet the ice was melting , then it would lead you to believe something else might be too blame!! i mean if conditions were for cold , and it was cold and we thought it would be cold, and it was , then it must be melting from some other reason, say under water? or space alien rays after all we are only supposedly responsible for global warming, not internal global warming!
if it ain't coming from the top then it must be coming from underneath!
It grew in the cold period, but it didn't make up the melting in the warm period. The warm period has now done more than nullify the growth.
-
News update.
The N-Pole is now expected to be clear of ice....in September.
-
Oh, as promised BTW, I did break my records not only with early seeding, but also in early harvest. Might turn out that I actually know what I'm speaking off.
Curse that blasted sun. Wait, this was bad right?
-
Yes, since sun activity is nothing phenomenal these days.....bad bad.
-
News update.
The N-Pole is now expected to be clear of ice....in September.
And...?
The earth is still cooling.
(http://www.climate-skeptic.com/images/2008/06/22/marchmay2008conus.png)
(http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/22/rss_may_08520.png)
-
News update.
The N-Pole is now expected to be clear of ice....in September.
you get your news from,,, the onoin,,, right?
http://www.theonion.com/content/premercial?target=L2NvbnRlbnQvaW5kZXg=
-
Onoin???? no idea what it is.
As for the "earth" on the map, the trained eye will see this is a map of the USA. :devil
The N. sea Ice is as big....depending on season. And there is no contest with the energy at work to either warm air or melt ice. Rough guess is tenfold....?
-
Since some of us seem to be intent on burning our food in our cars, and the world population is continually growing, and people still like to eat, it seems that longer growing seasons are probably a good thing. Maybe it's just me?
-
Probably, for with the finest growing areas moving north and south, they get smaller. And the sea will yeald less due to i.e. less possible saturation. So, in short, what's coming from under the ice, and slowly, is barren rock, while we are beginning to "loose" very good areas.
Swings in the whole eco-system of plants and animals are also going to give a downswing at first.
Try solving the riddle of declinine of U.S. Bees, and look at the effect.
(my guess is that it's actually not GW, but the effects are more than just honey....)
For a country like mine BTW, a little warming is just fine :D
-
Do you think we'll see crocodiles roaming the Arctic and surface temperatures of the western tropical Atlantic Ocean at 37 degrees Celsius (98 degrees Fahrenheit) as Earth did during the Cretaceous period and as is reported in a study published in the journal Science?
Remind me, how much man-made global warming was there during the Cretaceous period? Isn't that the one where Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble powered their cars with their feet?
Ahh... now I remember. The Cretaceous Period was 144-65 million years ago, long before Fred and Barney; they couldn't have started warming the earth with their feet until the Pleistocene Epoch 1.8 million-10,000 years ago. Which is kind of funny; Fred and Barney made their debut during an Ice Age!
-
Probably, for with the finest growing areas moving north and south, they get smaller. And the sea will yeald less due to i.e. less possible saturation. So, in short, what's coming from under the ice, and slowly, is barren rock, while we are beginning to "loose" very good areas.
Swings in the whole eco-system of plants and animals are also going to give a downswing at first.
Try solving the riddle of declinine of U.S. Bees, and look at the effect.
(my guess is that it's actually not GW, but the effects are more than just honey....)
For a country like mine BTW, a little warming is just fine :D
That's a pretty dire prognostication based on a little early planting for a few, what 3-4 years?
-
The point here was that the area going down is bigger than the area coming in. The area balance is negative.
And the sea is negative as well.
The areas coming in also need time to adapt, flora, fauna, insects etc, so things normally start with pest & plague, then get better when it settles. For farming it starts as a headache, so after some changes it may get better.
What I experience up where I live is that our main crops are the same, if not lower, and we have new pests settling in.
But some less used crops come in stronger. Basically, we must gently move on to crops that suit a warmer climate than our...was.
We are now growing things that were hardly possible to grow in the late 70's/early 80's and before. And as we learn, the yeald goes higher.
The biggest "ring" of land that gets warmer is unfortunately all in Siberia, very much less favourable than say....the mid European fields.....
-
Ahh... now I remember. The Cretaceous Period was 144-65 million years ago, long before Fred and Barney; they couldn't have started warming the earth with their feet until the Pleistocene Epoch 1.8 million-10,000 years ago.
With absolutely no thought for Bam Bam and Pebbles.
The horror!!!!
If only they had had an Al Gorestone to lead the way. :devil
-
I wonder how long, my dear Jacka1, you would last, in Jurassic climate :D
-
I wonder how long, my dear Jacka1, you would last, in Jurassic climate :D
Probably about a year longer than you....my dear Angus. :devil
-
so what bad things have happened so far? I have enjoyed the mild summers and winters of this current climate pattern as have all of us.
It never ceases to amaze me how some can dwell on doom and gloom even when things are going well for them.
lazs
-
Probably about a year longer than you....my dear Angus. :devil
I'd not put all my money on that :devil :devil
And Lazs, IMHO in some areas of the globe, nothing bad happened, while in others it is happening.
Got to look ahead as well.
In my case (much more than 4 seasons) it's comfy, much warmer etc. Crops are same, if anything, less.
But the weather energy (as expected) is much more. So, bloody stormy.
-
I'd not put all my money on that :devil :devil
That would be a wise decision for ya Angus. :rofl
-
106 pages! This must be nearly the longest thread ever! Well here's my thoughts on global warming;
1. If the global warming theory is true and imminent then its probably too late to do much.
2. If global warming is just a tree hugging theory and not imminent then we may be able to prevent it.
-
GW is more of a measurement than a theroy by now....
And Jackie...if we are creeping into a jurassickly warm period, your area is going to be toast while myine finally becomes....comfy....no need to fly for Spain for a tan :devil
As a sidenote, somebody asked me the other day if I was doing the solarium.
I said no.
"How did you get that tan then?"
I was outside a bit :D
-
Friday (June 27) there was another climate report out. North pole melting even more.
Has anyone heard about that big ice chunk in Antarctica? Its supposed to be about size of California and looked like it was going to break free of Antarctica.
-
And Jackie...if we are creeping into a jurassickly warm period, your area is going to be toast while myine finally becomes....comfy....no need to fly for Spain for a tan .
IF a big enough meteor hits the earth we are all toast.
IF we lose gravity we are in for a hell of a ride.
IF the super volcano in Yellowstone erupts, Pledge won`t do the trick on the dust.
IF one of the thousands of doomsday theories comes to pass it`s over.
IF a rabbit had wings his butt wouldn`t hit the ground so much.
My area has always been pretty comfy if you like the this area of Texas. The weather changes regularly on small scales. It follows trends that I have seen over and over. It still is. Nothing to report here. Just Texas weather.
No need to fly to Spain or anywhere else for a tan here. Go outside...tan.
About the only thing to make any significant change here is the occasional scammer on the tube telling us WE ARE D O O M E D due to climate change! That and the naive that buy into it.
The scam and scammers are nothing new. Just the context.
I`ve seen dozens and dozens of doomsday scams in my lifetime. It`s certainly nothing new . We`re still kicking in Texas.
-
OK lets get this thread to 110 pages!
I think we may already be in the GW countdown but no one knows how to count it down. Or maybe we are in a climatic warming trend. How long will it last? Will it be similar to the one that spawned the dinosaurs?
Can't say if I totally believe either side. GW proponents show me a timetable. I have a remote control, I have the attention span of a gerbil. Warming trend theorists. Hope your right! If your wrong we are all going to slow roast.
One thing for sure. If GW is happening its not like we can depend on the government to tell us the truth! We can depend on them to manipulate us, tell us half truths and try to cover up their failures with outright lies.
-
We need some sunspots! Our sun have no spots. :cry
http://www.spaceweather.com/
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html
-
Jackie, just sit on your butt in comfy Texas then. Ever go elsewhere?
And about his:
"IF a big enough meteor hits the earth we are all toast.
IF we lose gravity we are in for a hell of a ride.
IF the super volcano in Yellowstone erupts, Pledge won`t do the trick on the dust.
IF one of the thousands of doomsday theories comes to pass it`s over.
IF a rabbit had wings his butt wouldn`t hit the ground so much."
Well, you can't do squat :D
However, it continues to strike me odd that people like you do not relate polar melting to Global warming, and while the oil companies sponsor "scientists" to deny polar melting, they also send researchers to explore possible drilling grounds due to retreating ice.
Ever looked up the word "Hippocracy"?
-
What kind of global warming is this?
Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, said pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory also show that there are currently no spots on the sun. He also noted that the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.
"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman noted in The Australian recently.
-
What kind of a guy is this?
Did he look at the polar caps?
-
What kind of a guy is this?
Did he look at the polar caps?
I think so.
According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the January 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, which is measured from passive microwave instruments onboard NOAA satellites, was below the 1979-2000 mean, but greater than the previous four years.
Meanwhile, the January 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the largest sea ice extent in January over the 30-year historical period. Sea ice extent for January has increased at a rate of 1.9%/decade.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/global.html#seaice
-
That was January bud. And despite being larger than the previous (humble) 4 years, now it's about as small as ever. Last time I checked the calendar, it was July.
The flat out all time record is expected to be in September.We wait and see....
-
As this topic is the other most popular topic on this board, I have stickied it so you no longer have to hunt for it and I no longer have to merge threads about it.
-
It has been a very nice and mild spring and summer here so far and had been a little colder than average winter... don't you ever go out past your back yard angus? It is like the coldest july I can recall.... the fourth of july will only be in the 80's!!!! we have to do something NOW no matter what it costs.. no matter what it does.. we need to bring back 100 degree 4th of july's.
lazs
-
As this topic is the other most popular topic on this board, I have stickied it so you no longer have to hunt for it and I no longer have to merge threads about it.
:rofl
-
cooooool.
:aok
-
Lazs:
"It has been a very nice and mild spring and summer here so far and had been a little colder than average winter... don't you ever go out past your back yard angus?"
The back yard I refer to is roughly the size of the USA. Some yard...
The energy at work is ice melting, which basically takes some degrees.
Now, save my energy and enlighten yourself by looking up how the trade off is heating water (or ice for that extent) vs heating air. And then tell me ;)
-
As this topic is the other most popular topic on this board, I have stickied it so you no longer have to hunt for it and I no longer have to merge threads about it.
So if the whole lot of us joined up on the "hello kitty online" game as pirates and had a wickedly popular thread about it, would it get stickied too? :aok
-
jackal.. while it is a "global" "man made" warming... we have been lucky and the things that affect the rest of the globe do not affect us at all.. the entire American continent has been immune to the effects of global warming... course.. we do keep the best records of anyplace on earth and have satellite data but...
It does seem unfair huh? we are this huge carbon hog and it is only the rest of the world that suffers.. they have different air tho I guess.. same for China.. the have huge underground coal fires that are making more carbon every year than every car and truck in America and they are right in there with us on carbon pollution yet.. they do not seem to be affected either.. Now the pesky ruskies are saying that they are not being affected.
But.. we do have tree ring data and ice core samples and the ice is melting in angus's back yard so it is a disaster that we need to wreck the worlds economy over... we can't allow angus to have a few good growing seasons.
lazs
-
Lazs, U.S. Citizents are some 5% of the planet's population.
U.S. Citizens are fewer than Europeans.
There are more than 3 chinese for each american.
The chinese carbon emission comes in large quantities solely for material production for the west.
And regarding those underground coal fires, I have never seen you give a proper source for it, nor explane how they spew co2 without inhaling oxygen.
Not that it matters anyway,since you discard the link between GW and CO2. (I have my doubts on that absoluteness as well)
And again, what you refer to so lightly as "Anguses back yard" is about as big as the USA. The mass of the melting is much more than the mass of the atmosphere over the whole of the USA.....I challenge you for showing some IQ and tell me how much water needs to warm 1 degree C vs the whole atmosphere over an area the size of my.....tiny back yard....
If you cannot, I'll call you "Sue" and answer the question. tic-toc.......10 hours to go...if you're lucky...
-
angus... I have done so in the past but...
http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=1815
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/22/from-bagels-to-coal-fires-an-unorthodox-economist-keeps-pushing-for-change/
http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030215coalenviro4p4.asp
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3390-wild-coal-fires-are-a-global-catastrophe.html
There are hundreds of more sites that explain it. most are even from environmentalists and other lefty groups.
As for the temp... who cares? if carbon is not doing it then man is not doing it and there is nothing we can do about it but to wait it out..
You also realize that the margin of error on "global climate" is +- 2 degrees.. far more than the increase?
What are you saying? are you saying that we are not causing the warming but need to somehow cause a cooling? I am saying the we are not capable of heating or cooling the globe to any significant degree.
I am saying that the "scientists" have not one frigging clue as to what the temp of the globe will be 20 years from now much less 100.. hell.. not even next year.
lazs
-
I am saying that we can screw the planet into bacteria life alone if the noose is loose.
And I am saying that it IS warming, whatever the reason.
I am saying that you cannot DEBATE polar cap melting with numbers, any more than debating facts with paper.
And I still wait for your mind to solve the little riddle :D
-
And regarding those underground coal fires, I have never seen you give a proper source for it, nor explane how they spew co2 without inhaling oxygen.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/firehole.html?c=y&page=2 (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/firehole.html?c=y&page=2) Estimates vary, but some scientists believe that anywhere from 20 million to 200 million tons burn there China each year, producing as much carbon dioxide as about 1 percent of the total carbon dioxide from fossil fuels burned on earth.
As far as inhaling Oxygen, I don't know what he was getting to, obviously it is not anerobic.
-
angus.. who cares about your riddle? Is it just some sort of mental masturbation math game?
Point is.. it matters not. We are not heating or cooling the globe to any significant degree and.. even if we wanted to.. we couldn't.
Any math on how much the ocean has to cool or heat is bogus since all sorts of other factors that neither you nor me nor any scientist today understands is in play.
If you think co2 is melting your back yard then scream at the china to put out the coal fires then we will talk.
lazs
lazs
-
The last 50 year period without sunspots coincided with a 50 year ice age - 1650-1700AD..
Found this thing too.. http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/138/paper/AS06018.htm
It supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 - 30 years. On each occasion that the Sun has done this in the past the World’s mean temperature has dropped by ~ 1 - 2 C.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/28/astronomical-society-of-australia-publishes-new-paper-warning-of-solar-quieting-and-global-cooling/
-
well.. this natural and wonderful warm period that we have enjoyed for so long can't last forever.. we are due for mother nature to give us a cold spell..
I have enjoyed the mild weather.. a lot of people have ignored how good it has been and gone into fits of rightious indignation and control and depression instead of enjoying it.
Boy are they gonna feel dumb when it gets cold.
lazs
-
Could someone please photoshop me a crocodile sunning on an iceberg? I may want to make a souvenir Cretaceous T-shirt.
-
angus.. who cares about your riddle? Is it just some sort of mental masturbation math game?
Point is.. it matters not. We are not heating or cooling the globe to any significant degree and.. even if we wanted to.. we couldn't.
Any math on how much the ocean has to cool or heat is bogus since all sorts of other factors that neither you nor me nor any scientist today understands is in play.
If you think co2 is melting your back yard then scream at the china to put out the coal fires then we will talk.
lazs
lazs
The riddle only takes a tiny understanding of the earths atmosphere along with very simple physics.
Use any word over it that you like, you've just proved that you don't understand squat.
Posting selected links is one thing, using your head is another....
It really is a very simple calculus :devil
-
Could someone please photoshop me a crocodile sunning on an iceberg?
Now that`s an instant classic! :)
-
Okay Jackie, maybe you want to have a pot shot at it?
How much of a volume of 1 deg heating of water does it take to match 1 deg of the atmosphere as a total?
Surely, you won't flush this one????
-
angus... you are still trying to figure out where the underground coal fires in china are getting their oxygen..
Since you are such a wizz at simple calculus... maybe you can tell us what the exact temp of the globe will be next month? a year from now? 5 years?
Maybe you can tell me what is heating the planet if you admit that it is not co2? I will give you a hint..it is big and yellow.
lazs
-
What you ask of me, is a calculus that is flaky with experts at it armed with supercomputers.
What I ask of you is to use your head for a calculus that any 14 year old probably has learned....and you may have all the numbers in your head already. It only takes some understanding....
Now....that big and yellow thing BTW hasn't been swinging up lately to any extent.....FYI..
So, ready to try, or do you want me to try and explain the math???
-
Where are the wombles..... Bring back the wombles.
-
Okay Jackie, maybe you want to have a pot shot at it?
How much of a volume of 1 deg heating of water does it take to match 1 deg of the atmosphere as a total?
Surely, you won't flush this one????
Well 1 degree C heating of the ocean is 1 Kcalorie per kilogram, and the weight of the ocean is 4.18 E21 kg.
So 4.18 E21 Calories... Wait, though, that Cp is for fresh water. Seawater is 0.936 BTU / Lb at 30F, or 2.177 Kj/Kg or 4.1868 Kc/Kg, but that changes based of temperature and salinity.
The weight of the atmosphere is 4.99 quadrillion metric tons, 4.99 E18 kg but the value for the heat capacity of the atmosphere chhnges at its density changes, and the amount of water vapor vs dry air.
the heat capacity of dry air at STP is cp = 1.006 kJ/kg DegC, but that is a standard pressure and Temperature.. at 20,000 feet the Cp is....
I just ran out of paper and my pencil needs sharpening.
-
Make it simpler....
The atmospheric pressure = weight is 760 mm Hg. So you only have to take 76 cm of mercury and calculate it over to water, what was that again 11x?
Then divide that with approc 0.7 and there you have the thickness of water matching the gravity of the entire atmosphere over land and sea....
Not a very thick layer now is it...Even earths Ice alone "holds" more energy than the entire atmosphere....
My point is that swings in air temp weight less than warming water and melting ice.
-
Well, 4.18 E21 kg > 4.99 E18 kg by almost a thousand times, and 2.177 Kj/Kg > 1.006 kJ/kg DegC by twice, so somewhere around 2,000 times more heat in the ocean that the atmosphere assuming the same average temperature for both.
but simple calculus it ain't
-
The result is simple enough. Ocean and Ice temps completely make nothing out of the atmospheric energy.
Which makes Ice melting no laughing matter.
And simple...well that wasn't all that tough, since you basically can compare the masses by calculating atm to water :D
BTW, one link I found claims the energy to be 1000 fold. So you're in the ballpark.
-
What you ask of me, is a calculus that is flaky with experts at it armed with supercomputers.
What you seem to be saying here, is that the math the scientists are using is at best flawed. Remember, that even though these "super scientists" are using super computers, they are still human and a computer is going to output flawed logic if flawed stats are put in. To think that man has as big of an effect on the climate as you say, is in my mind absurd. Outside forces has more of an effect than we do.
-
I get about 1560 times.. if it is so simple then why did we all get different answers?
It is meaningless to the discussion in any case tho. it does nothing about or tells us nothing about the current mild warming trend or what is the cause(s).
The math I had to do for my latest certificate took up 3 pages of formulas. we could use nothing but a calculator.. you had to know the rest. it is useless stuff of course and I forgot the stuff the instant I left the room.. good riddance.. it is all plugged into my computer in any case or... I can just plug in the numbers from the formulas that are in any book on the subject.
The reason the supercomputers are wrong is because they can't predict the interactions of dozens of things that affect climate. the possibilities are endless and any result can be had if you manipulate the data just a tad.. they constantly prove this by being wrong about the past as well as the future..
lazs
-
In the early Seventies the world was worrying about global cooling. The glaciers in the North of BC were actually growing. I do believe however that we are effecting our ecosystem too much and need to change. I have had GeoThermal heat in my house since 1999.
I do know that too much of our farm land is being bought up by our large corporations as we all move into the city and become more dependant on them.
-
1000 or 2000 TIMES tell you all you need.....The thermal energy stored in the atmosphere is very very little compared to what there is in sea and Ice. In fact, the ice alone stores a lot more energy than the whole atmosphere.
So much for my back yard,
It is warming, the only diversion from it is pockets of the atmosphere.
The "why" is another thing.
I doesn't seem to be the sun alone. But this you'll like Lazs....I think the CO2 link is overrated......
-
yet... that is all that the lefties base their whole "man made global warming" house of cards on.. it is nothing but man made carbon.
It is far more likely that mans contribution to this current pleasant warm period is so insignificant that we need to do nothing but wait for mother nature to make another natural and normal swing.. it is beyond arrogant to think that we will not only be able to change the climate of the globe but.. can predict what will happen 100 years from now even tho we... well.. to use your iceberg venacular.. even tho we don't even know the tip of the iceberg so far as global climate goes.
If something underwater like underwater volcanoes are heating your little corner of the planet then all the 40mpg cars in the world won't change that.. me giving money to algore to broker for "carbon credits" to make a few con men rich will not do a damn thing.
lazs
-
This last year in BC we had the most snow and cold temperatures in many many years. The result of that there was very little on the news broadcasts of Global Warming.
I have heard tell of a volcano producing the same amount of CO in 1 day as we as a people do in a few years. :confused:
-
Oh no! I feel an outbreak of Angus charts coming on. :rofl
-
MMMM Red Angus Chops :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Or the receiving end af an Angus :D
Now Lazs, regarding the underseas volcanoes....
I have seen no evidence that they've suddenly started popping up like crazy.
However they are being discovered one by the other, as ocean floor exploration proceeds.
Shouldn't mix that up.
Anyway, there is no reason to belive otherwise that the density of volcanoes on the seabed is and has been roughly similar to those on land.
BTW, I have been at sea, and spent hours in the helm looking at the scanners. I was baffled about how much data there was available about the ocean floor. And we never had our nets burn, nor fill with cooked fish. So I will allow my self to name your pop-up-waterbed-volcanoe theory a STRAW.
You may strive for that our human contribution to GW (Which you have frequently debated as well) is insignificant. There we disagree, for since the earths surface plays a large part in both reflecting, spreading or absorbing heat, our effect on the planet's surface is anything but small. And so are other greenhouse gases, such as methane, which for instance gets released in large quantities due to wetland canalizing etc.
So, IMHO the CO2 crowd tends to overlook this.
-
Methane!!!!! Was wondering when someon e would mention this. Animals that eat plant life (ie. cows, elephants, herbivores and yes even people) release copious amount of methane in the form of flatulance. One of the Norwegian coutries did a study on this not too long ago and claimed that this was a major source of the methane release into the atmosphere. So, is the GW crowd going to start metering how much I release and tax me for it? I'll be danged if you try to put a meter on my butt. :D
-
Methane!!!!! Was wondering when someon e would mention this. Animals that eat plant life (ie. cows, elephants, herbivores and yes even people) release copious amount of methane in the form of flatulance. One of the Norwegian coutries did a study on this not too long ago and claimed that this was a major source of the methane release into the atmosphere. So, is the GW crowd going to start metering how much I release and tax me for it?
You will be able to get fart credits from Al Bore.
-
You will be able to get fart credits from Al Bore.
Yay!!!!! An offset for a NATURAL occurance. :aok
-
angus.. I doubt that your nets have seen the entire ocean floor.
lazs
-
Lazs,that is correct.
Lazs:
"Insert Quote
angus.. I doubt that your nets have seen the entire ocean floor"
That is correct. But they see more and more, and unveil more and more.
So what do you conclude when you scan an unknown seabed and find a volcano? Ohhh it must have been there since yesterday????????
"our" nets BTW run around a highly volcanically active area on the N-Atlantic rift. And the area is impressively large, added by the databases of both foreign ground as well as our neighbour countries. Norway, for one, is a very big fishing nation.
"our" ships also do their acts outside Canada, as well as in the Bering sea. All data from bottom/drag nets is recorded, and there is lots of stuff being discovered all the time.
Peaks are tagged (since they rip nets if they are sharp, actually the net-rip areas are specially tagged), as well as crevasses, danger zones (i.e. the debris from WW2 naval engagement, - we were fishing close to HMS Hood for instance).
And most importantly, the best fishing catches are tagged, logged, registered, analyzed, calculated etc etc..
So, to get back on spot your volcanoes are not popping up from an explored seabed, it's the other way around, they are slowly being exposed by multible data from many sources, be it fishermen or scientists. Well, these were practically your words. Or do you have such a belief that anything you see for the first time is brand new?
Now, to methane and the famous cow farting theory.
1. The record breakers there are still the USA. Oh did I say "breakers" like in "ze breaking of ze vind :D"
2. Before blaming the cows for the whole deals we must remember 2 things, A & B...
A: This is a man- made business for man's food. Or do you think that burgers grow from trees?
B: Before clearing the ground for cows and other practical ruminants, the ground was loaded with wild ruminants, such as i.e. the N-American buffalos.....
In short, I'd be sceptic there, but the release of methane from moorland that has been canalized (for cheap animal food or pasture) is however stunning and well into embarresment....
-
B: Before clearing the ground for cows and other practical ruminants, the ground was loaded with wild ruminants, such as i.e. the N-American buffalos.....
I agree but we now have agribusiness and intensive farming practises. Some farms out west here have many thousands of cows or hogs and they are raised from only a few hundred acres. This wouldn't of happened with the bison.
-
Some few centuries ago....
http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Bison_bison.html
Some estimated 60 MILLION bisons roamed the plains....
You hardly have those cattlenumbers today.
And BTW, pigs are not ruminants....
-
Some few centuries ago....
http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Bison_bison.html
Some estimated 60 MILLION bisons roamed the plains....
You hardly have those cattlenumbers today.
And BTW, pigs are not ruminants....
I have a hard time believing that there was 60 million Bison that RANGED in the west the only way we are able to keep our numbers is intensive farming. Even then not all animals make it to the range the ranges are always used to their fullest extent.
This was from 2003 numbers today would be down slightly.
.According to USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service ( www.usda.gov/nass ), the inventory of all cattle and calves in the United States on July 1 was 103.9 million head, 1 percent below levels in 2002 and 2 percent below those in 2001. Cattle numbers in the United States have fallen for seven straight years due to drought conditions in several regions of the cattle-producing area.
In contrast, according to Statistics Canada ( www.statcan.ca ), the inventory of cattle and calves in Canada on July 1 totaled 15.728 million head, which was 2 percent larger than 2002 and a record high number.
Record high cattle numbers in the United States occurred back in 1975 at 132 million head.
Wow :O that is more than double the estimate of 60 million bison.
BTW Hogs will eat anything and they do pass gas to :D.
Even with these numbers I don't think that it would make a dent in the atmosphere.
-
Looked up the number of dairy cows as well.
Only 2 states of the USA cross the million, some have less than Iceland :devil
BTW, the mass of a Bison easily matches the cow. And they are ripe for copulation quite late, so their mass is quite some. A 100 lbs calf never equals a 2000 lbs bull.....
Either way, the plains of America were full of farting ruminants before the humans affected the whole deal and as doing such might have even addet to the...gases :D
Will it make a dent in the atmosphere anyway?
I think that there are other factors much bigger. It's just a thing that adds...if it even does...
-
If the bison balance out the cattle we still have the hogs and sheep :)
Our own population has increased many fold since the time of the bison. And we all pass gas :O some more than others :rofl Woman also pass gass even though they don't admit to it :rofl :rofl
I don't believe that this much will affect the carbon count too much.
Has there ever been any long term studies on the sun and how much energy is produced and how much it varies year to year. :huh I know that NASA had just started a big project on researching the sun and its spots.
-
ok.. so if 60 million or so huge bisons were roaming the plains of America before man ever raised a cow... and their mass is about that of the hundred million or so cows we now raise for burgers and shoes...
Then we have done nothing to the balance of methane. If anything we slowed it when we slaughtered the bison but didn't have the cattle herds up to full size.
No, when you consider the volcanoes and the sun and the nina and nino's... you realize that there is nothing man can do that even comes close to the power of nature.. that swings in global climate of any significance are beyond our power.. we simply can't compete with the power of a volcano or the sun.
lazs
-
And there falls one straw in the field, which is that if greenhouse gases are to blame for GW, methane from ever increasing farty cows is to blame....not humans.
Nice to see you supporting that Lazs, finally we agree on something. But there will be more :D
-
angus.. not sure I get you.. if the huge herds of bison didn't fart the planet into methane hell then why would a few cows?
I thought the evil man thing was killing off all the fuzzy little animals?
lazs
-
You're getting me wrong bro.
There are people who claim that there is GW due to farting cows...all of a sudden. My point was exactly that I do not belive that was the case, since the "farting" was already there...
-
I never claimed that GW was caused by cow flatus. Just saw some people that thought it had a large affect. I think it's a hoax that has been given life by crackpots and Algore as a way to scam the world into their way of life. If they can't legislate into their existence, then why not scare us with something that can't be positively proven.
