For all you rabid environmentalists

[lazs2]

There are some reasonable scientists.. they are in danger of being defrocked by the rabid followers of the "man made global warming" religion tho..

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003040068_warming05.html

and lets not forget the documentary on the BBC recently "the great man made global warming hoax"

Nor should we forget that algores movie is a gigantic exageration by anyones standards and that algore may be one of the most blatant liars of the last 50 years (inventor of the internet?)  he is delusional ..  he is egotistical in the extreme... yet... the religious acolytes like ferndale listen to this nutball.

There is more ice in antartica than ever.. there is no net global loss of ice..  the sea is actually receeding in spots.   The solar activity is highest in the last 20 years than it has been in centruries.

The earth has gone into warming and cooling trends many times over with no influence of man at all.    We are headed for a global cooling due to the suns activity slowing..

ITS THE SUN STUPID.

Have to get bumper stickers made up.

lazs

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
yep... the "scientists" will say anything to explain the warming of mars from "plantetary tilt" to "core shifts" to whatever...  anything but the big yellow ball that heats both planets...

There is no grants... no money and no power in saying that the sun is making things hotter and cooler.   since mars has no co2... how can it be heating?  

Lets just ignore mars tho before people realize that...

ITS THE SUN STUPID

The environmentalists are getting desperate.   I am sure that they know that we are about due to go into a cooling cycle in the next few years... they are desperate to hid the data and get laws and grants passed so that they (and co2) can take credit for the global cooling...

I have faith tho... people have been showing resistance to their scams.   They may have gone too far.... no one seems panicked anymore...  The hoax has about run its course in my opinion...

More and more people are saying "nice theory but how do you explain...?"

lazs

This thread is both scary and promising. Promising in that some of you actually go out and get the data, (where it isn't suppressed) and make informed, coherent arguments.  Then there are those of you, who, having made up your minds long ago, professing from the platform of your small, inconsequential reality bathed in regurgitated pseudo-science, scream what must seem like logic to your own ears (It's da sun stoopidd)
Sir, may I ask, pray tell where you thought up this idea?  You must be the only enlightened individual to possibly think of this.  How godlike you are... not one formal scientist on the planet actually thought.."gee i wonder if the sun is changing" (they did, by the way)  I sputter to think that the world's scientific minds didn't actually obey one of the first rules of science..(Achem's Razor) which dictates the simplest answer is usually the right one.  Yeah, they just ignored it and went right on by to the current CO2 based theory.

I for one, believe the "theory, ( I open myself up here, yet feel confident in the knowledge that, among others,  gravity, like climate change, is still a "theory". )  Those of you who think that the scientists out there doing research are in it for the money... you are living in some sort of warped reality that only Mr. Mcoy could get you back from. I live and work as a marine biologist... there is NO money in science... EVERYONE I know works in it from pure passion.  Money, I.E. "grants", are fiercely fought over...and those grants DO NOT go to my living arrangements. There aren't many pure scientists living in cozy mansions around the world.  Science, in itself, is self-policing and any hypothesis that does not reproduce results is vehemently bashed.  The problem is, the research IS bearing out the hypothesis around the world.  It is veritably impossible to get two scientists in any one field to agree on much anything, let alone 99.9 percent of those in a field.  (Climatologist are that much in agreement)

The only opposition to this entire problem of global climate change, stems from those of you who couldn't pass high school biology without cheating, something which is not your fault.
The numbers bear witness to the theory.  
Instead of clinging to the ideology which you personally most agree, try actually understanding the topic you are grasping for.  The staggering ignorance I find to this is literally mind boggling, and it stems from lack of scientific knowledge at a basic level.  If you don't know what a simple compound such as say, C6H12O6 is, without looking it up on wikipedia, your knowledge base on this subject is MUTE to the extreme.  Your crap "theory"  is refuted to the end by numbers posted by at least five other posters on this board, numbers that are statistically viable and are checked out.

IT's THE SUN PLUS IGNORANCE, STUPID.


(C6 H12 O6 is glucose BTW and it's what is ultimately responsible for your complete ignorance, it powers your brain and most everything else living on the planet)

[vorticon]

" It is veritably impossible to get two scientists in any one field to agree on much anything, let alone 99.9 percent of those in a field. "


like i said before, from what i've seen, other than the fact that its warming, and the idea the c02 is behind it...there not agreeing on much of anything.

and when the idea that c02 is the direct cause of it, is refuted by my earlier graphs, that show the tempurature rise being a stready line, despite the number of cars almost quadrupling in the same time period...

someone said the effect was logarithmic.
most of the last millenium was a mini-ice age.
volcanos, el-nino, loss of tree-cover over vast swaths of land, pouring thousands of kilometers of ashphalt, jet contrails, ocean currents, algea in the oceans... and that barely scratches the surface of the variables...

your a marine biologist...
has there been any change in ocean currents in the past 50 years? what about plankton and algea growths due to massive over-fishing...what effect would that have?

anyone in the forestry industry on here? have trees been growing faster and looked greener thanks to all the c02 in the air?

