Global warming???

[violet lightning]

What do you think about "Global Warming"?

My thoughts in a nutshell are I tend to think its a big red herring.
Maybe we are warming the planet slightly, but I also know anything man does is dwarfed by nature. Think about the massive volcanoe eruptions in the 19th century, like Krakatowa. It actually caused a "nuclear winter" for several months world wide. (known as "The Little Ice Age")Thankfully, man hasn't even come close to doing that. According to some scientists, some volcanoes spew more gases and debris in a few days than man has in 10,000 years.
In my fairly short life span, I have heard scientists warning about "global cooling", and then "global warming" and saying that the coastal areas were going to flood in just a few years. (this was back in the late 70's!)
Maybe the world is warming, maybe its not. Maybe its the sun.
To me, the interesting thing is that most scientists and climatologists seem to agree that the earth is actually in a fairly temperate and calm period between major ice ages. So even if we are warming the planet slightly, aren't we actually helping forestall the eventual and inevitable next ice age?

(I'm not saying man has no effect, obviously we do, but in the case of Global warming, I'm not sure we are the sole or even main culpret-)
Thoughts?

[new believer]

Face it, it is just another get richer quicker scam by crooked people with no regards of how much fear they instill. Al Bore still stands to reap hundreds of millions of dollars through his 'Carbon Credit' ponzi scam. All those 'scientists' reap in the same for their "research". And the crooks at the UN take the same also all on the backs of American tax payers. The whole sad thing is, they KNOW it's a lie, and like every scam artist, these people have no conscience or regrets. They only see what's in it for themselves.
If it were real, then EVERY country should pay per population per square mile and also upon their industries. That would make China paying over half the cost.

[Rachel]

China is probably the worlds biggest polluter. With all their factories spewing un filtered smoke into the atmosphere. Look at how bad their air was during the Olympics. People think they are helping the environment by driving hybrid cars. Guess what? The special batteries they use are made in China. The lead they smelt to make them(through unfiltered smokestacks naturally) pollute the earth more then my fossil fuel burning vehicles ever will. I use to get really POed when the motor vehicle inspections would fail my vehicle for emmisions Some say it is rigged. I do believe that. Took my car to inspection knew it needed a tuneup. It had a digital dash giving average MPGS and such. It failed ok. Tuned it up put in new plugs air filter spark plug wires , fuel filter pcv valve, checked timing etc. Miliage jumped up from 16 average to 21. Engine running better cleaner smoother more efficient right? No they are telling me my emmisions tripled! I had a fit. I use to work at a major airport for 10 years as a mechanic. I'd be on the ramp(air operations area) jets running all over the place. I figured they burned more fuel and put out more pollution leaving the gate and taxiing out then my car ever would if it ran 24 hours a day for years. Not to mention when it flies away either.

[Rachel]

Damn I think that was the longest post I ever made here lol

[The Conquistador]

Man-caused global warming is hippie propaganda for the sole reason that humans haven't been recording temperatures long enough to determine whether or not the Earth is going through heating and cooling cycles and whether or not we actually have any part in it(and even if we do, it is most probably very minimal at best).

Stick it to the hippies; burn a tire in your backyard.

[Rachel]

damn hippies!

[randolph]

There is plenty of real data out there for anybody to look at if they are interested in more than spouting uninformed opinions.

[The Conquistador]

But randolph. How can we be sure that we are the cause of the warming? Or could the Earth naturally be going through a warming cycle? I do believe that the Earth is getting warmer, but can it be proven without a doubt, that humans are the cause of said warming?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

But randolph. How can we be sure that we are the cause of the warming? Or could the Earth naturally be going through a warming cycle? I do believe that the Earth is getting warmer, but can it be proven without a doubt, that humans are the cause of said warming?

This is where things get sticky. GW proponents blame much of the warming trend on the steady increase in CO2 levels produced by the burning of fossil fuels. There is solid physics behind this view. However, the warming trend is not following the rise in CO2. In fact, GW peaked in 1998 in many areas of the earth and has stabilized at about one degree above the long term average.
Mother nature is far more complicated than we are able to understand. The computer modeling going on is, I believe, very dubious. To predict what is going to happen ten years or fifty tears from now based on computer models is, I believe, ridiculous. However, pouring vast amounts of hydrocarbon gases into the atmosphere is asking for trouble. We don't really know what that is going to do to the climate.
What is ironic, is that after WWII there was a cooling trend until the mid seventies. What happened then? There was a concerted effort to clean up smog and smoke. This had no effect on CO2 output, however. So the smoke and smog emissions that suppressed the warming effect of CO2 were reduced allowing the CO2 to warm the air.
So unless we know what we are doing, the safest thing to do is cut back on burning oil and coal. Its not going to last forever anyway.