-
The cow emission is a nice attempt of hiding car emission.
My point was that ruminat emission has been around for thousands of years in the quantity possible.
Cars in quantity...well, when my granddad was born, there were no running cars in the country....
-
But volcanoes can put out more pollution in just a slow release in one day than all of the industry in one state for an entire year and cars get blamed. I think that a catastrophic explosion could sure put out more pollution than man has created in history. You cannot lay the blame on man alone.
-
In doing any calculating one has to assume that the sun is producing the same energy year to year, century to century. :aok
I don't believe that it produces constant heat. :O
-
I doubt that any of you volcanoe promotants as a cause for GW have ever seen a volcanic eruption, nor experienced ashfall or seen flowing lava at all.
I did, (many times) and I live with a nice view of a highly active volcanoe right out the windows, be it the bedroom or the kitchen....
Looking out the living room I can see something that used to be an underseas volcanoe, - for as long as i took from eruption until it reached the surface and built an island. (already on UNESCO list for preservation :D)
And then, I must inform you with two facts of volcanic eruptions....
1. The pollution instantly released into the atmosphere causes quite some global ... cooling.
2. There is nothing that mankind can do to stop this.
Anyway, avionix, I challenge you to pit up.....say mt Hekla vs Detroit...or Seattle.
Last time she smoked was in 2000, and I never smelled it. Did get some ash though. The whole deal lasted for some days. Since then, there was not a puff. Not that you could do much about it...
Oh, and Baitman....if you dig into the NOT constant solar energy output, you might find out that it does not entirely fit the GW by measure....even au contraire.
Nice bait....man.
-
Angus I am not saying its the only cause but for your reading. :D
NASA STUDY FINDS INCREASING SOLAR TREND THAT CAN CHANGE CLIMATE
Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," said Richard Willson, a researcher affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University's Earth Institute, New York. He is the lead author of the study recently published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"Historical records of solar activity indicate that solar radiation has been increasing since the late 19th century. If a trend, comparable to the one found in this study, persisted throughout the 20th century, it would have provided a significant component of the global warming the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports to have occurred over the past 100 years," he said.
NASA's Earth Science Enterprise funded this research as part of its mission to understand and protect our home planet by studying the primary causes of climate variability, including trends in solar radiation that may be a factor in global climate change.
The solar cycle occurs approximately every 11 years when the sun undergoes a period of increased magnetic and sunspot activity called the "solar maximum," followed by a quiet period called the "solar minimum."
Although the inferred increase of solar irradiance in 24 years, about 0.1 percent, is not enough to cause notable climate change, the trend would be important if maintained for a century or more. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance have obtained a long enough record (over 24 years) to begin looking for this effect.
Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) is the radiant energy received by the Earth from the sun, over all wavelengths, outside the atmosphere. TSI interaction with the Earth's atmosphere,oceans and landmasses is the biggest factor determining our climate. To put it into perspective, decreases in TSI of 0.2 percent occur during the weeklong passage of large sunspot groups across our side of the sun. These changes are relatively insignificant compared to the sun's total output of energy, yet equivalent to all the energy that mankind uses in a year. According to Willson, small variations, like the one found in this study, if sustained over many decades, could have significant climate effects.
In order to investigate the possibility of a solar trend, Willson needed to put together a long-term dataset of the sun's total output. Six overlapping satellite experiments have monitored TSI since late 1978. The first record came from NASA's Nimbus7 Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) experiment (1978 - 1993). Other records came from NASA's Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitors: ACRIM1 on the Solar Maximum Mission (1980 - 1989), ACRIM2 on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite (1991 - 2001) and ACRIM3 on the ACRIMSAT satellite (2000 to present). Also, NASA launched its own Earth Radiation Budget Experiment on its Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) in 1984. The European Space Agency's (ESA) SOHO/VIRGO experiment also provided an independent data set (1996 to 1998).
In this study, Willson, who is also Principal Investigator of NASA's ACRIM experiments, compiled a TSI record of over 24 years by carefully piecing together the overlapping records. In order to construct a long-term dataset, he needed to bridge a two-year gap (1989 to 1991) between ACRIM1 and ACRIM2. Both the Nimbus7/ERB and ERBS measurements overlapped the ACRIM 'gap.' Using Nimbus7/ERB results produced a 0.05 percent per decade upward trend between solar minima, while ERBS results produced no trend. Until this study, the cause of this difference, and hence the validity of the TSI trend, was uncertain. Willson has identified specific errors in the ERBS data responsible for the difference. The accurate long-term dataset, therefore, shows a significant positive trend (.05 percent per decade) in TSI between the solar minima of solar cycles 21 to 23 (1978 to present). This major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.
NASA's ACRIMSAT/ACRIM3 experiment began in 2000 and will extend the long-term solar observations into the future for at least a five-year minimum mission
Not much of an increase at .05% per decade but it could be one factor of many :aok but 10 decades would = .5% increase :O
-
So this is why the N-Icecap disappears every 11 years..... :devil
Anyway, the next Maximum is in the maps in 2012...and the forecast for 2025 is a weak maximum. And the newest temp records are being set at the solar minimum.
2012 is predicted to be a strong one though.
-
yummy,, Angus makes the best ground beef :O
sure am thinking about a nice fat double cheeseburger! :t
besides i don't really think one less cow will hurt the planet :devil
i do remember mt. saint Helen's and i remember the beautiful sunsets a thousand miles away for over a month after :pray
-
There doesn`t have to be an eruption for a volcano or volcanic action to release super heated gas and vapor, steam, etc.
Nice try though.
-
Sure think Jackie. So now it's invisible and undetectable underseas volcanoes.
Ever hear of a thermometer? IR?
-
Angus why do I keep hearing that 2012 number all the time :O spooky isn't it :noid
-
Sure think Jackie. So now it's invisible and undetectable underseas volcanoes.
Ever hear of a thermometer? IR?
The oceans are one of the most unexplored areas that is on earth.
That`s the point. Nobody knows. It is just one of the things that hasn`t been factored in, along with many.
Climate has changed since the beginning of recorded history without the input of machinery and such.
I don`t expect it will stop changing just because someone is wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth.
Man`s input is insignificant in the scheme of things.
But not to fear, there will be many more Doomsday quacks come along. There always have been. I have seen many in my life.
-
And as they are constantly being explored, expected volcanoes are being discovered, it's not that they're popping up on well explored areas.
There are also areas that are well explored by the way...
And they're warming, the data is piling up there. Some people are concerned about that and look for a reason, other people arrogantly ignore it, deny it, and try to chat it away...
-
Here is an underseas volcanoe heading for the Surface. I can see it through my living room window :D
(http://www.islandia.is/hamfarir/images/surtsey1.jpg)
And here is another, soon ready to go. I will gnash my teeth for the ruin and cold that will follow in it's wake...
(http://www.islandia.is/hamfarir/images/nkatla1.jpg)
-
And then I'm gnashing teeth because of other invironmental issues...even bees...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbzBswSOtVc&feature=related
Is there a handy explanation yet?
-
There are some people who have the plastic statue syndrome so bad you couldn`t get through to with a pick axe and C4.
-
Isn't C4 plastic :devil
-
Angus I bet there are hundreds of people on the BBS that are jealous of your view. Me for one :salute
-
And then I'm gnashing teeth because of other invironmental issues...even bees...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbzBswSOtVc&feature=related
Is there a handy explanation yet?
Very very interesting I am going to read more on this :aok
-
Angus I bet there are hundreds of people on the BBS that are jealous of your view. Me for one :salute
It's a million dollar view, so to say, but my home is on an EVAC list if the second volcanoe (Katla) blows. I'd have max 4 hrs.
We did the drill some year or two ago. So, it's like sleeping on top of a powder keg. But it does indeed affect your thoughts about many things in nature....
I'll try to find some links for my wife's pictures from nearby views, which indeed are many and nice looking.
As for the link, this is new news to me, but nothing not to be expected. A hic-up in the lifesystems can cause serious trouble to us humans much faster than a gradual GW. And...they may link...
Nowadays, we must realize, that most of folks are urban, and relying deeply on logistical systems as well as being very little knowledgable with the way of nature, have no chance at all to respond to a catastrophy that lasts long...well it only takes some months....
If you think this one deeper, what happens to a metropois that suddenly doesn't get fed, or gradually gets less foods, with the prices doubling and redoubling. Suddenly the forgotten most important factor gets into the spotlight. FOOD.
IMHO it could go anywhere between an impressive depression and a collapse of a civilization.
As a guy on the land, I'd be happy to have Laz's arsenal, just in case of 'em city folks trying to empty my freezer :devil
-
Angus :aok :aok
I have been watching what has been happening to our farms and the wife and I agree to start buying up land out in Sask Canada though it might turn in to a desert if the weather keeps changing. Something that is far enough away from people that they can not afford the fuel to find me. Also went back to buying research and how to books. I imagine if the world starts going to h3ll the internet will also go and then we will be stuck with out Google. I have gone back to having a garden and starting to collect and store seeds. My small farm here has animals to eat and a couple of large freezers( ok as long as we have power). I have a wood heater in my house as back up for the geothermal heat (ground scource heat pump)
My Grampa (bombardier in a Lanc '44 deceased since '86) always said that the next major world conflict food would be the most precious commodity. He pointed out that people have lost the respect they had for each other that there was in the '40s.
-
LOL, not that worried myself....but still...let's say...concerned.
Just raised a greenhouse. Well, the greenhouse effect seems to work fine in greenhouses, so now me, and mostly the missus, are beginning with our personal greenhouse effect :D
But really, when you see what a power-out can do with a western culture within days, and see what kind of things happened in the period of the great depression, you can only begin to think about what happens when the fluffy modern people get hit with ... say 30% less crops and then another 30% etc...
All prices are going ballistic, since the product is a necessity (food), then you'll have people by the millions that cannot sustain themselves.
All sorts of "necessities" are going to fly out the window for Water-food-and possibly power, - at the end of the day, these are the necessities. And food no more means pree-cooked or trucked chicken-like with a dozen materials in the sauce...just anything that will keep you alive....
And if it would go on? City folks in very big trouble. As for cultures, there are possibly some paralelles in war torn Europe and USSR during and after WW2.
Very tough life it was, while the people tackling it at the time were still mostly of much tougher and nature-based roots than the generations in the west today.
-
All sorts of "necessities" are going to fly out the window for Water-food-and possibly power, - at the end of the day, these are the necessities. And food no more means pree-cooked or trucked chicken-like with a dozen materials in the sauce...just anything that will keep you alive....
And if it would go on? City folks in very big trouble. As for cultures, there are possibly some paralelles in war torn Europe and USSR during and after WW2.
Very tough life it was, while the people tackling it at the time were still mostly of much tougher and nature-based roots than the generations in the west today.
The difference is that people have changed since then, we have become fluffy, you say, we as a society will not accept that we can't have a big meal. It will not be nice when this happens.
-
Exactly my thoughts.
People are more ready to make riots and shoot each other dead rather than grab the fork & shovel and swallow some..."pride".
-
geeze.. you guys are depressing. Everything will be fine. what we need we will figure out how to get. The planet is not going to burn up any time soon and there is plenty of food for everyone except the ones who breed like rabbits in areas that won't support a rabbit..
lazs
-
Everything will be fine.....
Could that be a quote from Hitler in the Bunker, or the captain of the Titanic :devil
As for food in places...go to the great plains of the USA in the depression years.
Too late to tell the bunny not to breed when the hunger hits many years later.
Now we may be depressiing...but we choose to face the possibilities with an open mind and try to form some countermeasures instead of sticking the head into the sand :devil
edit: The morbid possibilities of a food collapse due to lack of pollination applies mostly to the USA.
-
geeze.. you guys are depressing. Everything will be fine. what we need we will figure out how to get. The planet is not going to burn up any time soon and there is plenty of food for everyone except the ones who breed like rabbits in areas that won't support a rabbit..
lazs
Lazs last time I looked you had quite a few arms. You are not worried about the end are you. :rofl In the future our security, food and energy will be the most wanted items. Everything else will be minor when compared. With out our climate (environment) staying half stable we will run short on food quickly.
Try and find how much food is left in the strategic food stocks, I think you will be surprized. :O
-
In my country we only produce 50% of consumed calories on the market.
If there is times of truble though, we could eat our fish exports....providing we had oil.
No oil + no impoer means starvation within the month. The country supplies buffer lasts for a week.
In WW2, the UK relying on their imports and logistics from their vast colonies, had to start rationing while still in the "phoney war"...
-
Every ones strategic food stocks, are down.
Check out what the Mountain Pine beetle is doing to the forests that once used carbon now they are producing carbon. :aok
-
Heres a link for the Pine beetle
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/ (http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/)
Be sure to check out the maps and you can see the devastation they already done. :aok
-
So basically it's a result of milder winters.
We're having that here as well. Potatoe fungus is now a constant. I showed up once in the 50's then since 2000 or so it is there to stay.
-
yep.. we're all gonna die!!!
I have guns because of what panic does to people and.. the normal old criminal type. You guys shouting "the world is ending" sure stir up the natives.. the riots start and then eventually end. nothing really changes but the panic.
shortages are mostly artificial brought on by panic mongers like yourselves.. you will die in a panic and then your kids will live a life of panic because of what you taught them.. they will see every little glitch as the end and point at poor old dead dad who "predicted" this shortage way back in ought 8....
I need guns and food stores to get through the riots and panic guys like you cause.
lazs
-
Everyone is going to go through some rough times. They will get rougher than they are now.
Why? The outcome of Doomsdayers and the teeth gnashing. When it stops the false inflation will stop.
Simple.
At any rate, if I couldn`t cook a fish without oil I wouldn`t hold out too much hope. :)
That`s the leat of your problems.
-
Wonder what it takes you to have second thoughts. Probably disaster when it's at your doorstep. And well before, you'll have been growling because of inflation, stupid economies and so on.
Mankind had it's rough days since the civilization in some form was born. Much of the trouble was what mankind was doing to mankind, not necessarily the nature. Yet, things proceeded with some disasters for some 7000 years.
Now we face that we lead a style that is taking us to the edge of the cliff in some 100 years. And the way we proceed will not last long.
Being vastly much knowing about technology and such than our ancestors, one could think that we'd be better prepared for some natural disasters.
Well, it seems not...and another abnormality is that now what nature is doing might be traced back to ourself.
Lazs cannot eat his gun, nor can he get in a firefight with mother nature in a pissed off mood.
And Jackie, try to catch deep-sea fish from 900 fathoms without applying anything than sail and rope....then try cooking it without fuel :D
-
Oh Angus you have really bought into the old global warming thing, hook, line and sinker.
Now we face that we lead a style that is taking us to the edge of the cliff in some 100 years. And the way we proceed will not last long.
I find it amazing that a denizen from a country as inhospitable and barren as Iceland, whose people have survived for centuries in a landscape that looks like the moon or somewhere even more inhospitable. Where food is grown in greenhouse complexes which resemble a science fiction version of a base on Mars, should have a such a wholly pessimistic vision of the future. Iceland should by rights be empty of people. Yet there it is, thriving.
You really need to be a little more skeptical of the rubbish being talked about in relation to climate change. Even if you truly believe that we humans are changing the climate in a measurable way. You really must be able to question some of the so called 'truths' we are being constantly fed. It cannot all be true and it's becoming increasingly clear that much of it is to put it frankly, fantasy and speculation. You comment above is a classic of the type. It has no scientific basis whatsoever. It's a pure soundbyte.
Of late, I have been having difficulty finding people who really believe in AGW. It's not as if I spend a lot of time with gun toting, cigar chewing, right wing conservatives either. If I bring up the subject it's usually in a neutral even joking manner. I have been surprised at the intensity of the comments made against the global warming issue. Even those who you might expect to believe in it express skeptical views and often declare that at least it will reduce pollution. This ignores the fact that CO2 is not a pollutant as such.
The fact is that the global warming lobby has overplayed it's hand. The truth if it's there is lost in a sea of hype. 'You can't fool all of the people all of the time' as a famous man once said. That's what's happening now.
A bit of skepticism would do you no harm.
-
....then try cooking it without fuel :D
If you are caught without fuel, in any circumstance, then like I said, that`s the least of your worries.
Fuel to cook with is about the most abundant thing, in many forms, that there is. Remember...we are talking DOOMSDAY here. :rofl
I know, I know.......it does no good to even think about it-------> WE`RE DOOMED.
Now serving number 10001101.
Angus, ever thought about getting into AMWAY? :)
-
yep.. we're all gonna die!!!
I have guns because of what panic does to people and.. the normal old criminal type. You guys shouting "the world is ending" sure stir up the natives.. the riots start and then eventually end. nothing really changes but the panic.
shortages are mostly artificial brought on by panic mongers like yourselves.. you will die in a panic and then your kids will live a life of panic because of what you taught them.. they will see every little glitch as the end and point at poor old dead dad who "predicted" this shortage way back in ought 8....
I need guns and food stores to get through the riots and panic guys like you cause.
lazs
Lazs We are all preparing in our different ways some of us have enough weapons to arm a small country. Some of us prefer to plan and prepare by storing food and energy. That doesn't mean that we don't have our own arsenal but that we may have it buried some where. :aok
-
Global Warming May Lead to More Kidney Stones, Researchers Say
By Adam Satariano
July 15 (Bloomberg) -- More Americans may develop kidney stones as global warming raises the risk of dehydration, according to a study in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Warmer temperatures predicted by climate scientists may lead to a 30 percent increase in kidney stone cases in some U.S. regions, researchers at the University of Texas wrote in the study published today. That would result in a $1 billion increase in annual treatment costs by 2050, they said.
I know that some serious science is being done and reasonable concerns are being brought forth, but when some yahoo comes out with the reason for kidney stones can be traced to AGW, gimme a break... This is the type of crapola that makes me want to say that the AGW is just hysteria.
-
Want to fret over global warming?
Watch the people lining up at the banks after the IndyMac failure and Feds seizure.
Watch National City and WaMu fall like a rock.
Watch the Euro market going crazy.
Wait to see which way the teeter totter tilts from this.
Panic and fallout from this could get you some instant "Global Warming" in a heartbeat.
There are plenty of problems today, real problems to wring your hands and gnash teeth over without falling prey to such crap as GW scammers who only want your bucks and don`t give a rat`s behind what it does to anyone and everyone.
The all mighty buck is the biggest DOOMSDAY threat. It is a real one.
-
yep.. I have always felt that I had enough real problems to worry about without manufacturing em or.. letting others manufacture em for me.
We will go into a cooling cycle and the same people here who believe in man made global warming and the end of life as we know it.. well.. they will be screaming about man made global cooling and all the things we need to do to stop from all becoming a meatsicle in 100 years.
the thing about disasters of the proportion that you are all predicting is.. they have been predicted every 10 years or so since man could walk and they have a rate of being true of... what was that number again? oh yeah... ZERO FRIGGING PERCENT OF THE TIME.
Even the great depression that doomday lovers so lovingly refer to in order to scare themselves... even that....
Does anyone here know how many people in America starved to death (not counting crazies or those lost in the wilderness) during the great depression .. anyone?
lazs
-
Well, the Euro market is going such, that their currency is steadily leaving the $ behind.
So, while GW denialism has its roots mostly in the USA, the Euros seem to be able to look at it without panicking.
As for predicted disasters, those were all possible of course, but not measurable. Now Lazs, you seem to completely belive in an upcoming "ice age" anyway, at least you use that to support your claim that MMGW would be for the good, while in the other word you deny it.
The predicted possible "end of the world" disasters were what....Nuclear war (which was possible any minute for decades) and a meteor strike, and the Iceage prediction in the 70's/80's which you mention a lot (and I completely missed at the time, - I guess our metreologists didn't give much for it), and then disease...which is something to consider.
We've been lucky. I've been lucky too, never had a night in a hospital since my birth. But I still look ahead on to the road, and wear a seatbelt :D
-
Well, the Euro market is going such, that their currency is steadily leaving the $ behind.
So, while GW denialism has its roots mostly in the USA, the Euros seem to be able to look at it without panicking.
It just gets more hilarious every time you post.
The dollar surge here or there, up/down has nothing to do with the damn GW scam. :rofl
-
Well, from these words of yours, I was inspired for the input:
"Watch the Euro market going crazy.
Wait to see which way the teeter totter tilts from this.
Panic and fallout from this could get you some instant "Global Warming" in a heartbeat."
Now realize that the Euros are the ones not calling the GW a scam....
-
Well, from these words of yours, I was inspired for the input:
"Watch the Euro market going crazy.
Wait to see which way the teeter totter tilts from this.
Panic and fallout from this could get you some instant "Global Warming" in a heartbeat."
Angus "Global Warming" as in tension, disruption, not friggen GW.
Too funny.
All caused by hand wringers and DOOMSDAYERS of sort over the allmighty buck.
If you want a threat to worry about to keep you occupied there is plenty to worry about in day to day life. Right here, right now without falling for the oldest shell game in the books.
-
Okay, I gotta post this here too. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY&feature=related
-
vortex.. thanks.. that was hilarious.. exactly what I am talking about. the guy used a doubling to explain how we would need more electricity at my home than all the electricity used by man so far if I just lived long enough.. how we would run out by 1990..
But we didn't.. why? because things change.. tech changes.. needs change.
exponential math is the tool of the panic monger... it brought us "the population bomb" where none of us would have more than 2 square feet of room to move around in by the year 2000.. it brought us the movie soylent green...
it doesn't even work for ant colonies.. but it does work to make a buck and scare the women and womenly men.
lazs
-
IF we lose gravity we are in for a hell of a ride.
I had a dream where that happened once. Kinda like the opposite of a dream where you keep falling. Instead I was just flying away. Crazy stuff.
-
Lazs, are you sure you understood it all?
Anyway, the start goes off as a constant. and it goes year by year.
Now we have numbers to go from, but in every item regarding GW for instance it is not and never has been such a constant.
And indeed, the annual % from comfy to toast only takes a very little time....
-
I'm very sure lazs doesn't grasp half of what Dr Bartlett presented in his lecture. Unfortunately the majority of the population is like him, laughing and pointing finger at what they don't understand.
Edit: Did you see this quote? "Ignoring facts doesn't make them go away." One of the best I've seen concerning the global situation we're facing.
-
you guys crack me up.. you realize that his whole rap is based on exponential slight of hand... that always depends on everything staying exactly the same.
We were supposed to be shoulder to shoulder by now because of the population bomb.. it was based on exponential math.
By exponential math.. the planet should be three feet deep in ants by now.....
I would say to you.. ignoring all other possibilities and basing everything on exponential math is a sign of a very weak mind.
or.. someone who just loves doom and gloom.
lazs
-
you guys crack me up.. you realize that his whole rap is based on exponential slight of hand... that always depends on everything staying exactly the same.
Everything staying the same. Hmmm... So the answer is to change the way we are using our resources and look for sustainabiltiy? Brilliant!
-
Everything staying the same. Hmmm... So the answer is to change the way we are using our resources and look for sustainabiltiy? Brilliant!
Oh geeee, I think this guy is ON TO SOMETHING! :rofl
Great post! :aok
-
Lazs, what really is based on exponential math is growth. Each year, GNP is expected to grow by a certain percentage, if it doesn't grow as expected the economy start to falter. What is proven with arithmetics is, that the economy can not continue to grow forever, while people expect it to. It's a false expectation, as what is driving the economy is raw materials, natural resources. These resources (primarily oil) are finite, a supply bound to run out.
It's all very very simple. See the above post, we have to change something. If we don't, something will change anyway whether we like it or not. Like Dr Bartlett points out to us, we do have the option to change things before it starts to slip out of our hands. Once it's slipped away, we will not be in control any longer and nature will have it's course whether we like it or not. It's not a matter of change or no change, change will happen. It's how that change will happen that we may have some say about, if it's not already too late.
-
well.. I guess you didn't get it.. probly my fault.
What exponential depends on is the simple math.. that everything but what they are focused on stays the same.. that no variables exist. it is a straight.. and narrow minded and narrow focused math exercise with just enough boogie man and doomsday thrown in to reel in the women and womenly men.
lazs
-
so who's point are you trying to prove? the math is not even a possibility since.. the only certain thing is change.
I say the same thing to this loon as I say to the global warming loons....
Tell me what will happen in 5 years.. exactly tell me what we will run out of in 20 years.. tell me what will happen one year from now.
If it was all that simple all these "scientists" would have cornered the world markets in everything since finance should be childs play for such great seers who can deal with all the variables of mother nature.
lazs
-
I give up lazs, your posts really prove that you understand nothing of this. There is no point in discussing it with you.
-
Here ya go. Enough here to keep even the most bored DOOMSDAYER mind occupied and biting the pillow at night.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.07/doomsday.html)
Pick one. Build a shrine, have a plastic statue made to mount to your dash.
Nobody leaves here alive.
We are DOOMED! All DOOMED I tell ya.
-
Here it is in simple math Lazs
World Oil Reserves = 1,317.447 billion barrels / information from the US DOE
WOR = 1,317,447 million barrels
World Oil Production = 80+- million barrels per day / from the US CIA
Time left to end of production (keeping use constant and no more huge discoveies)(China has seen huge increase of oil use in the last 5 years likewise so has India)
(1,317,447/80)/365= 45.118 years :O
At the rate of use today we will be out of oil in 45+- years. This may not happen but 20 - 25 years from now there could be great shortages :aok
-
And shortage means the price goes up. Not just on oil, but anything that depends on oil.
Doesn't matter anyway, the doomsday sayers here probably have it right, that we'll al be dead from recent underseas volcanoes topped by huge ocygen starved underground coal fires.
Yes, the devil is at work, so pray and keep yer guns loaded :devil :devil :devil
-
only problem though is that you can't eat guns :aok
-
Well, the problem is not that oil will run out (it probably won't). The real problem is that the price of oil will go up, significantly. To a level where we can not sustain our current way of life. People will have to walk or take the bike to work, perhaps a train if we have electric power.
The price of oil can reach absurd levels without oil ever running out.
-
Well, the problem is not that oil will run out (it probably won't). The real problem is that the price of oil will go up, significantly. To a level where we can not sustain our current way of life. People will have to walk or take the bike to work, perhaps a train if we have electric power.
The price of oil can reach absurd levels without oil ever running out.
Exactly :aok :aok :aok
-
Me thinks it will....almost. Well before however, it will be unbearably expensive.
And that isn't even complicated science.
In that,,,,close future, we should be able to see if all those fumes make a difference...
-
It is interesting times Angus. :)
Potentially about 5 billion people on this planet are surplus. How that problem is to be solved nobody knows, but I think some governments are working on it behind the scenes.
-
only problem though is that you can't eat guns
Only flaw in that is as long as I have a gun I will eat.
-
And eat raw, muhahahaha :devil
-
And eat raw, muhahahaha :devil
Once again Angus, if you ever find yourself without fuel for cooking then you have far more worries than you have mentioned here. :devil
-
Once again Angus, if you ever find yourself without fuel for cooking then you have far more worries than you have mentioned here. :devil
What... you think Icelanders don't eat sushi?
-
What... you think Icelanders don't eat sushi?
Evidently not. Angus was in a tizzy over not having fuel to cook his fish with recently.
It won`t make any difference though------ WE ARE DOOMED! DOOMED I SAY!
mUAHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!! <cough>
-
You forget to take into your calculation that all our consumption electrics come from hydro power :devil
However tha trawler fleet run on oil.
But being a country of energy export, were it used to the full, we could boo on the oil, there would be electrics enough to generate hydrogen for propulsion such as on sea, and enough to keep everything mobile by electrics.
So, we definately need to be invaded in the forseeable future :devil
-
the only thing wrong with your math is that it depends on you knowing how much oil there is on the planet and how oil is made and if it is replenished and... that the demand will stay the same or increase...
You can't possibly know any of those things but....
To get back on topic.. you can't have it both ways.... if we are going to run out some time in the near future then there is no need to worry about on degree of "man made global warming" that will happen in 100 years.. we will be out of oil by then according to your simplistic math and simplistic look at how the planet and economies work.
lazs
-
You forget to take into your calculation that all our consumption electrics come from hydro power :devil
I`d hate to have to depend on a trawler fleet for my fish NOW.
However tha trawler fleet run on oil.
In the type of mass doomsday you have been predicting the trawler fleet will be no more. That`s one less worry for you. :)
-
I did not follow the complete doomsday theory just in case you noticed. (Destruction of life on earth due to Venus atmosphere conditions).
My doomsday theory goes at max that if we humans dally on long enough, we'll hit conditions that send our civilization, comfort, technology, whatever you name it, reeling back to the level of hundreds or thousands of years ago in most places of the earth, along with some serious disasters in the process.
