PDA

View Full Version : More evidence Global Warming is a liberal circle jerk


Bootlegged
04-04-2008, 08:12 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

Page last updated at 00:42 GMT, Friday, 4 April 2008 01:42 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version

Global warming 'dips this year'

By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst



La Nina caused some of the coldest temperatures in memory in China

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

Rises 'stalled'

LA NINA KEY FACTS

La Nina translates from the Spanish as "The Child Girl"
Refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific
Increased sea temperatures on the western side of the Pacific mean the atmosphere has more energy and frequency of heavy rain and thunderstorms is increased
Typically lasts for up to 12 months and generally less damaging event than the stronger El Nino

La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.

El Nino warms the planet when it happens; La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.

It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.



China suffered from heavy snow in January

Watching trends

A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.

But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."

Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.

Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."

HonestChieffan
04-04-2008, 08:14 AM
There is more money being made on this scam than anyone would believe. Gore should rot in prison for this fleecing of the masses.

Bootlegged
04-04-2008, 08:20 AM
That 1/2 degree uptick since 1900 is alarming. I'm going to sell my house/cars and live in a tent to bring it back down.

banyon
04-04-2008, 08:26 AM
Just crankin' out great thread after great thread. You've really heightened the level of debate here in the last week or so.

Bootlegged
04-04-2008, 08:32 AM
Just crankin' out great thread after great thread. You've really heightened the level of debate here in the last week or so.

Is there really any debate taking place?

Radar Chief
04-04-2008, 08:35 AM
Even if Global Warming is proven and accepted by the majority to be a complete farce, what does it hurt to reduce emissions? It’s still our health we’re talking about.

tiptap
04-04-2008, 08:37 AM
Or our dependence upon Middle East Oil.

tiptap
04-04-2008, 08:40 AM
I noticed in quoting and editing different lines of the BBC, the starter thread didn't leave this out.
"But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

tiptap
04-04-2008, 08:45 AM
When the temperatures dip enough too start building polar ice year to year and glacial deposits, I will see evidence that CO 2 is not driving up global temperatures. But if we are simply leveling off in higher temperatures DURING La Nina event, then you can expect a jump in those temperatures when the El Nino event returns.

bkkcoh
04-04-2008, 08:52 AM
When the temperatures dip enough too start building polar ice year to year and glacial deposits, I will see evidence that CO 2 is not driving up global temperatures. But if we are simply leveling off in higher temperatures DURING La Nina event, then you can expect a jump in those temperatures when the El Nino event returns.


But isn't that ironic that the Earth itself can overcome the increase in CO2 emissions that have increased at a steady rate, but man can ruin the earth because of it. I thought that man has much more influence on the temperatures then what was taking place in the earth and oceans, La Nina and volcanos and such....

StcChief
04-04-2008, 08:54 AM
More evidence Global Warming is a liberal circle jerk

trouble is the rest of us are the cracker in the middle.

Radar Chief
04-04-2008, 08:58 AM
Or our dependence upon Middle East Oil.

We already get the majority of our oil from Canada and Mexico. We get something like 1/6 of our oil from the ME.
Besides, you might as well get used to the fact that we’ll never be completely oil free. It’s used in too many plastics, more than likely including the keyboard your typing posts on and the monitor housing for your flat screen that you’re reading this response with.

jAZ
04-04-2008, 09:11 AM
I don't ever want to hear anyone on this board say "no one is denying global warming".
More evidence Global Warming is a liberal circle jerk
Seriously, do you guys even read your own posts beyond the headlines?
La Nina caused some of the coldest temperatures in memory in China

Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.
[...]
Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."

jAZ
04-04-2008, 09:12 AM
Even if Global Warming is proven and accepted by the majority to be a complete farce, what does it hurt to reduce emissions? It’s still our health we’re talking about.

Why do you hate America so much?

:p

Radar Chief
04-04-2008, 09:14 AM
Why do you hate America so much?

:p


I don’t know, but I’m told it has something to do with pride. ;)

jAZ
04-04-2008, 09:15 AM
But isn't that ironic that the Earth itself can overcome the increase in CO2 emissions that have increased at a steady rate, but man can ruin the earth because of it. I thought that man has much more influence on the temperatures then what was taking place in the earth and oceans, La Nina and volcanos and such....
You're thoughts are confused.

And ask youself, is this La Nina warmer than past on record? I don't have any idea, but you seem to ignore this entirely along with a bunch of other things.

irishjayhawk
04-04-2008, 09:37 AM
Is there really any debate taking place?

Yes, but not the one you think. Global Warming is happening.

Whether the warming is man made, is where the debate is.

tiptap
04-04-2008, 09:38 AM
But isn't that ironic that the Earth itself can overcome the increase in CO2 emissions that have increased at a steady rate, but man can ruin the earth because of it. I thought that man has much more influence on the temperatures then what was taking place in the earth and oceans, La Nina and volcanos and such....

If there was a linear only relationship between increases in CO 2 and temperature within the atmosphere then we would have been able to predict weather temperatures by measuring the local CO 2 levels only locally everywhere. And of course CO 2 has not increased at a steady state. The world has absorbed quite a bit of CO 2 especially the oceans. This is seen in the increase in acidity of the oceans. And we have seasonal CO 2 changes reflective of the seasons of the Northern Hemisphere where so much of the land mass resides and the growing seasons influence the concentration greatly. This does show that the sun IS the biggest part of the climate in that winter, in the N. Hemisphere, is yearly driven by less sunlight and that results in higher CO 2 levels relative to summer. Put this together in a linear function like this y=mt+ (w)*sine (t). Where m is related to increase each year in CO 2 (ten times as much each year from man as from all volcanoes each year) and the sine function is the sun driven seasonal effect. (t is time). The sine function is larger in its scale than the strictly linear part, w is larger than m. Plug it into your TI and you will see a curve that is shaped like the CO 2 measured concentration.

And temperatures also show a similar curve but is reflective of oscillations of La Nina and El Nino. The steady increase is still there as well. So I say again, we are experiencing La Nina and we are still warmer than the average over the last 100 years. What will happen when sunspots get active again and El Nino returns? Temperatures will rise noticeably. This is the pattern we are seeing.

Bootlegged
04-04-2008, 09:39 AM
Did any of you sheep give a rats ass about this before your noble douchebag came out with his movie?


NO.

irishjayhawk
04-04-2008, 09:40 AM
Did any of you sheep give a rats ass about this before your noble douchebag came out with his movie?


NO.
ROFL

That's your proof.

Radar Chief
04-04-2008, 09:41 AM
Yes, but not the one you think. Global Warming is happening.

Whether the warming is man made, is where the debate is.

Correct.

tiptap
04-04-2008, 09:45 AM
Gosh Bootlegged, haven't you read any of my posts on this over the years. Hell I had arguments with cdcox years ago about this. And he hates my politics and religious views to no end. Yet in his capacity in science he has come to understand that GW is real and the most viable reason is the increase in CO 2.

I am not asking for watermelon (that is red, communistic, big) solutions to Global Warming. I will take grape (small green, monied, individualistic) solutions by a market that reflects the reality.

(I should make it clear that it was nothing I said that changed cdcox's view. It was the science)

Bootlegged
04-04-2008, 09:46 AM
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

tiptap
04-04-2008, 10:06 AM
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

Have you plugged in that equation into your TI yet? Oscillations around a linear function that is growing. 1998 was an El Nino year. 2000 was a mild La Nina year. The world average temperature dropped over .3 degrees Celsius. Those temperatures rebounded giving us the warmest 10 years on average as stated in your BBC article. And now we have another La Nina with the corresponding cooling. I'd like to wait until the next El Nino to show you but we can't afford to wait for you. This has happened before with escalation of temperatures.

tiptap
04-04-2008, 10:18 AM
Yes, but not the one you think. Global Warming is happening.

Whether the warming is man made, is where the debate is.

It isn't much of a debate anymore since those who think it is not CO 2 can't seem to come up with an explanation that sticks. It is "point at anything" but CO 2. Don't go out and do the science, make a prediction based upon your different explanation and then show that the prediction is valid.

I was actively looking for other explanations 15 years ago or more. None of these retreaded ideas held up than or now. President Johnson talked about this in one of his speeches back in the 60's. The 70's professional people were predicting increase temperatures because of CO 2. And on and on but I realize it has only come to your attention now. And of course Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Natural Gas and their billions have no self interest in clouding the waters.

banyon
04-04-2008, 05:01 PM
Did any of you sheep give a rats ass about this before your noble douchebag came out with his movie?


NO.

Even the search function in this forum will show this for the bogus lie that it is.

Donger
04-04-2008, 05:03 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how they come up with an accurate "average global temperature."

keg in kc
04-04-2008, 05:06 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how they come up with an accurate "average global temperature."They use a really big thermometer.

tiptap
04-04-2008, 05:22 PM
I'm still trying to figure out how they come up with an accurate "average global temperature."

It doesn't have to be accurate absolutely, it has to be self consistent and precise. The change up or down then is an accurate representation of the change in temperature. And that is what is being monitored. The change. This is often the situation in science. That we know changes much more accurately then the initial and final states absolutely. Especially in thermodynamics.

Donger
04-04-2008, 05:23 PM
It doesn't have to be accurate absolutely, it has to be self consistent and precise. The change up or down then is an accurate representation of the change in temperature. And that is what is being monitored. The change. This is often the situation in science. That we know changes much more accurately then the initial and final states absolutely. Especially in thermodynamics.