[The Conquistador]

I am all for alternative/renewable energy resources. I just hate it when hippies try to make me feel guilty for driving a car and try to push unproven technology onto me because they think they have some enlightened view. That's my only gripe about the GW crowd; some of them mind you, not all of them.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I am all for alternative/renewable energy resources. I just hate it when hippies try to make me feel guilty for driving a car and try to push unproven technology onto me because they think they have some enlightened view. That's my only gripe about the GW crowd; some of them mind you, not all of them.

Well, I have several cars and my favorite is my GMC Yukon. It's comfortable and fast and can get twenty MPG if I am careful. I don't care for hybrids because of the battery. Full electric has limited range, I think the best current alternative is diesel. They are just as efficient as hybrids and don't require expensive batteries. Also, diesels can run on vegetable oil. Producing vegetable oil makes far more sense than making alcohol from food (corn).

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well, I have several cars and my favorite is my GMC Yukon. It's comfortable and fast and can get twenty MPG if I am careful. I don't care for hybrids because of the battery. Full electric has limited range, I think the best current alternative is diesel. They are just as efficient as hybrids and don't require expensive batteries. Also, diesels can run on vegetable oil. Producing vegetable oil makes far more sense than making alcohol from food (corn).

Yeah. Diesels are pretty good. They also don't pollute as much as gasoline because the combustion and power strokes are alot longer and the fuel stays in the cylinder longer which allows it to be burned more completely. Plus it burns hotter because of the higher compression of a diesel engine.

Diesels also burn JP8 but this is riskier as jet fuel burns way, way hotter.

I remember seeing in Popular Mechanics an article about Bio-Diesel. It was pretty interesting.

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by randolph

There is plenty of real data out there for anybody to look at if they are interested in more than spouting uninformed opinions.

I only spout when I get excited

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Rachel

I only spout when I get excited

Your "spouting" would be most welcome!

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Rachel

I only spout when I get excited

I'd definetly want some "fuel injection". Can you fit your piston into my cylinder, or would it need to be bored oversive?

[Rachel]

My hot rod has a stroker crank lol

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Rachel

My hot rod has a stroker crank lol

I have some Tranny Honey for your stroker when needed.

[johndowe]

Hi there.

Well about the global warming thing, then there was the global cooling, but when i was a kid, living in Canada and in the winter at night i would look at the skies and if ther was a good cloud cover the next day was mild, but if it was free of clouds the next day was COLD, so global warming? i'm not so sure, and as it was stated before who knows what the "normal" temperature change is over centuries or mileniums so it is all pretty much theoretical, but polution is a real problem that has to be addressed the sooner the better, and if the threat of global warming does that, then it is not a bad thing.

JohnDowe.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by violet lightning

Think about the massive volcanoe eruptions in the 19th century, like Krakatowa. It actually caused a "nuclear winter" for several months world wide. (known as "The Little Ice Age")

A nuclear winter is caused by many detonating nuclear weapons and not a volcano. This would be a volcanic winter. Also the climatic effects are comparable.
The little ice age was from 16th century to the mid 19th century as cause of less sun activity and more volcano activity.

Originally Posted by violet lightning

Maybe we are warming the planet slightly, but I also know anything man does is dwarfed by nature...
...Thankfully, man hasn't even come close to doing that. According to some scientists, some volcanoes spew more gases and debris in a few days than man has in 10,000 years. ...
...Maybe the world is warming, maybe its not. Maybe its the sun.
To me, the interesting thing is that most scientists and climatologists seem to agree that the earth is actually in a fairly temperate and calm period between major ice ages. So even if we are warming the planet slightly, aren't we actually helping forestall the eventual and inevitable next ice age?

(I'm not saying man has no effect, obviously we do, but in the case of Global warming, I'm not sure we are the sole or even main culpret-)
Thoughts?

There are indicators that mankind has warmed the last Ice Age (not the Little Ice Age) that should have happened so that the temperature didn't fall.
Isn't it alarming that an Ice Age is coming and temperature is significant rising.
There is no question that Steam, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Halocarbon cause a Greenhouse effect. Ice cores show us that these compounds had a constant value in the atmosphere for min. 800.000 to 20 Million years, maybe much longer. 8.000 years ago (start of farming) this changed slightly. But with the industrial revolution the atmosphere change significant. In 2 hundred years the Carbon Dioxide value has risen about 40%, and the other greenhouse gases have risen comparable.