IMHO there are still going to be pockets that may be so-so-okay, notably on areas with protection of natural barriers.
(When the crap goes on the loose,the biggest danger may be other humans....for some)
-
So, we definately need to be invaded in the forseeable future :devil
I think you will be safe but Canada on the other hand. :O
............................. .
Forgot we are already owned by our southern neighbors. :cry
-
HERE YOU GO.................
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
:O :O :O
-
I brought up the fact that the sun doesn't produce the same heat year to year and people laughed at me but if it is in an article. :)
(Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth.")
-
?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/Solar_cycle.gif)
Anyway, here is a link to a very good article:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm
"Similarly, in 2004 when a group of scientists published evidence that the solar activity of the 20th century had been unusually high, they nevertheless concluded that "even under the extreme assumption that the Sun was responsible for all the global warming prior to 1970, at most 30% of the strong warming since then can be of solar origin." When Foukal reviewed the question in 2006, he agreed that there was no good evidence that the Sun had played a role in any climate change back to the Little Ice Age. (Meanwhile, new historical evidence suggested that the cold of the early modern centuries might have been partly due to a spate of volcanic eruptions.)"
-
OH Boy! More charts. :rofl
-
It's a sun chart STUUPIIIDE!
-
angus.. how is it that a chart that shows co2 rise FOLLOWING global warming is dead on proof that co2 causes global warming yet.. any small delay in the action of the sun heating an entire planet of which 70% is water and ice... is considered "proof" that the sun has nothing to do with it. it is just a coincidence I suppose that the climate and sun charts are in such sync?
It is probly more complicated than simply all sun related but it certainly isn't anything us feeble humans are doing...
"According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."
harmlessly low... or.. insignificant... that is what most are saying of mans effect.
lazs
-
The sun has most to do with it.
Sun + Surface + Atmosphere = result.
And we feeble humans are effecting the two latter factors to quite an extent.
Not miniscule, and with the flick of a switch we could easily get an iceage sample.
And to carry on with ***cough*** some percentage increase every year as linked above (close enough) it is only a question of when and not if, regarding when there is real real trouble.
I'm not a CO2 camper, you know I always refer to human impact as a total. Surface (including life ) and atmosphere....
-
I was hoping that we have sunspots back, but noooo....
A sunspot is emerging at the location indicated by the arrow. Magnetograms of the spot show it to be an old Cycle 23 active region. Credit: SOHO/MDI
http://www.spaceweather.com/
-
Not miniscule, and with the flick of a switch we could easily get an iceage sample.
Geeeeeeeeeez................. .now I have to stop production on the plastic statues for my eBay sales.
We need to decided whether we are going to climb under the bed and bite the pillow over GW or freezing to death.......or nuclear war...or colliding comets......or alien invasions...........or other fairy tales.
Production costs are soaring due to the indecision.
I would also like to know the current status of the polar bear . Good bear or bad bear. I gotta know before the bumper stickers are printed.
We heard from you the lamenting over the polar bears becoming extinct and the woes and tears for a long time due to GW......................THEN , all of a sudden, you were asking what would be the best caliber to take out the mangy , white area rugs out because they were coming into towns.
I can`t stand the down time here. :rofl
Enjoy the good weather.
-
Kool Aid any one :noid :noid
Best thing is to try to reduce your own impact on Mother Earth. Other than that enjoy life :D
-
Jackal, to be honest with you, I'd really like to see your rather bright and sarcastic mind working on something else than mocking things that you seem not to understand.
Honestly!
And BTW, polar bears shrinking into a zoo colony are the least of worries is a N-cap melting. And it will not be tomorrow.
If I's see one in my back-yard, it's weapon in the hand before you can spell "merry christmas."
That said, this is a reflex to something of a possible danger. You'd maybe prefer biting your pillow, making fun with teddy jokes, or simply denying the whole business.
(BTW, we had 2 confirmed polar bear landings in agricultural zones last month. Both spotted and shot dead, there was nothing else to do)
-
At the risk of creating a link and drop it number 17,
Below there is a link to a site that consolidates a great deal of information put forward by reputable climate scientists who actually have credentials in the field. While they admit they are not unbiased, the information they put forward is all hard science backed up by real numbers, and they are more than willing to take any information that can be backed up by hard numbers. They state they are primarily interested in science and not opinion.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html#top
So here it is enjoy it, it's long and even the links and links.
Have fun,
Kevin
-
WOW :O Huge page of information This will take me a while. Thanks :aok
-
ZzzzZZZzzzZZzZzZZZZZZzzZ
-
Jackal, to be honest with you, I'd really like to see your rather bright and sarcastic mind working on something else than mocking things that you seem not to understand.
I understand scams Angus. You can believe me on that one.
There have been many, many in my lifetime just such as this one. All cabbage and no meat.
If I am going to worry about things , there are more than enough real worries in everyday life to keep one occupied.
I prefer not to starve people to death over silliness.
Climate has changed since recorded history began. I suspect it will continue to do so no matter how important we think we are in the scheme of things.
The only possible outcome when man gets involved in trying to change what is not understood is to screw things up further.
If God himself came down with golden tablets explaining that temp will rise or fall 10 degrees a day worldwide, noting would still get done other than a lot of pillow biting and whining. Number one, once again, you cannot possibly expect every country in the world to
cooperate in things like this. We are too busy trying to figure out how to wipe each other out on a day to day basis. Has always been that way, always will be.
Scams are for the naive. I passed that long, long ago.
Too much reality gets in the way.
-
I refuse to respect anyone who doesn't practice what they preach. A certain Al Gore flaunts his hypocrisy.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=2435807&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/
-
I can understand why the site put moray to sleep.. he didn't understand it.. I didn't understand half of it either tho.. plus.. it doesn't fit his agenda.
angus.. I can understand why you have your doubts about co2 causing the warming.. from the site...
"Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of absorbing much more than
two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.
And, if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won't matter a bit."
Soooo... if it is not man made C02 then what? what is man doing that is causing it to warm up like it did during the medievel warm period... what horror have we wrought that is bringing us back to this era of prosperity?
lazs
-
This just in..............
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/18/disproof-of-global-warming-hype-published/
numbers?
And this..........
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68040
and this...........
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=70005
HMMMMMMMM..................
Could it be true?
-
I refuse to respect anyone who doesn't practice what they preach. A certain Al Gore flaunts his hypocrisy.
http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=2435807&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/
They are hard against Gore for riding in limos with the engine running but not one person mention the bussiness jet that they had pictures of him getting on and off of. Isn't that like driving oneself to work with a very big gas guzzler? :O
-
I can understand why the site put moray to sleep.. he didn't understand it.. I didn't understand half of it either tho.. plus.. it doesn't fit his agenda.
angus.. I can understand why you have your doubts about co2 causing the warming.. from the site...
"Man-made CO2 doesn't appear physically capable of absorbing much more than
two-thousandths of the radiated heat (IR) passing upward through the atmosphere.
And, if all of the available heat in that spectrum is indeed being captured by the current CO2 levels before leaving the atmosphere, then adding more CO2 to the atmosphere won't matter a bit."
Soooo... if it is not man made C02 then what? what is man doing that is causing it to warm up like it did during the medievel warm period... what horror have we wrought that is bringing us back to this era of prosperity?
lazs
The site didn't put me to sleep.... Your lack of even attempting to learn anything new to argue has. Laz, your points are BS. Anyone who graduated junior high science knows it. You haven't adjusted your argument at all to make up for said BS....it's just the same BS you spout... day after day after day. Your intellect is a prisoner to your stubborness.
That said... I'm flipping the pillow to the cold side... and goin back to sleep.
-
Jackal, you rock between calling GW a scam and MMGW a scam.
Some people have a solid belief that the bible is a scam....
From my head, I do not se GW as a scam, I just think that there is a little overdoing on the CO2, since CO2 is just one of many greenhouse effecting gases.
And I am sad at the thought that people like you guys seem to omit one fact, the CO2 gussling will come to an end when the oil runs down to...expensive. Even with no CO2 side-effect at all, this is still in the maps.
The influence of that is going to hit civilization hard, and the hardest on those with high consumption standards....guess who that might be?
So, my laymans result from living, testing, reading and studying is that GW is occuring, and us humans have a part in it. I guess that makes me a part of some huge conspiracy
-
From my head, I do not se GW as a scam
I would have never noticed that if you hadn`t brought it up Angus. :D
-
angus.. if it is not co2 then what "part" do us humans have in it? You seem to not be so much concerned about us heating up the planet with carbon as you are that we will run out of oil. You seem all jumbled up.. Like moray who also does not.. or did not think that co2 could be as significant as the UN liars say it is... yet... you say.. he says.. that man somehow is causing it.
For both of you.. what is the cause of this extremely pleasant and harmless warming period we are going through?
lazs
-
Call it jumbled-up, and there I think you hit the nail on the head.
Too many factors are too much a load for a simple mind. So, meadia-wise it's best to have it simple, headline-style. Instead of greenhouse gases it's just co2. Instead of multiple factors it's just greenhouse effect.
So, the reason...well, IMHO a total of greenhouse effect, aided by a different exposure area, toppled with sunlight :D
BTW:
"what is the cause of this extremely pleasant and harmless warming period we are going through?"
Nice to see you bite the dust Lazs, - you have been claiming that there is a cooling period, right????
-
Nice to see you bite the dust Lazs, - you have been claiming that there is a cooling period, right????
Kinda depends on your time scale eh?
-
Okay, let's say...for the past couple of years... :t
-
Okay, let's say...for the past couple of years... :t
So now we prove multi-decadal trends in 100,000+ year time scales on just the last couple of years?
This has always been my problem with the AGW doctrine.
-
Well, if you want to stretch it a bit further, it is estimated that the N-pole cap has been around for a million years, even two. Now if that one disappear, you can safely assume that it isn't exactly cooling, and a temp record has been set for that period.
About the doomsday theory with CO2 (which I don't quite swallow on its own), bear in mind that before we make planetary records of CO2, oil will be gone or too expensive, - give or take...with a grain of salt.
The more scary factor is the methane.
So, if we are in a solar active trend, and we aid it with both greenhouse gasses and large changes on the surface of the earth, well, then you may see us in trouble...
-
I have never in my life seen people complain and gnash teeth over nice weather before.
This is a new one.
The climate has changed, is changing and will change in the future. It always has, always will and if by chance it doesn`t, then enjoy.
The man made global warming hoax has been blown out of the water in so many ways it`s ridiculous.
It`s all about the money. Spend yours if you wish on a scam, but leave me an the thousands of people who are already in trouble over this around the globe out of it. Man has not and will not change the climate any way in the foreseeable future.
Man.........I`d like to run the old shell game on some here. Hook , line and sinker.
-
So the N-Pole cap melting is a hoax?
Or Hurricanes originating in the S-Atlantic (as predicted)?
BTW, I'm getting a Hurricane today whoo-hoo. In July. Here.
Probably never happened before....
Anyway, I'll call anyone a "hoaxer" who claims that all of mens work have no effect on climate at all.....
-
Ice has melted before. It has also formed before and is forming now. Nothing new there.
Hurricanes have been around a long time.
Nothing new there.
It`s weather and climate. It changes. Always has, always will.
-
sheesh.. we are going to start to cool.. it has been cooler since 98.. how do you even measure global temp anyhow? How do you measure the temp of your own skin? is it the temp of your nose? your feet? somewhere between your buttcheeks?
What bad things have happened? is this a world record for temp for all time? is this the worst hurricane season ever? and what if it happened that it was (it isn't)? Some year has to be.. name me one day that is like any other ever.
It has been pleasant.. it will likely stay pleasant for a few years and then we will cool off for a while.. then in time.. it will get warm again.
It is 5 degrees cooler than normal today and yesterday here. don't mean a thing.. if it rained here today then it would be a one in 100 year thing but no prediction of impending doom.. no harbinger of the great flood..
Relax and enjoy... or just get through it.. because...
You can't do anything about the weather.
lazs
-
The " I am looking out the window and............" approach would be funny as hell if one were transported to Texas for a while.
Want weather change here, just blink a few times. :D
-
Ice has melted before. It has also formed before and is forming now. Nothing new there.
Hurricanes have been around a long time.
Nothing new there.
It`s weather and climate. It changes. Always has, always will.
In the times of civilization, what is happening now in a very short time, has not been seen before.
Actually you'd have to back-step that time some 100-200 times.
So, to us it is.
As well as hurricanes in places where there are no records of them forming, and in times of year with no records of the same, as well as living longer.
All are results of warming seawater.
And Lazs...you claimed that we were cooling, now you take a backstep?
Yeh, sure, we have some tiny pockets of air that are under bar, but the real mass, as well as the largest part of the atmosphere is warming.
Oh, and you may measure the temp with odd parts of your anatomy, I choose the temp gauge, and for some ride with a sense of realism, you can judge by flora & fauna, melting of ice, and the movements of various lifeforms.
I think that makes a decently more accurate measurement than your butt-cheek method. It might for instant vary with what you've just done with them, or to them, or how thick the insulation is in relation to the season etc :devil
-
This just in!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
More on GW.................
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/07/21/controversy-over-proof-that-there-is-no-%e2%80%9cclimate-crisis%e2%80%9d/
-
angus.. the temp of the globe is measured in many not so accurate ways.. the most honest say that it is +/- 2 degrees.. more than all the global warming "predicted" for the next century. I say it is cooling.. I am well within the 2 degree +/- number.
There is a clear cooling trend from the 98 high.
lazs
-
Complete rubbish.
1. The records were falling in 2007, after 2005. HOT that was.
2. The ocean temp is rising, and as proved that is a factor with some zeros added to the energy of the atmosphere.
3. We are now topping any record in cap meltings.
4. I now know your instrument of measuring ...thank's for sharing:
"How do you measure the temp of your own skin? is it the temp of your nose? your feet? somewhere between your buttcheeks?"
:devil
-
3. We are now topping any record in cap meltings.
(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg)
Yet global sea ice area has stayed within +/- 2 E6 sq KM since 1979
-
In the times of civilization, what is happening now in a very short time, has not been seen before.
Times of civilization is very short within itself.
-
2. The ocean temp is rising, and as proved that is a factor with some zeros added to the energy of the atmosphere.
Or is it really? *click* (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg)
And what is Argo? *click* (http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html)
-
Argo's site seems to disagree with itself then, oh just a moment, the graph isn't from Argos site...
"We are increasingly concerned about global change and its regional impacts. Sea level is rising at an accelerating rate of 3 mm/year, Arctic sea ice cover is shrinking and high latitude areas are warming rapidly. Extreme weather events cause loss of life and enormous burdens on the insurance industry. Globally, 8 of the 10 warmest years since 1860, when instrumental records began, were in the past decade. "
Another one:
All Things Considered, September 21, 2007 · Final data on the shrinking North Pole ice cap confirms that the amount of ice there is the lowest yet recorded, with even less ice than had been reported in August. Mark Serreze, senior research scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, tells Melissa Block what the figures might imply.
This record has been broken, and there is a chance that the area will be clear in the autumn, like sept-oct.
Bear in mind that this much melting should actually cool the sea.
What I have on warming though is basically as well here:
"For one, ocean surface temperatures worldwide have risen on average 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit, or 0.5 degrees Celsius, and ocean waters in many tropical regions have risen by almost 2 degrees F (1 degree C) over the past century. This is 30 times the amount of heat that has been added to the atmosphere, a significant amount even though the ocean has a lot more mass than the atmosphere"
(ffrom oceans alive)
And total sea ice doesn't say all, since it's increasing in the south. However that's because it's creeping from land. Lookie here:
http://www.care2.com/news/member/327693782/602231
And the NY Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E2DC163EF932A2575BC0A9609C8B63&n=Top/News/Science/Topics/Ice
Bottom line, the N.Ice cap is NOW at it historic minimum for a very long time, and is still on a good pace downwards.
-
so angus... It appears that even the scientists can't get it the same on if the globe is cooling or heating... that pesky +/- 2 degrees thing...
Can you point me to a site that shows how the "global temp" is measured every year? what the method is and what areas are measured? all areas? satelite data shows that north America has not heated for 20 years... perhaps that data is the most accurate or... north America is not part of the globe?
If the worlds weather stations are as funky as the ones in the US.. then urban sprawl and concrete and poor maintenance have rendered them almost useless.. most reading higher every year due to poor placement.
or maybe... You are telling me that the tree rings or whatever show a half a degree difference?
lazs
-
total sea ice doesn't say all, since it's increasing in the south. However that's because it's creeping from land. Lookie here:
http://www.care2.com/news/member/327693782/602231
And the NY Times:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E2DC163EF932A2575BC0A9609C8B63&n=Top/News/Science/Topics/Ice
Bottom line, the N.Ice cap is NOW at it historic minimum for a very long time, and is still on a good pace downwards.
(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg)
According to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) the N polar sea ice extent is 1e6 sqkm larger than it was 365 days ago, although a little more than 1e6 sqkm less than the 30 yr average.
-
Well, they don't all agree now do they?
1e6...now that is 6 million square?
BTW, we now are getting a new glacier lagoon. Good for tourism. Funny in a cooling trend though...
-
Here is soemthing new for you.
Now some fresh pickings from the Political Grapevine:
Work of Fiction?
A former global warming alarmist and creator of the model that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol says that while global warming is real, there is no evidence that the main cause is carbon emissions. David Evans says that C02 emissions play — at most — a minor role.
Evans writes in The Australian newspaper that if global warming was caused by C02, scientists would have found hot spots about six miles up in the earth's atmosphere over the Tropics. Evans describes those hot spots as the signature of the greenhouse effect. He says scientists have been trying to locate them for years using thermometers attached to weather balloons.
But he says years of research "show no hot spot — whatsoever" adding that "an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming."
Maybe again, we need to revisit the thought that global warming is cyclical.
-
Seems to be paddling a tad out of the ordinary then.
Here is something for Holden, just to enhance some thinking in 3 dimensions.
Ice is not just measured in just square, but thickness. Add the fourth dimension, - time.
The N-Ice has been loosing mass. More and more of it is just what froze up last winter.
Lookie:
(http://esv.blog.is/users/da/esv/img/_44501559_ice_graph416.gif)
-
Lookie:
But still 100% ice.
-
Here is something for Holden, just to enhance some thinking in 3 dimensions.
How does one measure ice thickness?
A daily area measure is taken from orbit and is a much more timely data. You can get altitude measure from orbit and calculate 10% above and 90% below floating ice and get a calculated thickness, but this would be not as accurate as the area measure.
Ice on land would require an accurate survey of the earth below the ice cap. Is this available? if so how accurate is it?
Area is easily and accurately accounted, volume and mass are calculated and therefore less accurate.
Is more area of ice this year than last mean good things or bad?
-
The earth below the icecap is gradually being explored. This is for instance how the "lost squadron" was located.
As for the age of the Ice, I am not sure of the method. This is a multi national effort though.
What I know is that those wo hold each other hand-in-hand.
This absolutely affects things as transport etc.
Since 90% of ice is underseas, it really matters if what is above is a a mere crust or a mountain.
And from above look at cover ...or no cover. A sattelite will se ice or not...
The recent effects around where I live is thinner ice, and it's faster in the drift. The fishing fleet may venture further, and the oil companies are looking further.
The fishing fleet has to hunt further north due to the normal catch going further to their normal temperature.
In the meanwhile we get new sorts from the south, such as "macril or makril??"? in catchable quantities.
Bottom line there is that the fish is moving northwards. A very good temp gauge...?
And the oil seekers aso move further into the north...into grounds that their companies have hired "scientists" claiming that there is no occuring ice retreat.
As for more area of ice this year, I wish your graph had this month. (I hope I have the right graph in my head). Anyway we'll have to wait a month or two. I'll put my money on the 2007 record (which broke the 2005 record?) being beet in 2008.
-
As for more area of ice this year, I wish your graph had this month.
The graph from cryosphere, (just a few posts up) stops in mid July... and starts in mid July last year. It's pretty much up to date.
-
This article's sounds a little biased, here's what it says though:
-Sea ice is expanding globally, not retreating (especially in the Antarctic)
-he oceans have stopped rising, and actually started to fall; that might be because they “stopped warming 4–5 years ago” according to NASA, based on data from the 3,000 new Argo floats now scattered world-wide.
- The number and intensity of hurricanes, cyclones, and tornadoes hasn’t increased.
-the planet actually began to cool in 2007 and 2008 for the first time in 30 years.
-The net warming from 1940 to 1998 had been a miniscule 0.2 degree C
-There is massive global evidence of a 1,500-year warming cycle, going back 1 million years. It may be driven by the slightly varying distance between the earth and the sun. The sunspot index has had a 79 percent correlation with the earth’s thermometer record since 1860, during this time, the temperature correlation with CO2 is a dismissive 22 percent.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4025
The website's front page doesn't look impartial, but the above points don't sound falsifiable..
-
But still 100% ice.
100% OF the ice. It is in % OF the ice. 100% of something smaller is also 100%...
As for the sea Ice, the increase in the antarctic is explained by land Ice sliding into the sea in increasing numbers.
Bear in mind, that in the North, this is happening too, but on a smaller scale. But it's still not enough to hold the fort....
Oh, Holden, about the scopes for measure:
http://www.islandia.is/hamfarir/jardfraedilegt/eldgos/katlamei.html#Botn%20Kötlu
The link shows at the beginning the surface of a glacier, then the bottom.
Surface is GPS measured, the bottom with some special wave equipment, not far from those used on fishing ships.
The charting is made with quite some work, but is quite accurate.
They have been using this technology on the Greenland glacier as well. I guess the biggest intro on the equipment was actually when they found and recovered "Glacier Girl".
Something about the equipment can be found here:
http://www.raunvis.hi.is/~matti/issja/issja.html
Unfortunately notmuch in english though.
Anyway, the device has been applied all over our glaciers as well to quite some extent in Greenland. For climate studies (as well as calibrations) they sometimes drill as well.
-
Oh, linkie from Images. A bit slow though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S6oyTdkOWc&feature=related
-
Did you see the nasa images that show all the warm spots in the ocean around the antartic? It seems that some undersea thermal action is going on.. that can't be our fault.
lazs
-
Do you have a link?
Anyway, the ongoing debate right now is whether there is any GW going on at all it seems.
BTW, the Antarctic is releasing land based ice into the ocean at some rate. The are is geologically rather quiet by the way. Both poles.
Spin the globe, and ponder....
-
angus..
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html#top
Look at the last part of the article and it will show a nasa thermal image.
lazs
-
Going back to cooling and warming of the earth. Here is soemthing I just found.
Mark Williams, University of Leicester
(http://www.foxnews.com/images/403039/0_21_080722_ostracod_fossil.jpg)
This ostracod fossil from the Dry Valleys of Antarctica is less than 1 mm long, but preserves an array of soft tissues including legs and mouth parts.
A college student's new discovery of fossils collected in the East Antarctic suggests that the frozen polar cap was once a much balmier place.
The well-preserved fossils of ostracods, a type of small crustacean, came from the Dry Valleys region of Antarctica's Transantarctic Mountains and date from about 14 million years ago. The fossils were a rare find, showing all of the ostracods' soft anatomy in 3-D.
The fossils were discovered by Richard Thommasson during screening of the sediment in research team member Allan Ashworth's lab at North Dakota State University.
• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Evolution & Paleontology Center.
• Click here to visit FOXNews.com's Natural Science Center.
Because ostracods couldn't survive in the current Antarctic climate, their presence suggests that the southern-most continent hasn't always been as frigid as it is today.
"Present conditions in this Antarctic region show mean annual temperatures of minus 25 degrees C (Celsius) [minus 13 degrees Fahrenheit]," said Mark Williams of the University of Leicester, co-author with Ashworth of the fossil-find report in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. "These are impossible conditions to sustain a lake fauna with ostracods."
RelatedStories
Fossilized Feathers Could Yield Dinosaur Colors Milwaukee Museum Unveils Mammoth Skeleton The authors think the ostracods and the habitat they lived in were the last vestiges of a tundra ecosystem, similar to those found in Patagonia, that once thrived in Antarctic coastal regions, before an intense period of cooling gave rise to the Antarctic environment we see today.
While geologists theorize that the land that now makes up Antarctica was once a part of other continents closer to the equator — hundreds of millions of years ago — the warmer climate that supported the ostracods would have existed "when Antarctica was pretty much in its current location," said study co-author David Marchant of Boston University.
Marchant estimated that the summer temperatures in Antarctica would have been about 30.6 degrees F (17 degrees C) warmer than they are now.
This warmer period started to end when the first continent-sized ice sheets began appearing on Antarctica around 34 million years ago, around the end of the Eocene epoch.
These ice sheets expanded and contracted until around 14 million years ago, during the Miocene epoch, when a dramatic cooling took place and transformed the tundra into an environment "that today looks like Mars," Marchant told LiveScience.
Marchant said climatologists are uncertain exactly what caused this intense period of cooling.
The research was funded by the National Science Foundation.
-
Here is another story relating to global warming. It also mentions the P-38 "Glacier Girl" and how shw was found under jsut over 200 feet down. And the information that was supplied and given to the searchers had informed only about 40 feet. Great read.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010411040505/weatherwise.org/00nd.cerveny.html
-
That site you gave a link to Lazs looks close to the site of the flat earth society.
Being Greenlands neighbour, where the state of the art technique (Ice scope, drilling and GPS all put together) it is behind any doubt that the total mass of Ice is retreating, and faster than predicted.
The same method used in Greenland shows the same.
And Glaciers do not retreat if there is cooling going on, dead simple.
Now look at the N-sea-ice age again...age will give you a good hint to the thickness, as well as how much melts every year. What does that tell you?
(http://esv.blog.is/users/da/esv/img/_44501559_ice_graph416.gif)
-
angus...sorry if the site is too full of data for you to follow.. all you had to do was scroll down past all the boring scientific stuff and get to the end to see the nasa pictures of thermals of the antartic.
I would say that the global warming alarmists with their denial of the pictures are the real flat earthers...
Why would they send out the mailer saying to ignore the images? What does that TELL YOU?
lazs
-
Give me a site that doesn't look like it's put together by some propagandists and we'll talk some more about it.
-
I have not seen any site on global warming that does not look like it was put together by a propagandist.. it is just that some are slicker than others.
You need to talk about the math.. there are plenty of sites that say the co2 math does not add up. There are no grants for proving man made global warming is not happening tho so even tho a majority of scientists are sceptical.. they don't really have the funds or the incentive to put up the slick propaganda sites.
Most of the hand wringer sites are good at glossing over facts and exaggeration. algors movie for instance was vehemently defended.. the hand wringers gave him an oscar and a nobel prize.. now.. with a little perspective.. we see that it was... well.. no doubt about it.. it was slick and well made but.. so devoid of facts and so full of exaggerations and downright lies that england has classified it as fiction.
use some ability to think and don't look at how slick a site is.. look at the content.
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1493.htm
or how bout a slick one by no less than the government.. shiny stuff hypnotizes you so here ya are...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175b568a-802a-23ad-4c69-9bdd978fb3cd
or maybe newspapers.. you like them I have noticed...
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
lazs
-
Just for your info, the Ice graph was forwarded by one of our best metreologists, and that guy is somewhat cautious about GW debate.
The "Scientific stuff" you refer to in your link looks as if it was cropped by Göbbels.
-
angus.. which parts did you dispute?
lazs
-
Most of 'em.
Now, have you made up your mind....from you to me and Moray:
"For both of you.. what is the cause of this extremely pleasant and harmless warming period we are going through?"
For me it is a pleasure, except from the windspeeds jacking up.
It is a GW...and the cause, IMHO, again, is many sourced.
-
It is a GW...and the cause, IMHO, again, is many sourced
Then why the wringing of hands and gnashing fo teeth? The earth has warmed and cooled over its history and will continue to do so. There are too many variable out there to say that this is all the fault of man which is what most GW alarmists are touting. As I posted a little earlier, fossils have been founf in Antarctica that suggest a much warmer time period there. Now, that must mean that the rest of the earth was also warmer. It has changed and will continue to change until the end of the world.
-
Well, for once, those who debate MMGW the hardest, also dally with debating GW at all.
You can browse Laz's words from "what's wrong with the comfy warming nowadays" to "The globe is cooling, including atmosphere seas and ice is growing".
In the meantime, the oil companies are getting their rigs ready to move northwards due to grounds getting free of ice, WHILE paying press people to claim the opposite.