Thanks, it was actually a serious question. How many points do they take measurements from?

Stewie
04-04-2008, 05:36 PM
It isn't much of a debate anymore since those who think it is not CO 2 can't seem to come up with an explanation that sticks. It is "point at anything" but CO 2. Don't go out and do the science, make a prediction based upon your different explanation and then show that the prediction is valid.

I was actively looking for other explanations 15 years ago or more. None of these retreaded ideas held up than or now. President Johnson talked about this in one of his speeches back in the 60's. The 70's professional people were predicting increase temperatures because of CO 2. And on and on but I realize it has only come to your attention now. And of course Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Natural Gas and their billions have no self interest in clouding the waters.

CO2 is noise in what heats/cools the earth. Water vapor is such an overwhelming factor that contributing heat loss/gain to CO2 is difficult, at best. There's a bet out there between the sunspot scientists and the global warming people. The sunspot scientists' claim is that by 2012 (if I remember correctly) the global warming issue will be put to rest.

On a side note, there was an article in the KC Star about the amount of prescription drugs (BP medication, cholesterol, etc.) in major city water supplies. They found out that there are 1 ppb of some of these meds in our water. Wow! I'm pretty sure journalists don't understand there's a level of efficacy or concern, but who am I to argue? Measurement has become so precise that the journalists/general public can't comprehend. One ppb has somehow become a headline.

tiptap
04-04-2008, 05:36 PM
What is your question about that you are incapable of finding this out on your own. There are about 400 sites in the US. But again it doesn't matter that this isn't coverage enough or that they are not at the same elevations or pressure (since by the gas law of PV=nRT, pressure, volume and temperature are all related). If the overwhelming number of sites all show increases in temperature than that is a trend over all that area. That is how a thermometer works in a glass of water. It is only the temperature quite close to the thermometer that is being read. But the change in temperature must be (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics) must be from the rise in the water as whole transferred to the thermometer. Now if you don't think thermometers can register the difference in temperatures then you have some place to grand stand on this question.

Donger
04-04-2008, 05:37 PM
What is your question about that you are incapable of finding this out on your own. There are about 400 sites in the US. But again it doesn't matter that this isn't coverage enough or that they are not at the same elevations or pressure (since by the gas law of PV=nRT, pressure, volume and temperature are all related). If the overwhelming number of sites all show increases in temperature than that is a trend over all that area. That is how a thermometer works in a glass of water. It is only the temperature quite close to the thermometer that is being read. But the change in temperature must be (1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics) must be from the rise in the water as whole transferred to the thermometer. Now if you don't think thermometers can register the difference in temperatures then you have some place to grand stand on this question.

Do you teach?

Brock
04-04-2008, 05:38 PM
Yawn. In a few years, the sheep will be back on the "The Coming Ice Age" bandwagon.

bkkcoh
04-04-2008, 05:45 PM
You're thoughts are confused.

And ask youself, is this La Nina warmer than past on record? I don't have any idea, but you seem to ignore this entirely along with a bunch of other things.


If there was a linear only relationship between increases in CO 2 and temperature within the atmosphere then we would have been able to predict weather temperatures by measuring the local CO 2 levels only locally everywhere. And of course CO 2 has not increased at a steady state. The world has absorbed quite a bit of CO 2 especially the oceans. This is seen in the increase in acidity of the oceans. And we have seasonal CO 2 changes reflective of the seasons of the Northern Hemisphere where so much of the land mass resides and the growing seasons influence the concentration greatly. This does show that the sun IS the biggest part of the climate in that winter, in the N. Hemisphere, is yearly driven by less sunlight and that results in higher CO 2 levels relative to summer. Put this together in a linear function like this y=mt+ (w)*sine (t). Where m is related to increase each year in CO 2 (ten times as much each year from man as from all volcanoes each year) and the sine function is the sun driven seasonal effect. (t is time). The sine function is larger in its scale than the strictly linear part, w is larger than m. Plug it into your TI and you will see a curve that is shaped like the CO 2 measured concentration.

And temperatures also show a similar curve but is reflective of oscillations of La Nina and El Nino. The steady increase is still there as well. So I say again, we are experiencing La Nina and we are still warmer than the average over the last 100 years. What will happen when sunspots get active again and El Nino returns? Temperatures will rise noticeably. This is the pattern we are seeing.

But I thought the majority of the global warming was caused by the increased amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, wasn't that the main cause of the increasing temperature One Source that seems to think so (http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm) So I stand by my statement, I thought the earth wouldn't be able to overcome mankind. It seems as if it maybe able to. The story that came out recently about the temperature remaining somewhat stable since 1998. How can that be?

tiptap
04-04-2008, 05:54 PM
Yawn. In a few years, the sheep will be back on the "The Coming Ice Age" bandwagon.

Except in the 70s, when supposedly the scientist were purposing an imminent ice age, 60% of the published articles on prediction of future climate said it was going to get warmer because of CO 2. Only 10% suggested the temperatures would fall due to celestial mechanics more consistent with ice age conditions. Now it is true we had a real cold winter in 72 or such. But this bandwagon was never in the science fields.

tiptap
04-04-2008, 06:06 PM
But I thought the majority of the global warming was caused by the increased amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, wasn't that the main cause of the increasing temperature One Source that seems to think so (http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm) So I stand by my statement, I thought the earth wouldn't be able to overcome mankind. It seems as if it maybe able to. The story that came out recently about the temperature remaining somewhat stable since 1998. How can that be?

Have you got out your Texas Instrument calculator yet bk? If temperatures were simply run by CO 2 concentration we wouldn't need a sun. Or if the tilt of the earth didn't effect distribution we wouldn't have seasons. If water didn't carry heat by sublimation and evaporation we wouldn't have weather. So of course the biggest influences are not CO 2. But the increase in temperatures are being driven by CO 2. And that is because those increases have to be accounted for and the increase in CO 2 can account for that in that it provides a added heating element to the atmosphere that remains a gas at earth temperatures as water content goes up and down. That small increase provides a higher base, a higher temperature that then supports more water content that then allows for even higher temperatures do to the water content. I am sure you understand the notion, the principle of leverage. The CO 2 leverages a bigger effect from the increase in water vapor the atmosphere then supports.

Brock
04-04-2008, 06:12 PM
Except in the 70s, when supposedly the scientist were purposing an imminent ice age, 60% of the published articles on prediction of future climate said it was going to get warmer because of CO 2. Only 10% suggested the temperatures would fall due to celestial mechanics more consistent with ice age conditions. Now it is true we had a real cold winter in 72 or such. But this bandwagon was never in the science fields.

You are wrong, as has already been pointed out many times.

tiptap
04-04-2008, 06:20 PM
You are wrong, as has already been pointed out many times.

I guess we missed the being doom and gloom Ice age predicted in the 1970s.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

There were 44 articles predicting warming (based mainly on rising CO 2), 20 articles that were neutral on climate and ONLY 7 articles predicting cooling in the 1970's for future temperatures. That would be 10% that suggested cooling as opposed to 60% predicting warming.

So if you want to continue to lie about the doom and gloom of the 70s ice age predictions, we will point out how wrong you are.

copied from entry 11 of Jaz's thread on GW.

I will add that Lyndon Baines Johnson cautioned us about GW in one of his main addresses to the nation because of the consensus of his advisers.

penchief
04-04-2008, 06:21 PM
Shit, Man. Caution IS a conservative principle. When in doubt, be cautious. I'd rather be cautious than greedy when it comes to the prolonged existence of the human species. What the hell is wrong with some of you people?

whoman69
04-04-2008, 06:23 PM
Idiotic, no thinking of cause and effect. We are in a La Nina cooling trend in the last 10 years for the oceans but overall temperatures remained the same since 1998, which was a record high. Mother nature is trying to fight the effects of the overall warming trend. I don't think the creator of this thread even read his own article. The crux of the article is that we are in a cooling trend in the oceans and had the warmest decade on record.

Global warming is misnamed because temperatures do not just steadily rise and then we have no winter. Mother nature fights against this hence the increase in storm activity.

CHIEF4EVER
04-04-2008, 06:34 PM
*SIGH*

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Let's do a bit more research before we credit man with the all powerful CO2 suicide activity. Is the Earth in a warming trend? Yes. Is it caused by man? Doubtful.

tiptap
04-04-2008, 06:59 PM
Just some quick and dirty observations.

Only used US Temperature trend for 100 year

The satellite data has shown increase in temperatures.

Holocene warming does not answer why the temperatues are rising now. Noting cycles lets one investigate the causes. They are not the explanation.

Matter of opinion 3 they correctly point out the increase in CO 2 and in the next sentence point out the leveraged water content that is supported by the agreed to small contribution by CO 2.

4 Solar chart fails after 1985 ask for an update.


Finally it is of note that rising CO 2 and temperatures starting 18000 years ago coincides with the beginning of agriculture. There is strong evidence that human agriculture has influenced the length of this interglacial period. And that the added and sudden increase in CO 2 from industrial sources will propel temperatures even higher.

irishjayhawk
04-04-2008, 07:02 PM
*SIGH*

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Let's do a bit more research before we credit man with the all powerful CO2 suicide activity. Is the Earth in a warming trend? Yes. Is it caused by man? Doubtful.

That's the debate

banyon
04-04-2008, 09:41 PM
*SIGH*

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Let's do a bit more research before we credit man with the all powerful CO2 suicide activity. Is the Earth in a warming trend? Yes. Is it caused by man? Doubtful.