I don't think it's a good idea to burn over hundred of million year's stored fossil carbon in 300 year's. This must have an effect on the climate.
And it's not only the gases we produce, there is a massive methane production by mass animal husbandry, man burned and chopped forests for farming land and other need. We pollute more and take nature capacitate to compensate it.


Bio Diesel sound good but has worse effect on climate than fossil Diesel. There is not enough cheap useable space for the plants that are needed to make Bio Diesel. So poor countries burn down forests to get mono plant farming land to get money without taken care of nature. And the process of making Bio Diesel out of plants is not very effective by now.




A Question, why do we burn an amazing unlasting resource we are addicted to? Just one example what can be made of oil is plastic. What would life be without plastic?
Do you own a single pair of shoes without plastic in the sole? How many of your clothes are made with plastics? What is the isolator around almost every electric wire or electronic chip? In what is your food packed? Most that is used to seal (or gasketed) like windows or fridges. Nearly everything that is glued i.e. Plywood or Fiberglass. And everything else you could easily see made of plastic if you look at it with full awareness.

[The Conquistador]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this?

During the last few decades of the 20th Century, our planet did warm quickly.
The Sun (BBC)
Recent research has ruled out solar influences on temperature increases

Sceptics argue that the warming we observed was down to the energy from the Sun increasing. After all 98% of the Earth's warmth comes from the Sun.

But research conducted two years ago, and published by the Royal Society, seemed to rule out solar influences.

The scientists' main approach was simple: to look at solar output and cosmic ray intensity over the last 30-40 years, and compare those trends with the graph for global average surface temperature.

And the results were clear. "Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.

He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures.

He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.

If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.

Ocean cycles

What is really interesting at the moment is what is happening to our oceans. They are the Earth's great heat stores.

Pacific ocean (BBC)
In the last few years [the Pacific Ocean] has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down

According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.

The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).

For much of the 1980s and 1990s, it was in a positive cycle, that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too.

But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down.

These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.

So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles.

Professor Easterbrook says: "The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling."

So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along.

They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.

But those scientists who are equally passionate about man's influence on global warming argue that their science is solid.

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

To confuse the issue even further, last month Mojib Latif, a member of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) says that we may indeed be in a period of cooling worldwide temperatures that could last another 10-20 years.
Iceberg melting (BBC)
The UK Met Office says that warming is set to resume

Professor Latif is based at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany and is one of the world's top climate modellers.

But he makes it clear that he has not become a sceptic; he believes that this cooling will be temporary, before the overwhelming force of man-made global warming reasserts itself.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

[franalexes]

We just had our coldest summer anyone can remember and you STILL believe in global warming?

[Tread]

Originally Posted by franalexes

We just had our coldest summer anyone can remember and you STILL believe in global warming?

You can't say something about a huge global slow reacting system by only one summer.

[The Conquistador]

Do I believe in GW? Yes. The Earth has warmed significantly in the past 100 years and there is data to prove it. However, there has been a noticeable cooling trend within the past decade and there is also data to prove this too.

Do I believe that humans are the cause of GW? No. We haven't been keeping temperature records and other forms of data long enough to come to an accurate conclusion about our role in temp. changes. There are too many things to factor in like volcanic eruptions and forest fires that can produce significant amounts of CO2 and other pollutants.

I believe that what most people refer to as "Global Warming" is actually a natural warming cycle of the globe which will inevitably be followed by a natural cooling cycle.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by franalexes

We just had our coldest summer anyone can remember and you STILL believe in global warming?

Fran, read the article from Angry Postman. It talks about how ocean temperatures influence climate over 30 year cycles. Currently we're on the way down. It was a good article. What people, especially politicians and pundits like Gore & Limbaugh need to understand is that climate is not political. Gore had no business making a movie about a scientific topic like global warming. You read articles like the one above and see what scientists are saying or at least scientifically trained writers.

The evidence is obvious that climate does change and is still changing. The overall trend since the last several thousand years is up. Whether humans are accelerating it is still unclear, because we are still learning to understand the natural cycles that come into play.