Nice script for a disaster movie,,,,
-
The earth always cycles between cold and hot. Carbon is taken from the atmosphere in natural processes and released in natural processes. An astroid hit (there were countless in earth's past) or a volcano can start the process in a different direction. The ocean can be one of the biggest carbon sinks if life can exist there. Small sea creatures make shells that are made up of carbon mostly. The shells sink and get buried. The cycle continues.
If you want to get rid of carbon warm the oceans. Sea life explodes and this happens naturally. If you want to warm the planet release carbon. If you want to cool it take carbon away.
Given a choice between warming and cooling I would opt for warming myself.
-
So first it was adamantly argued that no climate change was taking place, now its agreed it is but not caused or being helped along by man? Don't people usually get really angry about flipfloppers in this country?
-
So first it was adamantly argued that no climate change was taking place, now its agreed it is but not caused or being helped along by man? Don't people usually get really angry about flipfloppers in this country?
Who argued there is no climate change? The argument has always been the cause and sometimes the specifics of the change. Calling it climate change instead of global warming is the biggest flip in the flop.
-
^
^
^
^
Agreed. I never said that there wasn't climate change. I am arguing that this "science" that has been proposed where man is the ultimate culprit, should be suspect. We know too little and our "guesses" as to past climate, to claim that we are the cause.
-
There is climate change because climate is always changing. There seem to be some degree of increase in the global temperature in recent history, but the degree (pun intended) is debatable. The temperatures do not increase everywhere and it is very hard to define the "average" temperature. In addition, the measurements and "averaging" suffer from a significant degree of bias and systematic errors.
There are several parallel debates:
1. whether there is global warming at all
2. Assuming #1 is true, is it man made
3. Assuming #2 is true, is it the CO2 emission
The jury is still out on all three.
As for the climate models, I just discovered what a piece of crap they are - at least the atmospheric part of it that covers the "greenhouse effect". I attended a physics seminar that explained the details of the radiation transfer that goes into models currently used in the global warming predictions. It is somewhere between bad physics and no physics at all. Better calculations that solved the full radiation transfer correctly, pointing out all the mistakes of current models along the way, show that the CO2 contribution to the greenhouse effect is so tiny, that the "near ground" temperature will rise by no more than 0.1 degree even if you increase the CO2 content in the atmosphere by factor 10 than it is today. It doesn't solve the global warming argument(s), but the case for CO2 being the culprit, man made or not, is EXTREMELY week.
There is great concern in the science world that this "bad science" and "political science" (not the study of politics) will, when it collapses, bring down with it the good science as well.
-
Hehe, well made:
"There are several parallel debates:
1. whether there is global warming at all
2. Assuming #1 is true, is it man made
3. Assuming #2 is true, is it the CO2 emission
The jury is still out on all three."
I'll give you my stance on this:
1: Yes, there is.
2. Partially
3. partially partially.
-
So first it was adamantly argued that no climate change was taking place
Never seen that argued here. Climate has always changed in the past and always will.
-
Of course it will.
It is a theory of some here though that we're in a cooling trend. The air is cooling, the seas are cooling and the arctic ice is growing..while the SL is rising.
All interesting...all too interesting :D
-
Of course it will.
It is a theory of some here though that we're in a cooling trend. The air is cooling, the seas are cooling and the arctic ice is growing..while the SL is rising.
All interesting...all too interesting :D
obviously the H2O fairy is making more water for us.
My earlier comment wasn't directed at this thread, more at what I've seen argued 10 years ago before enough evidence was brought to light to show that change is happening.
-
Well, in this debate you will steadily encounter people who try to put things off track, i.e. by claiming that the change is different.
So, the discussion goes more to comfy "it's just what always happened...normal" instead of "we're having an abnormality, why is that?".
Look at Lazs inputs. It goes in and out with the reasons behind GW, such as claiming it due to increased solar energy etc, then to claiming it being "a comfortable warming, what's wrong with that", and then down to "the globe is cooling".
ARRGGGHHHH :mad:
-
Well, in this debate you will steadily encounter people who try to put things off track, i.e. by claiming that the change is different.
So, the discussion goes more to comfy "it's just what always happened...normal" instead of "we're having an abnormality, why is that?".
Look at Lazs inputs. It goes in and out with the reasons behind GW, such as claiming it due to increased solar energy etc, then to claiming it being "a comfortable warming, what's wrong with that", and then down to "the globe is cooling".
ARRGGGHHHH :mad:
We were experiencing some warming which has been beneficial but for the last 10 years the warming trend has reversed. Kinda simple really.
-
Nobody is willing to admit that they bought the plastic statue and it is now useless.
Enjoy the weather and worry about real problems instead of DOOMSDAY scams.
-
I would like to know what statue that was. Did you buy one of them...dolls ? :devil
And Iron:
"We were experiencing some warming which has been beneficial but for the last 10 years the warming trend has reversed. Kinda simple really."
Not sure what you mean there, for the all-record ice-low record is 2007 waiting to be replaced by 2008.
Same goes with the air temp. 2007 very very hot. Hotter than 1997.
As for beneficial, that yet remains to be seen....
-
I would like to know what statue that was. Did you buy one of them...dolls ? :devil
And Iron:
"We were experiencing some warming which has been beneficial but for the last 10 years the warming trend has reversed. Kinda simple really."
Not sure what you mean there, for the all-record ice-low record is 2007 waiting to be replaced by 2008.
Same goes with the air temp. 2007 very very hot. Hotter than 1997.
As for beneficial, that yet remains to be seen....
We're talking about global temperatures, not local. If you want to talk local Idaho had a very cold winter lat year. Are you unaware of the overall stability and even decline in global temps worldwide? Egg on the face of the GAW high priests it seems.
-
What he said,
In 2006, the most snow to ever fall on Albuquerque happened, over 28 inches, this is judge whether records and they started keeping when the Spaniards came in over 400 years ago. In 2007, we again set records in the mountains of northern New Mexico, to the point of the snowfall is crushing buildings. Prior to 2006 that Southwest was in a drought that has lasted eight years, lakes were drying up, water table was going down, and no rain was falling. The past two years has completely reversed that trend, to the point that we are well ahead of our annual rainfall amount this year.
I am not claiming that what happens in my backyard is the same as what happens all over the world. But judging by what I'm seeing the majority of the world is having colder winters and shorter growing seasons. A friend of mine in the Pacific Northwest is complaining bitterly about the late start to the growing season in the late frosts. Almost the entire apple crop was lost this year, and the late rains flooded so many fields that many of the farmers simply will not get a crop at all.
Perhaps it would be best, to give our region are areas where we live, and simply say hotter or to say colder.
The list that I personally know about,
the Pacific Northwest, cold and wet
Utah, cold and wet
Colorado, cold and wet
Arizona New Mexico, colder and very wet
Texas and Oklahoma, about the same for temperature, but very wet
These are the places I've seen personally,
from hearsay evidence,
Central North Atlantic, warmer longer growing season
Australia, cooler wetter
Antarctic continent, colder ice cap growing
the Middle East, cooler and wetter
This is all empirical the only thing I can really vouch for his where I've been personally. In all the places I have been in our cooler and wetter.
Just a thought,
Kevin
We're talking about global temperatures, not local. If you want to talk local Idaho had a very cold winter lat year. Are you unaware of the overall stability and even decline in global temps worldwide? Egg on the face of the GAW high priests it seems.
-
I would like to know what statue that was.
The plastic Al Bore statues I sell on eBay Angus.
C`mon....... we know you have one. :rofl
-
We're talking about global temperatures, not local. If you want to talk local Idaho had a very cold winter lat year. Are you unaware of the overall stability and even decline in global temps worldwide? Egg on the face of the GAW high priests it seems.
My little country has a glacier who stores more thermal energy than the whole of Idaho.
And the oceans store at least 1000 times more thermal energy than the whole atmosphere.
Now THAT is global....
-
Oh, and an explanation needed....
Why is the SL rising if the Ice is increasing...oh increasing, yes...
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/arctic.shtml
Some more here....we'll have to wait for the autumn to see if the record breaks...
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Even more...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/21/science/21arctic.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
And Antarctica, well the word's been around that the sea ice is increasing. Well, it may be, but not from freezing, but Ice breaking off and scattering as well as plonking into the sea.
Now here's what I found in the Washington post though...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html
"Melting agead of schedule".
Doh.
And Icing on the cake...Science daily:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080229075228.htm
"West Antarctic Glaciers Melting At 20 Times Former Rate, Rock Analysis Shows
"
Another Doh.
-
Well in any case I do not fall into the gloom and doom. I simply think its silly for people to continue to believe that we aren't "screwing things up" globally.
I DO want the TVA to clean up their act so my home will have air that isn't going to slowly kill me. Thats something local that we can change. But entrenched intersts continue to drag their feet and some of my favorite places to visit higher in the mountains continue to die off. Just sad.
-
If you'd be a proper doomsday beliver, then you'd want to do nothing. (Except perhaps party).
That's why it always angers me getting called a doomsday sayer for pointing out a problem, - or a fact.
-
My little country has a glacier who stores more thermal energy than the whole of Idaho.
And the oceans store at least 1000 times more thermal energy than the whole atmosphere.
Now THAT is global....
Good point about the ocean warming. Tell me again how co2 can cause that without warming the atmosphere?
-
Water stores thermal energy better than air.
BTW, to repeat myself, I am not completely in on the CO2 as the biggest to blame. It's one of them but the biggest...I don't know....
-
Good point about the ocean warming. Tell me again how co2 can cause that without warming the atmosphere?
It is quite complicated but the ground is warming the atmosphere more than the atmosphere is warming the ground. The "hand waving" explanation is that the input energy is mostly around visible light wavelengths. The atmosphere is nearly transparent to these wavelengths and so this solar energy hits and heats the ground. The ground then heats the atmosphere by heat conduction and by emitting infra-red radiation that the atmosphere absorbs much better than visible light.
The temperature difference between the surface and the atmosphere (and also between layers in the atmosphere - this is where most models are faulty) is very sensitive to the details of the radiation transfer as well as evaporation and condensation of water. The effect can be cooling of one and heating of the other and not necessarily "global warming" in the sense of "everything" getting hotter.
-
And the temp difference causes...weather. With a "w" like in Wind ;)
-
I'm just a layman but it seems to me that the ground and ocean cannot be increasingly warmed by the "greehouse effect" unless the atmosphere is also increasingly warmed.
-
Well, AFAIK they're both.
-
Well, AFAIK they're both.
By both do you mean the atmospehere is currently warming? Now 'm back to the not for the last 10 years it isn't. Has the water been warming durring this period? If so, can it be due to the greenhouse effect?
-
Is it warming?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q3
Or simply:
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-6.gif)
BTW, just to tease, my little country broke many temp records yesterday, and more are expected today.
Where I live we had some 30 deg celcius or more. The highest on records were 2007 and 2004, then you have to step back to 1974 and 1960, then the 20's and nada....nothing to compare.
Actually we are now in a cool trend...la nina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Ni%C3%B1a#Effects_of_La_Ni.C3.B1a
-
Is it warming?
No.
Arctic sea ice is not melting. Why? Is it colder than last year? *clic* (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=30&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=30&sy=2008)
-
No.
Arctic sea ice is not melting. Why? Is it colder than last year? *clic* (http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=30&fy=2007&sm=07&sd=30&sy=2008)
You're not too smart... your own link show that there is less sea ice than last year. Please figure out the area just to the north of Canada and relate that to the previous year. See where there was ice... and NOW there isn't, that it is just seawater? Roughly the size of say, Alaska, relative to the map scale? Also, move the scale a day in either direction.... you might see a little thing called statistical error crop it's ugly head. Open ice in July doesn't close in a day, the size of the state of Connecticut.
-
You're not too smart...
Smart or not, still there is about million square kilometers of sea ice more than last year. *clic* (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png)
-
clic here. From the beginning year of measurements towards today.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=30&fy=1979&sm=07&sd=30&sy=2008
As for the ice, the sattelite images show 2 dimensions, but it so happens that ice has...3.
I have posted a graph that gives a good idea about the thickness.
-
Oh, and BTW, since we are now in a cooling trend, 2007 was the all-time record :rofl
-
Smart or not, still there is about million square kilometers of sea ice more than last year. *clic* (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png)
How about we take a look up north....from 88 degrees North Lat.
(http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg)
Ice sure looks thick.
-
88!!!!!!!!!!!!! Holy cow!
BTW,the sea Ice chart counts 15% as a cover. It may be a good one for sea-travel, but 15% is no cover,and it does not take either thickness nor % cover into account. 15% cover from last year will thereby account equally to 100% cover that is 10 year old.
The pic shows the same as we are experiencing....reality.
-
Smart or not, still there is about million square kilometers of sea ice more than last year. *clic* (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png)
(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg)
This shows that 365 days ago was about 2 million KM^2 below mean and today it is 1.1... 1.2 KM^2 below mean.
That's 800+ thousand KM^2 ice cover that has thicker ice this year than the nonexistant ice of last year.
Of course, this year to last year is not a long enough time frame for anybody to see a trend emerging from the statistical noise.
Of course, neither is 30 years of satelitte photos. Not when we are talking time scales in the thousands and tens of thousands of years.
-
Thicker?
Where are there figures of thickness (which go hand-in-hand with age)???????
This is an area measure, and the norm is 15% and above.
What we've been experiencing this year is that the thinner driftice goes much farther than normal. It's lighter, - like lighter objects travel further with the wind.
And there are really nice pockets of ice-free zones now. Oil companies are now venturing into a big-barrel area....
Age of ice graph, upcoming again
-
And here it is:
(http://esv.blog.is/users/da/esv/img/_44501559_ice_graph416.gif)
-
Thicker?
Where are there figures of thickness (which go hand-in-hand with age)???????
This is an area measure, and the norm is 15% and above.
What we've been experiencing this year is that the thinner driftice goes much farther than normal. It's lighter, - like lighter objects travel further with the wind.
And there are really nice pockets of ice-free zones now. Oil companies are now venturing into a big-barrel area....
Age of ice graph, upcoming again
I think I could safely say that on the 800 thousand KM^2 of ice that exists today where there was only liquid water last year, the ice is thicker than last year.
-
And is it 15% of 800.000 vs water while you have the remaining millions at what percentage and thickness?
Would it so happen that the area is gathering sea ice while land based glaciers are retreating??
Would that than be because of ice from land sliding in, or compleely diffeent climate in the same area?
Or would the area measure as larger do to the block chipping up and scattering?
-
And is it 15% of 800.000 vs water while you have the remaining millions at what percentage and thickness?
I think we had this discussed earlier, and there was some discussion as th the precision of the calculated ice mass being less thasn the precision of the measure ice area.
Would it so happen that the area is gathering sea ice while land based glaciers are retreating??
I guess that is what it says. But we are looking at a short term time frame and what happens this year vs last year is not statistically significant.
Would that then be because of ice from land sliding in, or compleely different climate in the same area?
Once again, we are looking at a short term time frame and what happens this year vs last year is not statistically significant, however, the amount of seasonal sea ice in the Barents Sea doesn't look like it is related to a land based ice flow.
Or would the area measure as larger do to the block chipping up and scattering?
As the sea ice grew during the winter months, I would assume it was due to seawater freezing.
-
This timeframe is now several hundred years. This "neighbout of mine is now smaller than in the 16th century and retreating very fast.
As for the accuracy of ice thickness, well, it's age and thickness.
But to equal 15% cover with 100% is not a very accurate method.
Ok, here is the neighbour:
(http://www.mbl.is/frimg/4/74/474267.jpg)
All our glaicers are shrinking, every single one, and faster than anticipated. With even no acceleration in melting they will be mostly gone in a humans lifetime, and completely gone in less than 200 years,,,but who knows,,,
BTW, I was there in 1997 ;)
and a p.s...These are melting so fast that they don't deliver sea ice, just water.
-
Ok, here is my neighbor.
(http://images.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcsi.dll/bilde?Site=MM&Date=20071102&Category=NEWS&ArtNo=711020331&Ref=AR&MaxW=570&MaxH=370&title=1&border=0)
Mount Shasta's glaciers have continued to expand in the past half-century, according to a research paper published last year by Ian M. Howat, then a doctoral student in the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of California-Santa Cruz. Four other scientists assisted him in the project.
The study focused on the Whitney and Hotlum glaciers, the two largest on the mountain. The mountain's glaciers are on the southernmost tip of the Cascade Mountain range.
Using historic records stretching back 110 years to create numerical models and comparing photographs taken over the years, the scientists concluded the glaciers have grown at least 30 percent.
What has been proven by the last 2 posts? Yours and mine?... nothing
-
To put it simple, on this territory, every single glacier is retreating. It is a tough one to belive that the sea is increasingly freezing over right next door, and if you hop further there is massive glacial retreat.
The Greenland Glacier BTW is the second largest on the planet.
BTW, this glacier looks more like a snow covered mountain. How big is it?
-
Oh.. thought you said "all of our glaciers are shrinking" turns out.. you only mean your little corner of the earth.
It will get colder and then you will be saying it never got this cold this fast. I can understand how you would buy the hype since it is happening in your little corner of the planet but don't get so shook up.. there has never been ANY weather year that has been just like any other.. every day is some kind of record for some decade or another.
lazs
-
My little corner includes the biggest glacial area in Europe, including the biggest glacier. The mount picture that Holden posted would probably not qualify properly as a glacier. Here we are working with sheer ice thickness that may be thousands of feet.
Out to sea, we have the sea ice younger, thinner and more scattered.
Moving westwards, it doesn't count as Europe any more. But there is one heck of a block of ice, rapidly retreating, and that one would be the second biggest glacier on earth, a chunk of ice who's thermal energy is more than the whole of the atmosphere over the entire USA. This one is so close that at the best visibility it can be seen from my little corner with the naked eye....well, west-corner that is.
That said, my little corner still has pretty fresh air, so there is no problem at all seeing mountains some 100+ miles away, - they don't blur out, just disappear behind the horizon.
So, to cut a long story short, my little corner is much bigger than you think.....
-
It's still just one little corner of the planet.. you need to get some perspective.
lazs
-
My little corner includes the biggest glacial area in Europe, including the biggest glacier. The mount picture that Holden posted would probably not qualify properly as a glacier. Here we are working with sheer ice thickness that may be thousands of feet.
Give us a few years... our glaciers will be bigger than your glaciers.
-
Angus maybe Icelanders are causing all the ice to melt and should turn the heat off in their houses. :rofl Just kidding.
Our glaciers here in Western Canada are receding too. Much different than the early seventies when they were growing. :aok
Research icebreaker takes in winter in Beaufort Sea
Last Updated: Friday, December 14, 2007 | 4:27 PM CT
CBC News
The Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Amundsen is spending this winter in the ice of the Beaufort Sea, giving scientists a unique chance to study the Arctic Ocean at this time of year.
The opportunity comes as a part of International Polar Year research efforts, which runs through this year and next. The icebreaker is currently located about 55 kilometres south of Sachs Harbour, N.W.T.
The Amundsen, a specially adapted coast guard vessel, serves as a "floating laboratory" for researchers conducting field work in Arctic waters.
Gary Stern, the chief scientist aboard the vessel, told CBC News that his research team is gathering samples of open water to test it for mercury and other contaminants.
Stern said the changing Arctic climate could lead to rising levels of contaminants in the water and in marine animals.
"What's happening is you're getting mercury coming from melting permafrost, or you're getting mercury from increasing forest fires associated with the warmer weather, increased erosion, things like that," Stern said Thursday.
"That mercury is making its way down the Mackenzie River and into the Beaufort Sea. So that mercury is now becoming bio-available."
It spent the winter in between the new ice and the old most of the time in open water.
-
That must be...the 15% ice cover????
And Lazs.....
"It's still just one little corner of the planet.. you need to get some perspective."
The little corner Iceland -Greenland with just the surrounding 200 miles of sea, frozen or thawn) holds more thermal energy than the whole atmosphere over the whole of the USA.
Not just more, MUCH more.
So get your own perspective....
-
That must be...the 15% ice cover????
And Lazs.....
"It's still just one little corner of the planet.. you need to get some perspective."
The little corner Iceland -Greenland with just the surrounding 200 miles of sea, frozen or thawn) holds more thermal energy than the whole atmosphere over the whole of the USA.
Not just more, MUCH more.
So get your own perspective....
Heat = thermal energy. Cold = less thermal energy.
-
Thermal energy = mass x temp, be it lower or higher. So, in comparison with the atmosphere, cooling, yet much more energy since neither are so far apart in regard to 0 degs on Kelvin, so mass is the dominant factor....
-
Thermal energy = mass x temp, be it lower or higher. So, in comparison with the atmosphere, cooling, yet much more energy since neither are so far apart in regard to 0 degs on Kelvin, so mass is the dominant factor....
I agree. However, how much of the math have you actually done? How far off shore do you include in determing the mass for a region? The US of A has some pretty deep oceans off our coasts with a lot of water (mass).
-
...And they're....cooling?
The USA has no sea -ice within 200 nautical miles....and just the Greenland Glacier stores enough Ice to raise the GLOBAL SL by 6 metres if it melts,- almost 20 feet. That is a mass not far from the entire mass of the atmosphere, thereby vastly more than the mass of all atmosphere over all land on the globe...of which the USA suddenly becomes....not the biggest. All America...not enough. Add all continents, and all atmosphere over them into space, go to 100.000 feet, and that chunky little corner neighbor of mine still has more mass, and that mass is leaving the party as fast as it gets...
-
...And they're....cooling?
The USA has no sea -ice within 200 nautical miles....and just the Greenland Glacier stores enough Ice to raise the GLOBAL SL by 6 metres if it melts,- almost 20 feet. That is a mass not far from the entire mass of the atmosphere, thereby vastly more than the mass of all atmosphere over all land on the globe...of which the USA suddenly becomes....not the biggest. All America...not enough. Add all continents, and all atmosphere over them into space, go to 100.000 feet, and that chunky little corner neighbor of mine still has more mass, and that mass is leaving the party as fast as it gets...
Cooling? I was just rebutting your claim to more thermal energy.
-
You'd be surprized, but the coastlines of Iceland and Norway together match the one of ...Africa...
My little corner I refer to is Iceland and Greenland as well as the surrounding sea to 200 NM.
Butt that (Ice, Water and atmosphere) together into weight...even to the bottom of the sea....and you'll be surprized.
BTW, within our 200 NM we're already towing dragnets at 900 ftm....
-
...And they're....cooling?
The USA has no sea -ice within 200 nautical miles....
Psst...
(http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=68093&rendTypeId=4)
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Wx/AKSeaIce_Alaska.gif (http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Wx/AKSeaIce_Alaska.gif)
-
Me bad, forgetting Alaska and counting it with Canada :uhoh
-
BTW, I always pictured Alaska as further North. I've been fishing further North than the arctic circle, up to like 67 degs. It was normally Ice free....
-
If you were fishing out of Iceland, you were probably in the infleunce of the Gulf Stream.
No such current warms the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.
-
We went where the branch of the Gulf stream meets the stream from the arctic. NW of the NW of the country, - to the NW there is the Icesheet at the Greenlandic coast.
The lot of the Ice has been retreating, before it was frequent that sailing around the country was impossible in winter, and the coast guard had to go steadily for exploration (airborne), - now the Ice is frequently so far away that it's nothing to worry about, if it is in range at all.
We did have to retreat once from the fishing grounds due to bad weather (we went up to 50 deg listing, which is not a condition where you want to be cutting fillets and stacking crates), and then the driftice made it unexciting, it's noisy (wham-bang against the hull) and not to nice on the nets.
This was in mid-January, the coldest and stormiest time basically.
BTW, as a point of interest, some have predicted that GW could lead to cooling in our area due to more frequent west winds that bring the Ice to our coast. The odds are now getting lower, since the quantity and age of it is declining. However if the Gulf stream would move, we'd go into permafrost in a whiff.
Some 30 years ago we started growing Barley, now it's starting with wheat and would be corn if the wind wasn't soo strong. So, the warming is being used in the business....
-
BTW, I always pictured Alaska as further North. I've been fishing further North than the arctic circle, up to like 67 degs. It was normally Ice free....
Angus 67 degrees doesn't even get us off the mainland. Canada goes much further North (So does Alaska). :aok
-
Out of complete curiousity, how far south does the permafrost reach?
(I mean Alaska, more like nearer to the coast, or Canadian coast, continental climate is another thing...)
-
I really don't know how to post a picture but here is a link
http://http-server.carleton.ca/~msmith2/current_pf.htm (http://http-server.carleton.ca/~msmith2/current_pf.htm)
Map of permafrost in Canada
Just because it shows a southern limit doesn't mean that it doesn't come further south. I have run into permafrost drilling in Central BC. :aok
-
Quite some map!
We have none. Living at 64 degs north.
Just the temporary wintermonths, but in the last few years we have been able to do fieldworks at unknown dates. Normally the ground would freeze in the autumn, and ploughing could be expected to commence in april-may with frozen pockets untill june/july. Now I was ploughing in February....
-
Typically we can work the fields as late in the year as mid november. The freezing doesn't affect us if we have little moisture but if it rains a bunch in the fall we are done. Snow fall will hit the mountains and stay first part October but never in my Valley much before November.
In the Spring snow is gone mid march and we are planting early to mid april depending on the amount of rain delays we get.
You will notice the Alpine Permafrost on the map it runs south down the mountain ranges. I have personally seen this permafrost and at depth 100 - 200' down.
-
I blame Obama. Just the threat of change is melting the polar ice cap. Do you want change or not?
-
So you get a proper snowfall before it freezes?
Our problem is a soaked ground that freezes. Then when it thaws you just have to wait, for it turns into complete mud for a while.
But in the last years this has been changing, so now we have winters where the frost doesn't settle in for the season. So we have a warmer ground at springtime, and winter possibilities with fieldwork, which is all good. The downside is droughts and new pests and insects.
-
If it freezes before the snow comes and there is moisture in the ground to freeze, the snow will act as a blanket and the frost will actually leave the ground under the blanket of snow. This is how we lose much of our snow during the winter (it balances though little snow it will lower ground temp and the snow will stay).
I was talking to a buddy this morning just back from drilling in Greenland right next to the ice sheet. He claims that he never ran into any perma frost what so ever at depths to 1500'.
-
What part would that have been? Greenland has basically just rock and then ice, no 1500 feet of anything in between....
-
I don't know the accurate location (privacy for the mining company) but they were drilling in the bedrock (overburden <10') and experianced NO permafrost even at depth. This is not common because in Canada we can find it, quite often we don't have to be close to any ice.
-
Well, you wouldn't find permafrost deep into rock, now would you?
Anyway, there are many companies over in Greenland on search for materials due to more land being exposed, one material being Gold.
Greenland is actually a very old chunk with various rock formations, but very much stone hard Granite I understand.
The rock is very hard, and hard enough for some of the toughest drillers to call it a challenge.
-
Depending on the area we have had permafrost on the surface to 500+ feet down. In other areas the top layer is unfrozen and we run into permafrost at depth. Just depend on the area. Our land is colder than Iceland Geothermally heated land. I have held my hand in groundwater that is at freezing but with pressure and movement it keeps fluid.
-
Groundwater here cruises at 4 degs Celcius normally, sometimes down to 2.
BTW the Ice age layer where I live is some 12 feet down. But no permafrost there, since it's an old seabed, I guess the Ice-age didn't get there.
But in Greenland you have a glacier dating beyond the last Ice-age, if my memory serves me. But mostly resting on dry and solid rock, so no permafrost....
-
Angus
Just because it is solid rock doesn't mean that it can't be permafrost. The rock will cool to below freezing and any water that will migrate into the cracks will freeze solid. Permafrost can be found in the unconsolidated (gravel, tills, clays) and consolidated (bedrock, solid rock)
Where I live in a very large glaciated valley we have areas that have multiple glaciations and they have all left their mark. Sometimes the later glaciation do not remove all what is left from previous glacial movements.
-
In Greenland the rock is very dense and hard. The water within (which is always some I guess) is at least not enough to crack it.
So, in truth the rock may be under zero. Wonder how thick though. A whole new field to look into.
-
Typically the denser and harder the rock is the more cracks there are in it that are water bearing. Softer rock will bend and fold when the earth's crust moves but harder rock such as granite and gniess will stress crack. The rock may appear solid but never is, there is always little crack fissures and faults in the hard rock that will let water pass through. :aok
-
What I have of Greenlandic rock from the top of my head is that it's extremely hard and dense. So hard, that "normal" drills won't do.
-
What I have of Greenlandic rock from the top of my head is that it's extremely hard and dense. So hard, that "normal" drills won't do.