I'm not really interested in question # 2 either (though many in the debate are). I'm more concerned with the answer to #3 : Should we try to do anything about it? You don't have to answer yes to question #2 to answer question #3 affirmatively.

irishjayhawk
04-04-2008, 09:44 PM
I'm not really interested in question # 2 either (though many in the debate are). I'm more concerned with the answer to #3 : Should we try to do anything about it? You don't have to answer yes to question #2 to answer question #3 affirmatively.

Very true. :clap:

Mr. Kotter
04-05-2008, 02:08 AM
Rrrrooooccckkkkk Ccccchhhhaallllllllkkkkkk, Jjjjjjjaaaayyyyyhhhhhawwwwkkkk....
KKKKKKKKKKKkkkkkkkkkkUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuuu

RRrooocckk Ccchhaalllllkkk, Jjjaayhhhawkkk....
KKKKKkkkkkkkUUUUuuuuuuuuu.....

RRrockk Ccchhlllkkk, Jjayhawkk....
KKKkkk-UUuuuuuuu.....

RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!
RockChalk Jayhawk, KU!

ROCKCHALK JAYHAWK, KKK-UUUU!!!



Go Jayhawks!

:KU:

Calcountry
04-05-2008, 07:11 PM
The quickest way to reduce carbon emissions is to kill about 4 billion people.

They would stop exhaling.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-05-2008, 07:17 PM
The quickest way to reduce carbon emissions is to kill about 4 billion people.

They would stop exhaling.

Brutal, but effective.

Reminds me of my first publication: Dieting: How to lose 30 pounds with a pocketknife and a sheet.

penchief
04-05-2008, 08:24 PM
Brutal, but effective.

Reminds me of my first publication: Dieting: How to lose 30 pounds with a pocketknife and a sheet.

...and genocide is the solution to world hunger...

Adept Havelock
04-05-2008, 09:35 PM
...and genocide is the solution to world hunger...

A Modest Proposal

For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and
For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

By Jonathan Swift (1729)


It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them as those who demand our charity in the streets.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Sully
04-05-2008, 09:37 PM
I love that Swift article...

whoman69
04-06-2008, 08:44 AM
It comes down to this. If the Global Warming crowd is right then we are killing ourselves. Are you so sure they are not to threaten the future existence of mankind? If they are wrong but we act upon the warnings, then the minimum we have done is to lower the amount of pollution. Do you really want to argue that pollution is a good thing. Pollution can be dealt with without harming the economy.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-06-2008, 11:23 AM
I love that Swift article...

It will be interesting to see how :huh: it is for most people.

Brock
04-06-2008, 11:26 AM
The quickest way to reduce carbon emissions is to kill about 4 billion people.

They would stop exhaling.

I vote Asia.

BucEyedPea
04-06-2008, 12:24 PM
The quickest way to reduce carbon emissions is to kill about 4 billion people.

They would stop exhaling.

Geezus CO 2 is NOT a pollutant but one of the most basic things for life. Plants love it and grow faster with it.

banyon
04-06-2008, 12:30 PM
Geezus CO 2 is NOT a pollutant but one of the most basic things for life. Plants love it and grow faster with it.

A pollutant is any chemical in excess, even water (like the water drinking deaths at fraternities). Thanks for the "fact" though.

tiptap
04-06-2008, 12:38 PM
Geezus CO 2 is NOT a pollutant but one of the most basic things for life. Plants love it and grow faster with it.

As in any growing thing, the rate of growth is limited by whatever is NOT in abundance. It is true that for slight increases in CO 2 plants do better. But if grown in larger amount of CO 2, the amount of Cholorphyll goes down, the amount of associated carrier compounds, (something akin to carotene) decreases and so on providing less nutritional value per weight in that growth. This is because the CO 2 is easily obtained and shunts growth away from those more nutritious biochemical pathways.

bigfoot
04-06-2008, 02:09 PM
Al Gore worth about 2 mill when leaving the office of the vice presidency, today worth about 100 mill after becoming poster boy for the global warming scam.

irishjayhawk
04-06-2008, 02:16 PM
Al Gore worth about 2 mill when leaving the office of the vice presidency, today worth about 100 mill after becoming poster boy for the global warming scam.

In what ways is it a scam?

In that it's not happening?
In that humans aren't causing it?
In that it's forcing people to be more environmentally conscious?

Delano
04-06-2008, 02:24 PM
Al Gore worth about 2 mill when leaving the office of the vice presidency, today worth about 100 mill after becoming poster boy for the global warming scam.

Interesting.

Now that Gore has retrofitted his mansion with renewable energy devices, the attack has switched to his entrepreneurial genius.

All of his profits from his movie went to various 'green' movements.

Logical
04-06-2008, 03:01 PM
Al Gore worth about 2 mill when leaving the office of the vice presidency, today worth about 100 mill after becoming poster boy for the global warming scam.
You really believe that movie increased his wealth 50 fold?

jAZ
04-06-2008, 03:09 PM
Al Gore worth about 2 mill when leaving the office of the vice presidency, today worth about 100 mill after becoming poster boy for the global warming scam.
Global warming caused him to choose to be an early advisor and investor in Google (3 years prior to their IPO)?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7li9Nhmhvg0&refer=home

Gore's newfound wealth resulted, in part, from speaking engagements and ties to Silicon Valley firms with soaring stock market values, such as Google Inc. and Apple Inc. [...]

Now Gore charges a $175,000 speaking fee and has a net worth ``well in excess'' of $100 million, including pre-public offering Google stock options, according to an article in Fastcompany.com last year. Kreider said the speaking fees vary and Gore doesn't disclose them.

Gore has served as a senior adviser to Mountain View, California-based Google since February 2001, shortly after leaving public office. [...]

He co-founded Current Media Inc., a cable television and Internet company, in 2002 and is listed as its executive chairman in a January SEC filing for the company's initial public offering. It said he earned $1 million in salary and bonus last year, and owned 3.7 million shares of company stock.

Gore joined Apple's board in 2003 and co-founded London- based Generation Investment Management in 2004. Last November, he became a partner with Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm.
KPCB is the VC who made the first major investment in the founders of Google.

Oh and never mind this...

Gore donated his proceeds from the global-warming book and movie to his Alliance for Climate Protection, Kreider added.

[...]

ClevelandBronco
04-06-2008, 03:14 PM
You really believe that movie increased his wealth 50 fold?

The movie was a commercial.

The product is Al Gore's speaking and consulting fees.

I thought you were a businessman.

Iowanian
04-06-2008, 07:16 PM
Those so concerned about the carbon footprint of humans and our effect on global warming, should really consider taking one for the team.

If they sign a waiver and commit to a decay process that doesn't release too much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, they can undo the carbon problem of 4-6 average Americans by committing suicide. being committed to the environment and all, it would be excellent symbolism if they'd tie a bag over their heads to keep their last expelled breath of CO2 from polluting the earth for those still living.

Logical
04-06-2008, 08:51 PM
The movie was a commercial.

The product is Al Gore's speaking and consulting fees.

I thought you were a businessman.I agree with you, that it is the speaking and consulting fees, hell at least it is possible he is doing something good, unlike Bill Clinton for his fees.

bigfoot
04-07-2008, 06:36 AM
In what ways is it a scam?

In that it's not happening?
In that humans aren't causing it?
In that it's forcing people to be more environmentally conscious?


You know, it's at least very controversial, and not gospel truth. And Gore has capitalized financially on the issue. I don't take away from the fact that he is not a good businessman. He has been suprisingly shrewd-making that kind of $.

tiptap
04-07-2008, 09:33 AM
Those so concerned about the carbon footprint of humans and our effect on global warming, should really consider taking one for the team.

If they sign a waiver and commit to a decay process that doesn't release too much greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, they can undo the carbon problem of 4-6 average Americans by committing suicide. being committed to the environment and all, it would be excellent symbolism if they'd tie a bag over their heads to keep their last expelled breath of CO2 from polluting the earth for those still living.


I like this. Good evidence that your convictions for the value of life are convenient. Usually you make cases for planting more trees. Or living off the farm. If it is meant only to be hyperbole, it was better to let the Swift essay stand as that example.

The reason why I harp about GW is because I conclude there will be a mountainous number of deaths related to GW. But those deaths aren't in evidence yet? So you are considered a Jeremiah or Carson or some other voice in the wilderness until it is too late. And that is the point for me. I do see millions of deaths.

All this chomp about GW being real or not, that it is related to CO 2 or not and that the rise in temperature is on balance destructive or not, well I looked at all the nots 10 years ago. The predictions of a CO 2 driven temperature increase have not faltered. And NOTHING else has consistently offered anything approaching an explanation.

bkkcoh
04-07-2008, 10:22 AM
Newsbusters story (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/07/climate-activist-got-bbc-change-global-temperatures-decrease-article)

BBC Story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7329799.stm)


Global temperatures 'to decrease'

By Roger Harrabin
BBC News environment analyst



Global temperatures for 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year as a result of the cold La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.

The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record. Since the beginning of the 20th Century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C.

While Nasa, the US space agency, cites 2005 as the warmest year, the UK's Hadley Centre lists it as second to 1998.

Researchers say the uncertainty in the observed value for any particular year is larger than these small temperature differences. What matters, they say, is the long-term upward trend.

Rises 'stalled'


It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

Mr Jarraud told the BBC that the effect was likely to continue into the summer, depressing temperatures globally by a fraction of a degree.

This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.