But let's at least put an upper limit on the problem. Can humans influence climate if they really tried? Absolutely. If we wanted to we could carpet bomb the planet with nukes. I bet that would have an effect don't you think? And the lower limit. Can we have zero effect? We make more waste than breathing and shitting, so no, we do have some effect. Then the answer is that we have some effect. Therefore we should think about what affect our activities could have on the climate as scientists, not politicians, try to determine how much effect we really have on the climate.

And if it is determined that humans negatively affect the climate, I certainly wouldn't trust a politician to make laws to protect the climate. There's too much special interest BS that gets in the way, and too much potential for politicians to manufacture evidence that says some activity we do is harmful - so create fines and taxes on those activities, because I've already seen speed limits get set back down to 55 mph on freeways a few years ago, in the name of clean air. Thankfully reason prevailed and a few months after they spent money to lower all the signs to 55 mph, they raised them back up again to 65 mph. Why not 70 like it was? I don't know. Probably some political BS. Either way, I typically drive at least 80 on freeways in my 16 mpg Mustang.

[violet lightning]

Originally Posted by randolph

There is plenty of real data out there for anybody to look at if they are interested in more than spouting uninformed opinions.

130 years, (the amount of time man has been keeping meteorlogical/climate data- and the timespan on the 3 graphs you show) is virtually a speck in the geological and climactic history of the Earth.
They have taken ice core samples I believe, that go further back, but I don't have that data.

LIke others have said, I do believe man certainly can and does have an effect on our environment. (extinction of species, nuclear waste, deforestation, etc), but I'm not sure about "planetary effects".
Far better it seems, is to focus back on pollution, deforestation, (which can cause climate change) and resource management. Things we do know are happening, have a definite cause and which are detrimental to man and the environment.

:D Also, I know nuclear winter is from a nuclear exchange. I used the term as a comparison with volcanos, as I have heard several scientist do. The similarities are the amount of debris and smoke they both toss up into the upper atmosphere, resulting in a loss of sunlight and cooling temperatures.

Good discussion and many good points on all sides.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by violet lightning

130 years, (the amount of time man has been keeping meteorlogical data- and the timespan on the 3 graphs you show) is virtually a speck in the geological and climactic history of the Earth. I would think you would know that, being so informed.
They have taken ice core samples I believe, that go further back, but you don't have that data.

I have heard that the earth is self-regulating, and that when the sun warms up (sun cycles, etc), the earth can cool itself. One of these results (a weather expert said) in releasing carbon dioxide from the oceans, which is a fairly simple and understood cause/effect relationship.
Makes sense to me.

The three graphs posted were simply examples of data available to anyone who wants to see for themselves what is going on climatically.

Sorry, you second paragraph makes no sense to me.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by violet lightning

An interesting aspect to consider is the reign of the dinosaurs during the Triassic, Jurasic and Cretaceous periods, which lasted for millions of years. (mankind has been in existence for a fraction of that) They existed in great numbers and presumably put out alot of gasses. (remember the cow flatulence theory for GW?)
The earth was warmer then, and things like volcanos, comet impacts and massive, unchecked forest and grass fires filled the atmosphere with all kinds of gasses, smoke and debris. They survived for millions of years before they went extinct. (I still think nature dwarfs man.)

Yes the earth was warmer then, but mankind creates the atmosphere of then and let less woods grow. At a single spot nature dwarf's man, but global it's not the case.

Originally Posted by violet lightning

LIke others have said, I do believe man certainly can and does have an effect on our environment. (extinction of species, nuclear waste, deforestation, etc), but I'm not sure about "planetary effects".

The biggest extinction of species after the mass mortality at the end of Cretaceous. I think this, the massive dispersion of foreign species at places they don't belong, farming, animal husbandry are a global effects. The planet earth will be there until the sun absorb it. Not sure what you mean by "planetary effects", but climate is part of the of our environment.

Originally Posted by violet lightning

The planet, (Gaia?) is massive and complex, and I think its been around and doing fine for billions of years before man, and if we really pose a threat, it'll shake us off like little parasites. (so I do think we need to be good "tenants"!)

That is right, nature don't need us, but we need nature. Such massive and complex system can't do it in a few years, but even in this short time reactions are visible. The question is how much is mankind the cause. And as Randolph said:

Originally Posted by randolph

So unless we know what we are doing, the safest thing to do is cut back on burning oil and coal. Its not going to last forever anyway.

[Jenae LaTorque]

Perhaps it is like in some of the Sci-Fi literature. Maybe our planet, and I use the term "our" loosely, is sentinent to an extent. Maybe someday, if she feels threatened by us humans, she will just shrug us off, so to speak. Tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions galore!