So why is it Greenland rock if it's from the top of your head? :)
-
I don't know what you refer to as "Normal" drills. The normal drill for drilling though hard rock would use a down the hole hammer to impact and break the rock and the air used in that process blows the cuttings to surface. These are used in hard rock areas of the world. Could also use a diamond core drill and core the rock. These process would see a production rate of 150 to 450 feet per shift. Doesn't really compare though to a mud rotary rig drilling clay getting 1,200'+ per shift.
PS hope the top of your head isn't as hard as Greenlands rock :rofl
-
this thread isn't about general climate discussion or about global climate.. it is about greenlands climate.
lazs
-
ZzzzzzzzZZZzZZzzZzz.
-
Another alarmist joins climate realists.
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/TransPlanet/Curious.htm
-
yes.. A good site for anyone with an open mind is..
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-9-skept.html
lazs
-
this thread isn't about general climate discussion or about global climate.. it is about greenlands climate.
lazs
I thought you meant U.S. errr....global climate.
What you fail to realize is that the Greenland glacier, now elting faster than anticipated, contains more mass than the whole atmosphere over the USA. The difference is quite a bit, and the measurements in the retreating and melting ice are probably more accurate than air temps, especially since the glacier isn't exactly moving,,,like the wind. Ever think of that?
-
Ice melts. Water freezes and makes ice.
Nothing new.
-
That is true.
And species come and go. Some go because they cannot cope with their environment.
Civilizations come and go, and nations of power come and go. Here the "go" is often the result of arrogance and ignorance of what is really happening.
Carry on the Roman party, ....the ice will come and go anyway...
-
I woud not call it a roman party but moche party.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/peru_prog_summary.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/peru_prog_summary.shtml)
This is a link to a report on an old civilization in south america that had to deal with climate woes.
-
Wonderful link Baitman, very interesting. In a nutshell:
"Such a huge series of climatic extremes would have been enough to kill off an civilization – even a modern one."
Now it didn't kill them, it just screwed them up so they ended up killing themselves.
My Roman point was a non-weather one, but connected to resources, which is a global issue today.
The elite crossed all boundaries in leisurous life, and slowly the pillars of Rome went crumbling, for when strength was needed (the Huns), Rome was chopping at it resources....farming. Rome would sent the peasants to war in the late days, and carry on with the parties. Result: lack of production...
The French revolution was also related to famine first and foremost, - the people wanted bread and were fed up with the unrealistic lifestyle of the aristocracy. A little weather issue sent the country (and some others) into a hunger period, and all hell broke loose.
This is my "doomsday theory" regarding GW, - if so-and-so much happens, the western societies are going to have a bad time, and the civilization there may collapse.
You just see what starts happening in the U.S. in a power-out or some floodings, - imagine it would last for years....
-
A few of these , if intense enough, and it will cool down nicely for you Angus.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080811/us_nm/airlines_alaska_volcano_dc (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080811/us_nm/airlines_alaska_volcano_dc)
Just one of the few hundred things that cannot be predicted and factored in.
I have never seen someone complain so much over nice weather.
It would be like standing in the line at the cash register when bells and whistles go off then..................
"Sir you have won one million dollars for being our one millionth customer".
Then receiving the reply..."No way! I am not taking it. It is not normal".
Trying to relate the farce that you are clinging to ,when most everyone else has jumped ship, is a wee bit reaching to say the least.
Enjoy the weather you are getting.
-
You guys did notice in your ancient civilization thread that the climate change was attributed to el nino's? funny how a radical 30 year climate change can be perfectly natural and normal in ancient times but now....
Today.. it has to be man made? We had an el nino in 98 but that was man made? still.. I don't know why those ancients didn't just get in their planes and fly to somewhere else where the climate was better.
lazs
-
Lazs, a 30 year Nino is unique and as noted would even be successful in killing a civilization like ours.
And FYI, Nino is a warming effect yes? But it doesn't work the same way everywhere.
La Nina is a cooling effect, and AFAIK we're in a middle one now.
As for the good weather, I am happy with the summer as it is...much warmer than what I grew up with.
However, my smile will definately disappear if the increase carries on, as well as storm frequency and extremity records.
We had really old records with both heat and cold falling this year, as well as the first hurricane in July adding to a record of very many storms in one year.
Just a minute, some pesstimistic alarmists actually said that would happen.....
-
every day.. every week.. since the beginning of time there has been some "record" weather event somewhere in the world. I predict that there always will be..
No day is like any other. the el nino/la nina are not in our control.. the weather is not in our control.
Your little corner of the planet has gotten a tiny bit warmer.. it will get cooler soon enough.. enjoy what mother nature has given you lately because she is not always as benevolent.
lazs
-
My little corner and many other big or smaller, summing up enough data to mage GW on its own manifested.
-
We had really old records with both heat and cold falling this year, as well as the first hurricane in July adding to a record of very many storms in one year.
Just a minute, some pesstimistic alarmists actually said that would happen.....
Really old... That's the foundation of my skepticism.
Really old on what timescale? What did the thermometer read in Reykjavík at noon local on 12 Oct 1214?
Tough to say as Galileo wasn't born yet to develop his thermometer... let alone Fahrenheit finally devising a standard scale.
The temperature of ancient climates is at best an approximation prior to Fahrenheit. You take this data and that data and with this theory of climate, derive an estimated temperatur, +/- 1 degree C.
right.
-
Since the beginning of measures silly.
Hence the drillings, glacial measures, tree-core examinations, Ice core measures, fossile examinations, ancient seed and pollen examinations, records of just about everything to get the mosaic together, where one additional bit is comparing all this with historical accounts.
Or should we discard the medival warm period? Where was the termometer?
-
Or should we discard the medival warm period?
MMGW I assume?
Or....................Methane farting dragons. You gotta love em.
-
angus anecdotal data is not the same.. it is like someone 300 years ago taking what you say and using it to show a less than normal amount of ice and snow in greenland. The medievel warm periods and the little ice ages were filled with anecdotal data of things like rivers freezing and no snow for years at a time. The temp in those areas would have to have been hotter/colder for that to happen.
It has been a mild summer so far.. that is why the alarmists have been pretty quiet. they know that people are stupid reactionaries. If we have a heat wave then they will be out in force with their "the end is nigh" plasterboards and "only sending money to albore will save us".
lazs
-
Lazs:
Anecdote is an anecdote basically...but in this case you will not find anecdotes older than weather measurements with instruments.
What we have is on print, or written through the centuries, and this is being compared to many sourced research.
Global Temp research is not just about reading the air meter in the shadiest part of the back yard....
And Jackie, "MMGW?" as a topic will probably never make it past the "There is no GW or?" haggle in this thread.
Sort of like Galileo and the court. During court the earth still kept spinning......
-
In recorded history, to early for a thermometer, one of the first people that came to the central plains of Canada reported back to the Queen that Canada was not fit for farming because it was too dry. Apparently he crossed into the plains in a period of drought.
There has also been reports in the 1800's sometime about ranchers in the West central part of Saskatchewan that the South Saskatchewan river was dry. They drove their cattle up the dry river bed for hundreds of miles before finding water.
To this day in recorded history (temperature), we have not seen the river run dry and we have been using the water for irrigation, drinking and so on.
-
Weather changes, no debate there....
The debate is whether the ball as a whole more or less (since weather changes) is warming in the last decades with increased speed even.
So, we have the ostridge camp biting on that it's just the weather or the sun, and then we have the concered camp, which think, hmmm,,,probably warming, why, and where will that lead too??. Then there is the doomsday camp.
I'm in the middle one.
Bait, will give you a glacier anecdote when I have time ;)
-
I understand the coring of the glaciers and such. Started reading up on this a long while back (later 80's) because it had to do with drilling since that is what I do I get very interested. Yes we have many glaciers some from small to very large (not as large as greenlands) but I am fortunate to be living between the mountains and be able to drive through them the last 30 odd years.
I remember back in the early seventies there were some parts that were concerned of an Ice age. We had concerns of glacier expanding over roads.
-
And now you don't...
The medieval warm period up here (well, not just so) actually managed to chop our main glaicer (some 10,000 sq km) into 2 or 3 parts. We're heading there very fast, so it's all quite interesting. But at the pace we are going, they'll all be gone in some 100 years with the last peaks leaving within 200 years.
The medieval warming period did not make it that far.
But it may be a myth, after all, it's just anecdotes scribbled on calfskin, as well as data from "scientists"....bahhh :t
-
Since the beginning of measures silly.
Hence the drillings, glacial measures, tree-core examinations, Ice core measures, fossil examinations, ancient seed and pollen examinations, records of just about everything to get the mosaic together, where one additional bit is comparing all this with historical accounts.
Or should we discard the medieval warm period? Where was the thermometer?
All I am saying is that quoting some degree number from 1200 years or 12000 years ago is an estimate at best.
Use the very best materials in your mosaic and the result is different if Picasso makes one and Leonardo makes another.
Tree rings go back only 2000 years, much smaller than the ice cores. Ice core reading give you an idea as to the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, maybe dust and pollen count, but where did that material come from?
As I see it, the best indicator as to whether this era seems warmer or colder than another is forensic plant and animal remains.
You go to New Foundland and find the remains of grape vines and you can gather that the climate may have been similar to where grape vines grow today. Putting a temperature number to the climate is imprecise educated guesswork and when we are alarmed at a +/- 1C difference today, that educated guesswork derived number is meaningless.
-
...
-
All I am saying is that quoting some degree number from 1200 years or 12000 years ago is an estimate at best.
Use the very best materials in your mosaic and the result is different if Picasso makes one and Leonardo makes another.
Tree rings go back only 2000 years, much smaller than the ice cores. Ice core reading give you an idea as to the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, maybe dust and pollen count, but where did that material come from?
As I see it, the best indicator as to whether this era seems warmer or colder than another is forensic plant and animal remains.
You go to New Foundland and find the remains of grape vines and you can gather that the climate may have been similar to where grape vines grow today. Putting a temperature number to the climate is imprecise educated guesswork and when we are alarmed at a +/- 1C difference today, that educated guesswork derived number is meaningless.
Ehemm Holden, read up, for there are living trees TODAY that are more than 4000 years old. Close to 5000, with the oldest living one with a root system some 9500 years old, and that one is well in the northern hemisphere....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html
Tree rings from fossilized trees also exist, all the way to 70 million years ago, as well as leaf and animal fossiles.
I have found some, that are millions of years old and of course show without a doubt a completely different climate.
Tree trunks are also excavated.
Seeds are also sometimes excavated giving an idea of ancient flora. That will tell you where things rank in the Hotter, colder, or roughly equal department.
In my area in the medieval warming period there are claims of barley growing. Only anecdotes so far, however the description of the fields is pretty good. Then barley growing worked no more untill the 20th century, and in the last 10 years it's gone warm enough for wheat and corn.
My point is that biology as a whole tells you a lot about climate, and it's childish to claim that you can trust nothing but the termometer data of recent years (which gets debated here anyway). One has to look at everything, not just this:
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cfr0046l.jpg)
-
Ehemm Holden, read up, for there are living trees TODAY that are more than 4000 years old. Close to 5000, with the oldest living one with a root system some 9500 years old, and that one is well in the northern hemisphere....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html
OK, I thought Bristlecones were 2 to 3 K, it turns out that they are 5KTree rings from fossilized trees also exist, all the way to 70 million years ago, as well as leaf and animal fossiles.
I have found some, that are millions of years old and of course show without a doubt a completely different climate.
Ok, and how do we date these? C14? Because C14 has a 1/2 life of 5730 yrs, if we measure the amount of C14 in something and compare it to living organisms, we can estimate the year it died. Estimate. RCDating relies on the constant level of carbon in the atmosphere, and the farther back we take it, the less precise it becomes.Tree trunks are also excavated.
Seeds are also sometimes excavated giving an idea of ancient flora. That will tell you where things rank in the Hotter, colder, or roughly equal department.
How old are they? Is 'roughly' equal +/- 1C or maybe 2?CIn my area in the medieval warming period there are claims of barley growing. Only anecdotes so far, however the description of the fields is pretty good. Then barley growing worked no more untill the 20th century, and in the last 10 years it's gone warm enough for wheat and corn.
My point is that biology as a whole tells you a lot about climate, and it's childish to claim that you can trust nothing but the termometer data of recent years (which gets debated here anyway). One has to look at everything, not just this:
(http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/cfr0046l.jpg)
I keep an open mind. I did say in a previous post (just one or 2 up) that we can make some educated guesses about the ancient climate by the "vines in New Foundland" But I am skeptical about somebody who divines ancient climate with a +/- 0.5 C error. I find that precision suspect. I drew pump performance curves in one of my first jobs out of school and I know how much precision we could muster with something we could go out and measure and test again and again. It wasn't all that precise.
(http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/images/Manns-hockey-stick.gif)
+/- 0.5 C ?
:huh
-
..
-
And Jackie, "MMGW?" as a topic will probably never make it past the "There is no GW
Yep. You are correct.
MMGW has been shot completely out of the water.
Now only a very few have changed to Climate Change, but are still clinging to the plastic statues. The naive and Dooomsdayers. The money rats are hanging to the side of the life raft though.
Climate Change is a pretty fair bet since it has done so since recorded history began.
Here`s your sign.
-
angus.. what you are doing is taking a few warm years and saying... "at the rate we are going" we are doomed! If you took one cold winter and projected that we would all be meatcycles.
So why do you worry now? we have always had quick rises and falling of temp in the half to one or two degree range. it is no big deal. Nothing man made about it back then and nothing significant about it now.
You claim to be in the middle camp.. so, what do you think is happening and why? What do you think we can and, more importantly, should, do about it?
lazs
-
Okay, I'll tell you my thoughts.
First, my look at it:
We are in a warming trend. It's not linear, but accelerating. And this corresponds to what has been constantly predicted for some 20 years.
Second, search for reason:
We are mankind, and we are able to stupid things to the environment. Our input into GW is only bound to warm. Just a question of how much.
Third, The consequences:
Well, it really doesn't take a long time of this to carry on to make quite some woopsies to mankind.
Fourth, What can we do:
Well, if we have a finger in this, we must look into that our own doings are also accelerating. There was a very good lecture on how numbers stack up somewhere above in the thread. So, what we can do, is mend our ways, so we won't be putting an increased weight on to GW. And this is partially why I belive that the most die-hard denialists of GW come from the USA....4% of mankind using 25% of the energy or something in that size, that's bad....
Fifth, Consequences II, what if GW is not a problem. MMGW a hoax, and all is honkey-dory?:
Well, we're going to screw ourselves in about the same time as GW would do to us, - resource-vise. There is no way our "line" is going to be able to carry on as it does....
-
Angus.. so it would appear that despite what you have said in the past.. You believe that a major part of this pleasant and harmless warming trend we are in is man made and....
That the reason it is man made is because we use energy? that could only mean that you buy into the Co2 BS... unless there is something specific that you think we are doing to heat up the entire planet other than Co2?
The good news is that if you do believe it is man made Co2 then we have already done about as much damage as we can... The effects diminish past a certain point.. even if you believe the alarmists.
But.. I am interested.. Just what do you think we are doing that is causing this current pleasant warm spell?
lazs
-
LOL,you get me wrong.
I belive it's warming, and we have a part in it. It's just the question HOW MUCH?
And I think we're probably going to run out of carbon before we hit the jurassic age.
Running out of fuel is something that our modern civilization is not prepared for, nor is it prepared for violent swings in climate.
Simple enough I think....
-
I belive it's warming, and we have a part in it. It's just the question HOW MUCH?
No. The question was, just what exactly do you believe we are doing?
-
not sure that I "get you wrong".. don't get you at all. If you think we have something to do with this current pleasant warm spell but don't think Co2 is the reason and don't think that it will matter anyway and can't come up with any way to stop whatever we may or may not be doing to maybe change an undermined amount of the global climate....
Then you would appear to be one of the denniers.. Or at least.. you should not care until the time that you can pinpoint what we are doing to affect whatever and come up with some idea of what can be done.
It would seem to me that the current algore religious group and it acolytes would be working at cross purposes to you.. they have chosen a path that is a dead end and are not looking for real reasons and causes but stuck on Co2.
lazs
-
And I think we're probably going to run out of carbon before we hit the jurassic age.
Carbon forms the backbone of biology for all life on Earth.
How are we going to run out of carbon? All living life is carbon based. When we die and decompose, carbon is released back into the earth. My questions again, is how are we going to run out of carbon?
-
As pleasant as the warm spell is for me, it's not so for all, and my big smile will disappear if this extrapolates.
And again, I don't think it's just the CO2, it's many more factors, including methane and especially vast changes on the earths surface.
So, I don't rank as a total CO2 beliver, and I find it sad that the discussion is perhaps overshadowing more important things like methane, deforestation and such, as well as the total effect of your "comfy" warming.
So, Jackal, what we are doing is ...screwing up....
Tell me, as things are going, what do you see here in 250 years????????
-
Carbon forms the backbone of biology for all life on Earth.
How are we going to run out of carbon? All living life is carbon based. When we die and decompose, carbon is released back into the earth. My questions again, is how are we going to run out of carbon?
We're running out of the fossilized carbon which once was in the atmosphere, and we are now bringing back through fuel usage.
Clear enough?
-
We're running out of the fossilized carbon which once was in the atmosphere, and we are now bringing back through fuel usage.
Clear enough?
:huh :huh :huh :huh
So are you saying that by my breathing, I am depleting carbon?
-
Three points.
1. How old is meteorology as a weather science? Nuclear science is older. So we have climate scientists using models to predict warming of our weather, yet our local meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather a week in advance. I'm guessing our local guys they wished they had the climate scientists models. So do I.
2. How long have we as a intelligent species, been scientifically tracking weather? Chinese did it, so did the Greeks and Egyptians. As a pure science? 30-40 years. Yet we're making predictions of 1-2 Celsius increases over 50 years, yet in the 70's they were screaming the possibility of another ice age. Wow, that's a reversal.
3. How do we know, without a doubt, that the current warming trend is not cyclical - every 100, 1000, 10,000, or even every 50,000 years? Heck, lets go every 500,000 years? We don't.
Proper scientific research results are ALWAYS based on causation
I.E. Stanford U: 2 x 10L canisters of compressed Hydrogen. 1 x 10L canister of compressed Oxygen. Both 99.999% pure. Added 2 parts H to 1 part O. Test Results: H2O. Experiment was done in a 15C closed and sealed environment at 2pm every other day. Test repeated 100 times over a period of 200 dayss. Yale U also confirms experiment results. As does Oxford. Accuracy of experiement is 99.999% percent probable based on causation resutls.
Climate scientists are basing their results on correlation.
Scientific group (paid for by XYZ Environmental NPO and European Enviro Group), take Arctic icefield measurements for past 10 years. Take temperature readings for 10 years. Take CO2 readings from high altitude for 10 years - take older measurements done with less accuracy from previous 30 years. Icefield is returning less and less each year in the arctic for the past 10 years. CO2 emissions is also reaching record levels. Arctic temperatures hitting records (from past 100 years). Because arctic ice is melting, and CO2 emissions are at record levels, and record temperatures for past 50 years - we think it must be the CO2. Accuracy of experiment is less than 1% probably based on correlation results. Further study is needed. More $$$ is needed.
True scientists cringe when they we see science like this. Since when is it ever acceptable to make profound judgments based on correlation? Weather science MUST be based on causation, not correlation - leave that to the psychologists. True scientific method of research AND discovery is 99.9999999% based on causation.
-
Well, looks like this thread is steamrolling right along. Let's push this baby to 2,000 replies! Anyone know the AH BBS record for most replies to a thread?
Oh...yeah...I agree with Mister Fork. We should not be making drastic changes to the world economy based on correlation and simulation.
-
So, I guess you guys can predict precicely where a bubble in a water pot will first rise at boiling level right?
After all, it should be simple under controlled cirkumstances, and 2 pints of water are not complicated if you compare with the earths weathersystem.
Oh, and as far as I know, Metreology is all about weather science. We may have some spelling problems here though....and definately that will influence GW.
-
I still think its the sun.
Like my words:
I’ve never understood why, when asked what might have an impact on global temperatures, a) evil Western capitalism or b) a gigantic ball of fire hundreds of times larger than our planet itself, people choose “a”. Hasn’t anyone noticed the simple fact that when the sun goes down at night, the temperature drops 30+ degrees immediately? Is that just from all those mean CO2 plants shutting down for the evening?
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/
-
Oh, I noticed the night....
It hasn't really been getting shorter over the years, and actually it's a bit of a forgotten fact that in Jurassic times the night was shorter...so was the day...the earth is slowing in the spin you see....
However the solar activity does not seem to have a finger in our GW, and without the humble effect of greenhouse gases we actually would be smiling at the sun from a frozen planet....
-
:huh :huh :huh :huh
So are you saying that by my breathing, I am depleting carbon?
Only if your are breathing coal dust.
The theory is that we increasing (not depleating) the amount of carbon in the carbon cycle by releasing the carbon from coal and oil that has been out of the loop for million of years.
-
So, Jackal, what we are doing is ...screwing up....
So........you firmly believe we are screwing up, but you just can`t quite put your finger on what we are doing to do so.
I see. :rolleyes:
Tell me, as things are going, what do you see here in 250 years????????
I never graduated from Soothsayer U. :D
Like I have stated many times, there is absolutely no way to predict what things will be like in 250 years or even a hundred years with anything
remotely resembling accuracy, especially climate.
There are way to many unknown factors that cannot be predicted. Read that totally unpredictable.
That`s the point. Anyone or any group that says they are able to predict such things are glaringly either total fools ........or having some ulterior motive backing them.
-
given the fact that we can't even predict next weeks weather with the tech we have today...
Only a fool or a religious nut would try to predict it for the next 50 years.
lazs
-
So,we cannot predict seasons.
You cannot predict where the bubbles start in your kettle when you boil up, but I'll predict boiling.
You do not seem to realize that the equation is to big to be able to predict everything precicely.
BTW the weather forecast is still better than your guess.....
-
You can't predict if the pot will boil or not. You can only predict that if it is left on the fire it will eventually boil.. if the fire stays at the same temp. You have no idea if any of that will happen.
lazs
-
And that's how I cook every day...
I'd say I'm 99.9% accurate with the fact, the only thing left to doubt is power shortage or mechanical failiure.
I think you're stuck on a straw Lazs, and your argument is basically ridiculous.
-
I believe the opposite Angus.
I believe your idea is way beyond ridiculous.
You are depending on constants ,to support your theory ,where there are none.
-
Feel as you like, but your logic fails.
It is simply easier to predict something big and simple than something local and small, based on infinate factors.
The shape of a snowflake vs a blizzard....
-
My logic is just fine Angus.
You simply cannot predict something that is totally unpredictable.
It`s really a pretty simple concept.
As for your boiling pot of water theory. (From the minds of Minolta :) )
I can assure you of one thing. The water will only boil in the pot, not the whole kitchen. :rofl
-
So why can the weatherman do it better than you?
And sometimes the kitchen will cross the boiling point,,,,if you don't turn of the boiler :t
And here is a nice speculation on predicting....
I had some tourists torch the house this summer by placing a candle in the toiletpaper shelf. The distance from the candleflame to the wood was some mere 10 cm. And loads of fuel nearby...
The paper and shelf went up in flames, and the temp went up to some unknown number, but enough to melt electric cables behind insulation and hard plastics that were close by.
If you break this up a bit....since things MIGHT happen....
1. Prediction. I could not have predicted this to happen since I did not have any information. However, had I known about a burning candle THERE, I'd have said...well it's going to catch fire.
2. Precaution. Well, I had a smoke detector. And it went BEEP.
3. Countermeasure. Well, I had the house manned and an estinguisher ready at hand.
4. Results. Some smoke, soot, and jobs to be done.
Lesson learned: There is always an unexpected parameter that can start of something bad. So it pays of to have an open mind to possibilities so problems can be countered.
I could not have predicted a fire there and then, but however fires are common. So, there were some things ready just in case, as well as the accomodation being relatively fire-proof. (plaster, stone-wool, and not much fuel).
Same goes with GW. Here I find myself debating with the pair of you, while remembering one being against spending money on researches, as well as being devotedly against safety precautions if they were bound in law. (that's partially why mine were in place). I wonder why I waste time on it, but I guess it is the fun factor.
So, tell me again that if you put your teapot on the full fire that a boil is totally unpredictable. I would counter your logic with a more correct statement, - a boil is highly predictable.
-
You can't predict if the pot will boil or not. You can only predict that if it is left on the fire it will eventually boil.. if the fire stays at the same temp. You have no idea if any of that will happen.
lazs
Actually...the funny thing is, Lazs, that that is exactly one of the things that freshman chemistry students do: Predict when state changes will occur in water, and calculate delta sub h. My undergrads can tell the exact amount of Kcals involved, the exact amount of time involved, and the exact curve involved should the temperature move up or down.
This quote above again proves that you really have zero idea about what you are talking, and have little to no understanding about any of the real topics, and therefore believe that nobody could possibly have a grasp on them.
You consistently rely upon the words from websites out there that you have no understanding of, and only support them because they agree with your preconceived notion of what is going on. In short, you made up your mind, then went out and found another dufus that wrote about it on the internet, and voila!, there's your argument.
While I will not say that Angus has an angle for simplifying this debate down to a tea kettle (even though the earth is a closed thermodynamic system heated by an exterior source) by any means, I assure you that your argument back to him is moronic in idealogy, and bereft of intelligent thought. Boiling point is easily calculated accurately and measured quantitatively.
-
Amen to that.
I just tried to make it simple. And it wasn't even simple enough!
-
So why can the weatherman do it better than you?
I have yet to see one who can.
Predicting day to day weather shouldn`t be much of a problem , especially with the technology used today, but it is completely off target most of the time.
It is also a far stretch from making 100 , 200, 250 year predictions.
You can`t predict the unpredictable.
-
I scratch my head and claim you wrong in all.
As with the boiling kettle, you can't tell where the first bubble forms, but you can predict that:
1: it will boil
2: roughly when.
But, alas, not simple enough. I am baffled that you don't get it, so I guess I'll have to find something else to predict....
BRB
-
I scratch my head and claim you wrong in all.
You are going to be doing a lot of head scratching in the future Angus. :rofl
I`ll give you an example. As of 6:00 P.M. last night, the weather was predicted for here as Thunderstorms moving into the area
late in the evening with rain through the night and into the morning. No rain, no thunder blunders.
So much for the accuracy.
As with the boiling kettle, you can't tell where the first bubble forms, but you can predict that:
1: it will boil
2: roughly when.
It will still only boil the water in the pot, not the kitchen.
Very simple.
-
Yes indeed, very simple.
Why don't you go and make out big bucks as the weatherman?
You know, I sometimes prove to be more correct. But when the prediction is something big, it's normally something I cannot forsee, and normally turn out to be true.
BTW, the world's most important weather forecast was before D-Day...and the weather guy gave a report that was quite good.
You still do not seem to get the point, predicting something minor in an "infinately" big system is very much harder as foreseeing something major.
For the minors, there are too many factors. I can predict that we have days below the freezing point in January, I can also predict that it will not happen in July. But I cannot foresay if it's rainy or sunny 8 days from here........capiche?
-
It still remains the same. You cannot predict the unpredictable.
You cannot factor in the Unknowns, which are many, many.
Impossibility is an impossibility no matter how you try to look over it.
It cannot be done.
The best that can be done ,and that you use very often is IFs.
IF a rabbit had wings his butt wouldn`t hit the ground so much.
-
it won't boil at all if the wind blows out the fire or the gas runs out before it boils or an earthquake moves it off the stove.
In fact.. it will turn to solid ice if the temp in the room is cold enough and one of the above happens.
Or.. it might not.
in any case.. a pot of water on the stove is nothing like a complex global climate.. although.. the computer models these algore acolytes use are about as simplistic.
lazs
lazs
-
So you're stuck.
First look up the meaning of the word prediction.
Then look at your own words. You've glued yourselves to the statement that basically nothing can be predicted.
When it goes to the eather....a highly difficult factor to be precice about with location and time, predicting is tough, however vastly more correct than throwing a dice.
And getting to the kettle again, which seems to be a highly unpredictable and very doubtful for you to comprehend...well, I predict that my rice will boil tonight, or potatoes anyway.
I'll go as far as 99.9%. How's that?
-
Then look at your own words. You've glued yourselves to the statement that basically nothing can be predicted.
When it goes to the eather....a highly difficult factor to be precice about with location and time, predicting is tough, however vastly more correct than throwing a dice.
The precision of the data into the model is what I find difficult to accept.
When you figure the prehistorical temperature of say Reykavik, we need to take this data and that data and and don't forget the growth rings and ice cores, and of course what do the saga's reveal... and then you get 15.23 degrees average temperature in the year 1593.
