PDA

View Full Version : Elections So it's an extremely hot summer.


Direckshun
08-14-2010, 10:04 PM
Setting up to be the hottest on record. Summers are getting hotter and hotter.

Etc. You know where I'm going with this.

Are there still people here that doubt climate change/global warming as a serious planet-wide threat?

For the people here who believe in it, what should be done?

Carbon pricing?

Cap and trade (or as Republicans say: "cancer and aids")?

Direct government sponsoring of alternative energy R&D?

Carbon capture and storage?

Mere adaption?

2bikemike
08-14-2010, 10:31 PM
I don't know were having one of the coolest summers on record.

mikey23545
08-15-2010, 01:08 AM
Temperatures continue well below average in Southern California
By Hector Gonzalez Staff Writer
Posted: 08/09/2010 04:09:43 PM PDT

Weather Service says its been four degrees cooler than it was last year at this time and we could be on track for one of the coolest summers on record. They're blaming La Nina, saying we normally get cooler summers during years when we transition from El Nino to La Nina, which is forecast for this winter. (SGVN/Staff Photo by Walt Mancini/SXCity)

It hasn't been the coolest summer on record, but it's been close, forecasters say.

The average temperature in July was 79 degrees, five degrees below normal, and the first eight days of this month also have been five to six degrees below normal, weather experts said.

Read more: Temperatures continue well below average in Southern California - Whittier Daily News http://www.whittierdailynews.com/news/ci_15723011#ixzz0wejYB2vI

Silock
08-15-2010, 04:31 AM
There's another option: Those of us that acknowledge something is funky with the temperatures, but are still far from convinced we are responsible for it. I mean, this isn't the hottest it's EVER been since humans have been around, just like last winter wasn't the coldest it's EVER been.

FD
08-15-2010, 05:22 AM
Revenue neutral carbon tax.

Oucho Cinco
08-15-2010, 05:42 AM
Setting up to be the hottest on record. Summers are getting hotter and hotter.

Etc. You know where I'm going with this.

Are there still people here that doubt climate change/global warming as a serious planet-wide threat?

For the people here who believe in it, what should be done?

Carbon pricing?

Cap and trade (or as Republicans say: "cancer and aids")?

Direct government sponsoring of alternative energy R&D?

Carbon capture and storage?

Mere adaption?

Key word in your comment, "hottest on record".

Another word that is missing is cyclical. I have no doubt it's been this hot before, the Summer of 2007 was hot. The volcano in the North Atlantic caused more problems in a 4 day period than mankind has in the past 400 according to some reporters.

Garcia Bronco
08-15-2010, 05:53 AM
I don't know which is dumber...the people that think we are causing golbal warming or the people that think we can do something about it.

Mile High Mania
08-15-2010, 07:17 AM
I've heard Republicans call it cap and tax, but not the other...

All I know is that I live in Dallas and yeah it's hot, but not the hottest summer on record. And, we're coming off a winter when it snowed 3-4 times... and it rarely does that once.

So, take your global warming/climate change theories and shove 'em up Gore's butt...

Oucho Cinco
08-15-2010, 07:25 AM
I don't know which is dumber...the people that think we are causing golbal warming or the people that think we can do something about it.

You can probably lump them all into the same group as Al Gore, they don't know, don't care but think they can make some money from the name alone.

HonestChieffan
08-15-2010, 07:32 AM
Clearly the answer is to raise taxes.

healthpellets
08-15-2010, 07:35 AM
i believe that if you believe in global warming, and the impact of that concerns you, you should work hard to eliminate the impact of global warming and you should donate money to that cause.

however, unless you provide me with evidence that is pretty conclusive (something similar to the evidence of evolution) then please understand that i might not agree with you that it is a massive, world-consuming problem. nor do i support increasing energy taxes or personal taxes to combat this issue.

I HAVE A REQUEST:

if you ARE convinced that global warming is a real threat to the human race, and that humans are the cause of this problem, please provide documentaries / websites / books / other evidence that proves your position.

if you are NOT convinced that global warming is a real threat to the human race, and that humans are the cause of this problem, please provide documentaries / websites / books / other evidence that proves your position.

HonestChieffan
08-15-2010, 07:47 AM
We should ration carbon producing things.

Limit cars to 4 cyl, tax 6 and 8 cyl till they are recycled, all highways should be toll roads, any manufacturing should be assessed so that in every step from raws to finished goods we account for the carbon produced and apply tariffs to each step.

There should be government programs that apply penalties to those who don't reduce and offer big benefits for those who do reduce.

Its a global issue so all countries should be joined by a governing body that has the power to enforce set rules and requirements.

BucEyedPea
08-15-2010, 08:14 AM
It's hot because of all left's hot air escaping their mouths the past two years. Gore's made big bucks off govt on this issue leading to suggestions he may stand trial. Greedy Greens.

Oucho Cinco
08-15-2010, 08:18 AM
i believe that if you believe in global warming, and the impact of that concerns you, you should work hard to eliminate the impact of global warming and you should donate money to that cause.

however, unless you provide me with evidence that is pretty conclusive (something similar to the evidence of evolution) then please understand that i might not agree with you that it is a massive, world-consuming problem. nor do i support increasing energy taxes or personal taxes to combat this issue.

I HAVE A REQUEST:

if you ARE convinced that global warming is a real threat to the human race, and that humans are the cause of this problem, please provide documentaries / websites / books / other evidence that proves your position.

if you are NOT convinced that global warming is a real threat to the human race, and that humans are the cause of this problem, please provide documentaries / websites / books / other evidence that proves your position.

Asking for something that does not exist gives you the horsepower to stand with your belief, whatever it is.

HonestChieffan
08-15-2010, 08:24 AM
It was hot in KC so that should be proof to anyone. August heat that goes on for days. Proof is in the pudding.

jjjayb
08-15-2010, 09:04 AM
I HAVE A REQUEST:

if you ARE convinced that global warming is a real threat to the human race, and that humans are the cause of this problem, please provide documentaries / websites / books / other evidence that proves your position.


Even better. Everyone who believes that man is causing global warming please stop breathing and save the rest of us.

Brock
08-15-2010, 09:18 AM
If you think you're causing the problem, turn off your ac.

tiptap
08-15-2010, 09:35 AM
Hear is the science. Read both articles. The first article visits the overall energy flow from the Sun through the atmosphere that results in temperatures. The second deals with the percolation and regional responses to increase energy flow through the atmospheric and oceanic systems. All the terms and ideas can be found in Meteorological books from 20 years ago well before the general public and Fossil Fuel industries wish to avoid the real pain of reducing Carbon Oxidation for energy.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/a-simple-recipe-for-ghe/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/08/the-key-to-the-secrets-of-the-troposphere/#more-4719

petegz28
08-15-2010, 11:06 AM
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eScDfYzMEEw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eScDfYzMEEw?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Silock
08-15-2010, 10:58 PM
We should ration carbon producing things.

Limit cars to 4 cyl, tax 6 and 8 cyl till they are recycled, all highways should be toll roads, any manufacturing should be assessed so that in every step from raws to finished goods we account for the carbon produced and apply tariffs to each step.

There should be government programs that apply penalties to those who don't reduce and offer big benefits for those who do reduce.

Its a global issue so all countries should be joined by a governing body that has the power to enforce set rules and requirements.

I'm okay with the 4 cyl only thing . . . but only because you didn't outlaw superchargers :)

HoneyBadger
08-16-2010, 12:01 AM
Survival of the fittest. I'll be just fine in my A/C car and home.

Aries Walker
08-16-2010, 12:37 AM
None of us will live long enough to see data wide enough to prove global warming by itself. Scientists, however, have other methods and we could do worse by listening to the people whose jobs these are to tell us whether the climate is changing.

Well, they all say it is. Almost all of them, anyway, All of the ones I've spoken to, and the ones whose articles I've read, agree. It's not happening quickly, but it doesn't have to. Mother Nature's got time on her side.

And on the WTF front, this year, in Germantown, Maryland, which is a suburb of Washington DC about 25 miles northwest from the White House, this is what we've had:
- Three blizzards, two within the same weekend. They dumped in total about six feet of snow on us. We'd had no previous snowstorm over an inch or two for the past several years.
- Three, or possibly four, massive heatwaves by now. Each one brings violent, daily, glass-shaking thunderstorms, in which the Winter! Storm! Center! Live! people tell us to flee, flee for our wretched lives, down into the dusty windowless basement room, with the spiders and the furnace fumes, until the thunderstorm is over. Knocks down trees, power out for four days each time.
- We had a fucking earthquake.
- And now, just two days ago, a tornado in Montgomery County. It was just a baby, and it went crying away before too long, but it was a genuine God damn tornado.
- Next, I expect frogs, or locusts.