Yup, maybe "the music of the spheres" is various celestial bodies complaining about what those damn fleas are up to now.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

Perhaps it is like in some of the Sci-Fi literature. Maybe our planet, and I use the term "our" loosely, is sentinent to an extent. Maybe someday, if she feels threatened by us humans, she will just shrug us off, so to speak. Tsunamis, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions galore!

Yup, maybe "the music of the spheres" is various celestial bodies complaining about what those damn fleas are up to now.

Hey babe, it's already happening. fires, floods, earthquakes, tsunami's, record breaking cold weather, a massive early storm in California.
What we have been doing is poking mother nature with sticks and she is getting fed up.

[Mel Asher]

I can't say I'm impressed by any of the Pro-Gobal-warming brigade.

Much has already been said in this thread debunking the so-called ' evidence '

• Volcanic Activity
  One eruption produces massive amounts of CO2 and SO2 gases together with miscellaneous complex gaseous and residual hydrocarbons
• Pathetically short periods of recorded climatological data

Whe the major planetary cycles can be as long as 1500 years ( ask the Mayas )

1. CO2 ? Try SO2 for a real Planet-killer !

Anybody fancy living on an ageing version of Venus ?

Yes. Pollution by excess production of Chemicals ( atmospheric or otherwise ) IS a Planet-killer in the Long Term, maybe even in a geologically-short time-span. So is Over-population, Over-grazing. Soil-nutrient Depletion,
Man-made Soil Erosion, Over-harvesting - the list of mankind's follies goes on and on.

But for my two main Horses of the Apocalypse I would choose Over-population and Greed ( with its ever-attendant Wars )

No. our only hope is to be invaded by superior benevolent beings from another Galaxy ( Ours won't do as we'll have infested is with population by then )

Meanwhile, let's all have non-productive Sex and wait for the invasion. . . .

[Jenae LaTorque]

Randolph! So maybe you had best heed those warnings ( omens, portents, signs, etc) and get the hell out of Kookyfornia before it slides into the Pacific.

[Jenae LaTorque]

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

INo. our only hope is to be invaded by superior benevolent beings from another Galaxy ( Ours won't do as we'll have infested is with population by then )

Meanwhile, let's all have non-productive Sex and wait for the invasion. . . .

No use waiting for rescue - Prime Directive remember? The Galactic council already have obtained enough people, animals, plants, etc for seed stock on a new planet and most likely won't bother obtaining any more, so that hope is out also. It's pretty much up to us to get ourselves out of any jam we get into.
As far as the global warming issue goes; I think there are a lot of coastal areas that need a good wash anyway.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by Jenae LaTorque

Randolph! So maybe you had best heed those warnings ( omens, portents, signs, etc) and get the hell out of Kookyfornia before it slides into the Pacific.

No way! I am expecting to have waterfront property!

[cuminmyass]

Man-made G.W. is a religion. There is no SOLID proof of man causing any global warming trends. The earth is far too big of a place to be altered by anything man could produce, baring a nuclear war. Those who believe that man is causing some kind of climate change are too self-loathing of man-kind to pull their heads out of their asses. Why is it that the only time the activist come out of the woodwork is on hot days? They only see the light of day when it suits their personal agenda. I didn't see or hear ONE TRACE of any of them when it was snowing in Malibu a few years ago!

[BananaBanana]

Do you really think that this people did?
bullcrap - it is normal to nature - changing climate...
GW - fucking propaganda.
Turn into history, Ice age, Warm, Ice age, Warm.
So kick your TV.

[The Conquistador]

This oughta piss off PeTards and Greenpeace: Using dead bunnies to heat your house!

http://www.thelocal.se/22610/20091012/

[The Conquistador]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgIEQqLokL8

[The Conquistador]

I find it interesting that Jon Stewart was the only person in the mainstream media to report on this...

[Hedonistman]

that's the key word,,,, serious and global in scope temp monitoring is at best 50 yrs old. I'm not a rocket scientist,,, but near certain no global ANYTHING changes in that small a time frame. Also and this I find near hiliarious,,,, back in the 70's the 'global threat' was global COOLING. Tons of psuedo science 'data' which supposedly proof positive of that being fact.
oh and btw Algore holds a degree in Theology. I doubt he can even spell 'science',,, lol

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by cuminmyass

The earth is far too big of a place to be altered by anything man could produce, baring a nuclear war.