Watching trends

A minority of scientists question whether this means global warming has peaked and argue the Earth has proved more resilient to greenhouse gases than predicted.


Cannot play media. Sorry you need to have JavaScript enabled on your browser.

Animation of El Nino and La Nina effects


But Mr Jarraud insisted this was not the case and noted that 2008 temperatures would still be well above average for the century.

"When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming.

"La Nina is part of what we call 'variability'. There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change is that the trend is up; the climate on average is warming even if there is a temporary cooling because of La Nina."


Adam Scaife, lead scientist for Modelling Climate Variability at the Hadley Centre in Exeter, UK, said their best estimate for 2008 was about 0.4C above the 1961-1990 average, and higher than this if you compared it with further back in the 20th Century.

Mr Scaife told the BBC: "What's happened now is that La Nina has come along and depressed temperatures slightly but these changes are very small compared to the long-term climate change signal, and in a few years time we are confident that the current record temperature of 1998 will be beaten when the La Nina has ended."


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

Published: 2008/04/04 00:42:26 GMT

© BBC MMVIII

irishjayhawk
04-07-2008, 10:38 AM
You know, it's at least very controversial, and not gospel truth. And Gore has capitalized financially on the issue. I don't take away from the fact that he is not a good businessman. He has been suprisingly shrewd-making that kind of $.

What's controversial about it?

bkkcoh
04-07-2008, 10:44 AM
What's controversial about it?

What the controversial part is whether or not man is the primary cause of it and if it is cyclical and can't be stopped.

Is it worth the cost of billions if there truly isn't any real difference caused by changing our way of life.

StcChief
04-07-2008, 10:51 AM
What the controversial part is whether or not man is the primary cause of it and if it is cyclical and can't be stopped.

Is it worth the cost of billions if there truly isn't any real difference caused by changing our way of life.that's right, and some folks are getting rich off it.

Everybody due their part, recycle, minimize gas consumption, use syn oil etc.

tiptap
04-07-2008, 11:16 AM
What the controversial part is whether or not man is the primary cause of it and if it is cyclical and can't be stopped.

Is it worth the cost of billions if there truly isn't any real difference caused by changing our way of life.

Saying something is cyclical is not understanding the processes. Seasons are cyclical, El Nino/La Nina are cyclical, but they are understood as being from the tilt of the earth and from dominating wind direction in the S. Pacific.

It is the increase on top of the cyclical processes that is indicative of the addition by CO 2.

As far as your controversy entry. Take the data from 1998 to 2007 from either satellite or ground base observations and do the linear regression and you get .017 and .019 INCREASE over that period (an absolute average of .6 degrees Celsius over the 1950 to 1980 average). Now that rise from 1998 to 2007 isn't statistically significant. But it isn't LOWER. So it is prudent not to be misleading in stating temperatures have PEAKED and are FALLING when the data doesn't support that. AFTER ALL 2008 DATA hasn't happened yet. The prediction of lower temperatures has only been seen for the winter season. It is only the low temperatures of this winter season that critics of GW are jumping on. It is an election year you have to run with the little you got and make as much noise. I bet this seasonal effect is offset by warm weather this summer. Especially in the polar region with wide spread arctic ice melt.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

bkkcoh
04-07-2008, 12:31 PM
Saying something is cyclical is not understanding the processes. Seasons are cyclical, El Nino/La Nina are cyclical, but they are understood as being from the tilt of the earth and from dominating wind direction in the S. Pacific.

It is the increase on top of the cyclical processes that is indicative of the addition by CO 2.

And why can’t it be plausible that there is a warming or cooling action due to the tilting of the earth? If this is the case, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what man does, if the warming and cooling of the earth coincides with the tilting of the earth, what can man do to stop that? Absolutely not a damn thing.

As far as your controversy entry. Take the data from 1998 to 2007 from either satellite or ground base observations and do the linear regression and you get .017 and .019 INCREASE over that period (an absolute average of .6 degrees Celsius over the 1950 to 1980 average). Now that rise from 1998 to 2007 isn't statistically significant. But it isn't LOWER. So it is prudent not to be misleading in stating temperatures have PEAKED and are FALLING when the data doesn't support that. AFTER ALL 2008 DATA hasn't happened yet. The prediction of lower temperatures has only been seen for the winter season. It is only the low temperatures of this winter season that critics of GW are jumping on. It is an election year you have to run with the little you got and make as much noise. I bet this seasonal effect is offset by warm weather this summer. Especially in the polar region with wide spread arctic ice melt.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Have you seen the various reports about the coming ice age? How can you explain the global warming on Mars? Mars' global warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html) How can there global warming be caused by solar activity, but the earth’s global warming can’t?

I am not saying, nor I ever said, that there isn’t an increase in global temperature. The only issue I have is the true cause of the global warming.

CHIEF4EVER
04-07-2008, 12:35 PM
A Matter of Opinion

Has manmade pollution in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases caused a runaway Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming?
Before joining the mantra, consider the following:


(http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html)<TABLE height=323 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="57%">
<CENTER>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image160.gif
</CENTER>
<CENTER>Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record (http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html)</CENTER></TD><TD vAlign=top width="43%">1. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before humans invented industrial pollution.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE height=182 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR height=177><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="22%" height=177>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image167_sm.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html)
(view full-size image) (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html)
Figure 1
</TD><TD width="78%" height=177>2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.
As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica (http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/ees/climate/labs/vostok/), CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE height=135 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="86%" border=0><TBODY><TR height=136><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="20%" height=136>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image192_sm.gif
view full-size image (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_contrib.html)
Figure 2
</TD><TD vAlign=top width="80%" height=136>3. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE height=157 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="86%" border=0><TBODY><TR height=180><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="20%" height=180> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image191_sm.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html)
view full-size image (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html)
Figure 3
</TD><TD vAlign=top width="80%" height=180>4. If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?
This chart adapted after <CITE>Nigel Calder (6)</CITE> illustrates that variations in sun activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature (Figure 3).
Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the "cause".
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


<HR align=left>
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html). Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264).
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!

Iowanian
04-07-2008, 01:27 PM
http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/uploads/disney-chicken-little-sky-falling.jpg

SBK
04-07-2008, 02:02 PM
What I don't get is this.....

Global warming is hurting our planet so buy this, or buy these instead, or buy this, or buy this, or buy this thing, or invest in this technology....etc.

Does nobody follow the money anymore? Global warming is about getting rich. Buy these lights from us, or buy these carbon credits from us, or invest in us for our research etc....

banyon
04-07-2008, 02:18 PM
What I don't get is this.....

Global warming is hurting our planet so buy this, or buy these instead, or buy this, or buy this, or buy this thing, or invest in this technology....etc.

Does nobody follow the money anymore? Global warming is about getting rich. Buy these lights from us, or buy these carbon credits from us, or invest in us for our research etc....

Follow the Money? Seriously? :spock:

bkkcoh
04-07-2008, 02:22 PM
What I don't get is this.....

Global warming is hurting our planet so buy this, or buy these instead, or buy this, or buy this, or buy this thing, or invest in this technology....etc.

Does nobody follow the money anymore? Global warming is about getting rich. Buy these lights from us, or buy these carbon credits from us, or invest in us for our research etc....

So the is a conservative conspiracy? Because we all know that the liberals are against making money and getting rich. LMAO ;)

tiptap
04-07-2008, 02:38 PM
And why can’t it be plausible that there is a warming or cooling action due to the tilting of the earth? If this is the case, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what man does, if the warming and cooling of the earth coincides with the tilting of the earth, what can man do to stop that? Absolutely not a damn thing.



Have you seen the various reports about the coming ice age? How can you explain the global warming on Mars? Mars' global warming (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html) How can there global warming be caused by solar activity, but the earth’s global warming can’t?

I am not saying, nor I ever said, that there isn’t an increase in global temperature. The only issue I have is the true cause of the global warming.

1. Tilt of the Earth. Do you know what a Gauss Flux is? The amount of energy that passes through a 2 dimensional surface does not increase or decrease over a projected 3 dimensional surface. As such, like water falling in a colander, no matter what the shape of the colander or the tilt, the total amount of water (energy) doesn't change, just the distribution. We have very good mathematical models for this. (The same that produce antennae and directed broadcasts) It is called Electromagnetic Dynamics. You know Maxwell Equations of Electromagnetic fields. We can even account for the distribution by appropriate matrix calculations. These things have been well known for a century. We can account even for the slowing of earth spin from the moon tug over centuries. Correctly accounting for movements of eclipses that otherwise would locate somewhere differently. It is par for the courses in Electrodynamics, Astrophysics and such.

SO NO, it is not plausible to account the PRESENT warming by this explanation.

2 The solar flux, the energy coming from the sun, has been measured by satellite for 20 years. The average over now two solar cycles has not increased. We presently are in a less active swing in those solar cycles so we would expect temperatures to drop if YOUR thinking was correct. We have seen a pause in temperatures rising but no real drop as my calculations indicated earlier. Indeed the amount of energy reaching the earth itself has dropped over the last 50 years. That has been attributed to sulfates (smog). So burning Coal, for example both blocks out some sunlight from hitting the ground AND provides CO 2 to act as half mirrors to get the Greenhouse effect. But the Greenhouse effect has been greater leading to higher temperatures.
As far as Mars is concern, the Mars Planetary people, a month after the Russian's suggestion about Global Warming on Mars being do to increases in the sun and after study of the merit of the suggestion, offered the more definitive answer in pictures that the ALBEDO has changed from dust storms on Mars. This actually an old observation about the albedo (including shrinkage and growth of polar caps) changes on Mars.
3 Finally for the third time in these threads. 60% of the scientists in the 70's stated that temperatures would rise. Only 10% said temperatures would fall do to ice age concerns. That is 60 vs 10. Your statement is absolutely wrong. That number difference has grown presently to 95% saying temperatures are rising.