[Angus]

lazs at large:
ferndale.... 50 years? you are worried about us doubling the co2 in 50 years? We will run out of oil well before that according to a lot of scientists.. Who knows what the sun will do in 50 years? who knows what new ways we will have of doing things. 50 years ago we didn't have cell phones or cable tv or home computers or any of a myriad of things.."

That would solve it then. But we are drilling deeper and deeper, and possibly getting new grounds on the arctic zones. As for the sun, you know perfectly well that there is nothing we can do about it.

And
AKIron:
"Wonder what the earth would be like if Antartica were completely thawed and habitable? All that additional land mass and water would give humanity some room to stretch out, new frontiers. Sure there might be some discomfort during the transition to a new global climate but the payoff might well be worth it."

While this is right, it is absolutely wrong. To make Antarctica nice and cosy, how much land do you think that will be uninhabitable instead because of high temperature?

[AKH]

2) The evidence is clear, the Sun is not responsible for the recent warming. Despite it being responsible for events such as the Little Ice Age, Medieaval Warming Period, and closely correlating with temperature before the human influence took over.

By 'recent warming' I mean the last 3 decades, to quote from NASA's Goddard Institute:
"Global warming is now 0.6°C in the past three decades and 0.8°C in the past century. It is no longer correct to say that "most global warming occurred before 1940". More specifically, there was slow global warming, with large fluctuations, over the century up to 1975 and subsequent rapid warming of almost 0.2°C per decade."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

This is important in view of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_History_and_Flux-2.png
You can clearly see that is was only after 1950 that levels really took off.

2a)
The most up-to-date work on Satellite measurement of radiation from the Sun by Frohlich at the Davos Solar Observatory shows that:
"The observed change of [Total Solar Irradiance] difference between two successive minima amounts to -10 ppm which is not significantly different from zero at the 3-sigma level."
In other words there has been no increase in irradiance (brightness) of the Sun since 1976. Some may use the ACRIM dataset of Willson and Mordinov to claim that there has been an inrcrease in irradiance. However Frohlich gives very compelling reasons to accept his results in his paper, available for download here: <http://ftp://ftp.pmodwrc.ch/pub/Claus/ISSI_WS2005/ISSI2005a_CF.pdf>

2b)
Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen has a good hypothesis about the linkage between cloud cover and cosmic ray flux. Basically cosmic rays cause a cascade of high energy particles when they hit the upper atmosphere and, to some degree, this affects cloud cover. Neutron counters based on the ground are a reliable indicator of how many cosmic rays are hitting the upper atmosphere.

However once again, in the context of the 0.6 degree C warming of the last 3 decades this theory fails.

You can see for yourself how the climax neutron monitor shows no trend in neutrons.
Go to <http://cr0.izmiran.rssi.ru/clmx/main.htm> the main page of the climax neutron monitor site. If you select the start year to the earliest possible, 1953, and leave the end period, which should be 1997. You can click on "Plot" and you will see a level graph with no overall trend.

This means Cosmic Ray Flux can't be causing the 'recent warming'.

2c)
Furthermore if the Sun were the cause of the warming then it would cause Stratospheric warming. It is not, the Stratosphere is cooling!

See "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere:
Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences" here http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm
Figure 1 shows the measured cooling. Figure 1.2 shows that most of the cooling is due to CO2, not ozone. Table 1 summarises the responses of surface, troposphere, and stratosphere to changes in various forcing factors.


So to summarise the Science is settled that we have around 0.6 degrees C of warming over the last 3 decades yet we do not have a change in the influence of the Sun that would cause that.

Before the last 30 years, Solar changes do correlate well with global temperatures. But it is only recently that human CO2 emissions have risen so high and so fast that they now have an effect. Without climate models it is impossible to identify the previous effect of CO2. It is only since the '70s that the effect has become so marked that it can be appreciated by lay persons such as myself without the benefit of models.

To summarise for Laz: ITS NOT THE SUN STUPID.

[lazs2]

LOL... by saying that mars had no co2 I meant that it had no atmosphere to speak of.. sure.. what little they have is co2 but they don't have any.  