Of course humans can alter the earth (and we're just talking about the crust here really). Don't be naive. How much we're altering it is debatable, but make no mistake, we're having some kind of effect.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

I find it interesting that Jon Stewart was the only person in the mainstream media to report on this...

I meant to add a link to this previous post, but it won't let me now.

Here is what I was going to link about: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,578990,00.html

and

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tu...l-warming-data


And the original ClimateGate story:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...lobal-warming/

[randolph]

The skeptics need to look at the data on the internet rather than relying on Fox news to do their thinking. Lots of people deny evolution in spite of the fact that all science and common sence supports the fact of evolution. The burning of fossil fuels is stressing the climate, that is well documented by science. What we don't know is what mother nature is going to do about it. After raping her for years, the consequences for our energy based society will be dire, there is little doubt about that.
Skeptics are yacking about "cooling" but the following chart shows the "cooling" is mainly in the US, most of the world is continuing to warm especially the arctic. Glaciers are melting and the arctic ice is melting those are facts. We need to develop alternative energy sources soon. Otherwise we may see our demise

[Mel Asher]

Originally Posted by Tread

A nuclear winter is caused by many detonating nuclear weapons and not a volcano. This would be a volcanic winter. Also the climatic effects are comparable.
The little ice age was from 16th century to the mid 19th century as cause of less sun activity and more volcano activity.



There are indicators that mankind has warmed the last Ice Age (not the Little Ice Age) that should have happened so that the temperature didn't fall.
Isn't it alarming that an Ice Age is coming and temperature is significant rising.
There is no question that Steam, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Halocarbon cause a Greenhouse effect. Ice cores show us that these compounds had a constant value in the atmosphere for min. 800.000 to 20 Million years, maybe much longer. 8.000 years ago (start of farming) this changed slightly. But with the industrial revolution the atmosphere change significant. In 2 hundred years the Carbon Dioxide value has risen about 40%, and the other greenhouse gases have risen comparable.

I don't think it's a good idea to burn over hundred of million year's stored fossil carbon in 300 year's. This must have an effect on the climate.
And it's not only the gases we produce, there is a massive methane production by mass animal husbandry, man burned and chopped forests for farming land and other need. We pollute more and take nature capacitate to compensate it.


Bio Diesel sound good but has worse effect on climate than fossil Diesel. There is not enough cheap useable space for the plants that are needed to make Bio Diesel. So poor countries burn down forests to get mono plant farming land to get money without taken care of nature. And the process of making Bio Diesel out of plants is not very effective by now.




A Question, why do we burn an amazing unlasting resource we are addicted to? Just one example what can be made of oil is plastic. What would life be without plastic?
Do you own a single pair of shoes without plastic in the sole? How many of your clothes are made with plastics? What is the isolator around almost every electric wire or electronic chip? In what is your food packed? Most that is used to seal (or gasketed) like windows or fridges. Nearly everything that is glued i.e. Plywood or Fiberglass. And everything else you could easily see made of plastic if you look at it with full awareness.

Oh Dear. The less we know, the more we ' invent ' and speculate !

I find much in common between Angry Postman's views and my own.
The list of ' Beneficiaries ' from continued promotion of the Global Warming theory is yards long.

The politicians and ' Green-slanted Politics ' would almost certainly head the list.

It's a common political ploy to make a statement about which few would disagree, and then, when they're still mumbling their agreement, to make a suggestion which has no provable direct link with the first assertion made.

For example : Yes, Global Warming exists. The fossil record shows that without a doubt. Next proposition : We are here, therefore we must be a significant factor in the existence of this phenomenon today. NO ! THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW AT ALL ! Let's face it, In Gaia terms we are like ants crawling on the floating masses of this earth's crust. We are clearly an irritant, but I would be very surprised if we are much more than that - unless, of course we explode Plutonium Bombs and contaminate the planet's atmosphere for millenia to come, or explode so many nuclear devices that we affect the tilt of the Earth's axis in some way.

Let's face it, aren't we deluding ourselves with man's endless desire to be in God-like control of our environment, master of all living things and masters of our own destiny ? Why, we can't even control ourselves ! !

OK Then when was the last time a known living organism affected the temperature of the Earth ? And we are so presumptuous to think that we are the chosen ones ?

YES, by all means respect the planet that we live in and which supports us, but don't assume that we control its destiny by our puny activities.
YES, take in moderation, harvest and recycle, renew resources, and then both the planet and ourselves will benefit.