Amnorix
04-07-2008, 02:42 PM
Chief4ever -- I have little doubt regardign the accuracy of the fact that humans only pollute a small percentage of the CO2 entering the earth's atmosphere. The question is how much change is created by putting more into the atmosphere, while simultaneously reducing the amount that gets converted from CO2 back into Oxygen by plant life. My latest understanding was that in Brazil alone we destroy a Rhode Island-sized portion of the rain forest every day.

Keep in mind, it's not that humans can't live in 110 degree temperatures, if that's what were to ahppen. It's that increasing the overall average temperature of EArth by only a few degrees will have catacylsmic effects on life in a massive number of ways, some known and many unknown, but none of which are likely good.

It doesn't take THAT MUCH of Antarctica melting to dramatically affect coastal cities and shorelines around the world.

tiptap
04-07-2008, 02:46 PM
What I don't get is this.....

Global warming is hurting our planet so buy this, or buy these instead, or buy this, or buy this, or buy this thing, or invest in this technology....etc.

Does nobody follow the money anymore? Global warming is about getting rich. Buy these lights from us, or buy these carbon credits from us, or invest in us for our research etc....

That is a two way street. You are already spending money to put more natural CO 2 into the air according to EXXON. Compared to the amount of money spent on Fossil Fuels, are you really going to make that comparison.

tiptap
04-07-2008, 02:50 PM
here we go bird wars.

irishjayhawk
04-07-2008, 02:54 PM
What the controversial part is whether or not man is the primary cause of it and if it is cyclical and can't be stopped.

Is it worth the cost of billions if there truly isn't any real difference caused by changing our way of life.

;) I was asking him. I knew THAT'S where the controversy is. But he's a Young Earth Creationist or at the very least an ID proponent. What does that have to do with anything? Simple: He sees the debate as somewhere where it's not.

SBK
04-07-2008, 02:58 PM
That is a two way street. You are already spending money to put more natural CO 2 into the air according to EXXON. Compared to the amount of money spent on Fossil Fuels, are you really going to make that comparison.

It is a 2 way street. Everyone is quick to condemn "big oil" for acting in their own interests, but nobody questions folks that are selling global warming as a reason to spend money with them.

SBK
04-07-2008, 02:59 PM
So the is a conservative conspiracy? Because we all know that the liberals are against making money and getting rich. LMAO ;)

Liberals are not against making money and getting rich---when it involves themselves. :D

bkkcoh
04-07-2008, 03:12 PM
Liberals are not against making money and getting rich---when it involves themselves. :D

It is a 2 way street. Everyone is quick to condemn "big oil" for acting in their own interests, but nobody questions folks that are selling global warming as a reason to spend money with them.

Oh the hypocracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :banghead:

banyon
04-07-2008, 03:13 PM
Oh the hypocracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :banghead:

Rule by the Sub-humans indeed.

ClevelandBronco
04-07-2008, 03:22 PM
My latest understanding was that in Brazil alone we destroy a Rhode Island-sized portion of the rain forest every day.

I'll stop doing that if you will.

banyon
04-07-2008, 03:36 PM
I'll stop doing that if you will.

Hey we're saving trees every day by posting our thoughts on Chiefsplanet. Just imagine if we all corresponded by just sending each other angry letters.

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 04:02 PM
Chief4ever -- I have little doubt regardign the accuracy of the fact that humans only pollute a small percentage of the CO2 entering the earth's atmosphere. The question is how much change is created by putting more into the atmosphere, while simultaneously reducing the amount that gets converted from CO2 back into Oxygen by plant life. My latest understanding was that in Brazil alone we destroy a Rhode Island-sized portion of the rain forest every day.

Keep in mind, it's not that humans can't live in 110 degree temperatures, if that's what were to ahppen. It's that increasing the overall average temperature of EArth by only a few degrees will have catacylsmic effects on life in a massive number of ways, some known and many unknown, but none of which are likely good.

It doesn't take THAT MUCH of Antarctica melting to dramatically affect coastal cities and shorelines around the world.

Losing rain forest in Brazil has to do with farmers cutting down trees to grow food. We have more trees in America than we did around 1800 due to working forests and the ability to control fires from lightening. The oceans emit tremendous amounts of CO2 ( which is not a pollutant) from plankton. Increased CO2 and some warming are beneficial to the planet as humans need less fuel for heating and plants love it and grow faster. Increasing temps by only a few degrees does not do that much harm and would not create the amount of melt in Antartica for 200 foot seal level rise.

The earth is mostly water already and the sheer volume of the earth’s size is so huge the amount from a few degrees of warming even up to 6.4 C as predicted over a hundred years, on sea level rise is actually negligible in this context. That is if it warms that much. I just tested warming as part of a science experiment. The more I research and learn this the more I see it as BS! If it got too hot we'd lose water as it would vaporize. Also the sea maintains a constant temp level after so many meters deep, so this would only affect the top layer. The GW crisis predictions are based on man made models not mother nature.

Here's the Oregon Petition Institute (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) which has over 19,000 who have the qualifications to be a signatory by having a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS. They refute the science that GW is in a crisis stage.

Frederick Seitz is the former head of the National Academy of Sciences who refutes it too. There is a good educational video (http://www.discovery.org/v/30) linked from the site to Discovery Institute, that uses charts, graphs and scientific documentation that provides excellent evidence that warming is not man made because warming began before we even used carbon fuels and it has not been harmful. We came out of a mini-Ice Age. I urge you to watch it. They get no funding from oil companies nor any govt funds which NASA has motivation to seek as it gives them more work to do. They love to waste money on boondoggles if you check their record.

The Kyoto solution would ration the use of energy and technologies which would be more harmful especially on third world countries that need to rise out of their poverty conditions. Not only would it hinder the advance of science and technology, it would damage the health and welfare of mankind.

StcChief
04-07-2008, 04:06 PM
Brazil,China,India etc and the developing economies need to get control of their own before demanding change via unfailr "Koyto" type armtwisting.

Adept Havelock
04-07-2008, 04:12 PM
We have more trees in America than we did around 1800 due to working forests and the ability to control fires from lightening.

Of course we do. In 1800 the United States was much smaller. That difference has far more to do with the amount of territory controlled by the US than forestation methods.

A more accurate figure would reflect how much territory was covered in Forest East of the Mississippi in 1800 compared to modern day.

banyon
04-07-2008, 04:14 PM
Of course we do. In 1800 the United States was much smaller. That difference has far more to do with the amount of territory controlled by the US than forestation methods.

A more accurate figure would reflect how much territory was covered in Forest East of the Missisippi in 1800 compared to now.

You might also mention that those were old growth forests compared with pine farms today.

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 04:20 PM
Of course we do. In 1800 the United States was much smaller. That difference has far more to do with the amount of territory controlled by the US than forestation methods.

A more accurate figure would reflect how much territory was covered in Forest East of the Mississippi in 1800 compared to modern day.

It has to do with people back then had no way to put out forest fires caused by lightening—nature's way when left alone. That includes later in the century as well like around the time of Custer. Ever see a picture of that compared to today...lots more trees. Same with Civil War...look at the Battle of Manassas in that open field. Then visit for a re-enactment, the place is loaded with trees. We simply plant more trees than we cut. Working forests are forests that are maintained so the paper and lumber industry don't lose their market by ensuring a supply. Use more paper....it's good for the environment.

Amnorix
04-07-2008, 04:30 PM
It has to do with people back then had no way to put out forest fires caused by lightening—nature's way when left alone. That includes later in the century as well like around the time of Custer. Ever see a picture of that compared to today...lots more trees. Same with Civil War...look at the Battle of Manassas in that open field. Then visit for a re-enactment, the place is loaded with trees. We simply plant more trees than we cut. Working forests are forests that are maintained so the paper and lumber industry don't lose their market by ensuring a supply. Use more paper....it's good for the environment.


Just so we are on the same page, you're saying that there are more trees from present day Maine to Washington, down to California, over to Florida, today than there was in that same geographic area in the year 1800.

And you're serious?

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 04:30 PM
I googled this to find a link as I had a tour of a working forest in Maine and read the same years ago.