Then you have to do this again for Darwin Australia, Manaus Brazil, Rangoon, Zanzibar, Dodge City Kansas, Lisbon, Irkutsk Siberia, and 45 other places, and add in some places away from any settlement, and then average them all together and somehow be within 1/2 degree celsius.
My education in significant digits just doesn't jive with this precision.
-
Ok angus.. I do finally get it... You believe that the climate of the globe and it's causes are no more complex than you boiling water for tea.
lazs
-
No, and don't twist things.
It's you that state that since you cannot predict complex things down to detail, the big picture or total cannot be predicted/estimated.
So, you claim that since the weatherman cannot say how your local weather is going to be in one week, - or a day, he has no clue of the overall total, hence no reliability.
So, that is how I comprehend what you're saying and I challenge your logic with a thing much simpler, yet to complex, so I have to agree with Moray on this one, you do not seem to understand what you are talking about, say alone your own logic.
So try to twist around, the tactics are moronic basically....
-
ah... so, since the "science" has been around for 40 years or so... It is safe to say that 40 years ago todays climate was predicted by those "scientists"
It is you who is twisting things. You are taking a proven an observable and.. simplistic thing like boiling water and then using it to "prove" that the "scientists" of today can predict global climate 50 years from now.
A better example would be you adding a slight bit of heat to a pot of water on a 110 degree day at noon and predicting from that at what time the water will boil. you would say.. for example.. it will boil in 10 hours. You would have no idea how much gas you had available.. you would not take into account that the temp in the room would go down 50 degrees by then.. you would not take into account that someone would come home and either turn up or down the heat.
Your prediction would be as worthless as the long range forecasts we get now.
lazs
-
Here's what I'm wondering, why the name change? Why was the looming catastrophe prosletyzed as Global Warming changed to Global Climate Change? Isn't this "climate change" supposedly the result of Global Warming?
Of course I have my own opinion about the name change based on the obvious but how do the doomsayers justify this?
-
Here's what I'm wondering, why the name change? Why was the looming catastrophe prosletyzed as Global Warming changed to Global Climate Change? Isn't this "climate change" supposedly the result of Global Warming?
Of course I have my own opinion about the name change based on the obvious but how do the doomsayers justify this?
The news media is starting to worry that we might start into a cooling period and then all their credibility would be thrown out the window.
-
Here's what I'm wondering, why the name change? Why was the looming catastrophe prosletyzed as Global Warming changed to Global Climate Change? Isn't this "climate change" supposedly the result of Global Warming?
Of course I have my own opinion about the name change based on the obvious but how do the doomsayers justify this?
It`s a simple case of CYA.
A weak one, but about the only avenue they had left for a sure bet.
One chip on red and one on black.
Gotta run. I`m deep into experimentation on kitchen boiling. :rofl
-
Take care, it might be to complicated for you.
Let us know if you succeed.
-
Take care, it might be to complicated for you.
Let us know if you succeed.
That might be a little rude.
Very few factors in determining when water will boil on a stove. If you are doing it in a controlled environment, you can get a recordable result. You could take that result and figuringa a few factors in can see very much the same result outside that controlled environment.
Weather is highly unpredictable. Too many factors to keep track of. If the forcaster says that a system is moving in, they must factor in variables that are not constant. Angus, I believe that you are trying to compare a simple grade school experiment with something that we still don't understand. You can take an ice core from your area of the world and see that it might be warming. But, to say that the entire earth is warming based on those cores is not smart science. How long have we as people been recording weather data? Less than a couple of hundred years. It still boils down to the fact that the climate has changed before and will keep changing. Have you not read some of my posts earlier about finding fossils in the Antarctic that could only have been found if the climate had been warmer at some point in the past? Please explain that one to me.
-
What I was pointing at is that the big occurence is easier to spot than the little one.
Even a pot of water includes complicated mechanics, hence the bubble point, - where's the fist one going to form? How much time does it take? How much precize amount of energy does it take, since the stove is also heating the air around it, and there are more factors.
But the big thing that's simple is that the water is warming and the pot will boil with overwhelming odds.
Same with GW. It's a huge algorythm with many factors from many branches of science, not just your termometer.
Add it all up and all you have is a big hint for what's going on.
BTW it was Lazs that claimed that one could not predict at all if it would boil in the pot. And the "moronic" argument is that since you cannot predict the slightest detail in the weather systems, there is no foundations for seeing a big picture.
A straw, and a weak one.
-
Take care, it might be to complicated for you.
Let us know if you succeed.
Weak..........but expectable.
-
so angus.. when have they ever seen "the big picture"? They have had 40 years or so and they have never seen the big picture.. now.. in the last few years... using nothing but algores hot air and some totally flawed, laughable, computer models... now you, and they... think that suddenly they have this iron fisted grasp on "the big picture" I would say that you are the one being.. if not moronic... naive in the extreme.
lazs
-
When will someone in the MMGW camp explain the fossils found in Antarctica? Or does that screw up your algorithmic model that you just leave it alone and don't say anything about it? That is proof that things were warmer there at one time then they are now.
Take care, it might be to complicated for you.
This whole issue is too complicated even for the "scientists" working it. We still don't have a firm grasp on being able to predict the weather as stated before. I live in Florida. Home to hurricanes every summer. The last two years were predicted as being "hot" years and major hurricanes were going to hit the state. Did it happen? Heck no. We have tropical storm Fay getting ready to hit us in the next couple of days. Now, can they predict where it will come ashore? No. They can give us an estimate of a couple hundred miles of shoreline. Have seen these storms predicted to come ashore is certain areas, only to have them turn and go in another direction back out to sea. And that is just hurricanes.
Even a pot of water includes complicated mechanics, hence the bubble point, - where's the fist one going to form?
That has about the same logic as seeing the rain coming and trying to predict where the first drop will fall on your driveway. You know it will rain in a few minutes, just as you know the pot will boil.
-
That has about the same logic as seeing the rain coming and trying to predict where the first drop will fall on your driveway. You know it will rain in a few minutes, just as you know the pot will boil.
Yep.......and the rain will fall on your driveway and a certain area..............but not the entire world.
Same as the lame water boiling theory.The water in the pot will boil if there is enough fuel to keep the fire burning........but not the kitchen.
All sorts of little nifty examples of nothingness can be thrown in such as Al Bore`s boiling frog, etc.
I guess one could get real crafty and relate to just about anything.
In the end, when it comes to climate, it means nothing, nada, zilch and is more than just a little south of reason.
The unpredictable cannot be predicted other than the prediction of it being unpredictable. That`s the best shot and the only one.
The horses pulling the MMGW wagon have jumped from a cliff, the wagon has fell and still the naive are trying to cling to the canvas for a parachute.
Doomsdayers just got to have something to make them bite the pillow at night.
-
Look at the last 100 years to see the big picture. You can google it if you are creative enough.
A typical big picture in weather development by the way, would be a hurricane. Where you sit, there is no chance you beat the met guys at spotting it, and seeing it on the go. Same with low-pressure areas basically. They form, you can see them jump over, you know they will, and they will eventually "die", however, where exactly they will do what is much more trickier to predict.
So, you see the big one, but not the detail.
Do you get this point, or are you still the frogs in the kettle? :t
-
When will someone in the MMGW camp explain the fossils found in Antarctica? Or does that screw up your algorithmic model that you just leave it alone and don't say anything about it? That is proof that things were warmer there at one time then they are now.
Have to remember the continents are drifting. Find the age of the fossil and then the positioning of the continents when fossil was alive. We in Canada have the burgess shales http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/ (http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/) that contain many aquatic fossils, but the shales are on top of a mountain now.
-
Look at the last 100 years to see the big picture. You can google it if you are creative enough.
A typical big picture in weather development by the way, would be a hurricane. Where you sit, there is no chance you beat the met guys at spotting it, and seeing it on the go. Same with low-pressure areas basically. They form, you can see them jump over, you know they will, and they will eventually "die", however, where exactly they will do what is much more trickier to predict.
So, you see the big one, but not the detail.
Do you get this point, or are you still the frogs in the kettle? :t
? :huh
100 years nothing more than a microscopic pin mark on the timeline of earth.1000 years would be just as hard to see!
lets talk 100,000 years, maybe a whole 1/4 inch on a timeline 100 feet long, then tell me how much of a difference man has made? or how easily the earth could just remove us from itself? once upon a time the earth was nothing more than a molten mass of lava! one day it may be again! id like to say to all those who think man is ruining the earth to hurry up and get that space ship built and have a nice trip to anywhere but here!
-
? :huh
100 years nothing more than a microscopic pin mark on the timeline of earth.1000 years would be just as hard to see!
lets talk 100,000 years, maybe a whole 1/4 inch on a timeline 100 feet long, then tell me how much of a difference man has made? or how easily the earth could just remove us from itself? once upon a time the earth was nothing more than a molten mass of lava! one day it may be again! id like to say to all those who think man is ruining the earth to hurry up and get that space ship built and have a nice trip to anywhere but here!
That timescale, you see, IS the point. We can prove unequivocably that the increases in CO2 and CH4 from the past 50 years is many hundred times faster than any other event preceding. There's only one difference that accounts for this increased load. Usually these things take MILLENNIA....thousands of years.... and are causally based upon orbital mechanics and other features which are easily proven. This time...no underlying phenomena.... and the sun has entered into a cooler, less active period. I'm sure you think that this portends to a cooling trend, and that all the science is wrong. But, from the other side, the sun's inactivity is in effect, hiding (or better put, "delaying") the affects of CO2 and CH4 that are still being compounded within our atmosphere. You really should check into the national agencies that are monitoring this. I doubt this administration would have put into place contingency plans for climate change had they not seen a threat.
It is true. CO2 and CH4 content in the atmosphere was at or above the current levels, historically. It was much warmer then. Of course, we also had Dinosaurs.
-
That timescale, you see, IS the point. We can prove unequivocally that the increases in CO2 and CH4 from the past 50 years is many hundred times faster than any other event preceding. There's only one difference that accounts for this increased load. Usually these things take MILLENNIA....thousands of years.... and are causally based upon orbital mechanics and other features which are easily proven. This time...no underlying phenomena.... and the sun has entered into a cooler, less active period. I'm sure you think that this portends to a cooling trend, and that all the science is wrong. But, from the other side, the sun's inactivity is in effect, hiding (or better put, "delaying") the affects of CO2 and CH4 that are still being compounded within our atmosphere. You really should check into the national agencies that are monitoring this. I doubt this administration would have put into place contingency plans for climate change had they not seen a threat.
It is true. CO2 and CH4 content in the atmosphere was at or above the current levels, historically. It was much warmer then. Of course, we also had Dinosaurs.
yep we sure did, i bet it was there fault the last time, when they all died! so how many volcano's do you think it would take, at once, to equal what you say we are doing? by the way of the 3600 climatologist that signed on to mmgw over half of them now say they didn't understand how the science came to that conclusion but went along with the results anyway! yet 34000 have signed that it does not exist and of that group 9600 are phd's, (roughly of course) what would it take for the earth to rid itself of us, an asteroid, 4 volcano's at the same time, a major shift in its axis????
it would be much more easy for the earth to just remove us than the way we are going at it!
we will try to bankrupt ourselves serving this beast called man made global warming, and war will follow, trade keeps war at bay, when we can no longer trade, we will no longer be able to afford to keep tyranny at bay, socialists will soon follow, they will tell us what is good for us! and we will live in the dark, cold and hungry!!
then those who hate us, those that do not care about the earth,those who still drive there cars, and tanks, and produce the oil that the rest of the world still lives on, tho not nearly as safely as we once did, nor as cleanly
they will make the decisions about who gets what and we will have none! how will you stop them, do you think that you can make them that wish you dead understand? i know you don't care about yourself but how will you make the rest of the world stop polluting? the only way is to keep America strong! yet AL gore and his kind wish to break it, wish to bring it too its knee's,,, much to the pleasure of the middle east, Russia, and china! how will you get those countries to stop polluting?
-
tax man loves gullible people.....
-
yep we sure did, i bet it was there fault the last time, when they all died! so how many volcano's do you think it would take, at once, to equal what you say we are doing? by the way of the 3600 climatologist that signed on to mmgw over half of them now say they didn't understand how the science came to that conclusion but went along with the results anyway! yet 34000 have signed that it does not exist and of that group 9600 are phd's, (roughly of course) what would it take for the earth to rid itself of us, an asteroid, 4 volcano's at the same time, a major shift in its axis????
?
Sadly, you and Lazs must read the same newspaper. You really should delve a little deeper into that document that you and Lazs spout off as having any sort of clout on the issue. When you do, and find false individuals listed on it (like I did)(Unless there is an R2D2 AND a C3PO really alive out there, which were two of the many ficticious names on it) as well as individuals who proport to be climatologists.... yet their degrees are in textiles... you might find out how stupid you really are in using this document in any support to your argument. (But you won't listen to that)
In the end you'll believe it has something to do with America being taken over by Russian or Iranians or whomever.... or other conspiracies you can dream up or read on your rediculous websites. I suggest you do a little research into the priciple of Acchem's Razor, a scientific tenet for hundreds of years.
With no disrespect intended, you really should look into deciphering information from true sources, then deciding upon your opinion, rather then deciding upon your opinion then looking for information in biased sources, which support your pre-conceived opinion.
I recommend you seriously look into http://realclimate.org/ (http://realclimate.org/) to start out with. It's filled with climatologists that actually DO the work, not just claim to, which you can look up, and actually check the numbers.
After that, move onto governmental sites required by oversight to post their numbers publically, most online. NOAA and the Earth System Research Laboratory are excellent sources. I do have access to more sets of data, but I am employed by a federal research institution.
-
When will someone in the MMGW camp explain the fossils found in Antarctica? Or does that screw up your algorithmic model that you just leave it alone and don't say anything about it? That is proof that things were warmer there at one time then they are now.
I'm in no one's "camp" except for factual representation.
I'll start with Plate Tectonics. Antarctica was much higher in Latitude in various times of this planet's history.
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/graphics/Fig2-5globes.gif)
Second, orbital mechanics.
http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es1506/es1506page01.cfm?chapter_no=visualization (http://www.classzone.com/books/earth_science/terc/content/visualizations/es1506/es1506page01.cfm?chapter_no=visualization)
All of these contributed to the continent of Antarctica being much more tolerable for life. If you cannot see that these processes ore on a MUCH longer timescale than the past 50 or 60 years.... I'm sorry.
Go back to your prior state of existence.
(http://www.inklinepress.com/beast/head-in-sand.html)
-
Sadly, you and Lazs must read the same newspaper. You really should delve a little deeper into that document that you and Lazs spout off as having any sort of clout on the issue. When you do, and find false individuals listed on it (like I did)(Unless there is an R2D2 AND a C3PO really alive out there, which were two of the many ficticious names on it) as well as individuals who proport to be climatologists.... yet their degrees are in textiles... you might find out how stupid you really are in using this document in any support to your argument. (But you won't listen to that)
In the end you'll believe it has something to do with America being taken over by Russian or Iranians or whomever.... or other conspiracies you can dream up or read on your rediculous websites. I suggest you do a little research into the priciple of Acchem's Razor, a scientific tenet for hundreds of years.
With no disrespect intended, you really should look into deciphering information from true sources, then deciding upon your opinion, rather then deciding upon your opinion then looking for information in biased sources, which support your pre-conceived opinion.
I recommend you seriously look into http://realclimate.org/ (http://realclimate.org/) to start out with. It's filled with climatologists that actually DO the work, not just claim to, which you can look up, and actually check the numbers.
After that, move onto governmental sites required by oversight to post their numbers publically, most online. NOAA and the Earth System Research Laboratory are excellent sources. I do have access to more sets of data, but I am employed by a federal research institution.
o was a big supporter of M.M.G.W. for years!! not sure why but i was,, i also thought jimmy carter would be a good president!! of course i eventually had to do the research to help my cause, that's when i started to see all the misrepresentations that had been used to support the theory's you so strongly support! mostly the fact that there was more carbon based poluution during the last part of the 19th century than there is now! i 'll be back with more EMERGENCY IN THE FAM. BBL
-
Would you please find a source for that. For now we are burning many times as much carbon as 100 years ago.
Here is something I found, now beat me:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Carbon_History_and_Flux_Rev.png)
As for the "theory", it looks pretty much like reality to me, and I confess that I actually use it for my benefit, so do many others.
-
Oh, and as for the dreaded volcanoes, well, once upon a time, they raised CO2 levels to insane numbers, and caused incredible greenhouse effect. That was not so nice, but it was many many millions of years ago. But today, as Wiki puts it:
" In the modern era, emissions to the atmosphere from volcanoes are only about 1% of emissions from human sources.[12][13]"
Go google greenhouse gases and read some, instead of stating nonsense over and over.
-
I recommend you seriously look into http://realclimate.org/ (http://realclimate.org/) to start out with. It's filled with climatologists that actually DO the work, not just claim to, which you can look up, and actually check the numbers.
Now that is some rich stuff right there. :rofl
There is quite possibly more controversy and unanswered questions dealing with realclimate.org than any such site on the web.
Polish that statue. :)
Here a a couple of my favorite comments concerning this site.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nir Shaviv on "More Slurs from RealClimate.org"
Realclimate.org continues with its same line of attack. Wishfulclimate.org writers try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.
A recap. According to realclimate.org, everything my "skeptic" friends and I say about the effect of cosmic rays and climate is wrong. In particular, all the evidence summarized in the box below is, well, a figment in the wild imagination of my colleagues and I. The truth is that the many arguments trying to discredit this evidence simply don't hold water. The main motivation of these attacks is simply to oppose the theory which would remove the gist out of the arguments of the greenhouse gas global warming protagonists. Since there is no evidence which proves that 20th century warming is human in origin, the only logically possible way to convict humanity is to prove that there is no alternative explanation to the warming (e.g., see here). My motivation (as is the motivation of my serious colleagues) is simply to do the science as good as I can.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But here is my favorite. :) (Wish I could post the entire content of this one here.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
realclimate.org is not Real Climate…. Field Workers are not Field Marshalls.
Its got to be a power trip with these clowns.
If we could just deflate the egos of the specialists and were able to get straight answers from them we would have a good understanding of this climate deal in weeks.
I have the policy of still tending to trust these tax-eating science-workers in their specific field of specialization.
But this particular bunch of idiot-savants have gone further and they have set up a website for world spiritual and economic domination and they call this website REALCLIMATE.
None of these guys would be worthy to lick the souls of the feet of a real scientist.
-
yep.. I was gonna link all the sites where scientists are saying it is all a hoax but it wouldn't affect moray in the least.. he is an acolyte of the high priest algore... He is a "scientist".. or so he says and he loves being in the limelight.. He loves the attention,
There is no scientific consensus on man made global warming.. the only "fact" is that even morays heros have moderated their hysteria on a dramatic scale.. the end of the world has been postponed... a couple of cool years have shut them up.
As soon as we have a heat wave it will all start again.. as for now.. it is just the stuff that has already been jammed down our throats from the el nino years that we are paying for.. the policies of panic.. I don't really see much more being said or done about man made global warming.. the momentum of panic has pretty much run it's course.
I am thankful for that at least. The hoax did make a lot of useless folks rich and famous and get a lot of grant money. Hopefully.. it is about over.
lazs
-
yep.. I was gonna link all the sites where scientists are saying it is all a hoax but it wouldn't affect moray in the least.. he is an acolyte of the high priest algore... He is a "scientist".. or so he says and he loves being in the limelight.. He loves the attention,
There is no scientific consensus on man made global warming.. the only "fact" is that even morays heros have moderated their hysteria on a dramatic scale.. the end of the world has been postponed... a couple of cool years have shut them up.
As soon as we have a heat wave it will all start again.. as for now.. it is just the stuff that has already been jammed down our throats from the el nino years that we are paying for.. the policies of panic.. I don't really see much more being said or done about man made global warming.. the momentum of panic has pretty much run it's course.
I am thankful for that at least. The hoax did make a lot of useless folks rich and famous and get a lot of grant money. Hopefully.. it is about over.
lazs
LOL...<snore>. Must have taken alot for you not to say "volcano" or "coal fire" in that post. I don't want any attention at all... my work has about .5% to do with any sort of climate change. Call me whatever you want. We both know who has a better grasp of the physics.
You really believe scientists get rich with grant money. Unreal. You truly don't have a clue.
-
been a while since i have tried to find the source stuff!! try too find Tesla, test tubes sealed, air samples, new york city! I'm sure you wont believe any of what you find, but its there somewhere, they tested the air in the tubes against current air for content say 10 years ago, carbon was quite a bit higher in old samples , as for me i must go to work! a polluting i will go , a polluting i will go , high ho a mary o a polluting i will go :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
moray... and you can't read.. except for incestuous "scientific" papers.
I didn't say "got rich off of grant money" I said "lot of useless folks rich and famous and get a lot of grant money"
Are you saying those things did not happen? that a bunch of unheard of (outside said incestuous groups) scientists did not get rich and famous and that they and others did not get a lot of grant money off this whole man made global warming hoax?
It is good to see that they have all toned down the lieing hysteria by about 100% over just a few years ago.
lazs
-
The grant money is usually no big money, but some "scientists" made good money from working for big oil money, where there is lots and lots.
There is also lots of useless folks...don't have to have a science degree for that :t
-
The grant money is usually no big money, but some "scientists" made good money from working for big oil money, where there is lots and lots.
"grants global climate change" = 1,530,000 hits on Google.
To say that money sways only in the direction of big oil is not facing reality.
The foundation’s five-year, $100 million Climate Change Initiative seeks to
accelerate the development and deployment of climate-friendly technologies that will
reduce the threat of global warming to people and the environment. - Doris Duke Fdn
Small awards may be up to $150,000, in total, dispersed over a period of up to 2 years. Larger awards may be up to $500,000, in total, dispersed over a period of up to 3 years. -- NASA’s GCCE
William T. Cooper, a professor of analytical and environmental chemistry in the department of chemistry and biochemistry, have received a research grant in the amount of $493,448 from the National Science Foundation to study the carbon balance in Minnesota's peatlands—a possible indicator of climate changes brought on by global warming.
Money has the ability to corrupt science regardless of politics.
To know which side your bread is buttered on is an old saying which acknowleges this.
-
So it goes both ways. A bribe is a bribe. Göbbels is Göbbels.
So, why would big oil offer a ton of money to someone who is supposed to stand up and deny GW????
And why would a government grant somebody to study GW????
Beats me.... :t
-
So it goes both ways. A bribe is a bribe. Göbbels is Göbbels.
So, why would big oil offer a ton of money to someone who is supposed to stand up and deny GW????
Because it affects their business, obviously.
And why would a government grant somebody to study GW????
Beats me.... :t
Let's see...
In the State of Oregon, I can get a tax incentive and grants from the Oregon Energy Trust (a nonprofit gatherer and disseminate of public funds, the beginning of which was passed by Ore Senate Bill 1149) that drop the cost of installing PV panels on my roof from appx $8 / watt to about $6 / watt.
Oregon also passed a law that allows me to turn the electric meter backwards and send excess energy back to the grid. The state said that during an energy year, March to March, I could bank the excess PV generation during the summer, and use it during the winter.
So apparently the State wants me to put green energy on my roof.
Then, state law says if I generate less than I use, I buy at market rates from the utility. If I generate more than I use, I give it away for free to the low income assistance energy program.
So a 1500 or 2000 watt system could electrify my house, and I could pay it off in 10 or 12 years, but any amount over that would never bring any value.
Apparently the state wants me to put up only what I need personally and not one watt more. Being a net producer of green energy is frowned upon.
Why does a government do something?
Logic is not the first answer that should come to mind.
-
why is it you believers only post "charts" that support your views?
ie from the little ice age to now?...... well DUH of coarse its hotter. Coming out of an ice age, into "normal" is gona look like a massive increase isnt it? :lol
Maybe im gona make up a graph of ONLY the last 3 years weather to prove my point that we've infact LOST 3c over this period.... At least it would support my claim.
-
why is it you believers only post "charts" that support your views?
ie from the little ice age to now?...... well DUH of coarse its hotter. Coming out of an ice age, into "normal" is gona look like a massive increase isnt it? :lol
Maybe im gona make up a graph of ONLY the last 3 years weather to prove my point that we've infact LOST 3c over this period.... At least it would support my claim.
Might help if you reference what "chart" you are attacking. Maybe I'm just going to assume you're a special education child.... your post above would support that claim.
IF you are referencing the chart at the top of this page...(which I must assume, since it is the most recent to your assault, and there is not another chart within 4 pages of this post) you might want to take a minute and figure out what it's talking about. It's showing CO2 rise, not temperature. IF and only IF that is the chart you are referencing, then my claim that you are a special education child is further strengthened. As well, the ice age did not end in 1750, no matter how revisionist you may be.
:salute
-
been a while since i have tried to find the source stuff!! try too find Tesla, test tubes sealed, air samples, new york city! I'm sure you wont believe any of what you find, but its there somewhere, they tested the air in the tubes against current air for content say 10 years ago, carbon was quite a bit higher in old samples , as for me i must go to work! a polluting i will go , a polluting i will go , high ho a mary o a polluting i will go :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Testing within that environment would skew the results. Direct CO2 observation isn't done within those confines, as the proximity of the main producers of carbon are directly within the test area, therfore ruining it's statistical weight.
-
Holden, the state of Oregon should perhaps adapt the Icelandic system. If I would for instance put up a few windmills for generation and produce more energy than I use, I'd be selling it to the grid.
However there are no subventions for the investment.
About the oil companies, - obviously they pay people for the propoganda because the GW issue is affecting their business. After all, they want to sell as much as possible and make as much profit as possible.
However, when it comes down to governments and scientists from many different fields, there is no particular goal or benefit for studying GW, - well yet there is one. Concern.
-
Might help if you reference what "chart" you are attacking. Maybe I'm just going to assume you're a special education child.... your post above would support that claim.
IF you are referencing the chart at the top of this page...(which I must assume, since it is the most recent to your assault, and there is not another chart within 4 pages of this post) you might want to take a minute and figure out what it's talking about. It's showing CO2 rise, not temperature. IF and only IF that is the chart you are referencing, then my claim that you are a special education child is further strengthened. As well, the ice age did not end in 1750, no matter how revisionist you may be.
:salute
oh right, im special needs because i dont believe the global warming crap like yourself?.... very clever.
it was the last charts posted in this topic.... starting 1750. HOW is 250years of Co2 history going to prove anything? How about posting 5million years worth.
anyway i said LITTLE Ice age, which carried on way into the 1800s, before stopping, hence the rise in those graphs.
-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
this graph would totally void the Global warming folks ideas.
first, theres a very "constant" wave of temp increase and co2 increase, but it ALSO shows that C02 increases follow temp increases (delayed by 200ish years). IE the Temp increase causes the c02 increase, not the other way round.
-
That's odd.
After all, we're looking at both increased co2 AND temps in the last times....
But GW is not just about co2....
-
Oh, and BTW, don't confuse the little ice-age with the cool years in the northern hemisphere which was caused by a volcanic eruption in the years 1783-1786.
Those years caused problems with both lifestock and crops as far south as Egypt, and some say this period was the last drop to fill the meter in order to spark the French revolution in 1789....hunger means trouble....
-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
this graph would totally void the Global warming folks ideas.
first, theres a very "constant" wave of temp increase and co2 increase, but it ALSO shows that C02 increases follow temp increases (delayed by 200ish years). IE the Temp increase causes the c02 increase, not the other way round.
This graph disproves the science?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png)
I can't really imagine what you see in there to disprove anything. In fact, the correlation of CO2 to temperature and the relation of dust (volcanic events) to the same is quite striking. It is amazing the fact that this keeps coming back. The linear association of CO2 to temperature on this planet is easily observable and the process is understood. Background temperature isn't only affected by CO2 though.... local conditions will do it as well.
FYI it's already been discussed how warming lags CO2. It takes approximately 5X the amount of energy to turn ice(H2O) to liquid(H2O), meaning all the extra energy trapped is spent melting the ice, instead of raising the temperature in the background. That, as well as the fact that liquid water requires an extensive amount of energy to warm past any given point, and holds that energy extremely well. Thus, there is a built in "lag" to any change from a cold climate to a warm one, simply because of all that extra energy needed to melt. Meaning... if there's a giant block of ice, the energy won't go to warming the air.....it will go to melting that big block of ice.
Take an ice cube in hot water and measure the temperature over top of it. You might be surprised to find that, even though it's melting all over.... the air above it is only about 55 degrees. Make the water only 40 or so degrees in the experiment and the air over top of the cube is only just above freezing. Water holds onto energy extremely well. This stuff is the kind of thing you learn in 8th grade science.... maybe you just need to apply your old knowledge?