And those factors that are the MAJOR promotors of Global Warming and Cooling. Do we really know it all ? Or are we simply playing a guessing game about those factors way back in the geological record which brought about such profound changes that Life itself was eradicted from huge tracts of the Earth ?

I think the Jury is very much out on this, and will remain so for a long time to come. OK, let's keep our planetary ' garden ' tidy, nourished and watered as far as is within our power to do so, and trust in Gaia to do the right thing ( and, sadly, not necessarily by us ! )

[TracyCoxx]

Some excerpts from the climate software model...

;
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
;
; Now plot them
;
filter_cru,20,tsin=densall,tslow=tslow,/nan
cpl_barts,x,densall,title='Age-banded MXD from all sites',$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
zeroline=tslow,yrange=[-7,3]
oplot,x,tslow,thick=3
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;

I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from
1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.

etc etc...

I never listened to Al Gore or Rush Limbaugh and others like them about global warming because they have no idea what they're talking about. I figured the scientists were the ones to listen to. I hope these bullshit "scientists" are thrown in jail.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by randolph

The skeptics need to look at the data on the internet rather than relying on Fox news to do their thinking. Lots of people deny evolution in spite of the fact that all science and common sence supports the fact of evolution. The burning of fossil fuels is stressing the climate, that is well documented by science. What we don't know is what mother nature is going to do about it. After raping her for years, the consequences for our energy based society will be dire, there is little doubt about that.
Skeptics are yacking about "cooling" but the following chart shows the "cooling" is mainly in the US, most of the world is continuing to warm especially the arctic. Glaciers are melting and the arctic ice is melting those are facts. We need to develop alternative energy sources soon. Otherwise we may see our demise

Randolph! I wasn't relying on Fox news for my info. It was relevant to what I was trying to get across which was that other than them and Jon Stewarts little show, no one else in the Mainstream Media reported on how the scientists were making GW more of a problem than it actually is. If you looked at the 3rd link of my previous post, you would have seen that a hacker got into the emails of the scientists who are in charge of GW research and spread their emails on the net. Through their correspondence, the scientists were admitting that the original raw data on which they had based their "evidence" had been lost and that the GW issue was more hyped up than it actually is.

[The Conquistador]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...-warming/:says

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

673 Comments Comment on this article

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters.

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” - CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view – which is some of us have been expressing for quite some time: see, for example, the chapter entitled ‘Barbecue the Polar Bears’ in WELCOME TO OBAMALAND: I’VE SEEN YOUR FUTURE AND IT DOESN’T WORK – is now also, thank heaven, the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But to judge by the way – despite the best efforts of the MSM not to report on it – the CRU scandal is spreading like wildfire across the internet, this shabby story represents a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility from which it is never likely to recover.

UPDATE: I write about this subject a lot and the threads below my posts often contain an impressive range of informed opinion from readers with solid scientific backgrounds (plus lots of cheap swipes from Libtards – but, hey, their discomfort and rage are my joy).

Here are a few links:

Interview in the Spectator with Australian geology Professor Ian Plimer re his book Heaven And Earth. Plimer makes the point that CO2 is not a pollutant – CO2 is plant food, and that climate change is an ongoing natural process.

An earlier scandal at the Climate Research Unit, this time involving “cherry-picked” data samples.

A contretemps with a Climate Bully who wonders whether I have a science degree. (No I don’t. I just happen to be a believer in empiricism and not spending taxpayers’ money on a problem that may well not exist)

59 per cent of UK population does not believe in AGW. The Times decides they are “village idiots”

Comparing “Climate Change” to the 9/11 and the Holocaust is despicable and dumb

Copenhagen: a step closer to one-world government?

UK Government blows £6 million on eco-propaganda ad which makes children cry

and a very funny piece by Damian Thompson comparing the liberal media’s coverage of Watergate with its almost non-existent coverage

[The Conquistador]

http://www.examiner.com/x-25061-Clim...hange-Examiner

http://www.ecofactory.com/news/clima...ulation-112009

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/...ming-alarmism/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHHsithnEf8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbxYVa2VjA

[The Conquistador]

Make no mistake, I'm all for renewable energy, but the whole issue of Man-Made Global Warming is just as I suspected. As the wise men of Public Enemy once said:" Don't believe the hype".