American Forest and Paper Association (http://www.afandpa.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Forestry/FAQs2/FAQs.htm)

Q: Are America's forests in danger?
A: Not at all. Because the United States practices reforestation, its forests have actually grown in size over the past century. About one-third of the United States -- 749 million acres -- is covered with trees. In fact, we have more trees today than we had 70 years ago. On the nation's commercial forests, net annual growth exceeds harvests and losses to insects and disease by an impressive 50 percent each year.

banyon
04-07-2008, 04:35 PM
1938=1800.

tiptap
04-07-2008, 05:04 PM
A Matter of Opinion
. He
Has manmade pollution in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases caused a runaway Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming?
Before joining the mantra, consider the following:


(http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html)<TABLE height=323 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top width="57%">
<CENTER>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image160.gif
</CENTER>
<CENTER>Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic Record (http://gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/article1-fig2.html)</CENTER></TD><TD vAlign=top width="43%">1. The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before humans invented industrial pollution.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE height=182 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="95%" border=0><TBODY><TR height=177><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="22%" height=177>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image167_sm.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html)
(view full-size image) (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/temp_vs_CO2.html)
Figure 1
</TD><TD width="78%" height=177>2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.
As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica (http://rainbow.ldeo.columbia.edu/ees/climate/labs/vostok/), CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE height=135 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="86%" border=0><TBODY><TR height=136><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="20%" height=136>http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image192_sm.gif
view full-size image (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_contrib.html)
Figure 2
</TD><TD vAlign=top width="80%" height=136>3. Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE height=157 cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0 width="86%" border=0><TBODY><TR height=180><TD vAlign=top align=middle width="20%" height=180> http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image191_sm.gif (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html)
view full-size image (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/tempCO2_vs_solwind.html)
Figure 3
</TD><TD vAlign=top width="80%" height=180>4. If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?
This chart adapted after <CITE>Nigel Calder (6)</CITE> illustrates that variations in sun activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature (Figure 3).
Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the "cause".
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


<HR align=left>
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html). Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html#anchor147264).
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/bullet_red.gif If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!



1) http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

2) The Ice Data stops conveniently. Here is a more recent graph. The Volstock site now says that CO 2 is at its highest level. The graph down below look at the red line shoot straight up at the edge present.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

3) Has CO 2 increased over the last 50 years. Yes. Has the amount of fossil fuel burned easily account for that increase. Yes much more than the increase has been burned. That excess not found in the atmosphere has been associated with increased acidity in the oceans among other phenomenon.

4) The graph stops in 1985. Here it is into the 21st century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg

Just a personal note. I started looking at this around 1990s and this graph of solar activity (not ice data below) made me give this possibility real consideration at that time. The divergence of the predictions is one of the definitive tests that CO 2 and not solar activity was the forcing agent.


As an edit fact of CO2 fails to mention the lowering ratio of C13/C12 in the atmosphere. Live plant source for CO2 prefers C12 and so this is a signature that the source is increasingly human burning of fossil fuels. Traces of this change start up around the beginning of the industrial age.

Adept Havelock
04-07-2008, 05:14 PM
In fact, we have more trees today than we had 70 years ago.

70 years ≠ 208 years, which was your original claim.



Edit- I see Banyon has already addressed this.

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 05:31 PM
70 years ≠ 208 years, which was your original claim.



Edit- I see Banyon has already addressed this.
Banyon sees a contradiction or conflict where there is none. Typical lawyer.

My original claim was 1800 which I still stand by. I expounded on that by citing an area in the west and the east. Then I provided a link that I found from googling from American Forest and Paper claiming 70 years ago which is not my claim but theirs. I posted it while Amn was posting and didn't know he was. It was not a response to his post per se. I put it up to show how we reforest so have more trees. That still doesn't contradict what I said about 1800 or even later into the 1800s. More trees than 70 years ago just means more trees from 70 years ago. It says nothing, let alone contradict, about how many there were earlier. Simple logic.

Adept Havelock
04-07-2008, 05:51 PM
Banyon sees a contradiction or conflict where there is none. Typical lawyer.

My original claim was 1800 which I still stand by. I expounded on that by citing an area in the west and the east. Then I provided a link that I found from googling from American Forest and Paper claiming 70 years ago which is not my claim but theirs. I posted it while Amn was posting and didn't know he was. It was not a response to his post per se. I put it up to show how we reforest so have more trees. That still doesn't contradict what I said about 1800 or even later into the 1800s. More trees than 70 years ago just means more trees from 70 years ago. It says nothing, let alone contradict, about how many there were earlier. Simple logic.

So the 1800 claim is not a declaration of fact?

If it's just an opinion like my opinion that unfettered Capitalism is as much a pipe dream as true Communism that's OK by me. :)

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 06:33 PM
So the 1800 claim is not a declaration of fact?

What do the first ten words of my 2nd paragraph mean?

BTW I originally encountered the point in the book Trashing the Planet by Dixy Lee Ray a marine biologist and former govt of WA state. I took it as meaning the boundaries of America as we know it today based on what existed then, but that was over ten years ago. So I may be wrong on what she used for boundaries. But the point is nevertheless a valid comparison.

Since then I've read that it's been in many eastern states that reforestation has been dramatic. There were about a hundred uses for wood back in those days including for fuel, slashing, burning clearing of land to make pastures and cultivate fields. There's a lot of open plains, and some deserts in the west. The use of wood for fuel was supposed to be about 300 cubic feet per person. If we used it like that today forests would be used up a lot faster like a decade perhaps. One could argue fossil fuels saved the forests too. The uses of wood diminished during the next century.

Atlantic Monthly environmental writer Bill McKibben declared in 1995 of the forest recovery, “This unintentional and mostly unnoticed renewal of the rural and mountainous East – not the spotted owl, not the salvation of Alaska’s pristine ranges – represents the great environmental story of the United States.”

Timothy Dwight, a New England minister, wrote in the early 1800s that there were no more than 20 miles of forest on the 240-mile journey from New York to Boston. In the last decade of that century America’s farmers were clearing land at the rate of 3 million acres a year – three times the size of New Hampshire – though most of the clearing had taken place already.

Oh and don't forget fires caused by lightening and maybe even caused by people accidentally. They weren't easy to put out back then.


If it's just an opinion like my opinion that unfettered Capitalism is as much a pipe dream as true Communism that's OK by me. :)
I never recommended unfettered capitalism anyway nor was it ever defined. I think a case that markets would eventually correct and regulated themselves was made...but that's not a pipe-dream... that's what they've always done. Hardly utopian either since recessions are part of the correction process. The idea that we must be saved from this correction process by the govt is utopian. We just say, the results are better and that the govt interventions create new and additional problems...which later need more govt intervention to fix which leads to the same over and over...is all.

Logical
04-07-2008, 06:51 PM
Losing rain forest in Brazil has to do with farmers cutting down trees to grow food. We have more trees in America than we did around 1800 due to working forests and the ability to control fires from lightening. The oceans emit tremendous amounts of CO2 ( which is not a pollutant) from plankton. Increased CO2 and some warming are beneficial to the planet as humans need less fuel for heating and plants love it and grow faster. Increasing temps by only a few degrees does not do that much harm and would not create the amount of melt in Antartica for 200 foot seal level rise.

The earth is mostly water already and the sheer volume of the earth’s size is so huge the amount from a few degrees of warming even up to 6.4 C as predicted over a hundred years, on sea level rise is actually negligible in this context. That is if it warms that much. I just tested warming as part of a science experiment. The more I research and learn this the more I see it as BS! If it got too hot we'd lose water as it would vaporize. Also the sea maintains a constant temp level after so many meters deep, so this would only affect the top layer. The GW crisis predictions are based on man made models not mother nature.

Here's the Oregon Petition Institute (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) which has over 19,000 who have the qualifications to be a signatory by having a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS. They refute the science that GW is in a crisis stage.

Frederick Seitz is the former head of the National Academy of Sciences who refutes it too. There is a good educational video (http://www.discovery.org/v/30) linked from the site to Discovery Institute, that uses charts, graphs and scientific documentation that provides excellent evidence that warming is not man made because warming began before we even used carbon fuels and it has not been harmful. We came out of a mini-Ice Age. I urge you to watch it. They get no funding from oil companies nor any govt funds which NASA has motivation to seek as it gives them more work to do. They love to waste money on boondoggles if you check their record.

The Kyoto solution would ration the use of energy and technologies which would be more harmful especially on third world countries that need to rise out of their poverty conditions. Not only would it hinder the advance of science and technology, it would damage the health and welfare of mankind.


I know you have covered 70 years ago to present, but one more time for me, how can you prove we have more trees in 2008 than we did in 1800 in a trees per square mile of land mass basis? Do you have any factual source to back that up?

Adept Havelock
04-07-2008, 07:08 PM
What do the first ten words of my 2nd paragraph mean?

Which post?

If it's "The earth is mostly water already and the sheer volume", then I assume it means the Earth is covered by 3/4 water or so. If it's " My original claim was 1800 which I still stand by. I" I'm not sure if you are claiming as Fact or Opinion. That's what I'm trying to discern.


BTW I originally encountered the point in the book Trashing the Planet by Dixy Lee Ray a marine biologist and former govt of WA state. I took it as meaning the boundaries of America as we know it today based on what existed then, but that was over ten years ago. So I may be wrong on what she used for boundaries. But the point is nevertheless a valid comparison.

Since then I've read that it's been in many eastern states that reforestation has been dramatic. There were about a hundred uses for wood back in those days including for fuel, slashing, burning clearing of land to make pastures and cultivate fields. There's a lot of open plains, and some deserts in the west. The use of wood for fuel was supposed to be about 300 cubic feet per person. If we used it like that today forests would be used up a lot faster like a decade perhaps. One could argue fossil fuels saved the forests too. The uses of wood diminished during the next century.

Oh and don't forget fires caused by lightening and maybe even caused by people accidentally. They weren't easy to put out back then.

So do you or don't you have data that confirms the 1800 statement? I can't really tell from that response.


I never recommended unfettered capitalism anyway nor was it ever defined.
I know you haven't, and I've given my definition of "unfettered capitalism" on at least one occasion. I used that example because that's what you've specifically asked me for "proof" of on a couple of different occasions when I've asked you for data to back up a claim you've made.

If it's a claim of fact, data confirming the 1800 statement would be useful to show it is a fact.

