Proof Global Warming Exists!!!!

[chaple]

Ok, so here I am reading the news and I come across this link!

http://projects.usatoday.com/money/globaldebt/
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Oh wait... that's not a warming chart... it's the US National Debt Chart...

My mistake....

[azeth]

best troll post evar?


edit: nm nm just an ad post

[Nedala]

Americans are the only people who think global warming does not exist btw...

[Tseng]

I don't believe in man-made global warming.

/leaves thread and never comes back

[Taxi]

I don't believe in man-made global warming.

/leaves thread and never comes back

Right the greenhouse effect is like that other hippie scam that plants generate oxygen, its just cuz they dont want us to cut trees cuz they think trees cry inside when you cut their branches. Glenn Beck 2012 baby.

[Humerox]

Americans are the only people who think global warming does not exist btw...

Who - besides us - cares what we think?

An educational video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftVDI8522p0&feature=related

Oh...and I guess that UK and German scientists must be American by default. Since they corroborate global climate decline, I mean.

[Toony]

Americans are the only people who think global warming does not exist btw...

Nigel Lawson, Piers Corbyn, Paul Reiter btw...

[guineapig]

My ice cream melted in the sun today :(

[Humerox]

My ice cream melted in the sun today :(

Damn. Foiled by ice cream.

[Overcast]

Here's how I look at it..

I think the 'truth' is that we do impact the environment - but not NEARLY to the degree that some would have us think.

I guess... I gotta look at it statistically.
The world has been here - some say for 4.5 Billion years.

We have been collecting climate data - that as least has some potential of 'accuracy' for maybe... 250 years? That's REALLY going out on a limb, considering people were still mostly farmers 250 years ago. But let's say 250 for the sake of this.

So we have about 0.000005555555555555556% of available data to base these 'assumptions' on.

I know there are computer models, tree rings, dirt layers, etc, etc - but we don't know all the variables that could have impacted that either. Or how does wood and soil potentially change after being in the middle of a tree or 50 foot under for 5,000 years.

Lot of unknowns.

Still - I think the truth, like most things, lies in the middle.

[Daywolf]

Ok, so here I am reading the news and I come across this link!

Would be nice if it were true, then plants, trees and crops would grow better :(
...you know "greenhouse". But there is hope, the sun is heating up :) other planets are getting warmer as well. Corn on the cob, baby! :D

[BeelzeBob]

the sun is heating up :) other planets are getting warmer as well. Corn on the cob, baby! :D

Not sure where you heard that. Since solar irradiance has been in decline since 1990 and won't reach minimum until around 2038. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

[Daywolf]

Not sure where you heard that. Since solar irradiance has been in decline since 1990 and won't reach minimum until around 2038. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variationUmmm NASA? http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
And reason we need global warming:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_global_warming_affect_crop_yields

Meh to crops though, just means better beach weather :D

Boy's in bikinis
Girls in surfboards
Everybody's rockin'
Everybody's fruggin'

Twistin' 'round the fire
Havin' fun
Bakin' potatoes
Bakin' in the sun

Put on your noseguard
Put on the lifeguard
Pass the tanning butter

Here comes a stingray
There goes a manta-ray
In walked a jelly fish
There goes a dogfish
Chased by a catfish
In flew a sea robin
Watch out for that piranha
There goes a narwhale
HERE COMES A BIKINI WHALE!

[Malrubius]

Americans are the only people who think global warming does not exist btw...


Nigel Lawson, Piers Corbyn, Paul Reiter btw...

Hahahaha, well played sir.

[Taxi]

Here's how I look at it..

I think the 'truth' is that we do impact the environment - but not NEARLY to the degree that some would have us think.

I guess... I gotta look at it statistically.
The world has been here - some say for 4.5 Billion years.

We have been collecting climate data - that as least has some potential of 'accuracy' for maybe... 250 years? That's REALLY going out on a limb, considering people were still mostly farmers 250 years ago. But let's say 250 for the sake of this.

So we have about 0.000005555555555555556% of available data to base these 'assumptions' on.

I know there are computer models, tree rings, dirt layers, etc, etc - but we don't know all the variables that could have impacted that either. Or how does wood and soil potentially change after being in the middle of a tree or 50 foot under for 5,000 years.

Lot of unknowns.

Still - I think the truth, like most things, lies in the middle.

What they do is dig in the old ice with trapped bubbles of air in it so they can compare CO2 PPM from 100k years ago.

Its really simple, theres a short term economic interest in makin people beleive that the greenhouse effect is a myth and some people eat it up. If you want to convince yourself that havin too much CO2 in the atmosphere is a serious threat you can take a look at venus, its a oven from hell.

It doesnt take a scientist to notice global warming even now, this summer this east coast heat wave was the worst heat i ever felt, native people are having to move because the permafrost theyve been living on for thousands of years is melting, no snow at christmas often when it was snowing in november as a child, the signs are there even when you dont look at hard data.

Bottom line is we should be careful about running experiments when we are all sitting in the experiment bottle. If theres a chance that greenhouse effect can raise 4 degrees celcius come 2100 we would be stupid not to try to deflect it and switch to clean energy.

[Zereh]

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/8468/18501990pantytrend.jpg

:eek: Z

[Humerox]

Its really simple, theres a short term economic interest in makin people beleive that the greenhouse effect is a myth...

Actually there's an economic interest in making everyone believe there is man-made global warming.

Your Venus comparison is apples and oranges btw. There are a hell of a lot of other reasons Venus is an oven. The most important being that it's sitting right next to the sun. C'mon now.

Local variations in temperature stability have a heck of a lot more reasons than C02. What about the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, or the Little Ice-Age? Regional variations have nothing to do with global climate.

One very good Canadian documentary is here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#

Well worth a watch.

One very interesting point is that - while yes - we are experiencing a global warming, it's a global warming since the late 19th century, and meteorological data began just at the end of the last cyclic cooling period.

Another is that while surface temperatures seem to be rising...there has been no change in atmospheric temperature in the last 25 years. The exact period that the IPCC modified its position on in 2001 - the position that global warming is attributable to man-made gases that is.

There have been warmer global periods than ours also. This is statistical fact. These warmer periods over the last 10,000 years have had not a doggoned thing to do with man-made C02.

And what about the falling sea level in the Maldives?

[eqholmes]

All I have to say is watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOOc5yiIWkg

Man George Carlin is spot on. I take his prospective, the Earth is fine, it will outlive us all. If we fuck it up enough it will take care of itself and get rid of us.

Holmes 50 Nerco DA
Gretzky 49 Ranger DA

[girth]

Sooo Taxi, it snowed here in Texas more this year than I have ever seen. That must mean we are causing global cooling. Right?

Yes, your reasonings sounded just as stupid as mine.

I'm so sick of hearing this crap, its hotter this year than last year. People who say shit like that and actually believe those are signs of global warming need to make sure they don't have any kids. We have enough dumbasses around.

[Daywolf]

If we fuck it up enough it will take care of itself and get rid of us.Seems like that is what some of these global warming pimps are trying to do anyway; I mean kill us all off. Some just savor the idea of the human race becoming extinct and then reincarnating into trees and woodland animals. I've read this stuff, it's hilarious... well if it weren't so sick. Most are rebels w/o a clue, though. "Science", the new religion :/ and the worship of teh cockroach.

[Taxi]

Sooo Taxi, it snowed here in Texas more this year than I have ever seen. That must mean we are causing global cooling. Right?

Yes, your reasonings sounded just as stupid as mine.

I'm so sick of hearing this crap, its hotter this year than last year. People who say shit like that and actually believe those are signs of global warming need to make sure they don't have any kids. We have enough dumbasses around.