Weird things are afoot at the Circle K. In all likelihood, it's highly likely that they're not the Global Warming Smoking Gun, but all of the scientific facts behind the anecdotal evidence points to a long, slow progression that will screw up important things like our ecosystem. So we should at least start to take them seriously, even if Al Gore is kind of a lump.

AustinChief
08-16-2010, 04:18 AM
ok.. here it is.. if you believe truly in massive climate change due to human activity... you are a fucking moron or you just don't have the logical skill set and the motivation to look at data OBJECTIVELY. Sorry but it is almost ridiculous to think otherwsie. Actually, I take that statement back.. you can "believe" in it.. that is fine.. but if you think you "know" it or you can "prove" it... wow... scientific stupidity (or arrogance) at its finest.

THAT SAID. As much as I HATE.. actually ABHOR the mass media scare tactics... (anyone remeber how we were headed for an ice age in the 70s.. oh but we are so much smarter now...) as I was saying, I hate the scare tactics... but funny thing is.. I LIKE trees and whatnot... I actually have no problem with environmentalism in general... but until the BULLSHIT "science" and media scare tactics end.. I will continue to somewhat turn a blind eye... Don't try to bully me with your loud voiced bullshit.

Stop crying wolf and preying on fear for funding... and I actually may be the first in line to support regulation.

OK enough rambling on my part... cogent point... WHY is the current "global warming" crisis more "real" than the global cooling crisis of the 70s? Please don't tell me that in 30-40 years we have SOOOO much more of a data set to work with... or that the "science" is soooo much further advanced... TRUE science need to be predictive... provable... so far environmental science is a bunch of guesswork.... prove me otherwise.

HonestChieffan
08-16-2010, 06:15 AM
ok.. here it is.. if you believe truly in massive climate change due to human activity... you are a ****ing moron or you just don't have the logical skill set and the motivation to look at data OBJECTIVELY. Sorry but it is almost ridiculous to think otherwsie. Actually, I take that statement back.. you can "believe" in it.. that is fine.. but if you think you "know" it or you can "prove" it... wow... scientific stupidity (or arrogance) at its finest.

THAT SAID. As much as I HATE.. actually ABHOR the mass media scare tactics... (anyone remeber how we were headed for an ice age in the 70s.. oh but we are so much smarter now...) as I was saying, I hate the scare tactics... but funny thing is.. I LIKE trees and whatnot... I actually have no problem with environmentalism in general... but until the BULLSHIT "science" and media scare tactics end.. I will continue to somewhat turn a blind eye... Don't try to bully me with your loud voiced bullshit.

Stop crying wolf and preying on fear for funding... and I actually may be the first in line to support regulation.

OK enough rambling on my part... cogent point... WHY is the current "global warming" crisis more "real" than the global cooling crisis of the 70s? Please don't tell me that in 30-40 years we have SOOOO much more of a data set to work with... or that the "science" is soooo much further advanced... TRUE science need to be predictive... provable... so far environmental science is a bunch of guesswork.... prove me otherwise.


There was no money to be made redoing the cooling crisis of the 70's. Good marketers look for new fresh ways to sell. By Jingo, they sure hit a homerun on this bad boy. Have a feeling this wont go away. Its gonna be like herpes.

stevieray
08-16-2010, 06:39 AM
...see what fifty years of being pampered does to people?

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 06:43 AM
There was no money to be made redoing the cooling crisis of the 70's. Good marketers look for new fresh ways to sell. By Jingo, they sure hit a homerun on this bad boy. Have a feeling this wont go away. Its gonna be like herpes.

this.

it's pretty funny though, cause Gore and his crowd won't even "discuss" the "science" any more. they consider it settled. they're now focused monetizing the "crisis". pretty clever if you ask me.

can't wait till they start heavily taxing carbon emissions, and 30 years from now the "science" points in the other direction. can we stop taxing carbon outputs? well, no. it's subsidizing the massive world government. truth be damned.

HonestChieffan
08-16-2010, 07:02 AM
Damn, another crisis fizzling out.

Iowanian
08-16-2010, 07:47 AM
I didn't see a Category 4 Douchicane predicted on the weather channel, yet here you conjured a doozy into Chiefsplanet lore.


I hope it doesn't cause a tsunami and take out a small island of innocents, so you don't have to type in pink text for a year.

BWillie
08-16-2010, 08:00 AM
Do you have any literature that it is the hottest summer on record? And if you do, is that worldwide or just in your little world there in Springfield?

Iowanian
08-16-2010, 08:01 AM
I wish Direkshun would type "invisible for Chiefsplanet" for a while.

loochy
08-16-2010, 08:29 AM
Are there still people here that doubt climate change/global warming as a serious planet-wide threat?

Yes.

I don't call it a threat. I call it a change. Life will go on. The ocean isn't going to rise suddenly in 1 day and flood out a city. The change will happen over a span of years. People will move back off the coastlines. Sure, the weather will change. So what? Relocate crops, etc. People are able to adapt...

Frazod
08-16-2010, 08:30 AM
...see what fifty years of being pampered does to people?

Amen to that.

Garcia Bronco
08-16-2010, 08:59 AM
It hasn't been hot here in Denver. It been really nice with the exception of a few days. I would imagine it's be super hot in moist climates

loochy
08-16-2010, 09:06 AM
It hasn't been hot here in Denver. It been really nice with the exception of a few days. I would imagine it's be super hot in the summer.

Yup.

donkhater
08-16-2010, 09:27 AM
Clearly taxes are the answer. That and celebrity-sponsered concerts to raise awarness. Education is the key.

Oh, and the children are our future.

Brock
08-16-2010, 09:29 AM
Clearly taxes are the answer. That and celebrity-sponsered concerts to raise awarness. Education is the key.

Oh, and the children are our future.

Give them hope and let them lead the way

Taco John
08-16-2010, 09:46 AM
This documentary about the Carbon hoax is worthwhile. If you only watch 3 minutes of it, watch the three minutes between about 21:00 and 24:00.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#



<EMBED style="WIDTH: 400px; HEIGHT: 326px" id=VideoPlayback type=application/x-shockwave-flash src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-5576670191369613647&hl=en&fs=true allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true"> </EMBED>

Taco John
08-16-2010, 09:51 AM
Are there still people here that doubt climate change/global warming as a serious planet-wide threat?





I'm more worried about the threat of compulisve paranoids who believe every government scare tactic and are ready to impose their will on everybody else against all logic and reason than I am about rogue clouds.

vailpass
08-16-2010, 10:03 AM
I'm more worried about the threat of compulisve paranoids who believe every government scare tactic and are ready to impose their will on everybody else against all logic and reason than I am about rogue clouds.

X100000000000000000000000000

Pants
08-16-2010, 10:23 AM
Goddamn, dude. How many times does it have to be said that Global Warming is not about the hottest day here or the coldest day there. It's about a very slow increase of the average water temperatures (we're talking less than a degree per year) in the Oceans which then can affect the climate long term. If only one of these days the retards would quit bringing up "OMG it's so cold/hot here" bullshit... JFC.

P.S. It is a fact that Oceans are warming up... more and more ice is melting at the poles. The thing to debate is whether we, as humans, are affecting it and if so to what extent and what can be done to change the trend. That is the real debate.

Brainiac
08-16-2010, 10:26 AM
Goddamn, dude. How many times does it have to be said that Global Warming is not about the hottest day here or the coldest day there. It's about a very slow increase of the average water temperatures (we're talking less than a degree per year) in the Oceans which then can affect the climate long term. If only one of these days the retards would quit bringing up "OMG it's so cold/hot here" bullshit... JFC.

P.S. It is a fact that Oceans are warming up... more and more ice is melting at the poles. The thing to debate is whether we, as humans, are affecting it and if so to what extent and what can be done to change the trend. That is the real debate.
That's right. The problem is that a lot of people want to just immediately implement policies like Cap and Trade without giving any consideration to the fact that it would cripple the economy and would be completely ineffective.

alpha_omega
08-16-2010, 10:28 AM
How about climate change is a normal part of the lifecycle of this planet???????????