If it's only an opinion, as my economic belief regarding True Capitalism/Communism is, no biggie. I can always agree to disagree with another opinion.

Bootlegged
04-07-2008, 07:17 PM
http://blogs.usatoday.com/weather/2008/04/expert-were-bra.html

By Bob Swanson and Doyle Rice

Expert: "We're brainwashing our children" about global warming
Another post from guest blogger Rick Neale of Florida Today, from the National Hurricane Conference in Orlando:

William Gray, the well-known Colorado State University hurricane forecaster, routinely uses the annual National Hurricane Conference as a platform to bash global warming. In a statement to Florida Today, Gray argued that the scientific consensus on global warming is bogus — and "a mild form of McCarthyism has developed toward those scientists who do not agree" that mankind is in danger.

"We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore's alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote.

Some scientists believe global warming will actually decrease — not increase — the number of hurricanes that form over the Atlantic Ocean each year. Last Friday, in the final session of the hurricane conference, a pair of climate experts said rising sea-surface temperatures in and near the Caribbean could strengthen vertical wind shear. Robust wind shear is the bane of hurricanes, as it tends to tear apart cyclones during their formative stages.

"If (global warming) were to happen, that is an effect which should be more hostile to hurricane building," said Thomas Knutson, research meteorologist with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.

Knutson and Chris Landsea, science and operations officer with the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said historic observation data and computer models debunk doomsday scenarios that foresee armadas of deadly hurricanes, slamming into the Southeast. "Any (hurricane) trend we're seeing due to global warming — and I do agree global warming's real, and manmade causes contribute to it — really has very limited impact, very tiny changes," Landsea said.

Both scientists referred to the global warming studies of ocean climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Emanuel noted that from 1972-2004, Atlantic surface temperatures and hurricane intensity were closely linked.

banyon
04-07-2008, 07:20 PM
Banyon sees a contradiction or conflict where there is none. Typical lawyer.


BucEyedPea makes another unfounded wild-eyed claim and then can't substantiate it. Typical lunatic.

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 07:32 PM
The post you quoted of mine in your Post #102. I gather that's what you were questioning.

tiptap
04-07-2008, 07:34 PM
Losing rain forest in Brazil has to do with farmers cutting down trees to grow food. We have more trees in America than we did around 1800 due to working forests and the ability to control fires from lightening. The oceans emit tremendous amounts of CO2 ( which is not a pollutant) from plankton. Increased CO2 and some warming are beneficial to the planet as humans need less fuel for heating and plants love it and grow faster. Increasing temps by only a few degrees does not do that much harm and would not create the amount of melt in Antartica for 200 foot seal level rise.

The earth is mostly water already and the sheer volume of the earth’s size is so huge the amount from a few degrees of warming even up to 6.4 C as predicted over a hundred years, on sea level rise is actually negligible in this context. That is if it warms that much. I just tested warming as part of a science experiment. The more I research and learn this the more I see it as BS! If it got too hot we'd lose water as it would vaporize. Also the sea maintains a constant temp level after so many meters deep, so this would only affect the top layer. The GW crisis predictions are based on man made models not mother nature.

Here's the Oregon Petition Institute (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) which has over 19,000 who have the qualifications to be a signatory by having a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS. They refute the science that GW is in a crisis stage.

Frederick Seitz is the former head of the National Academy of Sciences who refutes it too. There is a good educational video (http://www.discovery.org/v/30) linked from the site to Discovery Institute, that uses charts, graphs and scientific documentation that provides excellent evidence that warming is not man made because warming began before we even used carbon fuels and it has not been harmful. We came out of a mini-Ice Age. I urge you to watch it. They get no funding from oil companies nor any govt funds which NASA has motivation to seek as it gives them more work to do. They love to waste money on boondoggles if you check their record.

The Kyoto solution would ration the use of energy and technologies which would be more harmful especially on third world countries that need to rise out of their poverty conditions. Not only would it hinder the advance of science and technology, it would damage the health and welfare of mankind.

So let's review your findings on water and expansion. Essentially floating ice melts and actually reduces the volume of water to around 3 degrees Celsius. So if the Arctic ocean or deep ocean increase in temperature between 0 to 3 degrees the ocean will actually shrink. However the profile for deep ocean is already in that range. So only the melting of polar ice and temperature rise to 3 degrees will decrease the volume of ocean there.

But from 3 on up, water does expand just like almost every other substance. So the question is what did you find was the expansion coefficient from say 5 degrees to 25 degrees. This approximates water temperatures from 800 meters to the surface. We can approximate that volume by multiplying the surface area of all the oceans by the depth of 800 meters. But here is the plug. ALL of the increase in volume is seen as a rise in ocean height. In ONE direction only.

I agree a two degree change will not melt ice in Antarctica, but it does mean polar ice disappears, that water exceeds 3 degrees and the albedo changes warming still more, melting Greenland's glacial ice. It might not be the 30 meters but 3 meters will be see parts of Florida submerge.

As far as temperature leading CO 2. I totally agree with this for all of the Ice Age up until the last 200 years. (I would argue weakly that for 10,000 years, ever since the introduction of Agriculture.) Temperature rise from Celestial Mechanics meant more plant growth which meant more CO 2 which helped to increase and sustain the higher temperatures.

In the modern era, CO 2 effect to increase temperatures and sustain those higher temperatures, is the forcing function by way of pumping CO 2 into the atmosphere. I included graphs for this from my entry earlier.

Adept Havelock
04-07-2008, 07:45 PM
The post you quoted of mine in your Post #102. I gather that's what you were questioning.

It was. I'm still wondering if you are claiming it as an opinion or a fact. I've asked nicely a couple of times.

Is there some reason you wish to avoid clarifying that point?

As I said, if you're claiming it as a fact then a little data confirming the 1800 claim would be useful.

If it's only an opinion, like my economics opinion, then I am happy to agree to disagree.

banyon
04-07-2008, 07:48 PM
Here's the Oregon Petition Institute (http://www.oism.org/pproject/) which has over 19,000 who have the qualifications to be a signatory by having a university degree in physical science, either BS, MS. They refute the science that GW is in a crisis stage.

Oh, this crap again (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3755545&postcount=46). This is the equivalent ofthe 1950's Democrats trotting out Adlai Stevenson over and over.

Frederick Seitz is the former head of the National Academy of Sciences who refutes it too. .

ROFLROFLROFL

Usually I am only able to analogize Global Warming Critics to the pro-smoking scientists of the 60's/70's, but this clown ACTUALLY WAS on RJ Reynolds Payroll!! BTW your dude is dead.

Dr. Frederick Seitz (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz) (born July 4 1911; died March 2, 2008)[1] was a former head of Rockefeller University, a former head of the National Academy of Sciences and the principal scientific advisor to the R.J. Reynolds medical research program. In 1984 he co-founded the George C. Marshall Institute with Dr. Robert Jastrow and Dr. William Nierenberg. He was later the Chairman Emeritus of the Board of the Institute, an organization that has long denied global warming.

George C. Marshall Institute- The Institute is partially supported by the Exxon Education Foundation and American Standard Companies."[2] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute)

Isn't there one of these clowns that isn't in big oil's pockets?ROFL

tiptap
04-07-2008, 07:49 PM
http://blogs.usatoday.com/weather/2008/04/expert-were-bra.html

By Bob Swanson and Doyle Rice

Expert: "We're brainwashing our children" about global warming
Another post from guest blogger Rick Neale of Florida Today, from the National Hurricane Conference in Orlando:

William Gray, the well-known Colorado State University hurricane forecaster, routinely uses the annual National Hurricane Conference as a platform to bash global warming. In a statement to Florida Today, Gray argued that the scientific consensus on global warming is bogus — and "a mild form of McCarthyism has developed toward those scientists who do not agree" that mankind is in danger.

"We are also brainwashing our children on the warming topic. We have no better example than Al Gore's alarmists and inaccurate movie which is being shown in our schools and being hawked by warming activists with little or no meteorological-climate background," Gray wrote.

Some scientists believe global warming will actually decrease — not increase — the number of hurricanes that form over the Atlantic Ocean each year. Last Friday, in the final session of the hurricane conference, a pair of climate experts said rising sea-surface temperatures in and near the Caribbean could strengthen vertical wind shear. Robust wind shear is the bane of hurricanes, as it tends to tear apart cyclones during their formative stages.

"If (global warming) were to happen, that is an effect which should be more hostile to hurricane building," said Thomas Knutson, research meteorologist with the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J.

Knutson and Chris Landsea, science and operations officer with the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said historic observation data and computer models debunk doomsday scenarios that foresee armadas of deadly hurricanes, slamming into the Southeast. "Any (hurricane) trend we're seeing due to global warming — and I do agree global warming's real, and manmade causes contribute to it — really has very limited impact, very tiny changes," Landsea said.

Both scientists referred to the global warming studies of ocean climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Emanuel noted that from 1972-2004, Atlantic surface temperatures and hurricane intensity were closely linked.

Willian Gray is the biggest name since Linzdt to be credentialed and to state a strong opposition to CARBON DIOXIDE as the source for Global Warming. He has led research into Atlantic Hurricaines predictions for many, many years. His pet theory, which shadows Linzdt in the atmosphere, is that the Big ThermoHaline current is driving GW (as opposed to Linzdt's theory, simply stated, says heat moved laterally in the atmosphere and exits). Gray has yet provided a detailed explanation for where the original heat introduced into the THC (not that THC) comes from. I am willing to accept that this huge current system is involved in transfer of heat energy. I just don't see the source as being anything but higher temperatures from Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse effect.

