Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[JB88]

it's majic!!!

[lazs2]

moray.. despite your indignation.....  "junkscience" is called that because it debunks a lot of the junk science out there including the co2 boogey man.

I understand your anger and crusade against pollution.  pollution is bad...  OK?  we have all sorts of pollution tho.. we have wasteful stuff and stuff that can't really be helped and pollution that really doesn't amount to much in the grand scheme..

People pollute... can't be helped.. animals pollute and mother nature herself is the biggest polluter... wiping out thousands of species in one angry stroke at times.

So stay on topic.   I am a land discharger... most of the "fecal coliform" that you are so upset about it from animals other than man when I run my test wells.   Filthy beasts!!!!

lazs

[lazs2]

Now... second hand smoke... anyone who believes that second hand smoke kills 5,000 children a day and that it is ten more toxic  than first hand smoke should indeed be a target for "junkscience"

smoking is bad for you.   second hand smoke is not worse for you than smoking.   It is not worse for someone to be in the same room as a smoker than it is for the smoker.

I smoked for many years.   I 15 years ago.   I never want to go back but all the hysteria about second hand smoke was way over the top.   It is indeed like the global warming hysteria in that the "scientists" vie over who can make the most alarming prediction.

There are about 108 computer models for global climate change that are recognized.  The estimates temp change from  man made greenhouse gases range from .22 degrees to 6 degrees in 100 years.   They all use different parameters.. yep... not one has the same planet modeled.   the highest ones have a planet with no cloud cover...  they model a planet that has no clouds... our planet has 40% clouds.

just like second hand smoke being more harmful than first hand... the co2 numbers don't add up.

lazs

[lazs2]

and moray.. you need to ask some questions when someone tells you there is fecal coliform in water.. any water..  Tracer studies have become quite sophisticated... human waste has trace elements (ppb) of all sorts of things not occuring in nature like pharmicudicals and grooming products.

The EPA needs to be gutted.. they are constantly using junkscience to make things worse.   Telling agencies that what was once an ocean bed needs to not have any salt in the water for instance... billions wasted on uneeded and treatment that uses millions of killowatts of power and fuel and uses millions of tons of chemicals.

The EPA has even caused deaths with its recomendations a few years back to stop chlorinating..  and it's wieght in the DDT ban and malaria outbreaks because of it.

The EPA is an agency that cowers in front of powerful environmental groups who are mostly comprised of lawyers looking for cities and agencies to sue.   The EPA will not listen to real science over these lawyers.. it costs all of us.

They do some good work but they are being run now by the groups that have an agenda.   That agenda is to liberate each and every one of us from as much of our cash as possible.

Like I said... pollution is bad.. it is natural tho for the most part and maybe it is needed... part of evolution or intelligent design or whatever... species have been dieing out before we ever showed up.  Is putting out a forest fire a good thing or a bad thing for instance?

Is the waste from a volcanic eruption a good thing or a bad thing?

Is the oil bubbling up from the ocean floor a good thing or a bad thing?

Is it really pollution?   Is fecal coliform pollution?

lazs

[Angus]

Second hand smoke = smoke.
The naughty part of it is that the smoker is polluting the victim, which in many cases cannot get away.
Same goes with GLOBAL things on much larger scales. It's not a private matter any more.

[majic]

Originally posted by JB88
it's majic!!!

It is?

[Angus]

And since the merging of the threads (good idea) confuses one a tad in the beginning....Lazs:

Originally posted by Angus
"angus... you didn't answer the question. what would happen in ten years to the global temperature if we were all dead. what would happen to it if we reduced our portion of co2 by 30%... How bout some hard numbers?"

Dead like by  a neutron bomb?

Let's see. In just 10 years not much. CO2 would fall slightly. The warming would seize to increase perhaps, but would yet be continuing. Polar area meltings continue. Vegetation would change drastically in agricultural areas, depending on what happens to the lifestock though. That is a huge question. So, assuming a big drop in lifestock, areas will go from field to scrub. In just 10 years the difference would be notable.
Now pollution would drop, that affects the dimming effect, which is a plus for warming. So it's a matter of balance before co2 and others start dropping.
So in short, in 10 years, not much. Will probably be even warmer.
BTW, I have read an article about something very similar. Stepping from 100 years to 100.000 years.

Now I have a question for you.

What do you think will happen to the big oil companies, if alternative fuels start advancing, say 5% of the cake every year? In, say, 10 years?

[Jackal1]

You might be really surprised at what these "Oil Companies" own and hold partnerships with.
It`s a no-brainer anyway. Oil will not be abandoned for a long, long time.

[lazs2]

angus.. you have no numbers for your prediction.  and for good reason.   even a draconian and harmful to people reduction of 30% of mans contribution to co2 would do nothing.   It would make no difference.  

If... even by the most dire of alarmist predictions..  we will see an increase of 6 degrees in the global temp over the next 100 years and 3-4% of that increase is because of co2... and...  25% of the 3-4% of that is man made c02... say, to be generous... we are responsible for .01-.05 of a degree...  what will a 30% "reduction" of that look like?  

is there any way anyone could measure such a tiny thing on a global scale?  forget that the margin of error for current measurments of global temperature average is in the range of 5% plus or minus.

and this is given the huge leap that all of the increase in temp is from man made co2.. even the most fervent of the global alarmists will admit that the sun is at the very least...25% of the increase or decrease in global temp...  I believe it to be more like half.

I know "ITS THE SUN STUPID" is simplistic.. but for a reason.. it has to burn through the global warming hysteria... it is not just the sun... it is shifts in rotation tectonic shifts axis changes cloud cover changes... all sorts of things but co2.. is not a major player.. haven't you noticed the lack of hard evidence?  the backing off on predictions?

you need to read more than wikipedia.  

You need to ask why algore won't debate... why no one has won the 100,000 by proving co2 is the main reason for climate change... you need to ask yourself why there is no debate.. why it is not allowed.  why the british "scientific" community is so frieghtened of any debate that they want anyone not agreeing with them to lose their accreditation.

in the end... I don't really care for me... I will live away from you lunatics and your silly laws and socialist BS will mean little.. the solution to people is to get away from em.  but... my grandkids will have to live in a world that the socialists and junk science a holes make.   I just don't want some of the most outlandish stuff they come up with to go unchallenged.

You claim the ones on the man made global warming bandwagon are the brave ones... that is laughable.   A brave scientist doesn't tweak computer models until he gets a result that his peers and the guys handing out fame and fortune like.

lazs

[bj229r]

Summary of global warming/climate change: If you are a liberal, Man (i.e. the USA) is ruining the world, it is the gospel, and dare not be questioned. If you are a conservative, you are skeptical (mostly because of the afore-mentioned part) The one unassailable fact is that the earth's temp has gone up 3/4 of ONE degree in the past century, and has been on an upward trend since 1979. Is that significant? Nary a clue.

[bj229r]

Heard about this today, hadn't considered this:
 

But the stations play an important role in detecting and analyzing regional climate change. More ominously, they provide the official baseline historical temperature data that politically motivated global-warming alarmists like James Hansen of NASA plug into their computer climate models to predict various apocalypses.

NOAA says it uses these 1,221 weather stations — which like the ones in Uniontown and New Castle are overseen by local National Weather Service offices and usually tended to by volunteers — because they have been providing reliable temperature data since at least 1900.

But Anthony Watts of Chico, Calif., suspects NOAA temperature readings are not all they’re cracked up to be. As the former TV meteorologist explains on his sophisticated, newly hatched Web site http://http:/www.surfacestations.org, he has set out to do what big-time armchair-climate modelers like Hansen and no one else has ever done - physically quality-check each weather station to see if it’s being operated properly.

To assure accuracy, stations (essentially older thermometers in little four-legged wooden sheds or digital thermometers mounted on poles) should be 100 feet from buildings, not placed on hot concrete, etc. But as photos on Watts’ site show, the station in Forest Grove, Ore., stands 10 feet from an air-conditioning exhaust vent. In Roseburg, Ore., it’s on a rooftop near an AC unit. In Tahoe, Calif., it’s next to a drum where trash is burned.

Watts, who says he’s a man of facts and science, isn’t jumping to any rash conclusions based on the 40-some weather stations his volunteers have checked so far. But he said Tuesday that what he’s finding raises doubts about NOAA’s past and current temperature reports.

“I believe we will be able to demonstrate that some of the global warming increase is not from CO2 but from localized changes in the temperature-measurement environment.”

Meanwhile, you probably missed the latest about 2006. As NOAA reported on May 1 - with minimum mainstream-media fanfare - 2006 actually was the second- warmest year ever recorded in America, not the first. At an annual average of 54.9 degrees F, it was a whopping 0.08 degrees cooler than 1998, still the hottest year.

NOAA explained that it had updated its 2006 report “to reflect revised statistics” and “better address uncertainties in the instrumental record.” This tinkering is standard procedure. NOAA always scientifically tweaks temperature readings for various reasons — weather stations are moved to different locations, modernized, affected by increased urbanization, etc.

NOAA didn’t say whether it had adjusted for uncertainties caused by nearby burn barrels.

link

link

[lazs2]

even so.. you must realize that any measurement of global average temperature has an error factor of half a degree or so.

but....  I am really tired of people saying that all the scientists agree on co2 made global warming.. it is not in the least true... I do not need moray to tell me that I am a peasant with no inside info like a real "scientist' such as himself.. he shows no data... only hysteria... He is not a climate scientist at all.. but.. he has a degree so.. he is to be believed right?

If that is so.. what do we do about the 19,000 people with advanced degrees (so far) that have signed this petition?

 
Petition Project
Global Warming Petition
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

 

Please sign here _____________________________ _________

My academic degree is B.S. ___ M.S. ___ Ph.D. ___

in the field of _____________________________ __________

Please enter your name and address here:

_____________________________ __________________________
Name

_____________________________ __________________________
Street

_____________________________ __________________________
City, State, and Zip

I can't imagine that I am not in at least some good company when I say exactly what this petition says and then 19,000 "scientists" sign it.

Are they all the tools of big oil?   Perhaps their degrees are not as important as the couple of thousand that the UN is able to scrape up or the 8 or 9 hundred algore digs up?

So it is not just some hot rodder "anti environmentalist" that is telling you this...  19,000 scientists with advanced degrees agree with me.

lazs

[bj229r]

One thing that strikes me is that scientists on the 'non-man-made-warming'  side of the fence are immediately dismissed as Exxon shills. (whether their salaries are paid by Exxon or not)-- NO one with big pockets finances research that would serve to contradict the prevailing academia/leftist wisdom that global-warming is FACT, so if it is to happen, someone like Exxon has to do it--And instead of having to debate said scientists on the merits of their data, the LEft simply dismisses them as shills/hacks. Look what happened to that poor sob at NASA who merely opined that perhaps the current conditions were natural

The head of NASA -- the National Aeronautical and Space Association--is "an idiot" and "in denial." He is also "surprisingly naive" and "a fool." With his judgment and competence so lacking, demands abound for his resignation as head of the largest and most accomplished science agency in the world.

Those comments and others in the past week have come from scientists shocked to learn that NASA chief Michael Griffin thinks differently than they about global warming. Among the most shocked is one of Dr. Griffin's own employees, James Hansen, a top climate scientist who "almost fell off my chair" when he learned that his research hadn't convinced his boss. "It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," he told ABC News, referring to an interview of Dr. Griffin on National Public Radio. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."

Some might think Dr. Griffin is entitled to think for himself. Apart from his PhD in aerospace engineering, he holds five masters degrees, he is a member of the National Academy of Engineering and the International Academy of Astronautics, he manages a US$1.1-billion climate-research budget and was unanimously confirmed to head NASA by the United States Senate.

But no. He is either "totally clueless" or "a deep anti-global warming ideologue," concludes Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in a statement similar to many.

Dr. Griffin's radio interview drew this storm of controversy after he was asked about the seriousness of global warming. He replied by saying, ""First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I'm, I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

link
it gets worse

Dr. Griffin's interview was prompted by criticisms from environmental journalist Greg Easterbrook, who charged that Dr. Griffin is wasting NASA's time and money on misguided space exploration projects, such as a manned mission to Mars and the establishment of a permanent base on the moon. Instead, Easterbrook argued, Dr. Griffin should be exercising his right to free speech, coming out against misguided NASA policies and spending more on legitimate priorities, such as greater global-warming research.
he Easterbrook charge led National Public Radio to ask Dr. Griffin why he wasn't "battling [global warming] as an army might battle an enemy." Dr. Griffin's response: "Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to effect climate change in either -- in one way or another.... NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, 'battle climate change.' "

More howls from critics, who believe Dr. Griffin should be using his discretion to skew NASA's mission away from its core purpose -- and away from his fiduciary responsibilities to his organization -- and toward the service of fighting climate change.

To which Dr. Griffin responds, not unreasonably, "The question is, in a democratic society, who gets to choose. Unfortunately for Greg, it's not him."

Unfortunately for society, Greg Easterbrook happened to be wrong in another claim: that Dr. Griffin hadn't lost his right to speak out. For all intents and purposes, he has. Within days of the uproar, Dr. Griffin decided that he should not have discussed "an issue which has become far more political than technical." In an apology to his staff, he said, "I feel badly that I caused this amount of controversy over something like this," adding that, "it would have been well for me to have stayed out of it."

Dr. Griffin is now one more scientist who will not dispute the existence of a "scientific consensus on global warming."

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
even so.. you must realize that any measurement of global average temperature has an error factor of half a degree or so.

but....  I am really tired of people saying that all the scientists agree on co2 made global warming.. it is not in the least true... I do not need moray to tell me that I am a peasant with no inside info like a real "scientist' such as himself.. he shows no data... only hysteria... He is not a climate scientist at all.. but.. he has a degree so.. he is to be believed right?

If that is so.. what do we do about the 19,000 people with advanced degrees (so far) that have signed this petition?

 


lazs

All scientist will never agree on anything, I've stated this prior.  I am not "posting" pages of data, sir, on a bbs.  I am not advocating any sort of hysteria, sir.  I simply do not subscribe to an overly simplistic view, which you espouse, and mock my colleagues with.. (it's the sun stupid.)  It's not the sun, stupid...that has been soundly defeated with real science.
Of course, should the world be warming, there will be certain organisms which will benefit.  Alot will not.

Second, I'm not crazy about fecal colliform, I simply used it as an example. It is far from the worst thing we put in the environment... yet in context... WE put alot more of it into the sytem, percent based, than each local ecosystem does in whole.  You should know, you dealt with the crap.  Personally I am much more concerned with fertilizers and mercury and heavy metals.

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by bj229r
One thing that strikes me is that scientists on the 'non-man-made-warming'  side of the fence are immediately dismissed as Exxon shills. (whether their salaries are paid by Exxon or not)-- NO one with big pockets finances research that would serve to contradict the prevailing academia/leftist wisdom that global-warming is FACT, so if it is to happen, someone like Exxon has to do it--And instead of having to debate said scientists on the merits of their data, the LEft simply dismisses them as shills/hacks. Look what happened to that poor sob at NASA who merely opined that perhaps the current conditions were natural

 

The reason this was such a big deal, is what you are missing.  It is not the job of the head of ANY scientific organization to present an OPINION.  He did not present a hypothesis, or any supporting data.  He simply stood up there and presented his OPINION.  That is why so many scientists were upset.  Whether his opinion is right or wrong, he did not back up his opinion with a hypothesis or any sort of data.  

Also, his commenting on Global Warming, publically, from his position, is quite irresponsible.  He holds no degrees in any sort of relevance to the stated topic.  He did not author a paper on the subject.  He didn't even present a hypothesis.  He just stated what he felt, which could be construed as fact, though there were no statistics used to back up his position.  All of his master's degrees are in aeronautical engineering, none of which deal with the topic of climate studies.   They make him a good choice for director of NASA, yet not a climate scientist.