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 10:45 AM
How about climate change is a normal part of the lifecycle of this planet???????????

well that's not gonna make anyone any money. so it's not an option.

orange
08-16-2010, 11:08 AM
Do you have any literature that it is the hottest summer on record? And if you do, is that worldwide or just in your little world there in Springfield?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jbK6a-zNlRk3Az-Upzue83KHF5Bw

Climate change to blame for hottest summer ever?
By Marlowe Hood (AFP) – Jul 19, 2010

PARIS — The first six months of 2010 brought a string of warmest-ever global temperatures, but connecting these dots to long-term climate change patterns remains frustratingly difficult, experts say.

Not only was last month the hottest June ever recorded, it was the fourth consecutive month in which the standing high mark was topped, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Indeed, 2010 has already surpassed 1998 for the most record-breaking months in a calendar year.

As a block, the January-to-June period registered the warmest combined global land and ocean surface temperatures since 1880, when reliable temperature readings began, NOAA said.

Arctic ice cover -- another critical yardstick of global warming -- had also retreated more than ever before by July 1, putting it on track to shrink beyond its smallest area to date, in 2007.

On the face of it, these numbers would seem to be alarming confirmation of climate models that put Earth on a path towards potentially catastrophic impacts.

mlyonsd
08-16-2010, 11:13 AM
On the face of it, these numbers would seem to be alarming confirmation of climate models that put Earth on a path towards potentially catastrophic impacts.

JFC. You'd be hard pressed to find a better example of hyperbole.

orange
08-16-2010, 11:19 AM
Here's July:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-land-sfc-mntp&year=2010&month=7&ext=gif&thumb=true/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&year=2010&month=7&ext=gif&thumb=true/

The red dots are hotter than normal.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=7&submitted=Get+Report

Large portions of each inhabited continent were substantially warmer than average during July 2010, contributing to the global land-only record warmth. The areas with the most anomalous warmth were Europe, western Russia, and parts of eastern Asia. Cooler-than-average conditions were present across western Alaska, southern South America, eastern Kazakhstan, and central Russia. The worldwide land surface temperature was 1.03°C (1.85°F) above the 20th century average—this value represented the warmest July on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1998. Meanwhile, the worldwide ocean surface temperature represented the fifth warmest July on record. Warmer-than-average SSTs were present across the Atlantic, Indian, and western North Pacific oceans. The warmth was most pronounced in the Atlantic Ocean. Cooler-than-average SSTs were present across the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean, and the southern oceans. La Niña conditions developed during July 2010, as sea surface temperatures (SSTs) continued to drop across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), La Niña conditions are expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2010-2011. Overall, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2010 was the second warmest July—behind 1998—on record since records began in 1880. The combined global land and ocean temperature anomaly was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average, falling only 0.04°C (0.07°F) short of tying the record set in 1998.

FishingRod
08-16-2010, 11:50 AM
It seems obvious to me that regardless of if the Earth were heating or cooling there would be some costs and some benefits. Have we ever had a discussion of what the benefits of global warming might be? Might they outweigh the costs? I am not asserting that there would be more good than bad but simply curious why that never seems to enter the discussion.

Jawshco
08-16-2010, 11:55 AM
Where is getting so much hotter than usual? Where I'm at in Central California, we're setting records for it being a cooler than usual.

loochy
08-16-2010, 11:57 AM
Where is getting so much hotter than usual? Where I'm at in Central California, we're setting records for it being a cooler than usual.

Apparently everywhere. If you disagree then you are wrong.

Jawshco
08-16-2010, 12:04 PM
Here's July:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-land-sfc-mntp&year=2010&month=7&ext=gif&thumb=true/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&year=2010&month=7&ext=gif&thumb=true/

The red dots are hotter than normal.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=7&submitted=Get+Report

Large portions of each inhabited continent were substantially warmer than average during July 2010, contributing to the global land-only record warmth. The areas with the most anomalous warmth were Europe, western Russia, and parts of eastern Asia. Cooler-than-average conditions were present across western Alaska, southern South America, eastern Kazakhstan, and central Russia. The worldwide land surface temperature was 1.03°C (1.85°F) above the 20th century average—this value represented the warmest July on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1998. Meanwhile, the worldwide ocean surface temperature represented the fifth warmest July on record. Warmer-than-average SSTs were present across the Atlantic, Indian, and western North Pacific oceans. The warmth was most pronounced in the Atlantic Ocean. Cooler-than-average SSTs were present across the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean, and the southern oceans. La Niña conditions developed during July 2010, as sea surface temperatures (SSTs) continued to drop across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), La Niña conditions are expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2010-2011. Overall, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2010 was the second warmest July—behind 1998—on record since records began in 1880. The combined global land and ocean temperature anomaly was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average, falling only 0.04°C (0.07°F) short of tying the record set in 1998.

I don't know how correct those red dots are. One of the appears to cover the area I live, and it's been cooler than usual here. July was our hottest month (but entirely normal for us), but June was Surprising cool for Central Valley California, and this current month is also cooler than usual. I'm not sure if our local weather people would agree with the chart.

Hydrae
08-16-2010, 12:05 PM
Here's July:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-land-sfc-mntp&year=2010&month=7&ext=gif&thumb=true/http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&year=2010&month=7&ext=gif&thumb=true/

The red dots are hotter than normal.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=7&submitted=Get+Report

Large portions of each inhabited continent were substantially warmer than average during July 2010, contributing to the global land-only record warmth. The areas with the most anomalous warmth were Europe, western Russia, and parts of eastern Asia. Cooler-than-average conditions were present across western Alaska, southern South America, eastern Kazakhstan, and central Russia. The worldwide land surface temperature was 1.03°C (1.85°F) above the 20th century average—this value represented the warmest July on record, surpassing the previous record set in 1998. Meanwhile, the worldwide ocean surface temperature represented the fifth warmest July on record. Warmer-than-average SSTs were present across the Atlantic, Indian, and western North Pacific oceans. The warmth was most pronounced in the Atlantic Ocean. Cooler-than-average SSTs were present across the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean, and the southern oceans. La Niña conditions developed during July 2010, as sea surface temperatures (SSTs) continued to drop across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), La Niña conditions are expected to strengthen and last through the Northern Hemisphere winter 2010-2011. Overall, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2010 was the second warmest July—behind 1998—on record since records began in 1880. The combined global land and ocean temperature anomaly was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average, falling only 0.04°C (0.07°F) short of tying the record set in 1998.

So now we are going to use temperature comparisons to the period when we were "headed to another ice age" and wonder why it shows temps being higher. :rolleyes:

orange
08-16-2010, 12:14 PM
So now we are going to use temperature comparisons to the period when we were "headed to another ice age" and wonder why it shows temps being higher. :rolleyes:

What is this "another ice age" you and AustinChief refer to? I've only ever heard of one stupid article - in Newsweek or something, not a journal - and yet the deniers keep preaching it like Gospel. Perhaps you can elaborate.


p.s. If the '70s were cool, the '80s were warm, and the '90s were warm, what is ('70s + '80s + '90s) average?

Hydrae
08-16-2010, 12:21 PM
What is this "another ice age" you and AustinChief refer to? I've only ever heard of one stupid article - in Newsweek or something, not a journal - and yet the deniers keep preaching it like Gospel. Perhaps you can elaborate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I know it is wikipedia but it will give you a starting place. It also has a cool little map showing the world being blue for cooling instead of red for warming. :)

Edit: here is the map. It is a comparison of temps between 1965-1975 and "normal" temps seen between 1937-1946.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/29/Global_Cooling_Map.png/220px-

Hydrae
08-16-2010, 12:25 PM
What is this "another ice age" you and AustinChief refer to? I've only ever heard of one stupid article - in Newsweek or something, not a journal - and yet the deniers keep preaching it like Gospel. Perhaps you can elaborate.


p.s. If the '70s were cool, the '80s were warm, and the '90s were warm, what is ('70s + '80s + '90s) average?