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 07:54 PM
So let's review your findings on water and expansion.

I agree a two degree change will not melt ice in Antarctica, but it does mean polar ice disappears, that water exceeds 3 degrees and the albedo changes warming still more, melting Greenland's glacial ice. It might not be the 30 meters but 3 meters will be see parts of Florida submerge.

The amount of sea rise from the melting of polar ice: icebergs and the ice sheet is even more negligible due to displacement of the ice. Icebergs are about 87% below water and they displaces themselves. In our experiment, barely any cube sat above the surface of the water and we ended with the nearly same amount measuring before and after. Actually off the top of my head ours was about 1/8" less water.

Again the sheer volume of the earth will also thin that out. We could see that by using a large bowl of water and microwaving it for 3 minutes. Then filling a flask halfway up the wider bowl part and it was barely negligible. We had to fill the flask up an inch in it's long skinny neck just to see enough of a rise when it expands at the same points of transition as the wider parts before the water even boils. That's the same effect that would happen on the globe.

Regarding Greenland, I still don't see how the huge volume of the earth wouldn't still be a factor here too. I finally got those numbers from a physicist but haven't got to study those yet. It is physics, not chemistry.

I included graphs for this from my entry earlier.
I didn't read the whole thread, just came in at the end and resonded to Amnorix mainly. Did you see the video I linked. Some pretty damning numbers against it tiptap....it doesn't correlate at all to man.

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 07:56 PM
Oh and tiptap, we're using regular water. It's takes even more heat for salt water and/or other minerals in such water.

Bootlegged
04-07-2008, 08:00 PM
Amazing how many Meteorology PHD's we have on this Internet football board.

StcChief
04-07-2008, 08:00 PM
no pleasing this science community bunch to fold, like Evolution......... rewriting a colleague (bro in science's work) heaven forbid it could happen to me. Won't do it.

It could be complete shot down, completely disproved and they would refuse the evidence.

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 08:01 PM
It was. I'm still wondering if you are claiming it as an opinion or a fact. I've asked nicely a couple of times.
I know you're being nice. But I wasn't responding on the basis on whether I had expressed an opinion or a fact. I hardly think so, hence what I posted. There's some sort of miscommunication going on and I can't put my finger on what's causing it but I thought I clarified it well enough by now. I think you need to go back and re-read what I wrote and tell me what you it means in your own words for me to see what it is.

As I said, if you're claiming it as a fact then a little data confirming the 1800 claim would be useful.
I actually did that as well.

If it's only an opinion, like my economics opinion, then I am happy to agree to disagree.
That's cool. I knew that I just thought I'd try to clarify it.

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 08:02 PM
It could be complete shot down, completely disproved and they would refuse the evidence.

Yup! So they claim consensus to shut everybody up on the debate. Consensus isn't science...it's politics. And scientists do have politics.

StcChief
04-07-2008, 08:05 PM
Yup! So they claim consensus to shut everybody up on the debate. Consensus isn't science...it's politics. And scientists do have politics.another reason I'm not in academia, the politics at any cost.
:rolleyes:

BucEyedPea
04-07-2008, 08:05 PM
So do you or don't you have data that confirms the 1800 statement? I can't really tell from that response.
Then you must have a blind fold on.

tiptap
04-07-2008, 08:19 PM
The amount of sea rise from the melting of polar ice: icebergs and the ice sheet is even more negligible due to displacement of the ice. Icebergs are about 87% below water and they displaces themselves. In our experiment, barely any cube sat above the surface of the water and we ended with the nearly same amount measuring before and after. Actually off the top of my head ours was about 1/8" less water.

Again the sheer volume of the earth will also thin that out. We could see that by using a large bowl of water and microwaving it for 3 minutes. Then filling a flask halfway up the wider bowl part and it was barely negligible. We had to fill the flask up an inch in it's long skinny neck just to see enough of a rise when it expands at the same points of transition as the wider parts before the water even boils. That's the same effect that would happen on the globe.

Regarding Greenland, I still don't see how the huge volume of the earth wouldn't still be a factor here too. I finally got those numbers from a physicist but haven't got to study those yet. It is physics, not chemistry.


I didn't read the whole thread, just came in at the end and resonded to Amnorix mainly. Did you see the video I linked. Some pretty damning numbers against it tiptap....it doesn't correlate at all to man.

Yes BEP, I stated that floating ice does not add volume. I even said it shrinks volume as it goes from 0 to 3 Celsius.

Now would you repeat your comment on the bowl and volumetric flask? You saw some rise in height with the volumetric flask. But I didn't follow on the bowl comment exactly what you did. It was the "filling a flask (different than volumetric or bowl and from a cold or the microwaved source)" I am not following how many containers and if there is water being removed and at what temperatures.

All chemists have to have had Physical Chemistry. Phase charts and heat transfers involving heat of fusion are par for the course. We just concern ourselves more with the matter and less about the energy systems.

Logical
04-07-2008, 09:07 PM
I know you're being nice. But I wasn't responding on the basis on whether I had expressed an opinion or a fact. I hardly think so, hence what I posted. There's some sort of miscommunication going on and I can't put my finger on what's causing it but I thought I clarified it well enough by now. I think you need to go back and re-read what I wrote and tell me what you it means in your own words for me to see what it is.


I actually did that as well.


That's cool. I knew that I just thought I'd try to clarify it.

Jesus, you talk in riddles sometimes. Please answer the following:

Do you have any facts to support the following statement you made in post 91?

.... We have more trees in America than we did around 1800 due to working forests and the ability to control fires from lightening. ....

keg in kc
04-07-2008, 09:15 PM
This is just like religion. People are going to pick their sides and nobody is changing their mind.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-07-2008, 09:19 PM
Has anyone addressed how land-based ice sliding into the ocean would not raise the average sea level of the world's oceans, cause I'd really like to know.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-07-2008, 09:23 PM
This is just like religion. People are going to pick their sides and nobody is changing their mind.

Yes and no. You can't prove or disprove the existence of God unless he shows himself to you...

This can be backed up by actual research and science...however a lot of science that is currently done isn't fact based, and it's not science. It's partisan demagoguery funded in order to portray a certain viewpoint that will allow the monied interests to continue to do what they want to do without dissent.

Logical
04-07-2008, 09:35 PM
This is just like religion. People are going to pick their sides and nobody is changing their mind.
Actually I have not picked a side, but I sure would like to know where BEP got that one (Fact?)!

Meanwhile I would say there is no doubt Global Warming exists, but there is definitely doubt if man is a significant cause.

Adept Havelock
04-07-2008, 09:44 PM
But I wasn't responding on the basis on whether I had expressed an opinion or a fact.

I know you were not. That's why I asked again. It's the same question I've been asking since my first response. Frankly, I can't understand why you have left it ambiguous after several direct questions.

I actually did that as well.

No, you are yet to offer any data confirming the statement which I initially questioned:

... We have more trees in America than we did around 1800
For that to be confirmed, we need to establish the rate of forestation in or around 1800 and compare it to the rate today. I see nothing in any of your posts addressing the initial point of comparison, only allusions to the 1930's and a few mentions of wood consumption per capita.

The only thing I've ever heard about the amount of forest in that era was that a squirrel could go from the "Atlantic to the Mississippi and not touch the ground", but that's just a folk saying. I was hoping you have something more substantial that I could base my comparison on, as the statement in your post (IMO) comes across as a statement of fact.

As I've said, if it's only your opinion or a hunch, that's fine. I'd just appreciate you clearly distinguishing if you are presenting it as opinion or (so far) unsubstantiated fact. :shrug:


Do you have any facts to support the following statement you made in post 91?

Thank you. I thought I had phrased my questions pretty directly.

banyon
04-07-2008, 11:14 PM
I've posted it before:

If you didn't know, here's how it goes:

1)Make wild, unfounded accusation.

2)Provide link to fringe website or pretend that accusation wasn't made.

3)Someone else challenges accusation with reasonable points or facts.

4)Go back to step 2, or call them "NeoCons" or "Socialists" depending on their political leanings. Tell them they can't understand because they haven't spent all the years training at the Austrian School of exclusion.

5) If you are definitively proven wrong, never agree or admit it. Just pretend it didn't happen, put the person on ignore, or go back to step 1 with a new issue.

Logical
04-07-2008, 11:28 PM
I've posted it before:

If you didn't know, here's how it goes:

1)Make wild, unfounded accusation.

2)Provide link to fringe website or pretend that accusation wasn't made.

3)Someone else challenges accusation with reasonable points or facts.

4)Go back to step 2, or call them "NeoCons" or "Socialists" depending on their political leanings. Tell them they can't understand because they haven't spent all the years training at the Austrian School of exclusion.

5) If you are definitively proven wrong, never agree or admit it. Just pretend it didn't happen, put the person on ignore, or go back to step 1 with a new issue.Weirdest part of this one is Adept and I have been extremely non-adversarial and have tried to let her just say it was just an opinion and she continually spins around it like she feels she is DEnise.

banyon
04-07-2008, 11:33 PM
Weirdest part of this one is Adept and I have been extremely non-adversarial and have tried to let her just say it was just an opinion and she continually spins around it like she feels she is DEnise.

I feel kind of sad for her sometimes. It's clear that she's somewhat bright, but her dogmatic instruction seems to have limited her ability to see anything beyond what a small fringe of people have fed her. She doesn't think for herself anymore, which is the worst outcome.