As well, the lag also is integrated into the planktonic "sink" by which the oceans lock away all that carbon...they suck up CO2 and then use it for respiration, then die, sinking to the bottom and locking away excess CO2. Initially, plankton (chlorophyton) will increase population in response to the amount of new CO2 and will hold it almost in check, but as they are reacting to the situation and not "on standby" there is no way they can keep up with a large continual dump of CO2 into the system. Sooner or later the water around the most prolific warm and they start dying....accelerating the curve.
-
Testing within that environment would skew the results. Direct CO2 observation isn't done within those confines, as the proximity of the main producers of carbon are directly within the test area, therefore ruining it's statistical weight.
this admission of your"s also skews your ice core samples then as they are from the exact same spot for every year of testing yet there is no control of wind current's or sea current's just a random sample, yet you say my samples taken from an exact spot 100 years apart cant be admitted because they are in an industrial area where the pollution would be constant in every aspect except the amount put out from the result of better emission standards?
or because they don't represent your belief in the outcome?
in order to have a true comparison you wold have to find actual samples of the air from maybe a thousand different locations around the earth, not ice core samples, then you could go to those places and take current samples,,
then you could get real air quality readings say from city graveyards were air tight sealed coffins could be found.
this has been done and the results also don't follow your theory's
as for "Angus" so are you saying that volcano's can't erupt anymore? while there may not have been one in a while no one has yet to predict that they can't happen,, and you didn't answer my question, how many it would take and at what magnitude would they have to be to overreach your man made co 2 emissions? just so we will have an idea !!
-
However, when it comes down to governments and scientists from many different fields, there is no particular goal or benefit for studying GW, - well yet there is one. Concern.
When governments do something, it is more likely politics rather than concern that is the driving force.
NASA is based in Houston not because it was judged as the best location for the facility by an impartial panel, but because the Majority leader of the Senate, Lyndon Baines Johnson, wanted it in his state.
-
in order to have a true comparison you wold have to find actual samples of the air from maybe a thousand different locations around the earth, not ice core samples, then you could go to those places and take current samples,,
then you could get real air quality readings say from city graveyards were air tight sealed coffins could be found.
this has been done and the results also don't follow your theory's
Sir, Ice core samples are compared to direct samples to figure out the difference in air content. I'm not sure you understand this. The ice core samples have bubbles in them that trap the air from when they formed....be it last week or 500,000 years ago.
No samples could be taken from a sealed coffin (kind of morbid there, in any case most coffins are not made to be hermetically sealed).... maybe you don't realize that humans are... ahem... carbon based. It would be kind of pointless to take such a sample.
-
the only difference between now, and the last HOT/High CO2 period is that us humans are here destorying the very forests that would be thriving right now due to higher CO2 and more rain.
PPM of CO2 isnt that much different from the other peaks
-
Sir, Ice core samples are compared to direct samples to figure out the difference in air content. I'm not sure you understand this. The ice core samples have bubbles in them that trap the air from when they formed....be it last week or 500,000 years ago.
No samples could be taken from a sealed coffin (kind of morbid there, in any case most coffins are not made to be hermetically sealed).... maybe you don't realize that humans are... ahem... carbon based. It would be kind of pointless to take such a sample
but all thru science there has been a control, in order to protect that the outcome will not be skewed. until now!
with no way of knowing what that ice was exposed to while it was being made, weather patterns or which way the wind was blowing, if it drifted over a co-2 Field or if it was over a field that went dormant for a time ! ice core samples can only give you an example of what they have been exposed to, not a true reading of world wide climate or co-2 levels!
yet samples have been taken from sealed coffins, the make up of the human body is one of the few things we understand in great detail! for instance DNA, carbon makeup, amount of elements, now givin the info on a body ,I.E. size weight, health at time of death thru computers this data can be fed in to remove any outside influence so as to run any test you wanted or if dry tissue was found from the lungs there would be a foot print or trace element of the air he breathed, kind of like a photograph, not the actual air, mind you, unless the coffin were sealed, and this only happened in those places were wealthy people died and could afford the type of sarcophagus that would remain air tight, those people would also have had doctors and probably records of there health to help with the computer models.
the first time this happened the global warming people were all over this discovery, hoping to prove the air quality was worse now than then by showing a true air sample, they worked up there computer's and got all ready to test,
after running test after test, they did not get the results they wanted, so they blamed the science i remember the word "inconclusive" over and over again, if it does not fit there theory, then it is either wrong or "inconclusive"
-
Ice cores are inherently invalid because the glaciers they are taken from are an open system. An open system gains and loses gasses over time. There's no way in hell to know if they're accurate. It doesn't help matters that on several tests "scientists" threw out samples with high readings because, obviously, they were "contaminated".
-
Will you stop it with the CO2 already? Whether or not there is a global warming it has nothing to do with the CO2. Its effect on the "green house" is so tiny, I bet the world is heated by arguing about CO2 more than the by CO2 itself.
Graph correlations is not science. If it was I'd conclude that pollution is great for your health - check the correlation between pollution and life expectancy, baby mortality or any other health indicator and you'll find that the more a country pollute, the healthier are its citizens. What does that tell you?
A big heavy computer software where you crank that handle and get a temperature prediction without understanding how and why is not science either by the way.
Who ever invented this "CO2 causing global warming" theory should be taken out and shot. There is so much time, money and effort spent on rooting out this nonsense, that it leaves little to fight the real problems of pollution and deciding if man is responsible for global warming or if he can do something about it. That Al Gore movie might just go down in history is the worst thing ever to happen to modern science. This is what the "anti-CO2" scientist are trying helplessly to convey - but this thing has became a religion now.
-
Nonsense?
While I have expressed my opinion that the CO2 is overshadowing equally or even more important things, it is still a greenhouse gas. There are greenhouse gases, the dynamic is proven and works, and without them we'd be frozen over. With very much of them, the climate will be very violent. And with enough of them, you'll have the planet over the boiling point.
Dead simple.
The Glaciers then, are not much of an open system. And don't think of clinging on them as a single source of data either.
Oh, and Whisky.....it is much more definate that bad air or bad gases will kill you than volcanoes today contributing CO2 above humans as you claimed. Let's say I read your posts from then with quite some...scepticism :P
-
Nonsense?
While I have expressed my opinion that the CO2 is overshadowing equally or even more important things, it is still a greenhouse gas. There are greenhouse gases, the dynamic is proven and works, and without them we'd be frozen over. With very much of them, the climate will be very violent. And with enough of them, you'll have the planet over the boiling point.
Dead simple.
CO2 is not a very good "greenhouse" gas. Water vapor and methane are far more effective (by about 4 orders of magnitude). The intuition of "more greenhouse gas = better green house" is false. It is not necessarily true.
The "greenhouse effect" is usually described as: sunlight can penetrate but cooling infrared radiation emitted by the earth is blocked. This IS complete nonsense. If it was true the earth would get ever hotter and boil. Since the earth has only minor fluctuations in temperature (near steady state) it REQUIRES that the same amount of solar energy absorbed by the earth to be radiated away from the earth.
Most global weather models treat the atmosphere as a slab and calculate the AVERAGED radiation transfer function (as a function of wavelength). Put aside the wrong atomic physics and atom-photon interaction they use, this is a horrible horrible treatment of radiation transfer. Unlike your real glass greenhouse, the atmosphere is built in layers and each type of absorber tends to sit at a different layer. Keeping a steady state as described above requires that temperature gradients exist as the atmosphere below a certain layer must emit in such wavelength and flux that the net energy through the layer is ZERO. Change something in the middle (like more CO2) and you affect ALL layers below and above it and change the temperature distribution in the atmosphere. This in turn changes the molecular and atomic absorption cross sections (highly dependent on temperature and pressure) and your common averaging approximation is shot to hell.
What this means is that adding CO2 may heat some part of the atmosphere and cool another. Recent calculations that solved the full radiation transfer problem showed that you can increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere by factor of 50 and the effect at low altitude will be less than 0.1 of a degree (centigrade).
The common atmosphere model used by almost all global weather scientists is simply wrong. Everyone was happy with it because it predicted the current earth temperature pretty well. However, when applied to other solar system planets it fails horribly and miserably. It works only on the current earth atmosphere because it was built this way - its power of prediction is nil. This is bad science at its "best" and this is going to backfire against the entire scientific community.
-
yea what he said :aok
-
It's colder than average today... put another log on the fire.
I drove my firebird 2 miles round trip to get dinner because it was drizzling and the chow hall was going to close. Rather than making me an evil person, I think it proves I act on my beliefs and am therefore beyond criticism :)
-
yep.. been a cooler than normal summer here..
lazs
-
yep.. been a cooler than normal summer here..
lazs
yup, last two summer been terrible, funny how 2005 and 2006 hit almost 37c where as the last two years have struggled to get to 30c....
-
CO2 is not a very good "greenhouse" gas. Water vapor and methane are far more effective (by about 4 orders of magnitude). The intuition of "more greenhouse gas = better green house" is false. It is not necessarily true.
The "greenhouse effect" is usually described as: sunlight can penetrate but cooling infrared radiation emitted by the earth is blocked. This IS complete nonsense. If it was true the earth would get ever hotter and boil. Since the earth has only minor fluctuations in temperature (near steady state) it REQUIRES that the same amount of solar energy absorbed by the earth to be radiated away from the earth.
Most global weather models treat the atmosphere as a slab and calculate the AVERAGED radiation transfer function (as a function of wavelength). Put aside the wrong atomic physics and atom-photon interaction they use, this is a horrible horrible treatment of radiation transfer. Unlike your real glass greenhouse, the atmosphere is built in layers and each type of absorber tends to sit at a different layer. Keeping a steady state as described above requires that temperature gradients exist as the atmosphere below a certain layer must emit in such wavelength and flux that the net energy through the layer is ZERO. Change something in the middle (like more CO2) and you affect ALL layers below and above it and change the temperature distribution in the atmosphere. This in turn changes the molecular and atomic absorption cross sections (highly dependent on temperature and pressure) and your common averaging approximation is shot to hell.
What this means is that adding CO2 may heat some part of the atmosphere and cool another. Recent calculations that solved the full radiation transfer problem showed that you can increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere by factor of 50 and the effect at low altitude will be less than 0.1 of a degree (centigrade).
The common atmosphere model used by almost all global weather scientists is simply wrong. Everyone was happy with it because it predicted the current earth temperature pretty well. However, when applied to other solar system planets it fails horribly and miserably. It works only on the current earth atmosphere because it was built this way - its power of prediction is nil. This is bad science at its "best" and this is going to backfire against the entire scientific community.
-
While co2 is not the best greenhouse gas, it is still one, and it works.
With enough you will be able to make impressive temps.
As for the planetary theories...well Mercury should be warmer than Venus and it isn't. And Mars (atmosphere is mostly co2) is warmer than it perhaps should. The moon is perhaps colder while being vastly closer to the sun.
All due to greenhouse effect.
BTW, newest of the news is masive iceshell breakups in Greenland. Must be because of the added weight because of the cooling effect causing massive ice to gather on the top, right?
:devil
-
While co2 is not the best greenhouse gas, it is still one, and it works.
With enough you will be able to make impressive temps.
No. That's the whole point - you can't, even if you multiply its atmospheric abundance by 50. The calculation used by global weather models are flat out wrong.
As for the planetary theories...well Mercury should be warmer than Venus and it isn't. And Mars (atmosphere is mostly co2) is warmer than it perhaps should. The moon is perhaps colder while being vastly closer to the sun.
All due to greenhouse effect.
It is the greenhouse, but the models miss it by a long shot - which just goes to show that they were tailored to fit earth results and have zero predictive power when you change something by more than a tiny fraction.
BTW, newest of the news is masive iceshell breakups in Greenland. Must be because of the added weight because of the cooling effect causing massive ice to gather on the top, right?
:devil
I never said there is no global warming. What I say is that CO2 has nothing to do with it and all this effort in reducing CO2 emission is wasted (well, there is the benefit of reducing other pollution that comes with the CO2 producing process).
The automatic assumption that "we are to blame" just derails any intelligent discussion of what to do about it. If it is not man made then the discussion and research should concentrate on how to deal with it - not how to prevent it! This is what I mean when I say that the CO2 nonsense is doing a huge damage. Not to mention the damage to science if we convince everyone to become Flintstones and still the temperatures go up - or if we do nothing, emit even more CO2 and the temperatures come back down on their own.
-
exactly right bozon.
we are spending billions a year trying to stop "man made" global warming but what if it isnt us, and this money could be spent on the flood defences, and mass migration of populations instead?
-
see angus and his bunch don't know how to figure a decrease in temp. over a long period of time, if co-2 levels continue too increase! that would totaly flaw there hopes of a man made problem! you can say man made co-2 has increased all you want but if that is not the cause of temp. change then what diff. does it make? :noid :noid :noid
-
Did anyone notice that the same bunch that flat out refuse that co2 operates as a greenhouse gas also blame co2 from volcanoes for GW?
And by the way Whiskey, with the ice as an open system (so that co2 quantity can be debated) and a coffin as a closed system (so that it can possibly be proved that pollution is healthy), I'll give you a comparison.
It's about another "debunked hype", bird flu. Here comes a lesson.
"Scientists" (ahem) have apparently been claiming that the bird flu is related to the evil spanish disease which killed millions in 1918.
So, they dug for evidence in corpses that were buried in Spitzbergen. They did not manage to extract any useable matter so it was a failiure.
However, they found a useable corpse buried in ice, in Alaska, and presto, they were right, - more or less.
With the truth founded, they managed to trace down some survivors of the disease and insulate their antibodies which were then tested on active bird flu.
It worked very well, so a cure/vaccine is now in process.
Lessons to be learned:
1. Bird flu on the go would have been a global disaster, so precautions were right. (Asia)
2. Research lead to a result.
3. Denialists were wrong.
4 Ice is a much better system to store things from the past than a coffin :devil
Then comes the PS, question for you all:
Since the GW issue is related with CO2, there is an effort to reduce emissions. Now tell me exactly, what's good about it?
-
angus... first of all.. no one I know of is saying co2 is not a greenhouse gas.. they are all saying that it does not do what the algor acolytes say it does... most are saying that the effect of co2 on warming has about shot it's wad and it has been pretty much a non player.. further doubling will have little or no effect.. it can only do so much. Like painting a room red.. the first coat doesn't do all that much the second does all the work and every coat after that does not make it any more red.
The people talking about volcanoes and underground coal fires are pulling your chain.. they are saying that man is insignificant as is Co2.
As for the bird flu.. I dispute that it would even jump species. I dispute that we could stop it if it wanted to get loose. What that has to do with the whole man made global warming hoax tho... I don't know.
lazs
-
the corpse in Alaska had bird flu? :O
i wasn't talking about the corpse i was talking about the air around it!
by the way what ever happened to all the fluorocarbons (aerosol propellent) that we supposedly trapped in the atmosphere for a thousand years?i don't guess the hole in the ozone had anything too do with it disappearing? before the hole itself disappeared. i was also wandering about r-12 so what is the count now that we don't use this anymore? apparently none of these things have made any difference according to you?
if they did then i think praise is in order! and then maybe you should go to the rest of the world and try to get them to go green, you know Libya, turkey, china, Russia, and get off our backs, we are doing the best we can,
otherwise you could help out alot by turning off your power, nothing Say's going green like sitting in the dark!! :salute
-
Point was, if you understand it, that matter trapped in ice, say alone in deep ice will stick there much better than in your "coffin" world.
(You could also look for smoke remains in mummy tissues, but I feel sure you don't get this one :devil)
Now, for the ozone-hole, - well that has completely nothing to do with GW. Nice to see you slip on that one as well.
And Lazs:
Volcanic CO2 is about 1% of human emission for quite some while. You wouldn't care, since you deny the theory anyway, so it always made me chuckle when the theory-denying camp grabbed for this straw.
And for the bird flu, well, Lazs, you may just not have read up. The bird flu virus was tested against antibodies from survivors from the Spanish disease, and it worked just fine. Just as vaccination against cowpox, and now challenge me by saying Jenner was wrong. If you understand at all what I am referring to :devil
-
Then comes the PS, question for you all:
Since the GW issue is related with CO2, there is an effort to reduce emissions. Now tell me exactly, what's good about it?
I like to drink beer. I noticed that when I drink, the more I go pee during the evening, the more drunk I am at the end of it. I don't know why I get drunk, but it seems to be related to my urination. Just to be on the safe side, I will stop peeing. To be even safer, I'll stop peeing during the day too because I need to drive and work.
Now seriously.
All scientists that I know that say CO2 is not the cause of GW are FOR reducing CO2 emission. They are concerned with the other pollution related with its production, regardless of GW. Hysteria is a bad adviser though. Reducing CO2 emission by quotas will create stupid things like low-CO2 power plants. The cost of treatment of the CO2 is a significant reduction is efficiency. This means burning even more fuel, depleting its resources and creating more pollution from the other by-products (CO2 is not pollution, it is processed within the ecosystem very well). Imposing CO2 emission restriction will prevent the 3rd world from developing. There are a hundred other bad implications of reducing CO2 emission "just in case" and without thought. In my eyes, the worst of them is the public lost of confidence in science, when nature does its thing regardless of man's ill-directed effort to stop it.
-
I like to drink beer. I noticed that when I drink, the more I go pee during the evening, the more drunk I am at the end of it. I don't know why I get drunk, but it seems to be related to my urination. Just to be on the safe side, I will stop peeing. To be even safer, I'll stop peeing during the day too because I need to drive and work.
Now seriously.
All scientists that I know that say CO2 is not the cause of GW are FOR reducing CO2 emission. They are concerned with the other pollution related with its production, regardless of GW. Hysteria is a bad adviser though. Reducing CO2 emission by quotas will create stupid things like low-CO2 power plants. The cost of treatment of the CO2 is a significant reduction is efficiency. This means burning even more fuel, depleting its resources and creating more pollution from the other by-products (CO2 is not pollution, it is processed within the ecosystem very well). Imposing CO2 emission restriction will prevent the 3rd world from developing. There are a hundred other bad implications of reducing CO2 emission "just in case" and without thought. In my eyes, the worst of them is the public lost of confidence in science, when nature does its thing regardless of man's ill-directed effort to stop it.
:aok good post :aok
-
You have one thing good in there Bozon, - when the hysteria for co2 alone blurs the vision, in a case such as the catalyzator. Ok, you have less co2 in each unit of fuel burned, but end up with more fuel burned instead, so the total outcome is the same.
I recall a machine course I did in relation with organic growing. Those "green" guys were professionals in their job, and they were completely against the legalization of the catalizator.
You missed the main parts though, and hysteria BTW is not the only advisor....
-
yep.. it was like the smog devices of the 70's that were mandated by government. we were not ready for them. the cars were big V8's with carbs and no computers. the smog devices were trash and made the cars run so badly that they got 50% less mileage and were always out of tune producing even more smog.
When computers became small and powerful enough and fuel injection and timing could be controled by computer.. the cars instantly got better mileage and less smog. these things were going to happen with or without the laws and hysteria.. the laws and hysteria just made things worse for a decade or so.
lazs
-
or what the world has done with biofuels this year... we planted so much grape seed oil crops that there isnt enough grain (in the right places) anymore....
-
Bear in mind,overlag, that the EU has been substitizing land OUT OF USAGE almost to this day, up to an amount of almost 10% at times. This could all have been used for fuel.
Still waiting for the big teaser's answer though.
-
Did anyone notice that the same bunch that flat out refuse that co2 operates as a greenhouse gas also blame co2 from volcanoes for GW?
And by the way Whiskey, with the ice as an open system (so that co2 quantity can be debated) and a coffin as a closed system (so that it can possibly be proved that pollution is healthy), I'll give you a comparison.
It's about another "debunked hype", bird flu. Here comes a lesson.
"Scientists" (ahem) have apparently been claiming that the bird flu is related to the evil spanish disease which killed millions in 1918.
So, they dug for evidence in corpses that were buried in Spitzbergen. They did not manage to extract any useable matter so it was a failiure.
However, they found a useable corpse buried in ice, in Alaska, and presto, they were right, - more or less.
With the truth founded, they managed to trace down some survivors of the disease and insulate their antibodies which were then tested on active bird flu.
It worked very well, so a cure/vaccine is now in process.
Lessons to be learned:
1. Bird flu on the go would have been a global disaster, so precautions were right. (Asia)
2. Research lead to a result.
3. Denialists were wrong.
4 Ice is a much better system to store things from the past than a coffin :devil
Then comes the PS, question for you all:
Since the GW issue is related with CO2, there is an effort to reduce emissions. Now tell me exactly, what's good about it?
Reminds me of that "scientist" who kept saying cigarettes don't cause cancer as he took big tobacco money to line his pockets.
Wait a sec, isn't that same "scientist" now arguing that GW is a farce while big oil money lines his pockets?
hmmmmmmmmm
-
Hairspray is killing us all. :devil
Still they cling to the hull.
-
Reminds me of that "scientist" who kept saying cigarettes don't cause cancer as he took big tobacco money to line his pockets.
Wait a sec, isn't that same "scientist" now arguing that GW is a farce while big oil money lines his pockets?
hmmmmmmmmm
Ah, yes, indeed.
-
"Reminds me of that "scientist" who kept saying cigarettes don't cause cancer as he took big tobacco money to line his pockets.
Wait a sec, isn't that same "scientist" now arguing that GW is a farce while big oil money lines his pockets?"
Oh jeez next you'll be saying our government lies to us. Cigarettes are good for us. Polution is not a problem. Crack? What Crack?(DC Mayor). I said Texas, not Taxes! (John Connelly or LBJ on bribery investigation) I use a wide stance when in the toilet(Larry Craig). What are you going to believe? What I'm telling you or your lying eyes?
-
Reminds me of that "scientist" who kept saying cigarettes don't cause cancer as he took big tobacco money to line his pockets.
Wait a sec, isn't that same "scientist" now arguing that GW is a farce while big oil money lines his pockets?
hmmmmmmmmm
this could be an example of the argumentum ad hominem or personal attack fallacy; that is, attempting to disprove X, not by addressing validity of X but by attacking the person who asserted X.
After all Exxon has been known to tell the truth from time to time
-
Always tickles though when big oil hires people to deny GW while talking their stocks up because of new opportunities in recent ice-free zones.
BTW, the arctic sea ice has now reached the 2nd smallest place since measurments started, and still has some 3 weeks to go. If it is not a record it is a runner up.
-
Got to visit Mendenhall glacier in July. Sad. It's receding and quickly.
-
So are ours. All of them.
-
yep.. it's the end of the world... time for you guys to rend your garments and pull your hair and offer sacrifices at the altar of the high priest algore.
I am glad that you at least believe that a large portion of the scientific community can lie to us to further a personal agenda tho... that is progress.
The only thing that can save us is to go to a one world government and back to the dark ages... never mind that it is getting cooler... if it gets cool then it will be "record" cooling... caused by man. only a few scientists and algor and a one world government can save us.. Only when the great satan America has been punished will this plauge be ended.
lazs
-
Back in the 1800's and early 1900's as a people we burned LOTS of coal. The emissions from coal are a lot worse then nat gas or gasoline. Why are things different now?
-
Back in the 1800's and early 1900's as a people we burned LOTS of coal. The emissions from coal are a lot worse then nat gas or gasoline. Why are things different now?
it's quantity - not quality
-
Actually Lazs, it's not the end of the world. It's simply like while some people try to fight trouble, other stick their head in the sand as long as they can.
Regarding my question before, the benefit of the co2 related discussion would be the wide-awake search for alternative energy sources as well as means to save energy.
This will give us more time before running out of oil.
It will not happen in my life, but still I care....
-
I see.. so you admit that the whole global warming thing due to man made Co2 was a horrific hoax but that was still a good idea to perpetuate it to get us going toward alternate energy?
The end justifies the means eh comrade?
Point is.. supply and demand will force change.. and that is good.. lying scumbag politicians and unethical "scientists" are not the right way to do it.
lazs
-
Wait a sec, isn't that same "scientist" now arguing that GW is a farce while big oil money lines his pockets?
That is the lamest argument I keep hearing. Do you know any of these scientists ? Can you even tell the difference between "No global warming", "Not CO2" related", "Not man made" types of opposition? Which one is funded by oil companies? BS
The actual situation in the academy is that it is FAR easier to get funds for research that supports GW or that deals with human influence on GW than a research which is aimed to prove the current predictions are wrong. It is also very hard to publish papers against GW in scientific journals - and they are not rejected on the basis of "bad science" report. Today, to support man made GW means going with the flow.
I know some of these people. After decades in the academy, they get the salary of an out-of-university software engineer and sit in a tiny room with old furniture. If they are getting any money from oil companies it is either a ridiculous sum, or that they just hide the money very well.
-
There is no particular economical benefit for governments in funding GW research. There however is a great benefit for the big oil to fund GW denying.
And Lazs, I have stated over and over that I think that the CO2 effect is overpublished, and sadly overshadowing other issues too much. However the effect is in some way positive, for there is no way mankind is going to be pumping on as now for as much of some 100 or even 200 years. We will run out of fossil fuel unless we both save energy and find an alternative source. Carry on to the cliff's end and you will plummet down. Sort of an industrial revolution....backwards.
Your great grand-children will have a donkey instead of a Harley :D
-
Back in the 1800's and early 1900's as a people we burned LOTS of coal. The emissions from coal are a lot worse then nat gas or gasoline. Why are things different now?
Population, too many peoples doin the nasty. Population is now near 300 million. 200 million in 1960s, 150 million 1930s(?)
-
Reminds me of that "scientist" who kept saying cigarettes don't cause cancer as he took big tobacco money to line his pockets.
Wait a sec, isn't that same "scientist" now arguing that GW is a farce while big oil money lines his pockets?
hmmmmmmmmm
name please??
-
There is no particular economical benefit for governments in funding GW research.
Of what economical benefit is the funding of say, the National Drug Intelligence Center [NDIC].
One administration official described the NDIC as “slow to delineate a unique or useful role within the drug intelligence community,” and therefore the President requested nearly $16 million in his 2008 budget to cover the costs of shutting down the facility. Instead, this congressional earmark directs $39 million to expand NDIC operations in 2008.
Using government spending to justify scientific standing is putting the cart before the horse.
-
Some things don't happen by themselves. That's why one has governments and institutions.
There is not always good business in what they do, but things are being done because it's belived that they need to be done and the business world is thinking differently.
-
... but things are being done because it's belived that they need to be done and the business world is thinking differently.
Agreed, but it is the 'believed that they need to be done' part that is the nature of this thread.
If someone in the US government in say 1994, say a Vice President, convinces enough legislators to pass something funding research into how to stop AGW, well then the 'believed that it needs to be done' can be traced to one VP and his college professor.
So government funding can be as slanted as funding from private foundations or business.
-
Well, nothing is perfect. Governments spend lots of money on utter rubbish. But you have the point.
Without government aid and/or institutions for research there would be a lot of things that we don't know. Including completely useless stuff, which some day isn't that useless....
-
angus.. the business of government is to grow itself and become more and more a part of everyones lives.. to regulate and control.
Now, you tell me a better way to do it than to create a crisis.. or to buy into one and then play yourself off as the only hope for mankind.
I did not think that you were so naive.
lazs
-
Lazs, the business of a businessman is often to make as much money for himself within his lifespan. That's where many slip, for they don't care squat what's going to happen once they're dead.
To achive this goal, it's better to be a businessman than a politician, however vanity is sometimes more satisfied with the starlit political career.
Many of our most loved politicians back in history made decisions that were completely non-profit. And many of a grabbing block of businessmen have been stopped to avoid catastrophy, since there were maneuvers in hand that don't hold water in the long run.
This of course can apply to governments too.
But simply, today, business has more power than politics, and we're heading for the wall.
Never thought that you were that...naive...
-
Sure seems like the EPA and IRS and all their enforcement people have a lot more power than business to me.
They create a crisis to get funding. A perfect example is "earthquake studies".. the funding was cut in half... within 24 hours of them knowing that...
These "scientists" predicted a MAJOR quake that would kill millions.. maybe billions.. no..trillions within the next 50 years.. only more funding could save us.
lazs
-
Lazs, the business of a businessman is often to make as much money for himself within his lifespan. That's where many slip, for they don't care squat what's going to happen once they're dead.
To achive this goal, it's better to be a businessman than a politician, however vanity is sometimes more satisfied with the starlit political career.