The point really is that we humans are pretty arrogant to think that we can look at such a small sampling of weather (temps have been kept for all of 130 years) and think we can predict what is happening in the big picture. 30-40 years ago we were talking about cooling trends, now we are talking about warming trends. Maybe in another 30-40 years we will be talking about perfectly normal temperatures, who knows.

orange
08-16-2010, 12:27 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

I know it is wikipedia but it will give you a starting place. It also has a cool little map showing the world being blue for cooling instead of red for warming. :)


From that article:

In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming.[2] The general public had little awareness of carbon dioxide's effects on climate, but Science News in May 1959 forecast a 25% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in the 150 years from 1850 to 2000, with a consequent warming trend.[3] The actual increase in this period was 29%. Paul R. Ehrlich mentioned climate change from greenhouse gases in 1968.[4] By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s temperatures had stopped falling, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's warming effects.[5] In response to such reports, the World Meteorological Organization issued a warning in June 1976 that a very significant warming of global climate was probable.[6]


That seems to DEFEAT your claim, doesn't it?

vailpass
08-16-2010, 12:28 PM
It seems there isn't enough tin foil in the world for some of you.

orange
08-16-2010, 12:31 PM
Here's another:

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s
02/22/2008 By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.
The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New York Times and National Geographic published articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report.

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

orange
08-16-2010, 12:37 PM
The point really is that we humans are pretty arrogant to think that we can look at such a small sampling of weather (temps have been kept for all of 130 years) and think we can predict what is happening in the big picture. 30-40 years ago we were talking about cooling trends, now we are talking about warming trends. Maybe in another 30-40 years we will be talking about perfectly normal temperatures, who knows.

Science advances. We know a lot more now than then. We have better tools - models, satellite data, super computers - plus 40 years of additional research and analysis.

If you don't see that, try flipping on your widescreen digital HD TV.

Iowanian
08-16-2010, 12:41 PM
Jan-Feb were cold as hell. I guess we're even.


Anyone who is concerned about global warming should sell their car, unplug their TV, Computer and Airconditioner and walk the walk.

Bwana
08-16-2010, 12:42 PM
Global warming :shake:

Hydrae
08-16-2010, 01:52 PM
Jan-Feb were cold as hell. I guess we're even.


Anyone who is concerned about global warming should sell their car, unplug their TV, Computer and Airconditioner and walk the walk.

This x eleventy billions

Hydrae
08-16-2010, 01:55 PM
Science advances. We know a lot more now than then. We have better tools - models, satellite data, super computers - plus 40 years of additional research and analysis.

If you don't see that, try flipping on your widescreen digital HD TV.

I am not going to say the planet is not warming. I am also not going to buy that the entire reason is human influenced. We are talking trends that are thousands of years long and we arrogantly believe we understand these processes after 130 years of temperature trending. Should we do something to diminish our impact? Sure. Should we tear out our entire way of life becuase we "might" be causing these issues? Hell no!

Brainiac
08-16-2010, 02:06 PM
http://www.fox4kc.com/extras/wdaf/weather/almanac/waother.html

KANSAS CITY WEATHER RECORDS
The period of record begins 7/1/1888. It was not possible to obtain long term observational data from locations other than the Downtown Airport and Kansas City International. It is well known that many locations in Greater Kansas City have had higher one-day rainfall amounts, i.e. the "Plaza flood of 1977". It is also well known that, for the most part, the Downtown airport will have higher maximum and higher minimum temperatures than KCI. Originally compiled by Allen Pearson and now exclusively by the WDAF FOX 4 Weather Department. Updated May 1998

HIGHEST AND LOWEST TEMPERATURE
High of 113 degrees.......... August 14 1936 (Downtown Arpt)
Low of -23 degrees........... December 21 & 22 1989 (KCI)

CONSECUTIVE DAYS WITH
100 degrees or more.......17..........July 4-20 1980 (Downtown Arpt)
90 degrees or more.......39..........July 8-August 15 1934
32 degrees or less.......47..........December 29 1978-Feb 13 1979
0 degrees or less........9..........December 18-26 1983

YEARS WITH
100 Degrees or more.......53..........in 1936 (Downtown Arpt)
90 Degrees or more.......90..........in 1936 (Downtown Arpt)
32 Degrees or less......122..........in 1979 and 1975 (KCI)
0 Degrees or less.......20..........in 1979 (KCI) and 1936 (MKC)



Can you imagine how loudly the environmental wackos of today would be screaming if we had 17 consecutive days where the temperature was 100 degrees or more? It happened in 1980. What if the temperature hit 113 degrees in Kansas City? It happened in 1936.

Thank God the Obamunists weren't in power then. We'd be paying a 99% Carbon Tax and watching television by candle light.

orange
08-16-2010, 02:19 PM
KANSAS CITY = http://transportation.ky.gov/progmgmt/images/world.jpg

:spock:

go bowe
08-16-2010, 02:32 PM
http://www.fox4kc.com/extras/wdaf/weather/almanac/waother.html



Can you imagine how loudly the environmental wackos of today would be screaming if we had 17 consecutive days where the temperature was 100 degrees or more? It happened in 1980. What if the temperature hit 113 degrees in Kansas City? It happened in 1936.

Thank God the Obamunists weren't in power then. We'd be paying a 99% Carbon Tax and watching television by candle light.ummm...

if there was no juice for lights, how would the tv work?

Pants
08-16-2010, 02:37 PM
http://www.fox4kc.com/extras/wdaf/weather/almanac/waother.html



Can you imagine how loudly the environmental wackos of today would be screaming if we had 17 consecutive days where the temperature was 100 degrees or more? It happened in 1980. What if the temperature hit 113 degrees in Kansas City? It happened in 1936.

Thank God the Obamunists weren't in power then. We'd be paying a 99% Carbon Tax and watching television by candle light.

Jesus Christ. Didn't you quote my post like you understood what I was saying? Holy shit, I swear to God, with every passing day it seems like we're heading toward the world depicted in Idiocracy.

Pants
08-16-2010, 02:43 PM
I am not going to say the planet is not warming. I am also not going to buy that the entire reason is human influenced. We are talking trends that are thousands of years long and we arrogantly believe we understand these processes after 130 years of temperature trending. Should we do something to diminish our impact? Sure. Should we tear out our entire way of life becuase we "might" be causing these issues? Hell no!

You would be right if paleoclimatology didn't exist. It does, however, so you're WRONG.

Hydrae
08-16-2010, 02:45 PM
You would be right if paleoclimatology didn't exist. It does, however, so you're WRONG.

You are right, I am sure humans were to blame for heating and cooling trends we see in ice cores.

mlyonsd
08-16-2010, 02:47 PM
You are right, I am sure humans were to blame for heating and cooling trends we see in ice cores.
I wonder what the ice cores from the last ice age would reveal.

Oh wait, that's right, they're gone.

Hydrae
08-16-2010, 02:51 PM
Ok, how about this little piece from Nature (I actually read it in Scientific American). It states that while we can see the increase in shrubbery in the Arctic and that the spread has gotten faster in the last 50 years (as can be seen with direct picture evidence), the trend began 150 years ago, before the start of the industrial revolution. If this is all man-made, how did it start before we started throwing out all of our pollution?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6837/full/411546a0.html

The Mad Crapper
08-16-2010, 02:51 PM
Setting up to be the hottest on record. Summers are getting hotter and hotter.

Etc. You know where I'm going with this.

Are there still people here that doubt climate change/global warming as a serious planet-wide threat?

For the people here who believe in it, what should be done?

Carbon pricing?

Cap and trade (or as Republicans say: "cancer and aids")?

Direct government sponsoring of alternative energy R&D?

Carbon capture and storage?

Mere adaption?

Aqua for Pakistan!

http://www.iaza.com/work/100817C/081610floods29169353259-iaza.jpg

Pants
08-16-2010, 03:00 PM
Ok, how about this little piece from Nature (I actually read it in Scientific American). It states that while we can see the increase in shrubbery in the Arctic and that the spread has gotten faster in the last 50 years (as can be seen with direct picture evidence), the trend began 150 years ago, before the start of the industrial revolution. If this is all man-made, how did it start before we started throwing out all of our pollution?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6837/full/411546a0.html

Please tell me when and where you ever heard someone claim "it's all man-made". I sure haven't heard anything like that before. And to address your previous post: yes, the data from the ice-cores, etc can give us a fogged up window through which we can look at natural trends in the past and compare to the present trends we have at hand.

Hydrae
08-16-2010, 03:08 PM
Please tell me when and where you ever heard someone claim "it's all man-made". I sure haven't heard anything like that before. And to address your previous post: yes, the data from the ice-cores, etc can give us a fogged up window through which we can look at natural trends in the past and compare to the present trends we have at hand.