Lol the weather was so hot up here that when rain finally broke out 4 days later it looked like i was at the high seas lookin out the window outside. Ive never seen anything like it in my whole life, we dont have hurricanes here.

Right back at ya, someone said that it is only in the united states where people take Rush Limbaugh more seriously than 99% of climate scientists out there (1% being oil industry shills). Only stupid people dont care about being guinea pigs in a global climate experiment when we know CO2 is a warming gas. I hope when youre 85 and realize how wrong you were youll be apologizing to your grandchildren for fighting against them having a viable future, since youre so smart and all that and will have kids.

And venus 101:

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_kids/AskKids/venus_heat.shtml

[Humerox]

Reasons Venus is so hot:

* Its atmosphere is 92 times thicker than Earth's
* Its crust is thinner than the Earth's allowing the internal core heat to reach the surface


As far as it being closer to the sun:

Energy per unit area at Venus = (92.9 E6)^2 / (67.2 E6)^2 =
1.91 times the energy per unit area on Earth

In other words, Venus gets about two times as much energy per unit area as the Earth.

I will concede that there is huge disagreement on the relativity of Venus to the Sun. But my opinion is that it has a direct bearing.

Nice kiddie page you linked, tho. Pretty colors.
Watch the documentary I linked. It's even unbiased...and Canadian.

IMPORTANT STUFF TO KNOW BEFORE LOOKING SILLY (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295#)

[girth]

Lol the weather was so hot up here that when rain finally broke out 4 days later it looked like i was at the high seas lookin out the window outside. Ive never seen anything like it in my whole life, we dont have hurricanes here.

Right back at ya, someone said that it is only in the united states where people take Rush Limbaugh more seriously than 99% of climate scientists out there (1% being oil industry shills). Only stupid people dont care about being guinea pigs in a global climate experiment when we know CO2 is a warming gas. I hope when youre 85 and realize how wrong you were youll be apologizing to your grandchildren for fighting against them having a viable future, since youre so smart and all that and will have kids.

I never said whether or not I believe in global warming. I sure as hell don't listen to radio and fuck Rush Limbaugh.
I just said I hate it when people say something moronic to the effect of: "I believe global warming, i mean shit go outside, its so hot this year"

[Taxi]

I never said whether or not I believe in global warming. I sure as hell don't listen to radio and fuck Rush Limbaugh.
I just said I hate it when people say something moronic to the effect of: "I believe global warming, i mean shit go outside, its so hot this year"

Well... isnt it? im 35 years old and i can tell its getting warmer simply by comparing my youth in the 80s to the 2000s, that doesnt prove CO2 warms an atmosphere by trapping energy, but its anecdotal evidence.

[Humerox]

Is the argument whether or not there is global warming at the present?

If that's the case, then yeah...sure it's warming.

It's warming up from the coldest point in the last 10,000 years...which was 140 years ago...a period known Little Ice-Age.
There have been many warmer global periods than we're experiencing now in the last 10k years.

I thought the argument was about man-made global warming. My bad.

[Daywolf]

...but isn't "climate change" all the new rage? Too many peeps figure out global warming is a hoax, well "that's ok lil'fella cuz we just renamed it climate change" :D
Us morons will nevah-eveh figure it out *chuckles*

[BeelzeBob]

Ummm NASA? http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html


Somehow, I don't think the two known denialist sites you linked are accurately portraying the opinion of NASA climate science. You might want to try http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Solar irradiance

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.
If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.
Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

[guineapig]

Also from the same Nasa link:

The role of human activity

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.

[guineapig]

To use this as any sort of official evidence of any kind would be to ignore the obvious bias slant that is clearly plastered all over the article. Also, it was written in a very childish manner.


NASA Study Shows Sun Responsible for Planet Warming

By Bob Ellis on June 5th, 2009
(Credit: Robert A. Rohde)

Click to enlarge (Credit: Robert A. Rohde)

From DailyTech, we have still more evidence that any warming occurring on planet earth is coming from natural sources and is cyclic in nature–NOT from the evil capitalism that Al Gore, the UN politicians at the IPCC and other socialists love to blame.

From the article:

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest. A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth’s climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles. At the cycle’s peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat. According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, “Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene.”

If our media, culture and a large portion of the “scientific” community were really honest, it would be the worshippers of the religion of anthropogenic global warming who are called “skeptics,” wouldn’t it?

Because it is those pushing this silly theory that our puny SUVs and power plants are causing earth to warm up when the most obvious source of heat hangs over their head every single day.

AGW simply doesn’t pass the smell test. Nor does it line up with the objective data.

sunspot_numbers
Click to enlarge (Credit: Robert A. Rohde)

As this graph shows, solar activity has been cyclic in nature going back hundreds of years. Solar activity is also increasing, and we are coming out of the “Little Ice Age” of just a few hundred years ago. Of course the planet is warming–we’re coming out of a cold spell! The Maunder Minimum period of diminished solar activity coincided with the Little Ice Age when Europe and North America experienced bitterly cold winters.

About 1,000 years ago, Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to colonize and grow vineyards. Today Greenland is almost entirely covered in ice. Tell me: is the earth warmer today than it was 1,000 years ago? Did they have SUVs and coal power plants in the days of the Vikings? This isn’t tough to figure out, people.

The only thing tough about the global warming debate is trying to get the facts to match the socialist agenda of the AGW proponents. Try as they might, they just can’t do it, and more and more people are starting to see that.

Things like cyclic solar data, warming occurring on other planets such as Mars and Jupiter just don’t line up with the suppositions of the AGW worshippers. They craft all manner of complex calculations and “what ifs,” but in the end the best they can do is say things like, “Well, we can’t prove it now, but by the time we can, it’ll be too late.”

And we’re supposed to watch our electric bills go up 40% and see our economy devastated on what-ifs and a bunch of garbage that not only doesn’t match the evidence but doesn’t even pass the smell test?

I’m not as gullible as these shysters seem to think I am, and I don’t believe most of the American people are either.

[Overcast]

Somehow, I don't think the two known denialist sites you linked are accurately portraying the opinion of NASA climate science. You might want to try http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

Actually, considering recent claims from NASA administration - it seems science is last on the agenda.

http://www.space.com/news/nasa-chief-muslim-remarks-controversy-ft-100707.html

Plus, if there is *anywhere* an agenda or money making scam will take place now - chances are, it's rooted in 'government' somehow.

Government - to me is just about the LEAST trustworthy source of information anymore. So - yeah, I'd be inclined to believe some third-party site first.

Still - that being said, I think we are impacting the environment. but I don't think it will doom us all and I don't think any amount of green taxes will fix it.

EACH AND EVERY Person needs to be conscious and do their own part. Government will fix this problem - just like they fix other problems. They'll demand lots of money, create more red-tape and need more money.

Think this sums up 'government' fixing anything: "Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

[BeelzeBob]

Actually, considering recent claims from NASA administration - it seems science is last on the agenda.

http://www.space.com/news/nasa-chief-muslim-remarks-controversy-ft-100707.html

Plus, if there is *anywhere* an agenda or money making scam will take place now - chances are, it's rooted in 'government' somehow.

Government - to me is just about the LEAST trustworthy source of information anymore. So - yeah, I'd be inclined to believe some third-party site first.

Still - that being said, I think we are impacting the environment. but I don't think it will doom us all and I don't think any amount of green taxes will fix it.

EACH AND EVERY Person needs to be conscious and do their own part. Government will fix this problem - just like they fix other problems. They'll demand lots of money, create more red-tape and need more money.