Many of our most loved politicians back in history made decisions that were completely non-profit. And many of a grabbing block of businessmen have been stopped to avoid catastrophy, since there were maneuvers in hand that don't hold water in the long run.
This of course can apply to governments too.
But simply, today, business has more power than politics, and we're heading for the wall.
Never thought that you were that...naive...
This is where you go wrong. First, it is perfectly admirable to make as much money as possible. That "Evil Businessman" is matching his whit, his meddle, his intelligence and his guts against other men to do the best FOR YOU. If he isn't doing the best FOR YOU, then he won't become a good businessman. He won't make any money at all.
The catch is that no politician's decision in the history of all man kind has been not for profit. Ever. Ever, ever, ever. All a politician does is something to benefit himself. While this is admirable in the business world, it is not in the political world. Businessmen trade in sales. Politicians trade in mandatory taxes. At no point will a business man show up at your door with ninja clad soldiers to enforce his decisions upon you.
All a politician does it take power and money he hasn't earned to do with what he pleases. Then he convinces you that THIS is the right way to do it. This is way more noble then the "Cutthroat capitalists."
Politicians hate choice.
"The urge to save humanity is always a false face for the desire to rule it." Mencken
"Anyone who wants power is not to be trusted with it."
-
Sure seems like the EPA and IRS and all their enforcement people have a lot more power than business to me.
They create a crisis to get funding. A perfect example is "earthquake studies".. the funding was cut in half... within 24 hours of them knowing that...
These "scientists" predicted a MAJOR quake that would kill millions.. maybe billions.. no..trillions within the next 50 years.. only more funding could save us.
lazs
What will save you is them knowing early enough to warn you.
Since I live on a highly geolocically active area, this is everyday's reality.
We had some nice quake in 2000, - it was predicted to be "due", just like a pregnant woman will give birth, but you cannot tell the day....(sheeeshhh). Once the data from the quake had been compiled ,a warning for a similar one was issued, due in within 12 days, probably within the week. It did come, in 4 days. Data was compiled, and a warning issued that we'd get a similar one in a span of 6-12 years. We had a similar one in may this years, so it was 8 years. They're still compiling the data from the last one, but the word is that there is some more energy "left in the pipes"
In short, the researchers, armed with modern technology, are homing in on more and more accuracy in the geological field, and this is not an easy task. Kinda makes me sour to see ignorance in its pure sticking the tongue out on it....
-
sooo... it didn't seem the least bit "convienient" to you that the moment funding was cut in half.. we were told that there was a big one coming soon and only they could save us?
And how could they save us? as you say.. by evacuating the entire... well.. they really didn't say but.. whatever they could warn us.. all it takes is us giving them grant money.
That doesn't sound like every grant grubbing little dweeb crying man made C02 hell to you?
This is the kind of ignorance that bothers me.
lazs
-
Research will hopefully be able to give you status green, yellow, or RED. As for your funding issues however, I don't really understand those....sounds like corruption? And corruption happens within both corporations and governments.
I live in a zone where if the hell breaks loose (nearby volcano) I have 4hours to evacuate.
Since this eruption only happens each 100 years or so, there is completely no profit margin for any company to spend money on it. However, being alert is an issue for the COUNTRY.
So, there is a lot of research and evac test-runs going on, since it's tic-toc-soon-time.
I do not regret seeing my tax money going on that....
-
Wait a sec, isn't that same "scientist" now arguing that GW is a farce while big oil money lines his pockets?
hmmmmmmmmm
ever thought that the govenment funded "scientists" are the exact same as this guy? feeding rubbish to the population so we pay "green" tax's?
works both ways.
-
Well, aren't it those "funded" or even employed scientists that are having New Orleans evacuated right now?
-
Well, aren't it those "funded" or even employed scientists that are having New Orleans evacuated right now?
:rofl The crusaders and guardians of the world.
-
angus... so without government funding we would have no hurricane science or warning?
Isn't it government who made it possible for all those people to continue to be in the path of that hurricane in a place that is below sea level? Won't government just fix the place up again on my dime when the hurricane destroys it so that people can live there and wait for the next hurricane?
lazs
-
It wasn't the gov that plonked that city down there in the first place...it was completely free choice.
As for the warning, did you see any corporate warning? The gov. has warned and taken measure for something that seems to be petering out to storm strength. I guess that now you will state that less knowledge of the weather system is just the right thing. Sems to me that MORE is needed.
And, at last, there is another brewing, and heading for Carolina. More data.
-
As for the warning, did you see any corporate warning?
The evil oil companies did. They evacuated thier workers and told them to prepare for the storm.
-
That was...smart of them :devil
-
angus.. if the people didn't get bailed out they might just move and then we wouldn't care would we?
lazs
-
I'm pretty sure that if you'd have been there you'd have locked yourself up inside with your guns :D
-
well... that is one that you would have probly gotten right.
lazs
-
Well, luckily it wasn't all that a bad hurricane.
Up here we had some abnormalities this year, quite a storm in July (which I do not recall before) as well as a wild one now in August with windspeed up to 130 mph. That was rather bad. I'll try to post some pics later.
Luckily it didn't throw the family car over, but the Greenhouse went airborne and fresh turf started wrapping up! Even my air compressor was no the move.
I hate storms, so I guess I live in the wrong place :eek:
-
sooo.. they were wrong?
lazs
-
Didn't this useless thread die already? :huh
-
darn no more sticky, and we were so close to an agreement...
:devil
-
Useless...no. We have to stick around untill we have the ice-melting figures in some 3 weeks :D
I can not see an agreement in the maps, especially since GW is not a changeable thing through debates...like political headings for instance....
-
The Night of Sept 3 I was driving to Calgary Alberta and for over an hour of the drive I was watching the Northern Lights (aurora borealis) Now I am used to seeing the lights but I can't reccal if I have every seen them so bright and so early in the fall. The old saying was that in 30 days after the lights we are going to be very cold that would be the beginning of Oct.
The crops in much of Alberta are not maturing because of lack of heat units (GDD). It almost apears that we are set for another cold winter here. So much for Global Warming
-
I found this artical rather funny. They've found artifacts under what used to be a glacier that are around 4-5000 years old. So 4-5000 years ago there wasn't any ice there, but now the global warming idiots are screaming because the glaciers are melting.
Doesn't this seem to support the entire theroy that the climate moves in cycles? Sometimes it's hot, sometimes it's cold, nothing we do as humans is going to change that little fact, and the earth will maintain it's very own balance.
BERN (AFP) - Some 5,000 years ago, on a day with weather much like today's, a prehistoric person tread high up in what is now the Swiss Alps, wearing goat leather pants, leather shoes and armed with a bow and arrows.
The unremarkable journey through the Schnidejoch pass, a lofty trail 2,756 metres (9,000 feet) above sea level, has been a boon to scientists. But it would never have emerged if climate change were not melting the nearby glacier.
So far, 300 objects dating as far back as the Neolithic or New Stone Age -- about 4,000 BC in Europe -- to the later Bronze and Iron Ages and the Medieval era have been found in the site's former icefields.
"We know now that the discoveries on Schnidejoch are the oldest of this kind ever made in the Alps," said Albert Hafner, an expert with the archaeology service in Bern canton.
They have allowed researchers not only to piece together snapshots of life way back when, but also to shed light on climate fluctuations in the past 6,500 years -- and hopefully shed light on what is happening now.
"For us, the site itself is the most important find because we have this correlation between climate change and archaeological objects," Hafner said.
"We know that people were only able to walk on this site when it was relatively warm," said Martin Grosjean, executive director of a national network called Swiss Climate Research. "When it was too cold, the glacier advanced and it was not a passable route."
Scientists have long known there were periods of warmer weather in the region but the artefacts allowed them to identify the exact years, when the site would have been passable on foot.
According to Grosjean, such data could help sharpen forecasts for the future by taking into account patterns of natural temperature fluctuation.
The treasure trove preserved in the icefields was discovered after two hikers noticed a strange piece of wood lying upon some stones in 2003.
It turned out to be a quiver -- a case for arrows -- made from birch bark and dating as far back as 3,000 B.C. Hafner said this object may be the most significant single discovery at the site.
"It is the only quiver found that is made of birch bark. It is unique in Europe," he said.
Since then, even older objects have been excavated, including a wooden bow estimated to predate by 1,000 years the famed "Oetzi the Iceman" -- a 5,100-year-old frozen body found high in the Tyrolean Alps on a glacier straddling Italy and Austria in 1991.
Experts have deduced that many of the most valuable items may have originated from one ill-fated person, probably carrying the quiver, bow and arrows and clothed in leather pants and shoes.
"We think the person may have been killed during an accident because there were several objects from the same period found on the site," said Hafner. "It is unlikely that people would be leaving these objects so high up in the mountain."
The leather samples are also the oldest of their kind ever found, said Grosjean. "Leather decays easily in ambient temperatures. We know there were villages by the lakes in Switzerland but we've never found such leather objects," he said.
Analysis showed the pants' patch was made from a domesticated goat that resembled a breed recorded in Laos in those days.
"But the chances that the goat migrated from Laos are very slim. It could be a species that we had never before recorded to have been present in the Europe. Or its lineage may have died out since," said Grosjean.
Five years on, discoveries continue as the glaciers retreats.
"Last week, we found another Roman coin," said Grosjean, while Hafner said talks were underway with several museums on a future exhibition of the finds.
And with climate change, more such sites could emerge.
"The leather pieces are the oldest such finds now but maybe in the coming years, with other glaciers retreating around the world, they may not be the oldest for long," said Grosjean.
A recent UN Environment Programme report said by the end of the century, swathes of mountain ranges worldwide risk losing their glaciers if global warming continues at its projected rate.
"The ongoing trend of worldwide and rapid, if not accelerating, glacier shrinkage ... may lead to the deglaciation of large parts of many mountain ranges by the end of the 21st century," the report warned.
-
I too enjoy looking back at geological history. Finding Icemen way up in the mountain passes is proof that we traded very long ago. North America is very young and that is probably why we aren't seeing more of that on our side of the pond.
-
I found this artical rather funny. They've found artifacts under what used to be a glacier that are around 4-5000 years old. So 4-5000 years ago there wasn't any ice there, but now the global warming idiots are screaming because the glaciers are melting.
Doesn't this seem to support the entire theroy that the climate moves in cycles? Sometimes it's hot, sometimes it's cold, nothing we do as humans is going to change that little fact, and the earth will maintain it's very own balance.
BERN (AFP) - Some 5,000 years ago, on a day with weather much like today's, a prehistoric person tread high up in what is now the Swiss Alps, wearing goat leather pants, leather shoes and armed with a bow and arrows.
The unremarkable journey through the Schnidejoch pass, a lofty trail 2,756 metres (9,000 feet) above sea level, has been a boon to scientists. But it would never have emerged if climate change were not melting the nearby glacier.
So far, 300 objects dating as far back as the Neolithic or New Stone Age -- about 4,000 BC in Europe -- to the later Bronze and Iron Ages and the Medieval era have been found in the site's former icefields.
"We know now that the discoveries on Schnidejoch are the oldest of this kind ever made in the Alps," said Albert Hafner, an expert with the archaeology service in Bern canton.
They have allowed researchers not only to piece together snapshots of life way back when, but also to shed light on climate fluctuations in the past 6,500 years -- and hopefully shed light on what is happening now.
"For us, the site itself is the most important find because we have this correlation between climate change and archaeological objects," Hafner said.
"We know that people were only able to walk on this site when it was relatively warm," said Martin Grosjean, executive director of a national network called Swiss Climate Research. "When it was too cold, the glacier advanced and it was not a passable route."
Scientists have long known there were periods of warmer weather in the region but the artefacts allowed them to identify the exact years, when the site would have been passable on foot.
According to Grosjean, such data could help sharpen forecasts for the future by taking into account patterns of natural temperature fluctuation.
The treasure trove preserved in the icefields was discovered after two hikers noticed a strange piece of wood lying upon some stones in 2003.
It turned out to be a quiver -- a case for arrows -- made from birch bark and dating as far back as 3,000 B.C. Hafner said this object may be the most significant single discovery at the site.
"It is the only quiver found that is made of birch bark. It is unique in Europe," he said.
Since then, even older objects have been excavated, including a wooden bow estimated to predate by 1,000 years the famed "Oetzi the Iceman" -- a 5,100-year-old frozen body found high in the Tyrolean Alps on a glacier straddling Italy and Austria in 1991.
Experts have deduced that many of the most valuable items may have originated from one ill-fated person, probably carrying the quiver, bow and arrows and clothed in leather pants and shoes.
"We think the person may have been killed during an accident because there were several objects from the same period found on the site," said Hafner. "It is unlikely that people would be leaving these objects so high up in the mountain."
The leather samples are also the oldest of their kind ever found, said Grosjean. "Leather decays easily in ambient temperatures. We know there were villages by the lakes in Switzerland but we've never found such leather objects," he said.
Analysis showed the pants' patch was made from a domesticated goat that resembled a breed recorded in Laos in those days.
"But the chances that the goat migrated from Laos are very slim. It could be a species that we had never before recorded to have been present in the Europe. Or its lineage may have died out since," said Grosjean.
Five years on, discoveries continue as the glaciers retreats.
"Last week, we found another Roman coin," said Grosjean, while Hafner said talks were underway with several museums on a future exhibition of the finds.
And with climate change, more such sites could emerge.
"The leather pieces are the oldest such finds now but maybe in the coming years, with other glaciers retreating around the world, they may not be the oldest for long," said Grosjean.
A recent UN Environment Programme report said by the end of the century, swathes of mountain ranges worldwide risk losing their glaciers if global warming continues at its projected rate.
"The ongoing trend of worldwide and rapid, if not accelerating, glacier shrinkage ... may lead to the deglaciation of large parts of many mountain ranges by the end of the 21st century," the report warned.
We're getting artifacts from under a glacier that are from WW2. I've seen one engine of a B-17 for instance.
They're age is not all the same, and a glacier always delivers back what it has taken..once.
And that "once" depends on their age. Some go through in 50 years, some in 100.000.
The melting is however another issue...when for instance every glacier on a whole continent is shrinking...?
-
The melting is however another issue...when for instance every glacier on a whole continent is shrinking...?
Not North America... Shasta's glaciers are growing, as well as some in Alaska.
Not Europe, Mont Blanc, actually grew last summer as the glacier on its summit got thicker. It now stands 2m taller at 4,810m (15781ft). The volume of ice has doubled since 2005 to reach 24,100 cubic metres.
Asia? Nope, A new study of the Karakoram, Hindu Kush, and Western Himalaya mountain ranges by researchers at England's Newcastle University shows consistent recent growth among the region's glaciers.
Africa? Well Kilamanjaros Glaciers are retreating, but a National Geographic reported, "The research team found new evidence showing that lower precipitation—and not rising temperatures on the summit—is the main cause for the Kilimanjaro glaciers' retreat."
Australia? C'mon..."Scientists say the shrinking of Australia's little-known glaciers on remote, sub-Antarctic Heard Island in the Indian Ocean reveals global warming now stretches from the tropics to the edge of Antarctica." Heard Island isn't really the continent is it?
South America? -- Chile's Pio XI and Perito Moreno Glacier in Argentina are growing or at least PM is in equilibrium.
Antartica? -- Science magazine reported the East Antarctic ice-sheet interior north of 81.6°S increased in mass by 45 ± 7 billion metric tons per year from 1992 to 2003. While University of Colorado researchers used data from a pair of NASA satellites to determine that the Antarctic ice sheet has lost significant mass in recent years. But if both are correct, the east AIS is growing and therefore every glacier on a whole continent would not be shrinking.
-
Well. I rule that as a random snowfall compared to glacier Vatnajökull who is rapidly retreating. There you have 3.100 km3 and will need to go to Spitzbergen or Siberia to find anything bigger....
It's almost 1.300 times bigger in volume than Mont Blanc, btw, hence the "snowfall" comparison.
And with Ice 1000 m thick...well, the bottom one is quite well squished...more than tope ice.
-
The ice is melting in my Jack #7 again.
Note to self: Must immediately start Doomsday procedures.
-
The ice is melting in my Jack #7 again.
Note to self: Must immediately start Doomsday procedures.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
:noid
-
And now what?
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_M08176_Ulysses_teleconference.html
-
lotta big hurris here in the last 10 years or so...........
:noid
-
Too many posts so I didn't bother to read them.
So, what's the take away? Is this global warming thing for real or not?
Charon
-
Too many posts so I didn't bother to read them.
So, what's the take away? Is this global warming thing for real or not?
Charon
No, the sun will turn down.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_M08176_Ulysses_teleconference.html
-
"Not North America... Shasta's glaciers are growing, as well as some in Alaska."
I saw Mendenhall Glacier (Juneau) in July. Its shrinking. Very noticeablely. Which ones are growing in Alaska?
-
No, the sun will turn down.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_M08176_Ulysses_teleconference.html
Did you even read what's in your hyper?
WASHINGTON -- NASA will hold a media teleconference Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 12:30 p.m. EDT, to discuss data from the joint NASA and European Space Agency Ulysses mission that reveals the sun's solar wind is at a 50-year low. The sun's current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system
So, you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, because it got warmer when the sun's solar wind was at a 50 year low? Interesting, I'd like to hear your side of that.
-
SL is rising. Glaciers are shrinking. Quite logical I'd say.
Yet we have people here that claim it's cooling.
Now isn't that a bit silly ?
-
Dudes and Dudettes...The Sun will envelop the inner planets. Then and only then will the argument stop. Ahhhh, the future will be so peaceful.
-
Did you even read what's in your hyper?
So, you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change, because it got warmer when the sun's solar wind was at a 50 year low? Interesting, I'd like to hear your side of that.
Warmer? Mmgw is bs. This planet is cooling.
Tuesday we will get some interesting news form NASA.
Here is something from that project: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/20feb_coolmystery.htm
-
We'll see how SC24 goes. Finally, three sunspots that have lasted more than a day, showed up. It seems that even though the cycle started in January, that it's just getting warmed up.
With the posting of some new research http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/30/melting-permafrost-poses-threats-infrastructure-al/ (http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/30/melting-permafrost-poses-threats-infrastructure-al/) on the melting of permafrost in Alaska and in Siberia......If this is finally the start of a new sunspot maximum, I think that we're all going to be very interested observers in, say 16 to 24 months... when the real output from the sun starts, combined with the gases already in the atmosphere. There is a distinct probability that this "cooling off" period has simply coincided with the end of Cycle 23. We'll just hafta see how this next few go.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/1024/latest.html (http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/1024/latest.html)
(http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov//data/REPROCESSING/Completed/2008/eit195/20080923/20080923_0136_eit195_512.jpg)
-
Warmer? Mmgw is bs. This planet is cooling.
Tuesday we will get some interesting news form NASA.
Here is something from that project: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2007/20feb_coolmystery.htm
By the way... how do you get that anthropogenic climate shift is false... from a study that was surprised to find that one of the sun's poles is cooler than the other? They since figured out why, and it is similar to the reasons why the south pole of the earth is colder than the north. At no point in your link is there a causal link of any conjecture to the cooler south solar pole to the climate of the earth.
Do you possess critical thinking skills at all???.... one must wonder.
-
Here is news, cant tell is it good or bad. We will see.
This may be the reason why this planet is cooling.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm
-
"Not North America... Shasta's glaciers are growing, as well as some in Alaska."
I saw Mendenhall Glacier (Juneau) in July. Its shrinking. Very noticeablely. Which ones are growing in Alaska?
Hubbard Glacier has been advancing for more than 100 years and has closed the entrance to Russell Fiord twice during the last 16 years, and was close to closing it again in spring 2008
-
Dudes and Dudettes...The Sun will envelop the inner planets.
That will probably happen a long time before you can beat me in a Hurri II Bear ;)
-
Hubbard Glacier has been advancing for more than 100 years and has closed the entrance to Russell Fiord twice during the last 16 years, and was close to closing it again in spring 2008
How big is that one? I recall your quote on Mont Blanc as an example, but the size is like a peanut....
-
How big is that one? I recall your quote on Mont Blanc as an example, but the size is like a peanut....
Hubbard Glacier is a tidewater glacier in the U.S. state of Alaska and the Yukon Territory of Canada. From its source in the Yukon, the glacier stretches 122 km to the sea at Yakutat Bay and Disenchantment Bay. It is the longest tidewater glacier in Alaska, with an open calving face over ten kilometers wide.
-
Let's just Debunk Hubbard first.
Hubbard Glacier is the largest tidewater glacier on the North American continent. It has been thickening and advancing toward the Gulf of Alaska since it was first mapped by the International Boundary Commission in 1895 (Davidson, 1903). This is in stark contrast with most glaciers, which have thinned and retreated during the last century. This atypical behavior is an important example of the calving glacier cycle in which glacier advance and retreat is controlled more by the mechanics of terminus calving than by climate fluctuations. If Hubbard Glacier continues to advance, it will close the seaward entrance of Russell Fiord and create the largest glacier-dammed lake on the North American continent in historic times.
http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/hubbard/ (http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/hubbard/)
-
Hubbard Glacier has been advancing for more than 100 years and has closed the entrance to Russell Fiord twice during the last 16 years, and was close to closing it again in spring 2008
http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/hubbard/ (http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/hubbard/)
Hubbard Glacier is the largest tidewater glacier on the North American continent. It has been thickening and advancing toward the Gulf of Alaska since it was first mapped by the International Boundary Commission in 1895 (Davidson, 1903). This is in stark contrast with most glaciers, which have thinned and retreated during the last century. This atypical behavior is an important example of the calving glacier cycle in which glacier advance and retreat is controlled more by the mechanics of terminus calving than by climate fluctuations. If Hubbard Glacier continues to advance, it will close the seaward entrance of Russell Fiord and create the largest glacier-dammed lake on the North American continent in historic times.
All it takes is just a wee little bit of research there, Holden.
-
http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/hubbard/ (http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/hubbard/)
All it takes is just a wee little bit of research there, Holden.
I saw that... that a glacier can retreat and advance and not be an indicator of climate is kind of the point.
The snows of Kilamanjaro advance and retreat due more to local influences is kind of the point.
That Shastas glaciers advance and retreat due more to local influences is kind of the point.
I was pointing out that "all the glaciers on all the continents are on the retreat" is not a factual statement.
All it takes is a wee little bit of research there, Moray.
-
I saw that... that a glacier can retreat and advance and not be an indicator of climate is kind of the point.
The snows of Kilamanjaro advance and retreat due more to local influences is kind of the point.
That Shastas glaciers advance and retreat due more to local influences is kind of the point.
I was pointing out that "all the glaciers on all the continents are on the retreat" is not a factual statement.
All it takes is a wee little bit of research there, Moray.
I never said anything to the contrary....yet please look at the placement of the word "atypical". Specifically in relation to THIS glacier. Could you please tell the kiddies what "atypical" means again?
-
I never said anything to the contrary....yet please look at the placement of the word "atypical". Specifically in relation to THIS glacier. Could you please tell the kiddies what "atypical" means again?
turtle.
-
What Wiki said:
"The tidewater glacier cycle is the typically centuries-long behavior of tidewater glaciers that consists of recurring periods of advance alternating with rapid retreat and punctuated by periods of stability. During portions of its cycle, a tidewater glacier is relatively insensitive to climate change."
And it's a high one, - like mt Blank.
Anyway, at some 10x100 km (say 1000+?) it is a midget compared to this one:D
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/Vatnaj%C3%B6kull.jpeg)
8.100 sq km.
But that is a midget compared to this one :
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Greenland_map.png)
The neighbour, and both shrinking. This one is about 1.71 million sq km.
-
I've been waiting for Holden to reply.... Apparently he's not going to rebuke me....I guess he got around to looking up what "atypical" means. Maybe he asked his girlfriend.
:salute Holden
Your silence is spectacular.
-
Well, maybe he's out for data. It's hard to find anything in the USA to top the Greenland glacier though :devil
(you could what, paste the whole USA with 1000 feet of ice from that bulk....(wild guess))
-
I've been waiting for Holden to reply.... Apparently he's not going to rebuke me....I guess he got around to looking up what "atypical" means. Maybe he asked his girlfriend.
:salute Holden
Your silence is spectacular.
Sorry Moray, I didn't mean to keep you in suspense.
And silence is lack of sound. That equates to lack of data. That you can infer anything from a lack of data goes against logic.
My argument was very specific. I showed that the statement that, "The melting is however another issue...when for instance every glacier on a whole continent is shrinking...?" is really a red herring when looking at Africa and Australia, and false when looking at the other continents, as there are specific glaciers which are exceptions to that statement.
A more accurate statement would have been that the total icemass on each continent is decreasing.
If you had understood my argument, you would have known that atypical was it's cornerstone.
-
Why isn't this locked? Global climate change is ALL about politics.
-
Yep. More than a bit difficult to discuss the scam without getting into the the politics behind it.
OUT.
-
I've mostly only seen people attempting to tell us it doesn't exist make it a political debate on the bbs here. Angus and Moray seem to be sticking to scientific data.
Others links seem to come from right wing rag papers mostly. Just my observation from casually scanning this thread for a while.
-
"My bias as a scientist is that I need to see evidence." :aok
I think an economics/rational-decision theory perspective defeats global warming skepticism, as no amount of data will convince the deniers. The cost of being wrong about global warming and not doing anything about it, if it happens, is catastrophic. The cost of being wrong about global warming and doing something about it, if it doesn't happen, is low compared to possible catastrophe, and might even turn into a long-term profit.
-
Sorry Moray, I didn't mean to keep you in suspense.
And silence is lack of sound. That equates to lack of data. That you can infer anything from a lack of data goes against logic.
My argument was very specific. I showed that the statement that, "The melting is however another issue...when for instance every glacier on a whole continent is shrinking...?" is really a red herring when looking at Africa and Australia, and false when looking at the other continents, as there are specific glaciers which are exceptions to that statement.
A more accurate statement would have been that the total icemass on each continent is decreasing.
If you had understood my argument, you would have known that atypical was it's cornerstone.
Silence equates lack of data? Interesting. Flawed reasoning, but interesting. Silence generally means a lack of interpretive reasoning in deciphering data, more likely.
I was not defending his blanket statement about glacier mass. Using that blanket statement was incorrect, although you made it misleading in correcting Angus. I was attacking your flawed position relating therein. You attempted to prove his position false by using data you presumably already knew was "atypical" and a special situation. Whether you truly knew this, I cannot speak. The fact you misrepresented that position and attempted to use data to disprove the science behind it was misleading at best and overall in deficient in reasoning.
Whether you are attempting to claim that all glaciers are implicitly tied to local conditions for mass, is unclear...especially after you say that "a more accurate statement would have been that the total icemass on eachcontinent is decreasing". Hubbard is a calving tidewater glacier....making it atypical. I basically figure that your entire argument is put forth just to be a love muffin.
-
Holden, just got to say that I think it is respectable to post naught rather than "whatever".
Anyway, you said:
"A more accurate statement would have been that the total icemass on each continent is decreasing."
Wouldn't it be better to say that the globe's Icemass as a whole is decreasing?
Ice goes down, SL goes up, both factors being measured. And bear in mind that on the blocks where the ice is melting, SL goes down de to landrise, so the SL measure is more of a minimum.
-
Silence equates lack of data? Interesting. Flawed reasoning, but interesting. Silence generally means a lack of interpretive reasoning in deciphering data, more likely.
Silence: absence of any sound or noise; stillness.
No sound is the result of lack of pressure waves in the atmosphere that are interpreted by the ear.
No pressure waves means no sonic energy. Quick count up all the data points that add up to zero!
The lack of response to one of your posts could be due to many factors:
1. Computer crash due to electromagnetic pulse caused by:
-----a. EMP pistol I was fashioning from microwave oven parts
-----b. Small personal thermonuclear device in basement
-----c. Windmill generator went nuts
2. Cancelling internet use due to:
-----a. Sudden change to Amish belief system
-----b. Stock Market caused fiscal problem
-----c. Decision to move to Tibet and begin guerrilla campaign against China.
3. I was
-----a. Skiing in Chile
-----b. Diving at Truk
-----c. On a Caribbean Cruise
-----d. In the hospital due to
----------i. A horrible automobile crash
----------ii. Giving my left kidney to a needy child
-----e. taking ice core samples at Vostok
Any of a myriad of reasons could be possible and without any data to back up your conclusion you picked the one you wanted, just like the scientist you are.
-
-----c. Decision to move to Tibet and begin guerrilla campaign against China.
Say 'hi' to Mom for me. She'll be the short wrinkled up chick with the slanty eyes and no teeth.
-
Giving a bad kidney to a kid, now that's evil :D