How about primarily man-made?

Pants
08-16-2010, 03:13 PM
How about primarily man-made?

I'm not going to argue semantics with you, but I don't think you'd be able to find too many scientists in the field saying that Global Warming is primarily man-made. The hardest part is to figure out how much we are affecting the constant warming that the Earth is currently undergoing. We're definitely not helping matters, but once again it's all relative and very hard to discern.

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 03:18 PM
I'm not going to argue semantics with you, but I don't think you'd be able to find too many scientists in the field saying that Global Warming is primarily man-made. The hardest part is to figure out how much we are affecting the constant warming that the Earth is currently undergoing. We're definitely not helping matters, but once again it's all relative and very hard to discern.

Well until we know how much humans are truly effecting climate change, doesn't it seem that the prudent course of action is more study instead of more spending?

Brainiac
08-16-2010, 03:20 PM
A few years from now the global warming alarmists will take their place in history along with the people who insisted that Y2K was going to cause havoc in computer systems and the people who insisted that the H1N1 flu "pandemic" was going to be like nothing we've ever seen before.

Face it guys, the chicken littles of the world don't have a great track record.

Pants
08-16-2010, 03:24 PM
Well until we know how much humans are truly effecting climate change, doesn't it seem that the prudent course of action is more study instead of more spending?

I think the more prudent course of action is to stay on the safe side in case all that extra CO2 that's being produced by the civilized world is, in fact, speeding up the process or doing irreversible (as far as humanity goes) damage. I think THAT is the more prudent thing to do.

ROYC75
08-16-2010, 03:26 PM
Setting up to be the hottest on record. Summers are getting hotter and hotter.

Etc. You know where I'm going with this.

Are there still people here that doubt climate change/global warming as a serious planet-wide threat?

For the people here who believe in it, what should be done?

Carbon pricing?

Cap and trade (or as Republicans say: "cancer and aids")?

Direct government sponsoring of alternative energy R&D?

Carbon capture and storage?

Mere adaption?

It's HOT alright, People are HOT over the way he has spent, keeps spending the country into oblivion. Hot over his wonderful administration that keeps screwing up as he does.

Temperature wise ...... Naw, I've seen and have been in HOTTER times. Was the HOT summers a pre-warning of global warming to come in the 60's, 70's,80's,& 90's?

orange
08-16-2010, 03:42 PM
Ok, how about this little piece from Nature (I actually read it in Scientific American). It states that while we can see the increase in shrubbery in the Arctic and that the spread has gotten faster in the last 50 years (as can be seen with direct picture evidence), the trend began 150 years ago, before the start of the industrial revolution. If this is all man-made, how did it start before we started throwing out all of our pollution?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6837/full/411546a0.html

150 years ago WAS the start of the industrial revolution...

http://www.worthpoint.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/john-deeres-plow-factory-in-moline-illinois.jpg

... but be that as it may ...

The link you provide doesn't show much at all. Here's the WHOLE article: page 2 at this link (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Vn-CfheouSUJ:fire.biol.wwu.edu/trent/trent/HIVnaturalselection.pdf+The+warming+of+the+Alaskan+Arctic+during+the+past+150+years1+has+accelerated +over+the+last+three&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShxc0fU1iHoa3dOBWhxEGAe1DPzkc8tp2Lcoz6uayw5p0yN6gCBHjniN3xaHCi_ooFoZGyjxkO4wBGncepPpFBelI _6t7Jt2apDdGVyvdZow0iLbcwrE3Eo-ryRoB5Cc9llFJHE&sig=AHIEtbRsEGtjpujHXww1EGA9jczXhawHgQ)

The main things to get out of that are (1) the spread of shrubbery confirms the warming from the earlier article, and (2) most importantly, the title of the earlier article (footnote 1).

Here is THAT article in its entirety: Arctic Environmental Change Of The Last Four Centuries (pdf) (http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/overpeck1997.pdf)

The upshot of that is that global warming gasses are strongly accelerating the warming and that this is clear in spite of the ordinary variability.

"Our reconstruction of past environmental change in the Arctic suggests that natural variability is large in this region and is working together with human forcing (through increased concentrations of atmospheric trace gases) to drive unprecedented changes in the Arctic environment."

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 03:43 PM
I think the more prudent course of action is to stay on the safe side in case all that extra CO2 that's being produced by the civilized world is, in fact, speeding up the process or doing irreversible (as far as humanity goes) damage. I think THAT is the more prudent thing to do.

But we don't know what the damage is, if any. Right? Reminds me of the war on terror. We have a faceless enemy and at no point can we claim victory because we don't know what a win would look like.

Oucho Cinco
08-16-2010, 03:44 PM
Well until we know how much humans are truly effecting climate change, doesn't it seem that the prudent course of action is more study instead of more spending?

How much impact do the ants in your yard have to do with your normal cycles? None you say. We are ants on this planet, he have little, if any, impact on the earth and it's cycles. One little volcano has more impact in a minor eruption than we would in a million years.

I honestly think you just don't get it. Nothing we do short of setting off 1000's of nukes will impact the earth, it will adapt and overcome the virus that man is.

Pants
08-16-2010, 03:49 PM
But we don't know what the damage is, if any. Right? Reminds me of the war on terror. We have a faceless enemy and at no point can we claim victory because we don't know what a win would look like.

There is no claiming victory. There is no war to win. The point is to try and figure it out and while doing so limit the possible irreversible damage by reducing emissions/CO2 build up (be it from transportation, coal burning, deforestation or anything else). It's just a matter of not fucking ourselves or our kids in the ass.

Pants
08-16-2010, 03:51 PM
How much impact do the ants in your yard have to do with your normal cycles? None you say. We are ants on this planet, he have little, if any, impact on the earth and it's cycles. One little volcano has more impact in a minor eruption than we would in a million years.

I honestly think you just don't get it. Nothing we do short of setting off 1000's of nukes will impact the earth, it will adapt and overcome the virus that man is.

Nobody is worried about the planet itself, you fucking monkey. We're worried about sustaining humanity (which might become impossible if enough fresh water is melted into the oceans).

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 03:55 PM
How much impact do the ants in your yard have to do with your normal cycles? None you say. We are ants on this planet, he have little, if any, impact on the earth and it's cycles. One little volcano has more impact in a minor eruption than we would in a million years.

I honestly think you just don't get it. Nothing we do short of setting off 1000's of nukes will impact the earth, it will adapt and overcome the virus that man is.

We're on the same team. But thanks.

orange
08-16-2010, 04:00 PM
I honestly think you just don't get it. Nothing we do short of setting off 1000's of nukes will impact the earth, it will adapt and overcome the virus that man is.

http://duckwater.bu.edu/urban/lights_dmsp.jpg

:facepalm:

stevieray
08-16-2010, 04:07 PM
LMAO

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 04:09 PM
http://duckwater.bu.edu/urban/lights_dmsp.jpg

:facepalm:

is that a map of literacy rates?

Guru
08-16-2010, 04:12 PM
We have had hotter summers than this. sheesh

orange
08-16-2010, 04:12 PM
is that a map of literacy rates?

No, it's a map of how many ants have electricity.

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 04:16 PM
No, it's a map of how many ants have electricity.

ants don't use ele...ohhhhhhh.

Oucho Cinco
08-16-2010, 05:19 PM
Nobody is worried about the planet itself, you ****ing monkey. We're worried about sustaining humanity (which might become impossible if enough fresh water is melted into the oceans).

That isn't going to happen so your worries are over, st least for your lifetime.
Think about the cycles of the seasons and figure some are more intense and over all run in cycles outside of recorded weather patterns.

Oucho Cinco
08-16-2010, 05:21 PM
We have had hotter summers than this. sheesh

You can't argue with some of these people, they grab onto a wild story and all of a sudden become experts like Al Gore and will not be swayed.

Lzen
08-16-2010, 05:23 PM
Did any of you guys watch this video? Very interesting to say the least.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6937678&postcount=37

Bwana
08-16-2010, 07:05 PM
This documentary about the Carbon hoax is worthwhile. If you only watch 3 minutes of it, watch the three minutes between about 21:00 and 24:00.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#



<EMBED style="WIDTH: 400px; HEIGHT: 326px" id=VideoPlayback type=application/x-shockwave-flash src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-5576670191369613647&hl=en&fs=true allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always"> </EMBED>


Heh, Al Gore is such a fucking hack.

petegz28
08-16-2010, 08:03 PM
Nobody is worried about the planet itself, you ****ing monkey. We're worried about sustaining humanity (which might become impossible if enough fresh water is melted into the oceans).