[randolph]

The actual raw field data supports anthropogenic warming, regardless of all the huffing and puffing rhetoric. However, the "modeling" of future warming is, in my opinion, bullshit. One computer climate modeler when asked about the future of climate stated "my best guess is its going to get warmer". I suggest anybody interested in this issue read "The Black Swan" by Nicolas Taleb.
He points out the futility of making long term projections about anything. Something always screws up the works. Nerveless, we have a problem, we have too many people on the planet consuming not only fossil fuels but all of the useful resources of the planet. Our current system is not sustainable.
Someone accused the people concerned about warming as making it a religion, well how about the skeptics who grab every bit of contrary information to hype up that warming does not exist? Sounds like religious fervor to me.

[Tread]

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

Oh Dear. The less we know, the more we ' invent ' and speculate !

Yes, nobody knows how the complete global climate system works, but all data and calculations show we have an effect, the question is how big it is.
Only because there are a few black sheep under scientists does not mean all climate data that is recorded is invented. The global climate models, with data from the past, get very close to the climate at that time. The problems with the future data is how we behave further, the atmosphere and what randolph posted. From the industrial revolution to now the CO2 has risen exponential and is twice as it was before. Such a high vale is million years ago, and it was warmer then, even the sun had a lower sun radiation.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

I find much in common between Angry Postman's views and my own.
The list of ' Beneficiaries ' from continued promotion of the Global Warming theory is yards long.

The politicians and ' Green-slanted Politics ' would almost certainly head the list.

It's a common political ploy to make a statement about which few would disagree, and then, when they're still mumbling their agreement, to make a suggestion which has no provable direct link with the first assertion made.

I would say the list of financial interests against global warming is even higher. Short-sighted everyone would have to pay for climate friendly behaviour, that is connected with costs for everyone, but most for the industry, and for politicians with bad financial statements in their time of power.
On a longer sighted it saves money and we have to change our behaviour anyway, so why not now?

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

For example : Yes, Global Warming exists. The fossil record shows that without a doubt. Next proposition : We are here, therefore we must be a significant factor in the existence of this phenomenon today. NO ! THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW AT ALL ! Let's face it, In Gaia terms we are like ants crawling on the floating masses of this earth's crust. We are clearly an irritant, but I would be very surprised if we are much more than that - unless, of course we explode Plutonium Bombs and contaminate the planet's atmosphere for millenia to come, or explode so many nuclear devices that we affect the tilt of the Earth's axis in some way.

The significant factor is not because we are here, it is more how we treat our environment and our recourses.

To stay in your Gaia dimensions, bacteria could not be more than an irritation to a human. They could never harm us seriously, nor do we need them for, i.e. digestion!? They are just too small.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

Let's face it, aren't we deluding ourselves with man's endless desire to be in God-like control of our environment, master of all living things and masters of our own destiny ? Why, we can't even control ourselves ! !

I'm against controlling nature, but that doesn't exclude a responsible treatment to nature.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

OK Then when was the last time a known living organism affected the temperature of the Earth ? And we are so presumptuous to think that we are the chosen ones ?

The last time? Every live form with a working metabolism does it, some more some less. We use fossil fuels and acting a lot faster than any organism on earth before.
Very important ones are algae, trees and plants. Without them the atmosphere would change drastic and it would get warmer.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

YES, by all means respect the planet that we live in and which supports us, but don't assume that we control its destiny by our puny activities.
YES, take in moderation, harvest and recycle, renew resources, and then both the planet and ourselves will benefit.

And those factors that are the MAJOR promotors of Global Warming and Cooling. Do we really know it all ? Or are we simply playing a guessing game about those factors way back in the geological record which brought about such profound changes that Life itself was eradicted from huge tracts of the Earth ?

Everyone thinks a nuclear war can affect the world, but many think everything else we do are puny activities.
Mankind has 23300 nuclear bombs. The smallest is 0,3kT and the biggest was 60MT. I didn't looked up much so calculated with 30MT in the middle (must be way over a realistic value).
If all bombs (30MT in middle) are detonating the energy would be 2796*10^18J (2796EJ (Exa Joule)).
The word energy use is nearly 500EJ per year and still fast rising.
Over 70% of it is produced with fossil recourses.
The energy of a nuclear war is deadly but the world energy use has no effect on it?

We may not the biggest promoter of global climate (I think I heard guesses around 15-20%), but even a small amount could have bad effects for us.

Originally Posted by Mel Asher

I think the Jury is very much out on this, and will remain so for a long time to come. OK, let's keep our planetary ' garden ' tidy, nourished and watered as far as is within our power to do so, and trust in Gaia to do the right thing ( and, sadly, not necessarily by us ! )

Why keeping the planet tidy, if Gaia does the right things for us?