Think this sums up 'government' fixing anything: "Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

This perfectly highlights the problems scientists have in communicating with the public.

I think we are impacting the environment. but I don't think it will doom us all

This was the only claim in your post that speaks to the data, yet judging from the rest of the content, I can only guess that it was not arrived at by scientific means.

[Daywolf]

Also from the same Nasa link:
To use this as any sort of official evidence of any kind would be to ignore the obvious bias slant that is clearly plastered all over the article. Also, it was written in a very childish manner.
lol you criticize/dismiss the opinion of one link calling it biased but you post a link for the opinion of scientists linked to the UN and think they are not biased. LOL the UN is the most biased and backwards organization in the ENTIRE world! Ohhhh no agenda theeeere :rolleyes:

And what scientists? Like elementary school scientist teachers? Need a small list of names that say it's bunk? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti fic_assessment_of_global_warming There are an enormous amount of actual scientists that refute global warming actually.

Here is the link that just says it all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfVwEBkuqts :D

[guineapig]

Government - to me is just about the LEAST trustworthy source of information anymore. So - yeah, I'd be inclined to believe some third-party site first.


So what you are saying is that it's better to trust a website when you have no idea who wrote it or where they are getting their information from? I see. I shall debate you no further.

lol you criticize/dismiss the opinion of one link calling it biased

Yes, I do dismiss it. By the very nature of how it was written. Note the areas I put in bold, I don't think much else needs to be stated.

Trying to concentrate on the link in the Nasa article does nothing for your attempt to defend the poorly written agenda-laden Bob Ellis article.

It is a common practice however, to try and redirect people when you can't defend your original point.

[Overcast]

So what you are saying is that it's better to trust a website when you have no idea who wrote it or where they are getting their information from? I see. I shall debate you no further.



Who wrote whatever government page, and what's the agenda?
Do you know who really wrote it? :)

How often are politicians honest?

Who has PROVEN they can't be trustworthy. To me - the government has done a fine job - if nothing else - at proving - they can't be trusted.

But no - I wouldn't just take one third part page at face value either.

Most of everything out there - at all, is agenda/money driven anyway. There doesn't seem to be room for 'honesty' at all anymore in politics or 'science' - unless it somehow benefits the bottom line.

[Overcast]

Oh - did I mention I used to work as a government contractor at the EPA? ;)
My 'opinion' isn't perfect of course - it's purely subjective.

One of the big jokes there was the whole 'freon hurts the ozone' - bullcrap people bought into.
Sure, Freon might hurt the Ozone - only problem is, it's too heavy to get much further than a foot off the ground.

But I digress - I'm not much of a partisan, I'm horribly cynical of politics at all. I just think both sides making all the noise about it, are mostly doing it for profit and not the environment.

Rush is gotta go on about it for ratings, others get big government grants, etc.

[guineapig]

I'm all for questioning government and politicians, but is that really what this thread is about?

Does every government on the planet have something to gain out of tricking the entire world into believing that there is an issue here when really there is none?

It all starts to sound like a reverse Illuminati after a while.

[Daywolf]

So what you are saying is that it's better to trust a website when you have no idea who wrote it or where they are getting their information from? I see. I shall debate you no further.



Yes, I do dismiss it. By the very nature of how it was written. Note the areas I put in bold, I don't think much else needs to be stated.

Trying to concentrate on the link in the Nasa article does nothing for your attempt to defend the poorly written agenda-laden Bob Ellis article.

It is a common practice however, to try and redirect people when you can't defend your original point.
haha the pot calling the kettle black or something like that. You trust UN supported scientists, but I don't. That youtube video has more truth in it's little pinky finger than UN scientists do in all their pat-on-the-head grants combined.

Well I'll see your 1300 UN scientists and raise you 32000+ American scientists:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Overcast]

Does every government on the planet have something to gain out of tricking the entire world into believing that there is an issue here when really there is none?



If someone's making a buck off of it, or getting more power and control over people and business - indeed they do have a LOT to gain. No one can honestly say Al Gore hasn't made any 'gains' from it. I'd be much more apt to believe someone who isn't flying a private jet everywhere (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm), leaving his limos idling for hours to keep them cool (http://digg.com/environment/Gore_Busted_Limousines_Left_To_Idle_Outside_Green_ Event) and buying 9 million dollars mansions (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html), lol.

So yeah - I'm horribly cynical and if there's a core reason I'm cynical - look above at those links :)


And **Especially** - when corporations and government seem to go ON AND ON about something Ad nauseam and there seems to be a 'push' to make it 'trendy'.

Two other things REALLY bring out the cynicism in me: Government and 'Trends'.

Still - I think we most certainly have a responsibility to our environment and I certainly think we need to develop cleaner and more efficient energy - which brings me to the - maybe core reason I don't buy the hype... I really think cars could be 500 times more efficient than they are now.

Assume - just for the sake of debate - that a technology exists that would allow a standard V8 to get 200 Miles per gallon. Would the oil companies allow that?

So - science aside. I might really be inclined to believe the science in and of itself - it's the 'politics' and such surrounding it, that make me cynical.

[guineapig]

haha the pot calling the kettle black or something like that. You trust UN supported scientists, but I don't. That youtube video has more truth in it's little pinky finger than UN scientists do in all their pat-on-the-head grants combined.

Well I'll see your 1300 UN scientists and raise you 32000+ American scientists:
http://www.petitionproject.org/

Again you are redirecting the conversation on to some link on the NASA website. That's all well and good. Did you even read a single page of it?

Also, very nice bullshit link: http://www.petitionproject.org/ Seems super duper legit.
According to the site itself all you need to sign the petition is a Bachelor's degree.
Are you simply trolling now?

(EDIT: I did some fact finding on that link and came up with the following:

Registrant Name:Arthur Robinson
Also runs the following sites:
http://oism.org/
http://www.accesstoenergy.com/view/ate/index.htm
http://www.nutritionandcancer.org/view/nutritionandcancer/s99p1074.htm)




Now how about we talk about my rebuttal to your post? Remember the article you posted that was supposed to contain some shred of damning evidence to support your argument?

Ummm NASA? http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/


So first you are trying to use a site that claims that NASA supports your argument. Then you claim that NASA itself is posting false information on its website.


You know what, let me answer my own question: You are trolling.

[guineapig]

If someone's making a buck off of it, or getting more power and control over people and business - indeed they do have a LOT to gain. No one can honestly say Al Gore hasn't made any 'gains' from it. I'd be much more apt to believe someone who isn't flying a private jet everywhere (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm), leaving his limos idling for hours to keep them cool (http://digg.com/environment/Gore_Busted_Limousines_Left_To_Idle_Outside_Green_ Event) and buying 9 million dollars mansions (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/17/photos-al-goree-new-8875_n_579286.html), lol.

So yeah - I'm horribly cynical and if there's a core reason I'm cynical - look above at those links :)


And **Especially** - when corporations and government seem to go ON AND ON about something Ad nauseam and there seems to be a 'push' to make it 'trendy'.

Two other things REALLY bring out the cynicism in me: Government and 'Trends'.

Still - I think we most certainly have a responsibility to our environment and I certainly think we need to develop cleaner and more efficient energy - which brings me to the - maybe core reason I don't buy the hype... I really think cars could be 500 times more efficient than they are now.

Assume - just for the sake of debate - that a technology exists that would allow a standard V8 to get 200 Miles per gallon. Would the oil companies allow that?

So - science aside. I might really be inclined to believe the science in and of itself - it's the 'politics' and such surrounding it, that make me cynical.

See, I can totally respect this opinion and your viewpoint.