I don't care what your take is on GW. If your concern is the sustaining of human life then we need to be investing a lot more into space exploration because this planet is not going to last forever. In fact it will be uninhabitable for several thousand years if not longer before it finally gets swallowed up but the Sun.

Just saying.......get your priorities straight.

petegz28
08-16-2010, 08:13 PM
Did any of you guys watch this video? Very interesting to say the least.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=6937678&postcount=37

I refuse to believe solar activity and solar winds have anything to do with temperature change. As if the sun could cause us to get warmer. It's the god damn Dodge Durangos and Chevy Suburbans that are going to melt us all!!!

Oucho Cinco
08-16-2010, 08:38 PM
I don't care what your take is on GW. If your concern is the sustaining of human life then we need to be investing a lot more into space exploration because this planet is not going to last forever. In fact it will be uninhabitable for several thousand years if not longer before it finally gets swallowed up but the Sun.

The planet earth has lasted millions of years, it will survive. Mankind may not but I'd say it's probably a time to flush. According to Christian beliefs the time for the end of this planet full of people is ready for that flush, however it happens.

Just saying.......get your priorities straight.

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 08:40 PM
According to Christian beliefs the time for the end of this planet full of people is ready for that flush, however it happens.
.

please...stop tipping the bottle before you post on here. ready for the flush? wow.

Oucho Cinco
08-16-2010, 08:44 PM
please...stop tipping the bottle before you post on here. ready for the flush? wow.

Hang on for the ride.

petegz28
08-16-2010, 08:48 PM
The planet earth has lasted millions of years, it will survive. Mankind may not but I'd say it's probably a time to flush. According to Christian beliefs the time for the end of this planet full of people is ready for that flush, however it happens.

Just saying.......get your priorities straight.

I don't care how long it has lasted, it is a scientific fact that it will end. It will be baked to nothing if not consumed whole when our Sun expands and then dies. So no, it will not survive. And should it "survive" the death of our sun it will be nothing more than a barren, frozen rock floating in space void of life.

Oucho Cinco
08-16-2010, 08:59 PM
I don't care how long it has lasted, it is a scientific fact that it will end. It will be baked to nothing if not consumed whole when our Sun expands and then dies. So no, it will not survive. And should it "survive" the death of our sun it will be nothing more than a barren, frozen rock floating in space void of life.

I'm saying it's not going to happen in our lifetimes nor our kids, grandkids or even great grandkids.

Man's time is shorter than the planet, but I don't think things change in the cataclysmic manner you think it will.

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 09:19 PM
I'm saying it's not going to happen in our lifetimes nor our kids, grandkids or even great grandkids.

Man's time is shorter than the planet, but I don't think things change in the cataclysmic manner you think it will.

since the earth is only 6000 years old, i'd say we have some time...

Brainiac
08-16-2010, 09:35 PM
This documentary about the Carbon hoax is worthwhile. If you only watch 3 minutes of it, watch the three minutes between about 21:00 and 24:00.


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#



<EMBED style="WIDTH: 400px; HEIGHT: 326px" id=VideoPlayback type=application/x-shockwave-flash src=http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-5576670191369613647&hl=en&fs=true allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true"> </EMBED>

This is a great video. I saw it for the first time a couple of years ago. The name of this video is The Great Global Warming Swindle. Anyone who preaches the gospel of Global Warming and refuses to watch this video is not really seeking the truth.

To summarize for those without the attention span to actually watch an hour-long video:

The AGW alarmists conveniently ignore the climate changes that have been occurring for thousands of years, long before man ever even conceived of an Industrial Revolution. Temperatures were much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, and they were much colder during the Little Ice Age.

http://a.imageshack.us/img404/4184/temp1000years.jpg

The AGW alarmists on Chiefsplanet love to make posts claiming that global warming began right around the time of the Industrial Revolution. What they fail to point out is that global temperatures dropped for nearly four decades from 1940 to 1980. So what happened for those 40 years? Did man suddenly stop producing carbon dioxide in 1940 and then abruptly resume in 1980?

http://a.imageshack.us/img408/4346/temp120years.jpg

The fact is that increases in carbon dioxide levels do not cause global warming. Global warming causes increases in Carbon Dioxide. Al Gore and his followers have the causality reversed. How do we know this? We know this because the changes in global temperatures come BEFORE the changes in carbon dioxide levels. The lag is approximately 800 years. This is obvious when you actually look at the historical data from the ice core data regarding the changes in global temperature and the changes in carbon dioxide.

http://a.imageshack.us/img375/8523/800yearlag.jpg

Man produces a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide in atmosphere. Volcanoes produce FAR more than all of our factories and automobiles combined. By far the biggest source of carbon dioxide is the ocean. It's ridiculous to think that man can produce an amount of carbon dioxide significant enough to cause climate change.

http://a.imageshack.us/img827/4453/volcanos.jpg

So, what could possibly be causing these climate changes? Wait, (gasp), could it be the sun????

If you compare solar activity to global temperature changes, guess what you find? It's an exact match! And during the cooling period from 1940 to 1980, solar activity decreased in exactly the same manner that global temperatures did.

http://a.imageshack.us/img826/6052/solaractivity.jpg

It should be pretty freaking obvious by now what causes climate change. It's not man. It's not smokestacks on factories. It's not automobiles. It's the freaking sun!

http://a.imageshack.us/img90/6844/sunv.jpg

Unfortunately, Al Gore and the Obamunists will continue to make ridiculous statements that catastrophic changes will occur unless we immediately embrace the political agenda of the global warming movement. This is the movement that enabled Al Gore to put $100 Million in his pocket. It's not hard to figure out why Al Gore is such an evangelist for this. What's hard to figure out is why so many people buy into this scam.

I wish you people would wake up.

healthpellets
08-16-2010, 09:37 PM
This is a great video. I saw it for the first time a couple of years ago. The name of this video is The Great Global Warming Swindle. Anyone who preaches the gospel of Global Warming and refuses to watch this video is not really seeking the truth.

To summarize for those without the attention span to actually watch an hour-long video:

The AGW alarmists conveniently ignore the climate changes that have been occurring for thousands of years, long before man ever even conceived of an Industrial Revolution. Temperatures were much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, and they were much colder during the Little Ice Age.

http://a.imageshack.us/img404/4184/temp1000years.jpg

The AGW alarmists on Chiefsplanet love to make posts claiming that global warming began right around the time of the Industrial Revolution. What they fail to point out is that global temperatures dropped for nearly four decades from 1940 to 1980. So what happened for those 40 years? Did man suddenly stop producing carbon dioxide in 1940 and then abruptly resume in 1980?

http://a.imageshack.us/img408/4346/temp120years.jpg

The fact is that increases in carbon dioxide levels do not cause global warming. Global warming causes increases in Carbon Dioxide. Al Gore and his followers have the causality reversed. How do we know this? We know this because the changes in global temperatures come BEFORE the changes in carbon dioxide levels. The lag is approximately 800 years. This is obvious when you actually look at the historical data from the ice core data regarding the changes in global temperature and the changes in carbon dioxide.

http://a.imageshack.us/img375/8523/800yearlag.jpg

Man produces a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide in atmosphere. Volcanoes produce FAR more than all of our factories and automobiles combined. By far the biggest source of carbon dioxide is the ocean. It's ridiculous to think that man can produce an amount of carbon dioxide significant enough to cause climate change.

http://a.imageshack.us/img827/4453/volcanos.jpg

So, what could possibly be causing these climate changes? Wait, (gasp), could it be the sun????

If you compare solar activity to global temperature changes, guess what you find? It's an exact match! And during the cooling period from 1940 to 1980, solar activity decreased in exactly the same manner that global temperatures did.

http://a.imageshack.us/img826/6052/solaractivity.jpg

It should be pretty freaking obvious by now what causes climate change. It's not man. It's not smokestacks on factories. It's not automobiles. It's the freaking sun!

http://a.imageshack.us/img90/6844/sunv.jpg

Unfortunately, Al Gore and the Obamunists will continue to make ridiculous statements that catastrophic changes will occur unless we immediately embrace the political agenda of the global warming movement. This is the movement that enabled Al Gore to put $100 Million in his pocket. It's not hard to figure out why Al Gore is such an evangelist for this. What's hard to figure out is why so many people buy into this scam.