I would say that if mars and earth are heating at the same rate... and mars has a stable co2 content and earth has a rising one... how can co2 be the reason for global warming?   or... put another way... if mars has a much higher percent of co2 than earth then it would simply continue to warm till it was a fireball..  after all... it has had 95% co2 for...well.. almost forever.

Akh is dismissing this and at the same time... calling increased sun activity and it's mirroring heating and cooling of the planet for eons as...  as what?  coincidence?  laughable... he listens to a scientist that says the sun can't be causing it because it is not doing what he thinks the sun should be doing.. that this scientist understands the relationship between the sun and earth so well (even tho he never even mentioned it before now) that he can dismiss increased sun activity..

All because it can't be made money or power off of... as angus so rightly pointed out... we can't control the sun.

Nope..all we can do is panic people as best we can before the suns activity slows and the pot of gold dries up.

soon enough.. it will begin to cool...  everyone will be wearing bumper stickers that say...

ITS THE SUN STUPID

and why does this message bother the acolytes so much?  like god... they can't do much about the sun... they are powerless...  Like god... their scientists can't save em.. scientists can't make us live forever and they can't do anything about the sun.

Then there are those who are just busybodies... they simply must have a say in what everyone else does...  they hate it when people enjoy themselves.. or when people do things they themselves are not good at.   They are socialists..  they are womanly and petty and the environment gives em a cause and a reason to be depressed and to punish.

Then there are the frieghtened ones.. the ones who live in areas that world wide climate change will affect... england... iceland... it matters not that...

ITS THE SUN STUPID

they cling desperately to the hope that science can save them from normal planetary changes..  

and of course.. the "scientists" no one ever listened to before who are no "climate scientists"  the ones so willing to jump on the band wagon to get grants and their 15 minutes of fame.

look at all the acolytes and you will see one of those things driving them and their new found religion...

I don't really care tho.... so long as I don't have to listen  to em and so long as they have no effect on my life unless I want em to.

lazs

[indy007]

Originally posted by Angus
While this is right, it is absolutely wrong. To make Antarctica nice and cosy, how much land do you think that will be uninhabitable instead because of high temperature?

Half of the Netherlands is below sea-level. They seem to be doing alright.

[Angus]

They won't be allright if you melt Antarctica, that's fore sure and more.
Bangladesh is also low, today they're not allright.
But aside from that, I was not thinking of sea levels at all in my answer, but the temperatures then being in the countries that are rather hot today. Imagine...TEXAS?

[lazs2]

ahhh.... poor beetl... er.. ferndale.

can't win.  And why should you? more and more scientists are deserting your sinking co2 ship.   Mars has very little atmosphere but it is not gaining in co2 at the same rate ours is... nothing in their "greenhouse" is changing at all..

The only thing changing for them is the suns activity and it is changing just like ours.. and.. their planet is warming just like ours.

To pin all your global warming religion on co2 is to invite heartbreak and ridicule...  What do you say if even one year is colder than the one before?

How can that be if co2 is always going up?  it should be impossible.

The planet changes...  sorry some of your tiny little spots will have to change.

Politics change... sorry you tiny little island isn't relevant anymore..  not my fault and no need to be jealous but... trying to punish us is pretty childish.

ITS THE SUN STUPID

sorry.. you and iceland are doomed..   nothing the scientists or the US can do about it.   the sun is like god in that respect.. we are powerless.

get over it.

lazs

[Curval]

My goodness...how old are you lazs?  You are acting like a three year old.

(and when I say like a three year old I mean a three year old...not a 20 year old or 40 year old....just to be clear.)

[lazs2]

LOL... beetl.... er.... ferndale.. I did indeed give links that showed an increase in solar activity... nice dodge tho on the "brightness" aspect.   did you read the links?  

your kettle may not boil.. you are saying that you turned the heat up under it (suns activity)  if all else remains constant...you can expect to have hot water for that horrible tea crap in no time.   Now... if the gas got turned off say... the flame would go out and.. the kettle would never boil.

Your argument is that you turned on the heat and that since science can tell when it will boil to a few minutes..... surely they can do the same for the entire planet?

It is like you turn the heat on tho and then say that you putting an ice cube in the same room is going to significantly change the time it takes to boil... or that if you light a cig... your "contribution" will hasten the warming...

You say it is co2.. then you say it isn't... you say we must do something about co2 but you don't say what.

Name the things we need to do and see if we can agree ok?

I will start... I will be ok if people quit taking airliners for vacations.

lazs

[straffo]

I can visualize what the aliens explorer will find in the future : a skull and fully functional 45ACP.

[lazs2]

If they find my skull they will find a firearm by it.   If they find the womanly socialist global warming guys skulls they will find em all in huge piles of rubble that was once shoddily built government housing.

lazs

[lazs2]

well then..  you did not say any of those things lambchop...  A guy called beetle used to say a lot of that..

ferndale.. beetle... lambchop...  all gets a little confusing like your arguments..

So if you think we out to use biofuels as they come up and as a choice and that we ought to build nuke plants....

no harm no foul...  we agree on what needs to be done... you seem to think it is to avert a man made global catastrophe while I think it is just a good idea to reduce dependence on oil and to get some cheap electricity.

We both win... we should do those things.

end of problem

lazs

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
LOL... beetl.... er.... ferndale.. I did indeed give links that showed an increase in solar activity... nice dodge tho on the "brightness" aspect.   did you read the links?  

your kettle may not boil.. you are saying that you turned the heat up under it (suns activity)  if all else remains constant...you can expect to have hot water for that horrible tea crap in no time.   Now... if the gas got turned off say... the flame would go out and.. the kettle would never boil.

Your argument is that you turned on the heat and that since science can tell when it will boil to a few minutes..... surely they can do the same for the entire planet?

It is like you turn the heat on tho and then say that you putting an ice cube in the same room is going to significantly change the time it takes to boil... or that if you light a cig... your "contribution" will hasten the warming...

You say it is co2.. then you say it isn't... you say we must do something about co2 but you don't say what.

Name the things we need to do and see if we can agree ok?

I will start... I will be ok if people quit taking airliners for vacations.

lazs

Your argument lacks even there mere quintessential bit of what it needs.. any fragment of logic.  "It" is most certainly not anything like what your pathetic analogy attempts to portray it.  Where does the "lighting a cig" possibly connect to global warming?  Your understanding of the subject and your arguments henceforth should be filed just after "flat earth"  and before the "geocentric theory of the solar system"  (look it up if you have trouble)

The entire analogy of a cigarrette having anything to do with raising the temp  of water etc, lacks any fundamental connection to the physics involved in the phenomenon of global warming.  Something more analogous might be... Heating a water source from above with and without a semi permeable membrane stretched across water source.  Try that, and my friend, you have an idea.  In basic high school physics classrooms you do a very similar experiment, and low and behold... the damn, you know what????... the water gets warmer.

You know I am in a science field, marine biology.  Take it from my little slice of the pie chart, the oceans are soaking up a vast amount of CO2, which is changing the acidity of the water.  CO2 is not the prime gas to be concerned about, water vapor and to a much larger extant, CH4 or methane is to be worried about.  The slight warming of the current climate is pushing the ocean towards an event that has happened before, the releasing of enormous amounts of methane sealed beneath the ocean floor....which is kept in place only by the temperatures that are usually found there.  A methane boil was charted not too long ago in the North Sea, that lasted for two weeks.  As well, more to my field, the more CO2 gets put in the ATMOSPHERE, the more goes into my oceans.  CO2 content lowers the pH (raising acidity).  Marine life, is by it's nature NOT ACCUSTOMED to ANY change in pH.  (Try keeping a saltwater aquarium anything less than 8.0 on the pH scale.)  Once enough CO2 is accumulated, the pH will pass a critical point to which I am fully prepared to state, will collapse all oceanic ecosystems.  If they collapse, so willl the terrestrial environs.  (we are after all, only on 24.6 % solid ground on this planet, if 75% of the system goes... you do the math.)  If the terrestrial habitats collapse... WE GO WITH IT.  


Please do us all a favor, and your kids too... go back to school or at least have someone somewhere teach you the mere basics of what you are commmenting on.  But, I mean, it took 150 years for people to accept that viruses caused sickness... not the boogeyman or the "evil spirits the devil sent to invade your sinning soul"... so I think I might just write you off as being unqualified to form a based, knowledged opinion.

I ask you, if you thought a particular situation had a decent prospect of killing your kids, ie, crazy friend driving them to a party, etc., would you just bask in the deniability that it was the ENGINE that ran them into the tree, or the drunk driver that was behind the wheel.  No, you would probably not put them in that situation anyhow, right.  Now extrapolate that to global warming and figure it out.  Yeah, we don't know EXACTLY where its going..but we know, right now, the kid that isn't too "with it" is behind the wheel.  You gonna buckle your daughter up next to him?

Don't ask me why I even waste time on this here.