[BeelzeBob]

Some topical reading today...
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/temps-june.gif

Was last month warm where you live? If so, you weren't alone. According to measurements taken by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) June 2010 was the hottest June on record worldwide. But this is not a new trend, at least for this year. March, April, and May 2010 were also the warmest on record. This was also the 304th consecutive month with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last month with below-average temperature was February 1985.

[Stickyfingers]

Some topical reading today...
http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/temps-june.gif

It's unfortunate. They fail to recognize the fact that El Nino is occuring this year, causing the temperature of the oceans to rise and thus causing very warm temperatures this summer. Of course though, they couldn't say something NATURAL was causing it, now could they.



Also, I am very skeptical about Global Warming. Especially when the information used in the studies is drawn from only 2 different sources. There has also been issue in the past, most recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy


Basically some people hacked some climate study email accounts and found that in many of the emails LEAD scientists for Global Warming were discussing ways to cover up and make it seem as though the numbers were conducive to global warming.

There was also an incident a few years ago, where NASA "accidently" used the same temperature data set for October that they recorded in September for a large region of Russia, causing the temperatures to report higher than they were. Of course some kind citizens I believe cracked the database and found the anomaly. They called NASA out on it and NASA basically said, "Oh, our bad, that was a mistake". SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUREEEEEE.

[guineapig]

Basically some people hacked some climate study email accounts and found that in many of the emails LEAD scientists for Global Warming were discussing ways to cover up and make it seem as though the numbers were conducive to global warming.


This sounds very interesting. Mind posting a link to this news article?

[Stickyfingers]

This sounds very interesting. Mind posting a link to this news article?

Heres a link

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/


Perhaps a more legitimate link, this one kind of douses the concerns. However, it also raises other ones. It's hard to know who to believe, especially with such a large vested interest between businesses and news outlets like CBS and Fox.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/07/world/main6653464.shtml

[guineapig]

Heres a link

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/


Perhaps a more legitimate link, this one kind of douses the concerns. However, it also raises other ones. It's hard to know who to believe, especially with such a large vested interest between businesses and news outlets like CBS and Fox.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/07/world/main6653464.shtml

Ah, The Daily Telegraph... :rolleyes:

You know they also posted this article a few months prior:

On 1 January 2009, The Daily Telegraph published “Greenhouse gases could have caused an ice age, claim scientists”, which said “Scientists have warned” that “filling the atmosphere with Greenhouse gases associated with global warming could push the planet into a new ice age”.

The research they were quoting was from was Professor Ian Fairchild. He claimed that The Telegraph was misrepresenting his findings. The Daily Telegraph refused to publish an apology and deleted his comments on the website.

[BeelzeBob]

It's unfortunate. They fail to recognize the fact that El Nino is occuring this year, causing the temperature of the oceans to rise and thus causing very warm temperatures this summer. Of course though, they couldn't say something NATURAL was causing it, now could they.



Also, I am very skeptical about Global Warming. Especially when the information used in the studies is drawn from only 2 different sources. There has also been issue in the past, most recently http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy


Basically some people hacked some climate study email accounts and found that in many of the emails LEAD scientists for Global Warming were discussing ways to cover up and make it seem as though the numbers were conducive to global warming.

There was also an incident a few years ago, where NASA "accidently" used the same temperature data set for October that they recorded in September for a large region of Russia, causing the temperatures to report higher than they were. Of course some kind citizens I believe cracked the database and found the anomaly. They called NASA out on it and NASA basically said, "Oh, our bad, that was a mistake". SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUREEEEEE.

What do you think is causing the rising ocean surface temperature, aka El Nino?...

And as far as 'climategate' is concerned, every single person involved was exonerated and not a single research paper was retracted by any science journal. The entire thing was hot-air stirred up by the media.

[Daywolf]

Ah, The Daily Telegraph... :rolleyes:

LOL here we go again. Actually I'm downright surprised there is someone that does not know anything about this, it's called climategate. ...I mean anyone that has been following the controversy at all even the past few years for real. This news was major breaking on most every network. There was a big uproar over it. Even a song/video... lol (posted it already) it's hilarious! I'm baffled that people don't know and or support this bogus data. Well I know why some do, they have made tons of money and power off of the whole thing. :rolleyes: I guess they keep their disciples in the dark somehow. Time to reevaluate.

Now I know that any link I provide will be absolutely and positively rejected unless it says I am lying... but for those that did their homework and are in the know already, this is interesting: Rep Candice Miller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pRuhnFjas&feature=PlayList&p=315F22A8691061C6&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=4)

[BeelzeBob]

“We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it,” says the Oxburgh report. “Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention” -An independent panel of 11 led by the University of Oxford’s Lord Oxburgh

Michael Mann in his own words on the stolen CRU emails (http://www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-his-own-words-stolen-cru-emails)

[guineapig]

LOL here we go again. Actually I'm downright surprised there is someone that does not know anything about this, it's called climategate. ...I mean anyone that has been following the controversy at all even the past few years for real. This news was major breaking on most every network. There was a big uproar over it. Even a song/video... lol (posted it already) it's hilarious! I'm baffled that people don't know and or support this bogus data. Well I know why some do, they have made tons of money and power off of the whole thing. :rolleyes: I guess they keep their disciples in the dark somehow. Time to reevaluate.

Now I know that any link I provide will be absolutely and positively rejected unless it says I am lying... but for those that did their homework and are in the know already, this is interesting: Rep Candice Miller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0pRuhnFjas&feature=PlayList&p=315F22A8691061C6&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=4)


You fail again. The case was dismissed and the people in question exonerated.

[Stickyfingers]

What do you think is causing the rising ocean surface temperature, aka El Nino?...

And as far as 'climategate' is concerned, every single person involved was exonerated and not a single research paper was retracted by any science journal. The entire thing was hot-air stirred up by the media.



Actually, you are wrong. El Nino is naturally occuring ever 3 to 7 years and has been going on for centuries if not thousands of years. Unless of course dinosaur farts were causing global warming way back in the day....


1902-1903 1905-1906 1911-1912 1914-1915
1918-1919 1923-1924 1925-1926 1930-1931
1932-1933 1939-1940 1941-1942 1951-1952
1953-1954 1957-1958 1965-1966 1969-1970
1972-1973 1976-1977 1982-1983 1986-1987
1991-1992 1994-1995 1997-1998 2002-2003
2006-2007 2009-


Years that El Nino occured. Looks like its following the 3-7 gap with a few anomalies.

[guineapig]

Actually, you are wrong. El Nino is naturally occuring ever 3 to 7 years and has been going on for centuries if not thousands of years. Unless of course dinosaur farts were causing global warming way back in the day....



That graph is taking into account ocean temperatures from 1961-1990. This already encompasses no less than 6 El Nino cycles in its statistics.

Also, in the United States El Nino tends to cause warmer winters and wetter summers.
In other words, above average precipitation, not above average heat.

[mitic]

there is no manmade global warming

welcome back to the 16th century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_Ice_Age

[Daywolf]

You fail again. The case was dismissed and the people in question exonerated.Dismissed, rofl. They destroyed public data. They talked about manipulating the data. They should be in prison. It's a con job as it's been all along. If the situation were reversed, people would admit it and find a solution - but this is not the case, just a futile attempt to hold onto the cause.

Like so what if peoples lives are destroyed by this fanaticism on an extreme religious level, us poor sods just don't have the blind faith to believe I guess. So like things as cap and trade can be implemented, putting the US in it's place for all it's blasphemies against the holy environment. The UN can continue to try to slap the West and give the green light to countries like China to churn out mass pollution and gain great wealth. The West is simply ebil and needs to be destroyed, all the wealth carried to other parts of the world rather than they creating their own in the same free and open market fashion the West did.

Meanwhile third world nations continue to suffer, held down by bogus regulation that makes it impossible for them to industrialize. Well let them eat cake. Then blame it on the US, say the US is the cause to their effect and drive their hatred, creating greater divides in preparation for WWIII. Once humanity no longer exists, well the holy environment can move forward once again w/o ebil people driving SUV's. Watch, you will see this chosen path become more visible in your lifetime. These top global warming guru's/environmentalists arent just liars, they have an agenda and it's just a means to an end.

As Miller said, they are just a bunch of 3rd graders. Though my view of them is far more critical for sure. You didn't know what climategate was just a few hours ago, best to put some actual time into study rather than the first debunker blog you find on the internet.

Disclaimer: Just thought I'd mention, I don't hate anyone for believing different nor think them lesser men. I just thought it best to mention that since this is a game forum and often people are not used to debates/discussions as happens at some other venues. I believe that truth is not relative thus in the end all will be known. No one has everything right, an it takes a lot of effort to find any of it now rather than later. I don't expect anyone to change their opinion/views in a sudden moment, as often it takes much time, research and reflection. This I know from first hand experience regarding the change of views.

[BeelzeBob]

Actually, you are wrong. El Nino is naturally occuring ever 3 to 7 years and has been going on for centuries if not thousands of years.

You're missing the point. You think you've caught the scientists at the NOAA hiding behind a well know climatological force that is documented and studied every year by none other than the NOAA!?! The data the NOAA collects is poured over by every climate scientist on the planet, but you have clearly cracked the code! It is all a hoax! ;)

I will interpret for you... this is the strongest El Nino on record, the fact that El Nino has been getting stronger is tied into the warming... these are record monthly temperature averages, averages that include previous El Nino years.

[Humerox]

OK...here we go.

The "simple" argument that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere - and there is no doubt that CO2 levels have been rising because of humans but as to whether this is greater than even a single major volcanic event is questionable - because warming relies on assumptions that may be quite false.

More CO2 and it is possible you get more refraction at the equator (warming), but also more cloud (warming in the short term - seriously cooling in the longer term), a change in the albedo readings at all latitudes (warming or cooling depending on your theory). And this does not even take into account changes in so many other factors. The trouble is the study of climate with respect to these factors is all very new.

The best weather programs can get the weather right about 80% of the time in temperate climates now four days out. That is a major advance over the last 50 years but try for seven days and the same programs are about as good as throwing darts at a board listing "hot", "cold", "rain", "clear".

Personally, I think the earth is currently warming, man-made or not, which is actually a good thing considering a cooling event in contrast. Which is what we worried about in the 70's... and I'll get to that in a minute.

Had the earth not changed to an interglacial period when it did, civilization would not have happened. That it lasted 11,000 years meant that man could actually develop civilization to a point that even a glaciation is probably not going to put us back in the stone age. If cooling had occurred when the mini ice age occurred about three hundred years ago, man would have gone right back to the stone age. That is pretty amazing.

Warming? Another few degrees and the earth will be able to support far more agriculture than it presently does. Rainfall patterns would change dramatically so that the arid parts of Australia would become breadbaskets, as would more of Canada, parts of Africa, China and Russia. The downside is unlike the nice predictions of a few calorimeters of sea level rise, a real global warming will cause a very sudden shrinking or elimination of ice caps and major sea level rises, killing a great many of the world's population.

But far worse for mankind would be a glaciation. The last model that I saw indicated the loss of around 90% of the world's population in 3 years and getting up to only a 2% survival 5 years out (this assumes a three year changeover or flip between interglacial periods and glaciations - a theory that does have significant evidence in support of it even if the prevailing teachings state that the change takes in the order of thousands of years).

Which would you rather have? Problems because of warming that mean dislocation and movement of large amounts of the population but little loss of life due to starvation, etc, or a change something akin to the movie The Day After Tomorrow (I don't agree with the theories in that movie but I do agree with just how catastrophic a cooling event would be).

I can only follow some of the studies and have not seen any detail of the latest study that suggests rapid loss of arctic ice coverage. I'll say that even the broad brush stuff that I have read, does not give me much faith in the validity of the predictions. If the ice coverage were really to melt as predicted, then it would ALL melt.

The difference in the albedo readings of Greenland's ice coverage and Greenland without ice in the same places, is staggering. It goes from about 95% to about 35%. Thus the area warms rapidly as the ground warms up and the air close to the ground follows suit, and this warming then causes the ice fringes to melt, resulting in an accelerating process. The best estimate of the last thaw across North America was that at its peak when the retreating snow/ice coverage managed to reach around 50 kms per day.

Yet the assumption of this study seems to be that the arctic warming will do no more than melt a percentage of the ice coverage. That just does not accord with historic evidence of both northern hemisphere retreat and return of ice in the last several cycles.

Climate is so complicated that even working out what should be happening to a single glacier has proved to be nigh on impossible. Much of the glaciers in the world are historic remnants. Except that glaciers create their own mini climates, most should have melted thousands of years ago. Most have been retreating, sometimes rapidly and sometimes slowly, ever since the warming 11,000 years ago. Maybe - because this interglacial period is somewhat longer than has been the norm - we have finally reached the point where glaciers no longer are able to exist.

Actually, I remember a theory of some time back that glacial retreat could actually be the cause of climate warming, when it reached a certain, unknown, critical point.

I do not believe that any scientific evidence has been established yet that the world is warming other than because it has been in an interglacial period for a long time, or even if the longer trend is for continuing warming.

I remember some years ago a major study was published concerning ocean temperatures. It was very detailed and the figures did seem to show the air temperatures just above the world's oceans had risen over the last 50 years. But there was a major flaw. The statistics were taken from ships records. The temperatures recorded had no controlled environment or a fixed methodology. Indeed, as ships became much larger, the distance between the ocean surface and where the temperatures were measured increased dramatically. Now the study authors had suggested a formula to take this into account (although this was not in the major findings of the report) but the formula seemed to be no more than a guess. Since the variables are immense, no simple formula can account for enough of them to return an accurate comparison.

The same thing seems to happen with land temperatures but in a much more biased way. Most people with an interest in climate change or even recent historic weather for an area, are aware that, the trend has been for the last 80 years for land temperatures in the northern hemisphere to increase in cities and decrease in smaller communities. It would seem that temperatures for major cities are used in most studies with a formula attempting to negate the heat sink effect of massive injections of concrete into the hearts of those cities, and the major increase in application of heat absorbing and retaining materials in the surrounding areas of the city.

I have yet to see any scientific study that shows a way to actually determine just how much a change this has caused. In order to do that, you need the temperatures to remain stable somewhere, so that the change in the city structure can be seen as the reason for any average temperature change. The trouble is there is no such thing as a stable temperature. Even in the most stable of periods in the earth's cycle of warming and cooling, there a fluctuations, year to year, and for several years at a time.

The suggestion should be to only use land temperatures where the temperatures have accurately been recorded at exactly the same location for the study period, in a town with a population of no greater than 5,000, at least 80 kms from any city, where the recording area has not had any major change to its environs such as even a three story building being built within several hundred meters of it, or a car park being paved over, or even major trees being changed. One very big problem is that temperature recording equipment is periodically changed and in small towns, no one goes to the trouble of making sure that the new piece of equipment matches the old or a deferential is calculated and clearly inserted into the records.

Even with all these problems, there are enough small towns that fit the criteria for studies to be done. They just do not seem to be done for any climate warming studies.

You do not have to go back very long in time to find most earth sciences did not agree with plate tectonics as the major shaping force of our earth and its climate. Yet even though the scientists were in the vast majority, they were wrong. So I do not believe that because anyone can suggest that there are 25,000 scientists who accept global warming and a small number who do not, that this suggests anything other than once a theory gains favor it stays in favor, even in the face of damming counter evidence.

A study of glacial retreat proves nothing but glaciers melt in interglacial periods - eventually. It might be that they are melting because the earth is warming but a study on the retreat does not prove that or even suggest it.

The fact that northern hemisphere winters have actually been worse in the past few years also does not suggest that global warming is not occurring. The climate has not become more violent or unpredictable. While records have been broken with the number of Atlantic hurricanes recently, records are always broken,and overall, the frequency or severity of hurricanes or any other major climate event does not seemed to have taken a dive for the worse. The cause more damage because more people live in the areas and because of stupidity - such as building bridges and levies not capable of withstanding the force that a hurricane will one day exert.

A 1979 study matched the years 1974-1979 to the years that preceded the last switch to a glaciation, from the evidence then available. This was a time when there was real concern about cooling. The then Soviets had managed to have five major wheat harvest fiascos because of temperature drops, areas in Canada had much greater ice flows than a decade before, snow fell and stayed on the ground much further south in Europe, parts of the Soviet Union and North America than for the previous decade. Many animal species seemed to be responding to triggers that had not been recorded by civilized man, some winter coats were not changing in certain species back to summer coats, some herd and pack behaviors had been observed to have changed to what some specialists suggested was the behavior required during a glaciation. But 1980 proved to turn it all around. There were several factors for this but all were events that were "special", thus seeming to alter the balance enough to stop what might have been a slide towards cooling.

Personally, I was very glad it happened. I didn't want half of the Soviet Union to starve. That might have started WWIII.

Global warming? It's possible. Has the scientific community proved it yet? Not in my view. Is it going to wreck the world? Much less than a cooling cycle.

As to the world's climate, the only real assumption that one can make with total accuracy is that the world's climate is not a static thing and the earth will get warmer and cooler several times in the next 100,000 years. A cooling event is likely to kill off much of the world's population (which might be a good thing if you are a member of PETA or believe that the world cannot keep on supporting us humans without it eventually being destroyed by pollution, the using up of fossil fuels, loss of habitat and the earth's lungs in the form of forests, etc).

[Daywolf]

Warming? Another few degrees and the earth will be able to support far more agriculture than it presently does. Rainfall patterns would change dramatically so that the arid parts of Australia would become breadbaskets, as would more of Canada, parts of Africa, China and Russia. The downside is unlike the nice predictions of a few calorimeters of sea level rise, a real global warming will cause a very sudden shrinking or elimination of ice caps and major sea level rises, killing a great many of the world's population.Pretty much agree with most of your post, but this I wanted to comment on the most. Remember in that Austin Powers movie where the security guard is trying to outrun the steamroller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLlUgilKqms)? hehe...

Even if I toss a chunk of ice into a pot of boiling water, takes some time to melt. If our seas are boiling, I think we have other things to worry about rather than with melting ice ;) It's also pure speculation that levels would rise very much. Some say 20-60ft. Others 1-6ft. I tend to agree with the 1-6ft.
I think it'd be cool to see Greenland become... green. Makes one wonder how it got it's name, eh? ;)

[guineapig]

a bunch of opinions

Here's the thing man. You can rant all you want about what you believe, that's fine. Not once have I posted my personal beliefs or opinions on the matter. All I was doing was shooting down the links you were posting because they were poor sources of information.

Please don't take this as anything personal.


OK...here we go.
bunch O knowledge


Good stuff man, I would expect no less coming from you! :D


As to the world's climate, the only real assumption that one can make with total accuracy is that the world's climate is not a static thing and the earth will get warmer and cooler several times in the next 100,000 years. A cooling event is likely to kill off much of the world's population (which might be a good thing if you are a member of PETA or believe that the world cannot keep on supporting us humans without it eventually being destroyed by pollution, the using up of fossil fuels, loss of habitat and the earth's lungs in the form of forests, etc).


My main nitpick is with this part and that's only because of the following.
For good or bad, humans are one of the most adaptable beings on the planet (due in no small part to technology). In other words, chances are humans will survive the next ice age even if most other beings won't.

Of course there is always the chance (or is it likelihood?)that we destroy ourselves long before the next ice age happens. ;)

[BeelzeBob]

OK...here we go.
[insert a total disregard for science as a way of knowing anything]

This was all so nutty, I really don't know where to begin. Throughout your wall of text you claim that science has been disregarded, and then claim that the problem is so complicated science can't understand it. Which way will you have it?

Since a common theme I often hear is that scientists aren't taking this or that into account, I will address your claim about urban heat sinks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7OdCOsMgCw

[Humerox]

Nutty? What's nutty about it, friend?

Disprove any of it.

In a nutshell...I was saying that science can't measure climate accurately. I didn't say we couldn't understand it, but rather we can't measure it accurately. You know...methodology and observable results and all that other fun scientific stuff. We instead have to rely upon computer models that produce inaccurate results based on inaccurate and incomplete data. You know...GIGO.

Judging from your rebuff...I'd guess that I know a heckuva lot more about it than you do. And I don't base my opinions on "Oh gee...that guy Peter Sinclair really sounds like he's knows what he's talkin' about. Got pretty pictures an' graphs and all kindsa good stuff!"

Peter Sinclair? You do know he produces those videos, right?

Over at Anthony Watt’s excellent blog about climate and global warming – Watt’s Up With That? – we see Peter Sinclair get absolutely schooled for his dishonest and ignorant attempt to substantiate anthropogenic global warming. Who is Peter Sinclair? He’s a radical environut who puts out a (usually) weekly series of YouTube video documentaries entitled “ Climate Crock of the Week” in which he attempts to “debunk” the science that disproves global warming. Generally, while we can give Mr. Sinclair an “A” for effort, his “refutations” amount to little more than handwaving with a little ad hominem thrown in as filler. This should not surprise us, since Mr. Sinclair is not a scientist. In fact, he is an “independent film producer” whose only claim to anything even remotely resembling a relevant background in this field is that he apparently sat in on one of Al Gore’s Climate Project seminars. This didn’t stop him from trying to attack the temperature tracking station work done by Watt (an accredited meteorologist), making a thorough hash of the attempt while he was at it. Watt takes him apart.

Yeah. Now that's a credible source.

To everyone interested...here's Watts' dressdown:

Ouch! (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/)

[BeelzeBob]

Nutty? What's nutty about it, friend?

All of your inane rambling.

meteorological forecasts
ice age
arid parts of Australia become breadbaskets
warming will be beneficial
loss of around 90% of the world's population
Day After Tomorrow
broad brush stuff
plate tectonics
damming counter evidence
glacial retreat proves nothing
WWIII
the earth will get warmer and cooler several times in the next 100,000 years Brilliant conclusion!
and PETA (because this just wouldn't be complete without a strawman)

Say what you will about Peter Sinclair, at least he's coherent.

I was saying that science can't measure climate accurately

How are you drawing your conclusions, exactly?

You disregard all the evidence from authority that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas, then cherry pick from all kinds of nuttiness. You are a cookie cutter denialist.

[Humerox]

All of your inane rambling.
*Bunch of stuff I don't understand so it's rambling.*

the earth will get warmer and cooler several times in the next 100,000 years Brilliant conclusion!
*Oh hey, something I can understand!*

Say what you will about Peter Sinclair, at least he's coherent.


Yeah, and charismatic, too. Also dead wrong, because he doesn't have the slightest idea about earth science, and climate...a fact made clear in his attack against Anthony Watts, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29) an AMS seal holder. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Meteorological_Society) Now Anthony isn't really an "expert" either, but he's at least knowledgeable enough on the subject at hand to make a few solid conclusions. More than I can say for Peter.

In regards to Mr. Watts:

Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) has said that he was aware of Watts' work and invites anyone with expertise to contribute to the scientific process. Elsewhere, he has stated that the evidence for human-driven warming remains robust, however.

The Times monthly science magazine "Eureka" named WUWT (http://wattsupwiththat.com/) one of the top 30 science blogs, calling it "one of the more entertainingly [sic] skeptic blogs," and in 2008 it won best science blog in The Weblog Awards (Bloggies).


Peter makes pretty pictures and cool sound effects, though. I'm guessing that's what caught your attention.

How are you drawing your conclusions, exactly?

Various studies and reports, primarily from scientific journals, because this is the subject for my dissertation...and that's - at least - a formula that works in relation to speaking on the subject. I didn't want to wave the education flag, but you asked.

How are you drawing yours, exactly? Oh wait...Peter Sinclair. Never mind.


You disregard all the evidence from authority that doesn't fit your preconceived ideas...

What evidence? I'd be glad to read it and interpret the data for both you and Mr. Sinclair. Forget about the Goddard Institute charts and stuff, because I'll blow so many holes in it it'll make your head spin. Just a heads-up, bro.


You are a cookie cutter denialist.

I denied what exactly?

Furthermore, all I see from you in this thread are links and one or two-line conclusions based on...well, damned if I know. If you're that much of an expert, I'd like to see some of your own conclusions and the reasoning behind them. Since you're an expert and all.

So I can have fun shooting them down, of course. As much as I'd enjoy shooting down counter-arguments. Because...the fact is that there is not enough real evidence to support either side conclusively...at the moment. Which I said in my *cough* rambling.

I'll start with your use of satellite imagery as a rebuttal (to what, I dunno - since all I said was that heat-islands interfered with solid temperature data). Your link, rather to Peter Sinclair's use.

Satellite data is useless, because it has such a small window in the context of arguing global warming . It can tell you with accuracy what's happening this year or for the last few years, but all that tells you is what the temperatures are right now, and where the ice and snow coverage is. Unless you have something long-term to compare it with, you have no way of knowing what is "normal" or "average".

I believe you used it to deny urban heat-islands. Urban heat-islands are a fact. Hello. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island) What actual bearing they have on global warming is up in the air, and is likely negligible. At the very least, what I said was about temperature measurement in relation to location and stability - in terms of long-term data. Go back and read it again...because I'm assuming your brain saw "urban areas" and fizzled.

More promising for your argument is thermal wind. I don't like giving this stuff away, but:

(Scientists) turned to a proxy for atmospheric temperatures that they say comes with fewer complicating factors and therefore produces less uncertainty. That proxy is wind speed. Measuring wind at different altitudes and running the data through a mathematical procedure known as the "thermal-wind equation" should give us a good idea of what the temperatures in the upper reaches of the troposphere (more or less that portion of the atmosphere where humans can breathe) really are. Fortunately, the wind and temperature measurements, although taken by the same balloons, are independent. After applying the equation, they conclude that:

'... our data do not seem to be consistent with a lack of upper-tropospheric warming in the tropics. The degree of warming remains fairly uncertain, but is within the range simulated by climate models, albeit with some discrepancies near the tropopause [top of troposphere]'.




Some fun debate here, for those interested enough to learn:


A New and Effective Model (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/06/a-new-and-effective-climate-model/)


There's a link in that article that points to Climate Realists (http://climaterealists.com/index.php). Some good debate in the forums there.







Funny thing about conventional wisdom. Try getting published if you hold a position counter to it at the moment.

[Stickyfingers]

You're missing the point. You think you've caught the scientists at the NOAA hiding behind a well know climatological force that is documented and studied every year by none other than the NOAA!?! The data the NOAA collects is poured over by every climate scientist on the planet, but you have clearly cracked the code! It is all a hoax! ;)

I will interpret for you... this is the strongest El Nino on record, the fact that El Nino has been getting stronger is tied into the warming... these are record monthly temperature averages, averages that include previous El Nino years.

I don't think I have caught scientists doing anything lmao. I never even stated whether I believe it is real or not....however, the fact that they have even allowed controversy to seep into their studies and allow things like this to happen shows their disorganization. It is very hard for me to say that we are causing global warming, when the earth is always going through phases, just because we haven't experienced it yet, doesn't mean it hasn't happened in the past. Hell, we only have accurate temperature records up to like 1899, which is an insanely small sample size for a topic as big as global warming.

An Inconvenient Truth didn't help either, what a load of garbage. Anyone with a few higher level college sciences courses could see the load of bullshit. It's basically him rambling about graphs with no context. If it wasn't for that movie, I might actually believe in global warming.

[Dumesh Uhl'Belk]

Ummm NASA? http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
And reason we need global warming:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_does_global_warming_affect_crop_yields

Meh to crops though, just means better beach weather :D

Boy's in bikinis
Girls in surfboards
Everybody's rockin'
Everybody's fruggin'

Twistin' 'round the fire
Havin' fun
Bakin' potatoes
Bakin' in the sun

Put on your noseguard
Put on the lifeguard
Pass the tanning butter

Here comes a stingray
There goes a manta-ray
In walked a jelly fish
There goes a dogfish
Chased by a catfish
In flew a sea robin
Watch out for that piranha
There goes a narwhale
HERE COMES A BIKINI WHALE!

Rock Lobster = WIN

[guineapig]

Rock Lobster = WIN

He was in a jam. He's in a giant clam!!!

[Daywolf]

So I can have fun shooting them down, of course. As much as I'd enjoy shooting down counter-arguments. Because...the fact is that there is not enough real evidence to support either side conclusively...at the moment. Which I said in my *cough* rambling.
Well my whole thing about this as with most anything is that when someone approaches me or the general population with a theory, idea, presumption, declaration, the burden of providing conclusive evidence falls upon their shoulders. This applies to global warming, climate change (their new buzz word since climategate), 911 truthers, fake moon landing crowd, or any other idea that has not been substantiated with conclusive evidence. Until there is solid proof, not just a “trust me” argument, no action should be taken, zero. No cap and trade. No Kyoto accord. No UN global warming initiative. No anything that comes down the pike.

I see nothing but a full fledged scam perpetrated by get-rich-quick power hungry con-artists, from scientists down to politicians. I say that because they try to force all this stuff on us with simply a "trust me" argument. That's indicative of a con-artist. All they need are jackboots and their attire would be complete. Prolly on layaway for the moment...

[guineapig]

Well my whole thing about this as with most anything is that when someone approaches me or the general population with a theory, idea, presumption, declaration, the burden of providing conclusive evidence falls upon their shoulders. This applies to global warming, climate change (their new buzz word since climategate), 911 truthers, fake moon landing crowd, or any other idea that has not been substantiated with conclusive evidence. Until there is solid proof, not just a “trust me” argument, no action should be taken, zero. No cap and trade. No Kyoto accord. No UN global warming initiative. No anything that comes down the pike.

By this logic, shouldn't we be waiting until we are attacked by terrorists again since we don’t actually have any proof of who is going to try and attack us?

I could probably think of a dozen other situations where this mindset would be extremely detrimental but I'm sure you realize this now.



I see nothing but a full fledged scam perpetrated by get-rich-quick power hungry con-artists, from scientists down to politicians. I say that because they try to force all this stuff on us with simply a "trust me" argument. That's indicative of a con-artist. All they need are jackboots and their attire would be complete. Prolly on layaway for the moment...

This type of shit doesn't belong anywhere in a debate. It's all heresay.

[President]

The problem is they went about this at the wrong angle, well, semi wrong angle. The dems tried to use the republican scare tactic in that "the earth is going to heat up and it going to cause catastrophe." Which, can be useful considering how dumb the majority of the country it, but it's just too far fetched to believe. I don't know anyone, republican or democrat (with a brain) who believes we should continue pumping toxic chemicals into the air and water, which is what this is really about. Maybe the better line would have been "Company X is killing you by putting Y in your drinking water, stop pollution!" instead of "Lots of companies with carbon emissions may be heating up the earth."

[Humerox]

The thing that kills me is there is much that can be done to reduce carbon emissions...which isn't a bad idea no matter which side of the fence you're on.

You don't hear a lot about that. Hmmm.

Biosequestration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosequestration) for example.

Can Cattle Save Us From Global Warming? (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008338.html)

Just food for thought.

Damn. Now I want a hamburger.

[guineapig]

The thing that kills me is there is much that can be done to reduce carbon emissions...which isn't a bad idea no matter which side of the fence you're on.

Can Cattle Save Us From Global Warming? (http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/008338.html)



Interesting read... but simply not raising the cattle would still be much better for the environment than raising just as much cattle as before but on grass.

It seems like a half-hearted idea.

Besides, with the amount of animals being raised for food in this country alone, I seriously doubt it's even realistically feasible to raise them all on grass at this point.

So, while I agree that raising all cattle on grass instead of on feedlots would help, simply not eating the burger would help MUCH more. Of course I realize that as this point in human history that expectation is (sadly) quite unrealistic.

I do my part though! I haven't eaten any meat in over 10 years and I use mass-transit every day.

[Humerox]

...I use mass-transit every day.

That's something else.

Why has no program been put in place to have a transit system emulating say, Canada's...in every major metropolitan area in the US?

When I lived in Canada, I lived in a little burg called Milton...probably 50 miles or so from Toronto. I could hop on the Go-Train any time day or night...skip over to Toronto, and catch a bus anywhere I needed to go.

Not only would it provide a way to reduce carbon emissions, it would provide a way for many poorer people to get to work and off welfare. If they wanted to that is, and I'm not getting into that argument.

The US emits nearly half of the world's automotive carbon dioxide. (http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentid=5300)

Government talks a good game, but that's it.

Like I said...LOTS of stuff could be being done...but nobody's really doing much of anything except arguing, lol.

[guineapig]

That's something else.

Why has no program been put in place to have a transit system emulating say, Canada's...in every major metropolitan area in the US?

When I lived in Canada, I lived in a little burg called Milton...probably 50 miles or so from Toronto. I could hop on the Go-Train any time day or night...skip over to Toronto, and catch a bus anywhere I needed to go.

Not only would it provide a way to reduce carbon emissions, it would provide a way for many poorer people to get to work and off welfare. If they wanted to that is, and I'm not getting into that argument.

The US emits nearly half of the world's automotive carbon dioxide. (http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentid=5300)

Government talks a good game, but that's it.

Like I said...LOTS of stuff could be being done...but nobody's really doing much of anything except arguing, lol.

Word up brother!

I'm fortunate enough to be living in one of the few US cities where using mass transit to get everywhere is doable:

My ride:
http://www.subwaynut.com/bmt/photos/prospectq8.jpg

[Overcast]

The US emits nearly half of the world's automotive carbon dioxide. (http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentid=5300)



Oh you reminded me..

Want to see something 'funny' - Google "causes half of global warming".

Just that part. You'll find like 5,000 things that cause 'half of' Global Warming. Makes me wonder in that science how many halves are in the whole :confused:

[guineapig]

Makes me wonder in that science how many halves are in the whole :confused:


Easy: 37

[Humerox]

Oh you reminded me..

Want to see something 'funny' - Google "causes half of global warming".

Just that part. You'll find like 5,000 things that cause 'half of' Global Warming. Makes me wonder in that science how many halves are in the whole :confused:

LOL...that's funny!

BUT! The article was talking about how the US emits half the world's automotive C02! Not that it was responsible for half the world's global warming.

;)

THIS (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cyber-warming-pcs-produce-same-cosub2-subemissions-as-airlines-452531.html) is probably an example of what you're talking about, though. :)

[Daywolf]

By this logic, shouldn't we be waiting until we are attacked by terrorists again since we don’t actually have any proof of who is going to try and attack us?

I could probably think of a dozen other situations where this mindset would be extremely detrimental but I'm sure you realize this now. Which attack on the WTC are you referring to, the first or the second? :rolleyes:
Or the 300 attacks before that...? Need a scorecard to keep up with the who's who?

This type of shit doesn't belong anywhere in a debate. It's all heresay.I'm sure the Roman Catholic Church used that argument during the inquisition, too. Just gotta follow the power and money trail.

In the end, you are still holding the bag regarding the need to provide proof of man-made global warming. Until then, I am not a believer and will do nothing to support the actions of those that want to and have implemented regulations. It's thuggery to push the issue in a negative way, only hurts their own position.

[Dersk]

I'm sure the Roman Catholic Church used that argument during the inquisition, too.

You're awfully sure about a lot of things, aren't you.

[Daywolf]

You're awfully sure about a lot of things, aren't you.If you are walking down a dirt road and you see a turtle sitting on top a fence post, someone put the turtle there.

[Humerox]

If you are walking down a dirt road and you see a turtle sitting on top a fence post, someone put the turtle there.

Turtles have been sighted doing unusual things:

Link (http://www.livevideo.com/video/658D0FB21386488CB6A37ADF7590273E/dancing-animated-turtle.aspx)

[guineapig]

I'm sure the Roman Catholic Church used that argument during the inquisition, too. Just gotta follow the power and money trail.

In the end, you are still holding the bag regarding the need to provide proof of man-made global warming. Until then, I am not a believer and will do nothing to support the actions of those that want to and have implemented regulations. It's thuggery to push the issue in a negative way, only hurts their own position.

Now you just aren't making any sense at all.

My comment:


This type of shit doesn't belong anywhere in a debate. It's all hearsay.


is in reference to the fact that you aren't posting anything factual at all. You are simply giving labels to people and gracing us with your wonderful opinions...

like this:


I see nothing but a full fledged scam perpetrated by get-rich-quick power hungry con-artists, from scientists down to politicians. I say that because they try to force all this stuff on us with simply a "trust me" argument. That's indicative of a con-artist. All they need are jackboots and their attire would be complete. Prolly on layaway for the moment...

That's what's hearsay.

Perhaps you were thinking of the word heresy??? :rolleyes:

[Daywolf]

Now you just aren't making any sense at all.

My comment:



is in reference to the fact that you aren't posting anything factual at all. You are simply giving labels to people and gracing us with your wonderful opinions...

like this:



That's what's hearsay.

Perhaps you were thinking of the word heresy??? :rolleyes:

Put on your glasses ;) That was not the full context of the post. That was a rant, followed by a point made in the paragraph before. Need I write everything in "wall of text" form to keep from getting dissected? But the rant is true enough in any case. If this were a formal debate thread... I would have added references to back up the rant :) ...even though no sources are good enough for this "just trust me/them" crowd. I don't have enough faith to be a global warming advocate. Cuz that's what it takes, lots and lots of faith. Faith based science. meh

Yes read it as heresy, was outside at the time with my screen a bit glared from the sunlight. Seemed to fit anyhoot, global warming seems more religious if anything.