I wish you people would wake up.

POTW.

googlegoogle
08-16-2010, 09:57 PM
nice one brain.

alanm
08-16-2010, 10:03 PM
I don't know which is dumber...the people that think we are causing golbal warming or the people that think we can do something about it.:clap::clap::clap:

FD
08-16-2010, 11:43 PM
This is a great video. I saw it for the first time a couple of years ago. The name of this video is The Great Global Warming Swindle. Anyone who preaches the gospel of Global Warming and refuses to watch this video is not really seeking the truth.

To summarize for those without the attention span to actually watch an hour-long video:

The AGW alarmists conveniently ignore the climate changes that have been occurring for thousands of years, long before man ever even conceived of an Industrial Revolution. Temperatures were much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, and they were much colder during the Little Ice Age.

http://a.imageshack.us/img404/4184/temp1000years.jpg

The AGW alarmists on Chiefsplanet love to make posts claiming that global warming began right around the time of the Industrial Revolution. What they fail to point out is that global temperatures dropped for nearly four decades from 1940 to 1980. So what happened for those 40 years? Did man suddenly stop producing carbon dioxide in 1940 and then abruptly resume in 1980?

http://a.imageshack.us/img408/4346/temp120years.jpg

The fact is that increases in carbon dioxide levels do not cause global warming. Global warming causes increases in Carbon Dioxide. Al Gore and his followers have the causality reversed. How do we know this? We know this because the changes in global temperatures come BEFORE the changes in carbon dioxide levels. The lag is approximately 800 years. This is obvious when you actually look at the historical data from the ice core data regarding the changes in global temperature and the changes in carbon dioxide.

http://a.imageshack.us/img375/8523/800yearlag.jpg

Man produces a tiny fraction of the carbon dioxide in atmosphere. Volcanoes produce FAR more than all of our factories and automobiles combined. By far the biggest source of carbon dioxide is the ocean. It's ridiculous to think that man can produce an amount of carbon dioxide significant enough to cause climate change.

http://a.imageshack.us/img827/4453/volcanos.jpg

So, what could possibly be causing these climate changes? Wait, (gasp), could it be the sun????

If you compare solar activity to global temperature changes, guess what you find? It's an exact match! And during the cooling period from 1940 to 1980, solar activity decreased in exactly the same manner that global temperatures did.

http://a.imageshack.us/img826/6052/solaractivity.jpg

It should be pretty freaking obvious by now what causes climate change. It's not man. It's not smokestacks on factories. It's not automobiles. It's the freaking sun!

http://a.imageshack.us/img90/6844/sunv.jpg

Unfortunately, Al Gore and the Obamunists will continue to make ridiculous statements that catastrophic changes will occur unless we immediately embrace the political agenda of the global warming movement. This is the movement that enabled Al Gore to put $100 Million in his pocket. It's not hard to figure out why Al Gore is such an evangelist for this. What's hard to figure out is why so many people buy into this scam.

I wish you people would wake up.


Gosh. If only someone would tell the scientists this important information! They are so ignorant!

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 03:40 AM
since the earth is only 6000 years old, i'd say we have some time...

Where do you get that age? Are you stupid or something? Your concept of the earths age just points out that you are a loon at best.

Brainiac
08-17-2010, 05:49 AM
Gosh. If only someone would tell the scientists this important information! They are so ignorant!

This information came from REAL scientists, not the pseudo-scientists that are screaming that the sky is falling. If you had bothered to watch the video you'd know that.

chiefsnorth
08-17-2010, 06:07 AM
We know. No matter what the weather is, it always portends doom and proves decisively that we need massive increases in taxes and bureaucracy

Brainiac
08-17-2010, 07:22 AM
We know. No matter what the weather is, it always portends doom and proves decisively that we need massive increases in taxes and bureaucracy
Like I said earlier in this thread, first we had the Y2K zealots telling us that computer glitches were going to cause an end to civilization as we know it. Then the swine flu zealots told us that we were going to have a pandemic that would make the bubonic plague look like a case of the sniffles. Now the global warming zealots are telling us that we are literally destroying the planet.

It would be nice if these people would learn from their mistakes and shut the f*ck up, especially since the video that Taco John posted totally and completely debunks the idea that man is responsible for climate change.

Unfortunately it's not going to happen. Obama, Gore and their buddies are determined to force Cap and Trade down our throats, and it has nothing to do with saving the planet. We can continue to point out that the emperor has no clothes, but some people will always refuse to see that.

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 07:47 AM
Where do you get that age? Are you stupid or something? Your concept of the earths age just points out that you are a loon at best.

the bible.

Hydrae
08-17-2010, 08:44 AM
Where do you get that age? Are you stupid or something? Your concept of the earths age just points out that you are a loon at best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

:)

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 08:56 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

:)

see, told you. bible says it, therefore it must be true. done deal. pwned!

Velvet_Jones
08-17-2010, 09:19 AM
This is funny. People who promote global warming want to say it is hot and this is proof that global warming is happening. But, they had a different take this winter when KC got 11 straight days of snow. But the explanation for that was that it was an anomaly and that now it is climate change not global warming.

I threw hay in 100 degree weather for 18 years of my life. It was hotter than hell. I milked cows when it was below zero for many days in a row.

You stupid ass environmental people are just that - stupid. Why don't you go save a snail darter or maybe a whooping crane or two. I hear they taste like bald eagle. It's not like the weather doesn't change. It's called the fucking seasons. Things change. Whoooo - it might be cold this winter - it might be hot this summer - no shit. Maybe if I run out in the rain I might get wet or maybe moist at a minimum.

Maybe you could actually try to get a job or something. Anyone who believes that this environmental BS is about nothing more than controlling people needs to go find a village to be an idiot for. What a bunch of BS.

Iowanian
08-17-2010, 09:44 AM
It's raining today and I was going to take my kids to the zoo.

OH NO, STOP GLOBAL WATERING BEFORE WEZ WATERWORLD!!!

HonestChieffan
08-17-2010, 11:27 AM
Weather ain't Climate. But Facts don't get new taxes so lets go with no facts and make shit up.

King_Chief_Fan
08-17-2010, 11:34 AM
come back in the winter when we are freezing our arses off and tell me about global warming...........how old is the earth and why wouldn't we expect change over time? I won't argue that man's use/misuse doens't contribute, but there would be change without those factors I would bet.

Taco John
08-17-2010, 11:46 AM
Gosh. If only someone would tell the scientists this important information! They are so ignorant!


Which ones? The ones being paid by government funding, or the ones who aren't being paid by government funding. The ones not being paid by government funding already seem to know.

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 07:17 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

:)

see, told you. bible says it, therefore it must be true. done deal. pwned!

If you two believe that you are dumber than anyone ever thought.

This earth is millions of years old, and yes it was created by God.

Your misunderstanding of the bible and the earth make you more dense and/or stupid than anyone I've ever met.

petegz28
08-17-2010, 07:19 PM
This is funny. People who promote global warming want to say it is hot and this is proof that global warming is happening. But, they had a different take this winter when KC got 11 straight days of snow. But the explanation for that was that it was an anomaly and that now it is climate change not global warming.

I threw hay in 100 degree weather for 18 years of my life. It was hotter than hell. I milked cows when it was below zero for many days in a row.

You stupid ass environmental people are just that - stupid. Why don't you go save a snail darter or maybe a whooping crane or two. I hear they taste like bald eagle. It's not like the weather doesn't change. It's called the ****ing seasons. Things change. Whoooo - it might be cold this winter - it might be hot this summer - no shit. Maybe if I run out in the rain I might get wet or maybe moist at a minimum.

Maybe you could actually try to get a job or something. Anyone who believes that this environmental BS is about nothing more than controlling people needs to go find a village to be an idiot for. What a bunch of BS.

So you're saying it is normal for it to be hot in August in the U.S.???? :eek:

petegz28
08-17-2010, 07:21 PM
If you two believe that you are dumber than anyone ever thought.

This earth is millions of years old, and yes it was created by God.

Your misunderstanding of the bible and the earth make you more dense and/or stupid than anyone I've ever met.

Millions? Try billions....with a B. Like 3.9-4.6 billion or so.

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 07:30 PM
If you two believe that you are dumber than anyone ever thought.

This earth is millions of years old, and yes it was created by God.

Your misunderstanding of the bible and the earth make you more dense and/or stupid than anyone I've ever met.

there's nothing to misunderstand.

don't eat pork. don't eat shellfish. don't be gay. don't dance. don't murder. don't many many other things. and don't question the authority of the good Book.

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 08:13 PM
there's nothing to misunderstand.

don't eat pork. don't eat shellfish. don't be gay. don't dance. don't murder. don't many many other things. and don't question the authority of the good Book.

WOW, you understand the bible?

Tell me where it says all of that stuff, or even just one of them.

Oucho Cinco
08-17-2010, 08:14 PM
Millions? Try billions....with a B. Like 3.9-4.6 billion or so.

I can't say, neither can you. What we can agree on is that it is older than 6000 like rabbitpellets says.

petegz28
08-17-2010, 08:45 PM
I can't say, neither can you. What we can agree on is that it is older than 6000 like rabbitpellets says.

Uh, yes, I can say.....

It is theorized that the true age of the earth is about 4.6 billion years old, formed at about the same time as the rest of our solar system. The oldest rocks geologists have been able to find are 3.9 billion years old.

http://www.extremescience.com/zoom/index.php/geologic-earth-history

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 09:04 PM
WOW, you understand the bible?

Tell me where it says all of that stuff, or even just one of them.

Exodus 32:19-21, 31

Leviticus 11:3-4, 11

Exodus 20:13

Brainiac
08-17-2010, 09:14 PM
I've been waiting for some of the fans of the idea of man-made global warming to jump in and explain how C02 causes global warming when the warming occurs BEFORE the increases in C02.

I'd also like to see how they explain away the obvious correlation between increases in solar activity and increases in global temperatures.

TipTap? Direckshun? Orange? Anyone?

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQFEY9RIRJA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQFEY9RIRJA?fs=1&amp;loop=0;autoplay=1;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

healthpellets
08-17-2010, 09:16 PM
I've been waiting for some of the fans of the idea of man-made global warming to jump in and explain how C02 causes global warming when the warming occurs BEFORE the increases in C02.


it's the debil, dummy.

Hydrae
08-18-2010, 06:51 AM
If you two believe that you are dumber than anyone ever thought.

This earth is millions of years old, and yes it was created by God.

Your misunderstanding of the bible and the earth make you more dense and/or stupid than anyone I've ever met.

Did I say I believed that? No, I was providing you information to educate you about something in our history. You are welcome, no charge.

healthpellets
08-18-2010, 05:10 PM
damn it's hot today.

Oucho Cinco
08-18-2010, 05:24 PM
Did I say I believed that? No, I was providing you information to educate you about something in our history. You are welcome, no charge.You don't have the ability to educate anyone if you are throwing out crap like that.

mlyonsd
08-18-2010, 05:51 PM
damn it's hot today. We've had about 5 beautiful days here. Global warming moving in for the weekend however.

tiptap
08-19-2010, 08:15 AM
II've been waiting for some of the fans of the idea of man-made global warming to jump in and explain how C02 causes global warming when the warming occurs BEFORE the increases in C02.

I'd also like to see how they explain away the obvious correlation between increases in solar activity and increases in global temperatures.

TipTap? Direckshun? Orange? Anyon

object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQFEY9RIRJA?fs=1&amhl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/CQFEY9RIRJA?fs=1&amloop=0;autoplay=1;hl=en_Utype="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


P V = nR T Pressure times Volume equals (amount of material) tomes Rydberg constant times Temperature. This is gas law. If you change one of the three variables the other two have to change. You can choose which variable to FORCE and the others follow. Not nearly as linearly, The lag between rise in temperature and rise of CO 2 is accepted by me and the vast majority of Global Warming scientist FOR PREHISTORICAL DATA. The question is what is the forcing element for the initial temperature rise. It is the orbital change of Earth and you would expect the temperature to drop as the orbital change reverts. But temperatures remain high BECAUSE OF THE RISE IN CO 2. The half life for CO 2 is long once in atmosphere. Present conditions see the Forcing factor human increase in CO 2 making it different than your example. I am on my phone so the longer more in depth discussion will have to wait. Like the Gas Law, the Forcing element can be any of the variables and the system deterministially responds. Different forcing for the two atmospheric examples being discussed.

Radar Chief
08-19-2010, 08:32 AM
We've had about 5 beautiful days here. Global warming moving in for the weekend however.

We finally got some Global Raining Tuesday, which quench the Global Drying we were facing, but some farmers appreciated it and some didn’t.
The farmers with feed corn now have to wait for their fields to dry before harvesting since their fields have turned to Global Mud.

Hydrae
08-19-2010, 09:22 AM
You don't have the ability to educate anyone if you are throwing out crap like that.

What, you don't think knowledge of past beliefs is important to know? You know, so when someone makes a reference to something you have a clue as to what they are talking about. That's fine, I will just keep in mind the shallowness of your knowledge and non-interest in deepening it when reading your posts in the future.

tiptap
08-19-2010, 10:18 AM
I


P V = nR T Pressure times Volume equals (amount of material) tomes Rydberg constant times Temperature. This is gas law. If you change one of the three variables the other two have to change. You can choose which variable to FORCE and the others follow. Not nearly as linearly, The lag between rise in temperature and rise of CO 2 is accepted by me and the vast majority of Global Warming scientist FOR PREHISTORICAL DATA. The question is what is the forcing element for the initial temperature rise. It is the orbital change of Earth and you would expect the temperature to drop as the orbital change reverts. But temperatures remain high BECAUSE OF THE RISE IN CO 2. The half life for CO 2 is long once in atmosphere. Present conditions see the Forcing factor human increase in CO 2 making it different than your example. I am on my phone so the longer more in depth discussion will have to wait. Like the Gas Law, the Forcing element can be any of the variables and the system deterministially responds. Different forcing for the two atmospheric examples being discussed.

The USGS on their web site, states humans put 10 times the amount per year of CO 2 than is introduced by the average total generated by all volcanoes per year over the last100 years.

All heating starts with solar radiation reaching the ground. It isn't so important what the sun produces as what reaches the ground. Most studies show periodic fluctuation of solar outputand no one disputes seeing the periodic temperature response up an nd down but there is no long term increase to correlate with a sustained upward trend.
But more critically, there are two different world wide methods measurements of solar radiation that find that Solar Radiation reaching the ground IS DROPPING. We have less solar radiation reaching the ground but rising temperatures. Both can be accounted for by burning fossil fuel. Global Dimming is related to particulates put in atmosphere (less radiation) and temperature rise to CO 2 increase..

Oucho Cinco
08-19-2010, 11:23 AM
What, you don't think knowledge of past beliefs is important to know? You know, so when someone makes a reference to something you have a clue as to what they are talking about. That's fine, I will just keep in mind the shallowness of your knowledge and non-interest in deepening it when reading your posts in the future.

Prove that the earth is only 6000 years old. You seem to have made that point with your link to Wiki.

Personally I don't know how you reconcile the differences between the Bible and your belief, whatever that might be, at this point it's clouded.

Attack the post not the poster, as for your personal attack. meh.

Velvet_Jones
08-19-2010, 08:35 PM
It was so hot today, I perspired a little. And when I went on my daily walk, my taint got moist. Just thought I would share.

healthpellets
08-19-2010, 08:36 PM
Prove that the earth is only 6000 years old. You seem to have made that point with your link to Wiki.

Personally I don't know how you reconcile the differences between the Bible and your belief, whatever that might be, at this point it's clouded.

Attack the post not the poster, as for your personal attack. meh.

your reading comprehension skills are...lacking.

Oucho Cinco
08-19-2010, 08:48 PM
your reading comprehension skills are...lacking.

You seem to be needing an ass whupping. I'm calling Roy D. Mercer, he should be there soon.

Oucho Cinco
08-19-2010, 08:50 PM
It was so hot today, I perspired a little. And when I went on my daily walk, my taint got moist. Just thought I would share.

I think old rabbitpellets probably got his whole taint wet.
he taint smart
he taint nice
he most likely taint loved
he taint the most hateful but he tries.
he probably taint human.

healthpellets
08-19-2010, 08:51 PM
I think old rabbitpellets probably got his whole taint wet.
he taint smart
he taint nice
he most likely taint loved
he taint the most hateful but he tries.
he probably taint human.

LMAO


:clap: