PDA

View Full Version : global warming



subroc
11-15-2008, 02:43 PM
Is the global warming crisis over?


http://www.dailytech.com/Sea+Ice+Growing+at+Fastest+Pace+on+Record/article13385.htm

SueLab
11-15-2008, 03:18 PM
Can't say but here is new info:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1085359/Global-warning-We-actually-heading-new-Ice-Age-claim-scientists.html

Pete
11-15-2008, 09:06 PM
While the N. hemesphere has warmed a degree or so ,,,the southern hemesphere has cooled ,,I personally believe it is the farting creel with that anti freeze type fluid in them causing all the problems.
Either that or we are about to wobble off our axis and some say I already have:D

Pete

subroc
11-16-2008, 06:15 AM
Here is a good one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml)

badbullgator
11-16-2008, 07:20 AM
Here is a good one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml)


Nice I think this paragraph sums it up

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

Money, money, money.....money!!! Folow the money and you will fine this BS as I have said from day one. Scince w/o proper quality control is trash and would be tossed into the trash can by peer review....unless they are in on the $$$$$

This aint over yet. It is going to cost you and I $$$$$$$$$ in "green" BS before it is said and done.....cap and trade anyone????

Uncle Bill
11-21-2008, 11:37 AM
Got this sent to me today.

UB




Nov 18, 2008


Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 Years



By Michael Asher, Daily Tech



A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the first time in the area’s recorded history, area glaciers have begun to expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.



“In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound”, said glaciologist Bruce Molnia. “In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years”. “On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying [did] not become snow free until early August.”



Molnia, who works for the US Geological Survey, said it’s been a “long time” since area glaciers have seen a positive mass balance­an increase in the total amount of ice they contain. Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.



Those records date from the mid 1700s, when the region was first visited by Russian explorers. Molnia estimates that Alaskan glaciers have lost about 15% of their total area since that time­an area the size of Connecticut. One of the largest areas of shrinkage has been at the national park of Glacier Bay. When Alexei Ilich Chirikof first arrived in 1741, the bay didn’t exist at all­only a solid wall of ice. From that time until the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and surrounding area.



Accordingly to Molnia, a difference of just 3 or 4 degrees is enough to shift the mass balance of glaciers from rapid shrinkage to rapid growth. From the 1600s to the 1900s, that s just the amount of warming that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.



Molnia says one cold summer doesn’t mean the start of a new climatic trend. At least years like this, however, might mark the beginning of another Little Ice Age. As DailyTech reported earlier (http://www.dailytech.com/Arctic+Sees+Massive+Gain+in+Ice+Coverage/article12851.htm), Arctic sea ice this year has also increased substantially from its low in 2007. Read more. (http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for+First+Time+in+250+years/article13215.htm)



http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/cid:1.2465266023@web54005.mail.re2.yahoo.com



[I]Alaska is cooling due to the cooling Pacific (negative PDO) and likely low solar activity which produced a cold and snowy winter and spring and cloudy cold summer. This is the inverse of the step warming that took place in 1979 when the PDO went positive and the sun neared the Grand Maximum.

subroc
11-23-2008, 04:14 AM
NBC gets rid of their global warming (environmental unit) staff at the Weather Channel.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2008/11/nbc_fires_twc_environmental_un.html (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2008/11/nbc_fires_twc_environmental_un.html)

Isn’t NBC the channel that turns the lights out during football games?

It appears advocacy isn’t relevant during times of economic crisis.

I can honestly say, I stopped watching the Weather Channel some time back when it seemed like there was a barrage of the most extreme global warming related information with the blame constantly directed at man being the cause. Maybe there will be a move in direction toward saner programming? I actually doubt it though. I expect NBC already has an advocacy group or department in place covering the global warming issue and we will see the NBC “experts” instead of the Weather Channels.

Bob Gutermuth
11-23-2008, 06:34 AM
Biggest snow job since the WCTU sole America on Prohibition.

Gerry Clinchy
11-23-2008, 07:16 AM
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

It is not "new" news, i.e. that there have always been at least as many scientists who did not subscribe to the theory of global warming as there were those who got the media coverage.

Pete
11-23-2008, 08:51 AM
Simple solution
Lets pump more hydocarbons into the atmoshpere:)

Pete

subroc
11-23-2008, 10:39 AM
Good point. With all the study being done do these experts know what optimum level of CO2 or greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere would be needed to maintain some constant temperature or to prevent exceeding the desired temperature highs and lows?

It is a good thing this guy didn’t get this patent approved and the screen deployed.

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080203328 (http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080203328)

I wonder how much human resource or effort it would take to manufacture something like this? What would man do without to produce it?

If this item got deployed at some time in the future and it was determined that this was actually causing more harm than good, would there be a way to remove it?

subroc
11-28-2008, 10:20 AM
It appears cooler (pun intended) heads are starting to prevail.

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=f0a1687c-decd-4c72-9d0e-7e6dd92d4ebe (http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=f0a1687c-decd-4c72-9d0e-7e6dd92d4ebe)

Complete with obligatory attack for the New York Times.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine/beware-the-church-of-climate-alarm/2008/11/26/1227491635989.html (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine/beware-the-church-of-climate-alarm/2008/11/26/1227491635989.html)

JDogger
11-28-2008, 08:57 PM
If you would trully like to be currently informed from the internet, on the facts and fancy of global climate change, that you simply google the words 'global climate change' , and indulge yourself in the 49 and 1/2 million sites speaking to that issue. You're sure to find something to quote that will substantiate your own personnal beliefs. Then you too, can link them to a retriever site in the hopes that you may persuade others to your point of view.

Waste of bandwidth regards,

JD

dr_dog_guy
11-28-2008, 11:04 PM
Hugh, my friend!

I have found a subscription to Science Magazine, the premier scientific journal in the United States, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is a far better place to learn about anything scientific - including global warming - than most other sources. Escpecially press reports.

Did you get much rain? We are in a mud hole up here. It worked for ducks yesterday but ruined a perfectly good outing up to SW Colorado for pheasants tomorrow.

JDogger
11-29-2008, 12:32 AM
Hugh, my friend!

I have found a subscription to Science Magazine, the premier scientific journal in the United States, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is a far better place to learn about anything scientific - including global warming - than most other sources. Escpecially press reports.

Did you get much rain? We are in a mud hole up here. It worked for ducks yesterday but ruined a perfectly good outing up to SW Colorado for pheasants tomorrow.

OMG Chuck, you just posted to a political thread on RTF. Just how much rain did you get?

JD

dr_dog_guy
11-29-2008, 07:50 AM
OMG Chuck, you just posted to a political thread on RTF. Just how much rain did you get?

JD

I know! I don't know what I was thinking, and I'm sure I'll regret it

Total rain, I don't know, but it was a pretty steady drizzle mixed with periods more like a summer thunderstorm. Enough to turn the backyard into a swamp, and even the field at Cheryl's, which is mostly sand, is still mud. Darn strange way to run a desert!

subroc
11-29-2008, 09:01 AM
If you would trully like to be currently informed from the internet, on the facts and fancy of global climate change, that you simply google the words 'global climate change' , and indulge yourself in the 49 and 1/2 million sites speaking to that issue...

Waste of bandwidth regards,

JD

Thanks for the tip!

I generally when I am actually searching for such things, I use the search parameters global warming and hoax.

Using climate change with the additional parameter hoax should give me a slightly different result.

These were just links from drudge that I thought would be of interest.

Read them or not, at your pleasure.

BTW, a waste of bandwidth? Really? I haven't heard a complaint from anyone or read an article about bandwidth being in jeopardy of being exceeded in ohhhh 6 or 8 years.

Bruce MacPherson
11-29-2008, 10:10 AM
Even the UN, that last bastion of hope for a perfect world for those of you on the left, has addmitted that climate change may be influenced more by nature than human activity. Heartining news for those of us that don't believe that a sceintific theory is reached merely by concensus.
That being said, who wouldn't be for green technology IF it proves to be practicle, reliable and cost efficiant. The problem, for some of us, comes when global warming is used like a sledge hammer to force a change in behaviour regardless of the price or science behind it.

Marvin S
11-29-2008, 12:13 PM
I have found a subscription to Science Magazine, the premier scientific journal in the United States, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is a far better place to learn about anything scientific - including global warming - than most other sources. Especially press reports.

I subscribe to Scientific American, who did a very good article on volcanic activity about a year ago. It's not hard to pick out the agenda driven articles as they show in the footnotes as authored by someone who is grant dependent. They also are generally heavy on hyperbole & short on factual substantiation for same.


Even the UN, that last bastion of hope for a perfect world for those of you on the left, has admitted that climate change may be influenced more by nature than human activity. Heartening news for those of us that don't believe that a scientific theory is reached merely by consensus.
That being said, who wouldn't be for green technology IF it proves to be practicle, reliable and cost efficient. The problem, for some of us, comes when global warming is used like a sledge hammer to force a change in behavior regardless of the price or science behind it.

The goal of the political class is to create an issue, talk a lot about it, extract funds from the program created & then allow the issue to solve itself, as it would have had the political class not become involved. They will then take full credit for seeing the issue & creating the solutions that would have happened without their help(?).

The free market through Science & Technology have come a long way in my time. I often marvel at the contribution of the Scientists & Engineers to the better life we enjoy today. If global warming were to prove to be caused by human activity, I am sure the aforementioned groups (not politicians) of individuals can present solutions to the issue.

JDogger
11-30-2008, 12:04 PM
Thanks for the tip!
BTW, a waste of bandwidth? Really? I haven't heard a complaint from anyone or read an article about bandwidth being in jeopardy of being exceeded in ohhhh 6 or 8 years.


Actually, the upgrades that seemed to cure the '509 bandwidth exceeded'
message occured a little over a year ago.
Links to drudge, however, while not exceeding bandwidth, are as I stated, a waste of bandwidth.

In my opinion of course,
JD

JDogger
11-30-2008, 12:11 PM
I subscribe to Scientific American.

I believe Dr_Dog_Guy was refering to;
http://www.sciencemag.org/
not the coffee table publication Scientific American.

JD

Marvin S
11-30-2008, 07:35 PM
I believe Dr_Dog_Guy was refering to;
http://www.sciencemag.org/
not the coffee table publication Scientific American.

JD

Wow - coffee table publication? Please state your qualifications to rate the merit of scientific publications & the articles contained therein.

I did look at your reference - Would you mind explaining what is ethical about poisoning a lake to conduct an experiment?

JDogger
11-30-2008, 10:18 PM
Wow - coffee table publication? Please state your qualifications to rate the merit of scientific publications & the articles contained therein.
Well, Scientific American, appears in the basket at my dentist's office, along with Sport's Illustrated, Popular Mechanics, American Spectator, Cosmopolitan, People, and 'US'.


I did look at your reference - Would you mind explaining what is ethical about poisoning a lake to conduct an experiment?
I would suggest you address the writer of the article in question.
JD

Marvin S
12-01-2008, 08:46 AM
Wow - coffee table publication? Please state your qualifications to rate the merit of scientific publications & the articles contained therein.


Well, Scientific American, appears in the basket at my dentist's office, along with Sport's Illustrated, Popular Mechanics, American Spectator, Cosmopolitan, People, and 'US'.

Are you stating a trip to the dentist's office qualifies you to rate the merit of scientific publications.


I would suggest you address the writer of the article in question.

Interesting - you claim a publication has merit yet are unwilling to defend in layman's terms the merit of the articles contained therein.

Or are you like the others of your persuasion on this forum, unable to do little beyond teleprompter messaging & not so wise remarks?

John Schmidt
12-01-2008, 05:17 PM
Are you stating a trip to the dentist's office qualifies you to rate the merit of scientific publications.


Interesting - you claim a publication has merit yet are unwilling to defend in layman's terms the merit of the articles contained therein.


Scientific American is a popular press magazine about science and engineering written in a way to appeal to a more mainstream audience. Is there merit in such a publication? Of course there is. Anything that improves the science literacy of the general public is a good thing. Do other scientists and engineers enjoy reading it; they most certainly do. And by and large, the articles are likely written by accomplished scientists.

But let's not confuse a popular press magazine from actual scientific journals. You know the ones that publish articles with an abstract, introduction, methods, data, discussion and a conclusion and have been peer reviewed. Those types of articles are not found in Scientific American. Any scientist who is interested in exploring a topic is not going to look at the articles found in Scientific American as the definitive source of knowledge. They will likely turn to an internet bulletin board about retrievers and ask for opinions about a subject matter and avoid the tedious work of spending lots of quality time in a library reading multiple journal articles.

John Schmidt

Marvin S
12-01-2008, 06:07 PM
Scientific American is a popular press magazine about science and engineering written in a way to appeal to a more mainstream audience. Is there merit in such a publication? Of course there is. Anything that improves the science literacy of the general public is a good thing. Do other scientists and engineers enjoy reading it; they most certainly do. And by and large, the articles are likely written by accomplished scientists.

But let's not confuse a popular press magazine from actual scientific journals. You know the ones that publish articles with an abstract, introduction, methods, data, discussion and a conclusion and have been peer reviewed. Those types of articles are not found in Scientific American. Any scientist who is interested in exploring a topic is not going to look at the articles found in Scientific American as the definitive source of knowledge. They will likely turn to an internet bulletin board about retrievers and ask for opinions about a subject matter and avoid the tedious work of spending lots of quality time in a library reading multiple journal articles.

John Schmidt

I have long had the opinion that anything done by engineers & scientists that is not capable of being understood by a reasonably intelligent person is wasted effort.

Interestingly, the articles in Scientific American generally have their sources if one is interested in pursuing their desire for knowledge further.

JDogger
12-01-2008, 08:10 PM
[quote=Marvin S;365878]Are you stating a trip to the dentist's office qualifies you to rate the merit of scientific publications.

No, just stating that I have seen the magazine there.


Interesting - you claim a publication has merit yet are unwilling to defend in layman's terms the merit of the articles contained therein.

I made no such claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDogger http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=365626#post365626)
I believe Dr_Dog_Guy was refering to;
http://www.sciencemag.org/
not the coffee table publication Scientific American.



I googled sciencemag, and took a quick look and determined that the site was by subscription, or pay per article, and posted the link for you and others of your persuasion, that you might have another source, other than those garnered by adding the additional parameter of 'hoax'.


JD

Joe S.
12-02-2008, 06:56 AM
Please state your qualifications to rate the merit of scientific publications & the articles contained therein.

Just out of interests sake, Marv:

Please state your qualifications to rate the merit of scientific publications & the articles contained therein.

Scientific Regards,

Joe S.

dr_dog_guy
12-02-2008, 07:57 AM
I do have to say that Mr. Schmidt did a good job of capturing the difference. Scientific American is a wonderful magazine and provides import scientific information with papers written for the intelligent layperson. Peer-reviewed scientific journals written for the expert are intended for a far different audience (and a heck of a lot harder to read).

Science does have an excellent News and Comment section at the front of each issue that covers relevant news and overviews of current advances, written (like Scientific American) for the intelligent layperson, but the technical papers/reports of research are written at a whole different level. I know I can't follow the physics in those papers specific to physics, but I sure love to try.

Marvin S
12-02-2008, 08:04 AM
Just out of interests sake, Marv:

Please state your qualifications to rate the merit of scientific publications & the articles contained therein.

Scientific Regards,

Joe S.

Do you have a need to know or are you just curious? :)

subroc
12-10-2008, 04:49 PM
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Pete
12-10-2008, 06:56 PM
The funny thing is Al Gore will not hold a debate with someone who doesn't share his view points. He claims "the case is closed on global warming" Is that anything like mission accomplished:p

Pete

Patrick Johndrow
12-10-2008, 07:12 PM
The funny thing is Al Gore will not hold a debate with someone who doesn't share his view points. He claims "the case is closed on global warming" Is that anything like mission accomplished:p

Pete

well Gore needs to send some of the global warming stuff to Oklahoma...freaking 20 degrees here today.

Marvin S
12-10-2008, 08:33 PM
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

Thank You! What say you, Al Goreniks! Looks like you're losing that scientific support that you delight in quoting!

JDogger
12-10-2008, 10:46 PM
Thank You! What say you, Al Goreniks! Looks like you're losing that scientific support that you delight in quoting!

You guys do realize that this is nothing more than a right wing blog, don't you? Well constructed, but a blog.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=inhofe+epw+press+blog&aq=f&oq=

I hope you realize that many things exist on the internet. Please read all the entries.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/why-are-taxpayers-funding_b_39654.html

Blogs are there for all of us to enjoy, and fantasize in. Yours as well as mine, and others.

JD

Raymond Little
12-11-2008, 08:38 AM
Snowing in Lake Charles Louisiana, 30 miles from the Gulf of Mexico.
I just love this "Global Warming".

Pete
12-11-2008, 09:22 AM
Blogs are there for all of us to enjoy, and fantasize in. Yours as well as mine, and others.

JD
__________________
Be here now. Be somewhere else later. Is that so complicated?
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif



And some of them live in a fantacy world their whole lives;)

Lets me imagine my next agenda regaurds:p
Pete

Uncle Bill
12-23-2008, 05:26 PM
Just 'stirring the pot' again. UB







Murdock: Global cooling is here



By DEROY MURDOCK, Scripps Howard News Service (http://www.scrippsnews.com/taxonomy/term/479)



Winter officially arrives with Sundayʼs solstice. But for many Americans, autumn 2008ʼs final days already feel like deepest, coldest January.



New Englanders still lack electricity after a December 11 ice storm snapped power lines. Up to eight inches of snow struck New Orleans and southern Louisiana that day and didnʼt melt for 48 hours in some neighborhoods.



In southern California Wednesday, a half-inch of snow brightened Malibuʼs hills while a half-foot barricaded highways and marooned commuters in desert towns east of Los Angeles. Three inches of the white stuff shuttered Las Vegas's McCarren Airport that day and dusted the Stripʼs hotels and casinos.



What are the odds of that?



Actually, the odds are rising that snow, ice, and cold will grow increasingly common. As serious scientists repeatedly explain, global cooling is here. It is chilling temperatures and so-called "global-warming."



According to the National Climatic Data Center, 2008 will be Americaʼs coldest year since 1997, thanks to La Nina and precipitation in the central and eastern states. Solar quietude also may underlie global cooling.



This yearʼs sunspots and solar radiation approach the minimum in the Sunʼs cycle, corresponding with lower Earth temperatures. This echoes Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Sallie Baliunasʼ belief that solar variability, much more than CO2, sways global temperatures.



Meanwhile, the National Weather Service reports that last summer was Anchorageʼs third coldest on record. "Not since 1980 has there been a summer less reflective of global warming," Craig Medred wrote in the Anchorage Daily News.



Consequently, Alaskaʼs glaciers are thickening in the middle. "Itʼs been a long time on most glaciers where theyʼve actually had positive mass balance," U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia told Medred October 13. Similarly, the National Snow and Ice Data Center found that Arctic sea ice expanded 13.2 percent this year, or a Texas-sized 270,000 square miles.



Across the equator, Brazil endured an especially cold September. Snow graced its southern provinces that month.



"Global Warming is over, and Global Warming Theory has failed. There is no evidence that CO2 drives world temperatures or any consequent climate change," Imperial College London astrophysicist and long-range forecaster Piers Corbyn wrote British Members of Parliament on October 28.



"According to official data in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been colder than that year, yet CO2 has been rising rapidly." That evening, as the House of Commons debated legislation on so-called "global-warming," October snow fell in London for the first time since 1922.



These observations parallel those of five German researchers led by Professor Noel Keenlyside of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences. "Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade," they concluded in last Mayʼs "Nature," "as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic (man-made) warming."



This "lull" should doom the 0.54 degree Fahrenheit average global temperature rise predicted by the UNʼs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Vatican of so-called "global warming." Incidentally, the IPCCʼs computer models factor in neither El Nino nor the Gulf Stream. Excluding such major climate variables would be like ESPN ignoring baseball and basketball.



So, is this all just propaganda concocted by Chevron-funded, right-wing, flat-Earthers? Ask Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a physical chemist and retired Navy meteorologist.



"As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science," Hertzberg wrote in September 26ʼs USA Today. "From the El Nino year of 1998 until Jan., 2007, the average temperature of the Earthʼs atmosphere near its surface decreased some 0.25 C (0.45 F). From Jan., 2007 until the spring of 2008, it dropped a whopping 0.75 C (1.35 F)."



As global cooling becomes more widely recognized, Americans from Maine to Malibu should feel comfortable dreaming of a white Christmas.

T. Mac
12-23-2008, 05:52 PM
An interesting article where the cause of the little ice age (1600-1850) was caused by man, more explicity, the demise of the native Americas population caused by disease brought by Europeans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28353083

twall
12-23-2008, 05:59 PM
Bill,

Thanks for posting that.

The part that has always gotten me is when someone mentions "man made" global warming. I know it is the progression, dare I say evolution, of secular humanism in our society.

Just stick around a little while and the weather will change.

Tom

JDogger
12-23-2008, 11:00 PM
"Ya don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows."
- B. Dylan.

JD

PS and it somtimes blows long and hard on the prairie.

Uncle Bill
01-05-2009, 06:04 PM
Just dropped by to stir a little more. Any of your followers been to an Algore class recently?

UB


================================================== =============

2008: Another Grim Year for the Global Warmers

By Michael Fox, Hawaii ReporterThe year 2008 marked the tenth consecutive year of no global warming. This is not widely reported or known. In fact the Earth has been cooling for the last 6 years.

Richard Lindzen: A profound analysis (http://tinyurl.com/6lcelj) of the global warming issues including huge political issues was written and presented in August this year by Dr. Richard Lindzen, climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He asks two very important questions:

1. Has the global warming alarm become the goal itself, instead of the result of scientific research?

2. Is climate science really designed to answer questions or promote political goals? Too often we witness climate alarmism being promoted while solid science is ignored, misrepresented, or downplayed.

This makes great fodder for scary movies, scary news articles, and scary documentaries, but it is still bad science.

We also note that the nearly $5 billion/year being spent on global warming research is buying a lot of name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and all around nastiness by many of the indentured recipients of that money. Such behavior certainly is not scientific. In fact it inhibits the progress of science, and the intelligent formulations of science and energy policies. If half the participants are ignored by the science journals, insulted with ad hominem attacks by the promoters, and ignored and dismissed by the media, then the simple and rational scientific processes are stopped.

Lindzen describes the origins of global warming alarm, the political agenda of the alarmists, their intimidation tactics, and the reasons for their success. Also, in painstaking detail, he debunks their key scientific claims and counterclaims.

This Lindzen paper, although quite lengthy, is must reading for all decision makers, energy policy makers, and their staffs. Of course it would also help if the entire US population and the media read it as well, to help them understand the unscientific political processes taking place right before their eyes.

subroc
01-05-2009, 07:13 PM
It looks like sea ice is at the same level as 1979.

I guess the trend is moving twords a new ice age.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13834

Hoosier
01-05-2009, 08:24 PM
It looks like sea ice is at the same level as 1979.

I guess the trend is moving twords a new ice age.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13834

Oh lord now we have global cooling. The ice is pretty good this year

JDogger
01-05-2009, 09:08 PM
Yep. just looked out the door here, and sure enough, it's cold. Must be wintertime in the northern hemisphere.

BTW http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13834 is a wiki. Kinda like snopes. Anybody can add anything they like whenever they like. Opinion driven objectivity... works for me if it works for you:rolleyes:

It's on the internet, it must be true, regards,

JD

IowaBayDog
01-05-2009, 09:36 PM
Just in our local paper the other day. 12th coldest since 1872 even with all our evil hogs and cattle spewing GHG :rolleyes:

http://www.gazetteonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090104/NEWS/701049990/1006

2008 officially among coolest, soggiest years ever in Iowa



By Steve Gravelle

The Gazette
steve.gravelle@gazettecommunications.com (steve.gravelle@gazettecommunications.com)




Eastern Iowans who endured it now have the numbers to back it up: 2008 was one of the coldest, wettest years in state history.

It was the fourth-wettest and 12th-coldest year since 1872, according to the annual summary compiled by state Climatologist Harry Hillaker. With temperature readings from 130 sites and precipitation from 170 locations, the summary through Dec. 29 is based on preliminary data for the year's final four months.

With 48.9 inches of snow statewide — 16.5 inches more than usual — 2008 was also the seventh-snowiest on record, and could be the second-snowiest when final figures are tallied.

Those factors, and a very wet mid-spring, led to June's record floods along the Cedar and Iowa rivers.

Heavy snow and cool weather "kept the river levels higher than they would have been otherwise," Hillaker said. "Areas upstream from Cedar Rapids did keep their snow on the ground through the winter.

"We had three months' worth of moisture stored up in that snowpack, and it all melted in March."

So rivers were high and the soil saturated when heavy rains fell in April and early March, followed by an exceptionally wet period May 29 through June 12. A statewide average of 9.03 inches fell during that period, compared to the usual 2.45 inches, which Hillaker called "probably the wettest 15 days in state history."

The year's statewide average temperature of 45.8 degrees was 2 degrees below normal, making it the coldest year since 1996. Only September and November recorded warmer than normal temperatures.

The year's coldest temperature was minus 30 Jan. 30 at Stanley in Buchanan County. Hawarden, in Sioux County just west of the Missouri River, was the state's hottest spot with 100 degrees Aug. 3 — the year's only three-digit reading.

The state's utilities felt the cooler weather, said Dave Koch, spokesman for Alliant Energy.

"The cooler than normal summer did decrease electrical demand, which did decrease revenues," Koch said.

The National Weather Service reports a preliminary total of 105 tornadoes in Iowa in 2008, tying 2001 for the second-greatest annual tornado total after 2004's 120. The average annual number of confirmed tornadoes since 1995 in Iowa is 56.

So far, this winter is less snowy than last. Through Tuesday, Cedar Rapids had received 11.7 inches of snow in December containing 1.97 inches of moisture, compared to December 2007, when 19.2 inches of snow and 4.06 inches of moisture were recorded.

Henry V
01-05-2009, 09:58 PM
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

Oh, and thanks for the update on Iowa's 2008 weather.

zeus3925
01-05-2009, 10:02 PM
UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

How many support the opposite position and what is their evidence?

Pete
01-05-2009, 10:20 PM
I believe in global warming
And the earth is flat too.
I know there's a link somewhere to confirm that

Pete

JDogger
01-05-2009, 11:09 PM
Here ya go Pete,

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

Pete
01-05-2009, 11:19 PM
WOW
simply remarkable I can't believe people think that way.
I'll bet there is no link to that global warning stuff though:p

Pete

JDogger
01-06-2009, 12:00 AM
WOW
simply remarkable I can't believe people think that way.
I'll bet there is no link to that global warning stuff though:p

Pete

Do a search, pendejo, do a search, :p

The Pro's here don't wanna answer yer ? again.

;)JD

IowaBayDog
01-06-2009, 05:45 AM
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm

Oh, and thanks for the update on Iowa's 2008 weather.


Yes you should ignore all real data and just believe this guy:

http://newsbusters.org/node/13241

Jim Hanson is responsible for the majority of the data in this grand hoax and has been proven to be a complete hack. Either completely math disfunctional or a fraud, take your pick.

Henry V
01-07-2009, 01:13 AM
Thanks for the continued support IBD.* I expect nothing less.

Since the charge from you is that I ignore data, please point out anything that led you to believe that I ignored the data provided in your post.

To the contrary, a careful assessment of my short post clearly shows that I thanked you for providing a report on the 2008 Iowa weather. I am sorry that you did not understand my implications in this response. It was meant to clearly indicate that I acknowledged the data that you provided. Perhaps I should have added as a final statement “So, what’s your point?” to add context to my statement or "Ok, that's a sample size of one".*

Don’t you agree that in the grand scheme of the world’s climate, your Iowa report is one single data point from one location for one year? Do you really want me to believe that this one data point somehow refutes the evidence that the climate, particularly in the northern hemisphere, is changing? Well, I hate to disappoint you but that’s just not good science. Similarly, if the entire world temperature was cooler in 2008 than the long term average that is just a single data point in a long series of data that describes the climate. Why is it that some folks here repeatedly express the idea that one data point, whether it is a cold day in July, one mean annual temperature measurement or winter ice cover measurement refutes the theory of global warming/climate change? It’s kind of reminds me of a guy whose dog continues to go off line while failing a blind but then he clings to the one or two good casts that the dog took during the entire process to support the idea that he ran a good blind. You know, one or two good data points may look good from your perspective but the trend will lead an objective observer to a different conclusion.

FYI, here's some of what I have learned about Minnesota’s weather and climate from the state’s climatologist, Mark Seeley, who, I must say, is a rather conservative and skeptical scientist who has relatively recently concluded that the climate is changing. What changed his mind? The data from Minnesota and from around the world. You may want to take a look at a couple presentations he gave the past few years there is one at http://agronomy.cfans.umn.edu/sites/1e65c3d9-ce73-46af-a196-12323314ecc5/uploads/Seeley_Mark.pdf and another at: http://www.tourism.umn.edu/education/conference/2007/SEELEY-tourism_07.pdf I saw him give a similar presentation at a scientific meeting last year. Here are some highlights since we both know it is important to look at the data: Minnesota has warmer winters, higher minimum temperatures, a greater frequency of tropical dewpoints, and greater annual precipitation with more frequent heavy rains and more snowfall than 100 years ago. All conclusions based on real data. Did you know that 11 out of the 20 warmest winters in Minnesota during the past 100 years have occured since 1981? Pretty interesting and probably just a coincidence but it could give some folks something further to think about. Maybe it is just that all the thermometers are different now.*

Also, you may want to check out this climate website for the upper Midwwest that has more data. http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/climate_midwest/mwclimate_change.htm
This data looks pretty clear too. The upper Midwest is warmer and we are getting more precipitation. Hmmmm, isn’t that just what the climate models predict? Again must be another coincidence or those darn scientists are tuning the models to get the results they want.* There is also a trend toward more intensive weather events. You haven’t had any historic precipitation events in Iowa the last few years have you?* Not that one data point is much on its own.

Of course, all this regional data and existing global data which makes it pretty clear that global temperatures are increasing and the related data that clearly shows that CO2 concentrations are increasing at an accelerated rate since the early 1900s does not prove any direct human causation (I do remember that correlation does not prove causation). Its all just “circumstantial” evidence and besides there is so much uncertainty with all this stuff we should not consider deviating from our current course even though the climate models do mostly suggest that a continued rise in CO2 will increase global temperature further. I know, I know, mother earth will take care of herself like always and insignificant little humans like us simply can’t have much impact on this big old planet.* Heck just look around the country. You can hardly tell that we are even here.* The air, water, and land and the plant and animal communities are almost all just like they were a few hundred years ago.* We simply can’t affect climate anymore than we have affected anything else on this planet, right?* We should all just sit back, stay the course, and bet that the planet will take care of itself rather than even consider the possibility that humans activities are influencing climate or, heaven forbid, support actions to reduce climate change. If your side in this debate is mostly right IBD, great. Sorry in advance for that carbon cap and trade system that will probably be forthcoming that will likely induce an energy revolution. If you are wrong and we do nothing, well, that will be another situation won’t it? Let me see which of these two approach is "conservative"?*

Also, for future reference, it's James Hansen and that link has been posted here on a GW related thread before. There are lots of websites that take him to task. Funny, that he is still employed by NASA after telling all those apparent lies. But then again, what do you expect from someone who works for the government and received his B.S., M.S., and PhD all from the University of Iowa.*

Have fun and take care,



(Note to Hew: in case you read this post, there are several places where I am trying to be sarcastic in this message. Since you requested that it would be helpful to you if I made these instances more clear in my posts, I have added an asterisk at the end of the sentences where sarcasm is generally implied. I hope this helps and I am glad to accommodate in the interest of better communication and understanding)

subroc
01-07-2009, 04:43 AM
...Of course, all this regional data and existing global data which makes it pretty clear that global temperatures are increasing and the related data that clearly shows that CO2 concentrations are increasing at an accelerated rate since the early 1900s does not prove any direct human causation (I do remember that correlation does not prove causation). Its all just “circumstantial” evidence and besides there is so much uncertainty with all this stuff we should not consider deviating from our current course even though the climate models do mostly suggest that a continued rise in CO2 will increase global temperature further...

Interesting post.

I will just look at this particular point.

Assume the planet is actually warming at the alarming rate that the man caused global warming alarmists like to claim (You know the seas will rise feet or yards not inches or fractions of inches crowd (Al Gore et al)).

Assume this is wrong and CO2 isn’t the cause? Being from the Midwest, this is tantamount to spending massive amounts of money on a tornado-stopping machine and it doesn’t work when the real solution was just to dig a hole in the back yard?

I am all for a clean planet. I expect that most here feel the same way (good stewards and all that). But your (the global warming crowd) ideas of how to use the resources needed for good stewardship and linking that to global warming is a waste of those resources.

BTW, I believe energy policy and issues and environmental issues are two separate things and are not linked by global warming.

IowaBayDog
01-07-2009, 05:39 AM
Also, for future reference, it's James Hansen and that link has been posted here on a GW related thread before. There are lots of websites that take him to task. Funny, that he is still employed by NASA after telling all those apparent lies. But then again, what do you expect from someone who works for the government and received his B.S., M.S., and PhD all from the University of Iowa.*

Have fun and take care,




NASA is CF of politics and dunderheads according to the 3 people I currently work with who were previously employed there. Ever try to fire a gov't employee? I did not attend UofI am no fan and work with several from there with degrees and they are no more above reproach than anyone else. Given the political climate of Iowa City it does not surprise me that a hack such as Mr. Hansen would come from there.


Mr Seeley's slides were interesting but cherry picked mostly un-sourced data in some dude's Powerpoint slide is hardly compeling. He also never uses "Man made Global Warming" or asserts man has anything to do with it. He does say the climate is changing, duh, and we shoudl be good stewards, duh. He does a good job of showing the "hottest" years and periods and leaves out the "coolest" that have also occured during those periods. Some of his data is from 2002, the warming trend has drastically reversed locally since then, not just this year but the last several.

But I am sure Henry you are spending all your personal wealth on this critical crisis since you are so convinced. If not, well then hypocrisy is thy name.

Uncle Bill
01-07-2009, 02:39 PM
NASA is CF of politics and dunderheads according to the 3 people I currently work with who were previously employed there. Ever try to fire a gov't employee? I did not attend UofI am no fan and work with several from there with degrees and they are no more above reproach than anyone else. Given the political climate of Iowa City it does not surprise me that a hack such as Mr. Hansen would come from there.


Mr Seeley's slides were interesting but cherry picked mostly un-sourced data in some dude's Powerpoint slide is hardly compeling. He also never uses "Man made Global Warming" or asserts man has anything to do with it. He does say the climate is changing, duh, and we shoudl be good stewards, duh. He does a good job of showing the "hottest" years and periods and leaves out the "coolest" that have also occured during those periods. Some of his data is from 2002, the warming trend has drastically reversed locally since then, not just this year but the last several.

But I am sure Henry you are spending all your personal wealth on this critical crisis since you are so convinced. If not, well then hypocrisy is thy name.


Surely you jest, Dan. Since when do liberals or socialists spend any of their own money???? They only want government to take it from the sheeple, so it can be spent on their favorite programs. As Mr. Ben Dover has warned us, this is just the beginning.

UB

JDogger
01-07-2009, 04:52 PM
. the warming trend has drastically reversed locally since then, not just this year but the last several.

That is why it is refered to as Global warming, not Iowa weather.

JD

Richard Halstead
01-07-2009, 05:19 PM
If Al Gore says there is global warming then as much as touts this topic he is blowing hot air. We still need to clean the environment.

Henry V
01-07-2009, 07:34 PM
Mr Seeley's slides were interesting but cherry picked mostly un-sourced data in some dude's Powerpoint slide is hardly compeling. He also never uses "Man made Global Warming" or asserts man has anything to do with it. He does say the climate is changing, duh, and we shoudl be good stewards, duh. He does a good job of showing the "hottest" years and periods and leaves out the "coolest" that have also occured during those periods. Some of his data is from 2002, the warming trend has drastically reversed locally since then, not just this year but the last several.

All those slides with raw data summaries, straight temperature trends over the years and that's your response? Weren't you just the one accusing me of ignoring data. Spoken like a true expert on the subject. By the way, the "dude" is a well respected state climatologist. All of his data is sourced. Its mostly weather service data. You know, the actual temperature readings from thermometers. Why don't you just say he made it all up. I am sure if you sent him a note he would give you hard data to analyze yourself. Also, please let me know which slides show he ignored the coldest years or "cherry picked" something. I gave you links to two complete slide shows, I would be glad to look at some specific individual slides and discuss how they are supposedly biased. Also, while he doesn't say "man made" you may want to look up the meaning and consider what he might have said when he came to that ending slide with the bullet "growth of anthropogenic forcing"

Also, since you make the claim, please provide me with the data that shows the warming trend has drastically reversed itself since 2002 anywhere in the Midwest or arctic. Thanks in advance.

Oh and just to be clear, in this post you indicate that you believe the climate is changing - "Duh". Then what exactly was the point of posting that news release that cites the Iowa state climatologist (did you source that dude's data) and weather service reports? It seems like you were posting something to show there is no global warming/climate change. From this last post I will assume you believe that climate is changing but anthropogenic forces are not responsible. Certainly a fair position to take.

IowaBayDog
01-07-2009, 07:37 PM
That is why it is refered to as Global warming, not Iowa weather.

JD


Exactly, so all of Mr. Seeley's LOCAL MN data is irrelevant to the discussion then.

By the way, Global average temperatures have been decreasing for the last 10 years as well.

Henry V
01-07-2009, 07:41 PM
Surely you jest, Dan. Since when do liberals or socialists spend any of their own money???? They only want government to take it from the sheeple, so it can be spent on their favorite programs. As Mr. Ben Dover has warned us, this is just the beginning.

UB
Once again UB you have outdone yourself. What's that smell? Oh yeah, hypocrisy.

What favorite programs are you talking about? The ones that make your state consistently one of the top 5 welfare states per capita from a federal taxes paid to federal taxes returned perspective. Do I have to look up the ratio and rank again?

Just a sheeple pointing out the obvious once again regards.

Henry V
01-07-2009, 07:54 PM
Exactly, so all of Mr. Seeley's LOCAL MN data is irrelevant to the discussion then.

By the way, Global average temperatures have been decreasing for the last 10 years as well.

I believe the Minnesota state climatologist who presented the slide shows whose titles included the phrase "Minnesota Climate Trends" did not mix up his terms unless the dudes completely incompetent.

Let's see the sourced non-cherry picked data for the last statement please.

Henry V
01-07-2009, 09:31 PM
Interesting post.

I will just look at this particular point.

Assume the planet is actually warming at the alarming rate that the man caused global warming alarmists like to claim (You know the seas will rise feet or yards not inches or fractions of inches crowd (Al Gore et al)).

Assume this is wrong and CO2 isn’t the cause? Being from the Midwest, this is tantamount to spending massive amounts of money on a tornado-stopping machine and it doesn’t work when the real solution was just to dig a hole in the back yard?
You have hit at the heart of differences between folks on this issue. This discussion is all about where you fall in regards to the following question. Do you believe the risks of controlling CO2 emission are greater or less than the risks of not controlling CO2 emissions?. Unlike some here, I am pretty convinced that the climate is changing and it is getting warmer. I think there is good data on this. The next part of the discussion is to arrive at some answer to the question of what is driving the change. On one hand, some say it is completely natural forces and humans have no role. On the other hand, some say that the dominant driving force is CO2 and other greenhouse gases with humans having a major role. Quite honestly, I respect both positions but, based on my reading on this topic I believe that humans are, in part, responsible for the observed changes. We won't know the answer until this all plays out over time. The best scientific guesses that we have for now are climate models and modeling climate on a world scale is darn complicated and way beyond my pay grade. Most of the climate models despite their limitations are predicting what is being observed.

If CO2 is not responsible or the primary driver then taking action to limit or control CO2 emissions could be a mistake from a climate perspective. I am not convinced that limiting CO2 emissions or taking a serious "polluter pays" approach (i.e., individual responsibility) to the discharge of any pollutant is bad from a long term economic perspective. As I see it, pay now or pay later in one form or another.


I am all for a clean planet. I expect that most here feel the same way (good stewards and all that). But your (the global warming crowd) ideas of how to use the resources needed for good stewardship and linking that to global warming is a waste of those resources.
I hear this type of rhetoric from farmers and developers all the time. "I am all for conservation/ clean water, etc, but......". If this were true the steady decline of environmental quality would not be happening. To put it in perspective, I am as skeptical of this preamble statement as some here would be about the statement, "I'm all for 2nd amendment rights....." Please clarify the meaning of your second sentence so I can respond better. What linked resources are you talking about? Fossil fuels?

BTW, I believe energy policy and issues and environmental issues are two separate things and are not linked by global warming.
Energy policy and environmental policy are often linked. Drilling and ANWR are a great example. These policies are also often both linked to long term economic health. I could agree that they are not linked by global warming only if CO2 is not a driving force.

JDogger
01-07-2009, 10:26 PM
By the way, Global average temperatures have been decreasing for the last 10 years as well.
Please cite your sources.

JD

IowaBayDog
01-08-2009, 08:03 AM
Yes it is a blog, but it sources its data. There are hundreds of sources that point to sunspot activity being responsible for global climate change. What a crazy idea, the sun responsible for temperatures. :rolleyes:


http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2008/05/05/globe-may-be-cooling-on-global-warming/

“The University of Alabama-Huntsville’s analysis of data from satellites launched in 1979 showed a warming trend of 0.14 degrees Centigrade (0.25 Fahrenheit) per decade,” Joseph D’Aleo, the Weather Channel’s first Director of Meteorology, told me. “This warmth peaked in 1998, and the temperature trend the last decade has been flat, even as CO2 has increased 5.5 percent. Cooling began in 2002. Over the last six years, global temperatures from satellite and land-temperature gauges have cooled (-0.14 F and -0.22 F, respectively). Ocean buoys have echoed that slight cooling since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration deployed them in 2003.”

Pete
01-08-2009, 09:02 AM
It really boils down to 2 things.
do you believe in God and what he says in his words
Or you don't believe in God ,therefore you have to try to explain what goes on through your fears of the unknown to justify your existance. ie. evolution,,bla bla bla. and all that other new age philosophies. Total silliness to me.
Its simple to blow around with any wind of doctrine,,,,you will always be dooped until you decide to commit yourself to a true standard.


My 2 cents for now and I'll send you a bill later

Pete

cotts135
01-08-2009, 09:22 AM
Since I don't really know all that much about the intricacies of Global Warming and really don't have an opinion either way I started to look around the net to see what I could find. Of course opinions ranged from " we will be burnt to a cinder in twenty years" to " This is all a giant conspiracy to help politicians get elected". However I did find a web site I thought was pretty objective in it's observations
. What was clear to me was that different people take different opinions from the same data.
If interested in reading it go to this site: http://ecoworld.com/features/2006/10/07/global-warming-facts/

Uncle Bill
01-08-2009, 11:16 AM
Once again UB you have outdone yourself. What's that smell? Oh yeah, hypocrisy.

What favorite programs are you talking about? The ones that make your state consistently one of the top 5 welfare states per capita from a federal taxes paid to federal taxes returned perspective. Do I have to look up the ratio and rank again?

Just a sheeple pointing out the obvious once again regards.


At least we had the onions to eliminate one of the main 'earmarkers' from our congessional constituancy. But then, you have voted in a dude that has seen fit to put him back into controlling another facet of government, which I'm sure you are very proud. Kinda like your states 'counting' ballots until you get your socialists in office.

It must really piss you off that so many of your states hunters have found it better in our state. How's that for changing the subject?

Put your blinders back on Henry, and pony up the $$$ your newly elected group of socialists will be legislating. Hope you can afford it, because you indeed are a sheeple.

UB

zeus3925
01-10-2009, 08:34 PM
The debate over whether or not greenhouse gases were causing global warming goes back to the early 60's when I was student studying earth sciences. The issue was not even on the political radar screen at the time. Already the correlation was becoming evident.

There are bound to be differences from year to year. One year's deviance from the trend does not negate the theory. It is kind of like watching a man going up the stairs flinging a yo-yo. If you keep an eye on the yo-yo you are going to come to the conclusion that things go up and down. But if you keep your eye on the man then you can see where the trend is heading.

There is a part of the debate worries me. The No Warming stance has been fueled by the energy companies--Exxon in particular. They are running scared over CO2 emissions caps as you would expect them to be. They have funded a number of far right wing folks to carry that message for them.

In science there are going to be dissenters, as there is in every community. However, the majority( 90% the last figure I saw) of atmospheric scientists believe the global climate is in peril. From what I have seen and from the people I know in the field, I have to throw my lot in with the majority. But, like many of you I wish it weren't so.

IowaBayDog
01-11-2009, 07:34 AM
.... It is kind of like watching a man going up the stairs flinging a yo-yo. If you keep an eye on the yo-yo you are going to come to the conclusion that things go up and down. But if you keep your eye on the man then you can see where the trend is heading........


The scary part is the so called 90% consensus that ignores the fact that before the yo-yo man went up the stairs he went down the stairs and will likely go back down again due to his normal activities.

subroc
01-11-2009, 08:14 AM
What did you gain from reading the article? What conclusion did you come to, if any?



Since I don't really know all that much about the intricacies of Global Warming and really don't have an opinion either way I started to look around the net to see what I could find. Of course opinions ranged from " we will be burnt to a cinder in twenty years" to " This is all a giant conspiracy to help politicians get elected". However I did find a web site I thought was pretty objective in it's observations
. What was clear to me was that different people take different opinions from the same data.
If interested in reading it go to this site: http://ecoworld.com/features/2006/10/07/global-warming-facts/

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 08:32 AM
The scary part is the so called 90% consensus that ignores the fact that before the yo-yo man went up the stairs he went down the stairs and will likely go back down again due to his normal activities.
But, what we are seeing currently is not his normal activity. Certainly, there are other non manmade factors at work here. One big volcanic eruption can temporarily change things. Too much ash and dust in the upper atmosphere and temperatures will plunge. Too much CO2 and temperatures rise. But the overall trend will return after a few years.

We do know that CO2 is a gas that locks in heat. It gets in the way of normal radiation of surplus heat back into space. We know that level CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. We know this rise corresponds directly with the use of fossil fuels. We also see along term trend of rising temperatures corresponding with the rise of CO2.

If we go back to the man on the stairs analogy , what we are in effect doing is tying a rope around the waist of our stairclimber and not letting him go back down.

subroc
01-11-2009, 08:40 AM
Here is an interesting link that has links to articles that illustrate the global warming causes both conditions in most global warming activist arguments. How can you debate an issue when you are responsible for an increase in coral reefs and a decrease in coral reefs and both are bad.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html)

What I meant by the second sentence is resources of time, money, labor, programs, taxes, carbon credits, etc. that get siphoned off from the worlds limited resources in the name of global warming and its related issues for research, advocacy and the like. Those resources would be better used for any number of things from purchasing habitat, to cleaning waterways you know, actually accomplishing something instead of wasting the time and effort on global warming. Do you believe on a dollar for dollar basis, that Ducks Unlimited or Delta Waterfowler accomplishes more than the same resources being used by the man caused global warming advocates?





...I hear this type of rhetoric from farmers and developers all the time. "I am all for conservation/ clean water, etc, but......". If this were true the steady decline of environmental quality would not be happening. To put it in perspective, I am as skeptical of this preamble statement as some here would be about the statement, "I'm all for 2nd amendment rights....." Please clarify the meaning of your second sentence so I can respond better. What linked resources are you talking about? Fossil fuels?...

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 09:57 AM
I guess Subroc I am going to disagree that the research is a waste of money. This is a question of global import. If there is something that may be gaining on you, it is best to keep an eye on it. In the scheme of things, the research isn't that big a monetary ticket.

subroc
01-11-2009, 10:16 AM
This artlce questions a few things. It actually believe there is an ice age coming.

A pretty good read.

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 11:20 AM
Interesting article, Subroc. There are a lot of Ice Age theories out there. One even involves global warming. It holds that the rising sea levels permit deeper penetration of the Gulf Stream into the Arctic Ocean. The increases water and heat flow. The increased transfer melts the sea ice and causes causes greater evaporation in the Arctic, which in turn causes much greater precipitation over the land. Some of this is much greater snowfall that doesn't fully melt thus leading to the formation of continental glaciation to the extent there is an Ice Age. According to the theory, end of the Ice Age takes place when the lowered sea level curtails the Gulf Stream allowing summer melt to excede winter build up.

Now I don't know if this theory has any credence presently--I haven't heard it in a couple of decades. But, what I am trying to convey is that science is not monolithic. There is lot of debate and conjecture out there on this and any other issue. There is a lot of fact checking that goes on once someone publishes a finding. There is a process of peer review where the critical questions about the research are asked. Experimentation is generally commenced to prove or disprove that the original findings are correct.

People whose findings are disproved usually see a decrease in their research funding. It is not in their interest to do sloppy research. Take a look at those fellows from Utah who "discovered" Cold Fusion. They were quickly shot down when the peer review process worked its course. Where are they now?

I guess I will continue to side with the majority position as long as the continuing research supports that stand.

IowaBayDog
01-11-2009, 12:24 PM
But, what we are seeing currently is not his normal activity. Certainly, there are other non manmade factors at work here. One big volcanic eruption can temporarily change things. Too much ash and dust in the upper atmosphere and temperatures will plunge. Too much CO2 and temperatures rise. But the overall trend will return after a few years.

We do know that CO2 is a gas that locks in heat. It gets in the way of normal radiation of surplus heat back into space. We know that level CO2 in the atmosphere is rising. We know this rise corresponds directly with the use of fossil fuels. We also see along term trend of rising temperatures corresponding with the rise of CO2.

If we go back to the man on the stairs analogy , what we are in effect doing is tying a rope around the waist of our stairclimber and not letting him go back down.


CO2 is a small percentage of the overall greenhouse effect, our ability to affect the overall CO2 contribution is even more miniscual. You said it yourself, one volcano eruption will reverse the trend and affect the climate 1000s of times over what we as man could ever do. There is no rope around the waist it is simple a single strand of spider web that he barely notices if at all.

subroc
01-11-2009, 12:46 PM
...People whose findings are disproved usually see a decrease in their research funding...

I expect when a desired outcome (man caused global warming and that global warming is based on increased levels of co2) is sought and the result of the research doesnt meet with that outcome, research funding will be cut as well.

Uncle Bill
01-11-2009, 01:06 PM
This web site was done by a fellow that I know. He is an engineer and
graduated from South Dakota School of Mines & Technology:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.html)

I hope you find it interesting.

UB

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 01:21 PM
I expect when a desired outcome (man caused global warming and that global warming is based on increased levels of co2) is sought and the result of the research doesnt meet with that outcome, research funding will be cut as well.

Look who has to gain. There are no big corporations pouring money into research proving man made climate change. Who is going to profit from that? Academic institutions don't assign a predetermined outcome to research. On the other hand energy companies have been dumping cash into nay saying organization as their rice bowl is most at risk.

IowaBayDog
01-11-2009, 03:46 PM
Look who has to gain. There are no big corporations pouring money into research proving man made climate change. Who is going to profit from that? Academic institutions don't assign a predetermined outcome to research. On the other hand energy companies have been dumping cash into nay saying organization as their rice bowl is most at risk.

Gov'ts and industry are pouring Billions into GW research, the academic institutions benefit greatly by the hoax continuing and dispelling any dissent. Researchers know where their bread is buttered and what "results" will keep that cash cow churning out the butter.

I believe Algore has a nice little billion dollar company that has profited nicely. The cash going into the hoax is tenfold greater than that any of the energy companies are spending to dispell it.
The money trail on the pro GW side is much more dubious than anything on the side trying to prove it wrong.

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 05:33 PM
Gov'ts and industry are pouring Billions into GW research, the academic institutions benefit greatly by the hoax continuing and dispelling any dissent. Researchers know where their bread is buttered and what "results" will keep that cash cow churning out the butter.

I believe Algore has a nice little billion dollar company that has profited nicely. The cash going into the hoax is tenfold greater than that any of the energy companies are spending to dispell it.
The money trail on the pro GW side is much more dubious than anything on the side trying to prove it wrong.

Now, Iowa, you are really displaying your lack of knowledge on how the academic and scientific community works . The last thing the academic community is going to do is stifle dissent. Things just don't work the way you picture it.

Whether or not Al Gore made money on his film is neither here nor there in this debate. Gore is a Johnny-Come-Lately to the issue. He didn't invent this controversy. I would be surprised if his film made any money. But if it did, isn't that the American way? I think a rational conservative can understand that.

IowaBayDog
01-11-2009, 05:45 PM
Now, Iowa, you are really displaying your lack of knowledge on how the academic and scientific community works . The last thing the academic community is going to do is stifle dissent. Things just don't work the way you picture it.

Whether or not Al Gore made money on his film is neither here nor there is this debate. Gore is a Johnny-Come-Lately to the issue. He didn't invent this controversy. I would be surprised if his film made any money. But if it did, isn't that the American way? I think a rational conservative can understand that.


I suggest you take a look at Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" if you think dissent is not stifled in academia.

You think Al Gore has only made Global Warming money because of his film and you dare say I have a "lack of knowledge"? You've got some research to do my friend.

nevercry_wolf
01-11-2009, 05:55 PM
IF there was actually global warming that has been human caused, should we really invest in reversing it? The priority of spending billions to achieve such a small benefit seems to be a bit backwards.

Interesting video on spending priorities and the outcome.

Given $50 billion to spend, which would you solve first, AIDS or global warming? Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg comes up with surprising answers.
- Don't do things that do little good at such a high cost.
- Don't do things that we don't know how to do.
- Do the things that we can do an enormous amount of good at a low cost
right now.
- "Global Warming" should be a very low priority.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 05:58 PM
Iowa:
I did spend some time in academia at a Big Ten U. and I know first hand how things function there. Sorry, your picture of things is just not correct.

However, if you disagree with me on the GW issue that's OK. You have lots of company. Just the wild charges against those with the opposite point of view is a bit out of place.

subroc
01-11-2009, 06:22 PM
...the wild charges against those with the opposite point of view is a bit out of place.

Blaming everything that happens in life, both sides of the issues, on man caused global warming, is also out of place. But those that worship at the man caused global warming altar do it every day.

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 06:29 PM
Subroc:

I don't blame everything on global warming. I have two labs that are very fine field dogs. That has nothing to do with GW and a man can't ask for greater riches.

subroc
01-11-2009, 07:24 PM
I like my dog too.

zeus3925
01-11-2009, 08:07 PM
Break out the beer! We agree on something!

subroc
01-12-2009, 07:00 AM
:D chuckling :D

It looks like a motive has been found, world governance!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jan/12/obama-climate-czar-has-socialist-ties/

Pete
01-12-2009, 07:57 AM
I thought the GW zar was a self appointed lunatic
It is almost science fiction like that the POTUS would actuall PICK somebody to do that.

We now are being led by a bunch of treckie's. I think some of these people have "god" issues.
They think they can control every dam thing that goes on around here.

Just for the record,,,,I'm not saying God controls any thing that happens on earth ,,,,it isn't his territorry yet. And he's not into controlling stuff anyway.
Thats somebody elses job.
I think what we need is a good exersist.:-x

Pete

zeus3925
01-12-2009, 11:08 AM
Hey, Subroc:

The Times was founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. I still wouldn't buy it for fish wrap.

Mc Goff did own another now failed newspaper with a similar bent.

Captain Mike D
01-12-2009, 03:58 PM
I wouldn't buy it for fish wrap.

Many conservatives say the same thing about the NY Times, Chicago Tribune and a host of other left leaning rags.

Doubt very seriously they will be reporting her ties!

Buzz
01-12-2009, 04:27 PM
Where is Joseph McCarthy when you need him?

Captain Mike D
01-12-2009, 06:29 PM
Hey, Subroc:

The Times was founded by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon. I still wouldn't buy it for fish wrap.

Mc Goff did own another now failed newspaper with a similar bent.
Man, that was a major edit don't you think? Maybe so people don't get the wrong impression you should have left the origional and followed up with a secondary comment.

zeus3925
01-12-2009, 06:34 PM
Yeah, you're right. I messed up and the honest thing was to correct it.

John McGoff ran into problems when he used South African money to buy the San Francico Union and the Wasington Star. He was one of the plutocrats of the ultra- conservative movements in the 70'S AND 80'S

Henry V
01-12-2009, 11:20 PM
What I meant by the second sentence is resources of time, money, labor, programs, taxes, carbon credits, etc. that get siphoned off from the worlds limited resources in the name of global warming and its related issues for research, advocacy and the like. Those resources would be better used for any number of things from purchasing habitat, to cleaning waterways you know, actually accomplishing something instead of wasting the time and effort on global warming. Do you believe on a dollar for dollar basis, that Ducks Unlimited or Delta Waterfowler accomplishes more than the same resources being used by the man caused global warming advocates?[/FONT][/COLOR]

Thanks for clarifying. Your question could be made about the space program, some military/defense programs, and many basic research programs. For example there is a great book out there saying we would be much further ahead on the "war on cancer" if we had funded more research on prevention rather than focusing almost entirely on "the cure". I also know lots of habitat folks that think Delta's approach to promote nesting structures and predator control is a relative waste of resources compared to investing long term in habitat. You know the old saying build hen houses for 10 years and what do you really have to show for it in the long term?, not much; buy habitat for 10 years and you have a long term impact.

To answer your question, I do not believe this is an either, or situation. Both activities need funding as does research into alternative energy supplies. Further, some of the climate research is looking to quantify the benefits of conservation programs in carbon sequestration. This will likely result in conservation programs being more competitive in the farm program. This is good for habitat and water quality. The money that is now going into GW research was never going into habit creation before so it is not either, or, in a practical sense. I am all for implementation of good habitat work. I am also a strong believer in polluter pays. If you view CO2 as a pollutant, as does the Supreme Court, it make good sense to have a system of incentives and disincentives to reduce CO2 emissions.

Henry V
01-13-2009, 12:00 AM
I have posted this link before but here it is again. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html
It takes each one of the common myths on "global warming is bs" and presents arguments against them with good links to references.

If you think the sun is causing this take a look at this article there: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650. Highlights include:

On timescales that vary from millions of years through to the more familiar 11-year sunspot cycles, variations in the amount of solar energy reaching Earth have a huge influence on our atmosphere and climate. But the Sun is far from being the only player.
How do we know? According to solar physicists, the sun emitted a third less energy about 4 billion years ago and has been steadily brightening ever since. Yet for most of this time, Earth has been even warmer than today, a phenomenon sometimes called the faint sun paradox. The reason: higher levels of greenhouse gases trapping more of the sun's heat.

Nearer our own time, the coming and going of the ice ages that have gripped the planet in the past two million years were probably triggered by fractional changes in solar heating (caused by wobbles in the planet's orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles).
The cooling and warming during the ice ages and interglacial periods, however, was far greater than would be expected from the tiny changes in solar energy reaching the Earth. The temperature changes must have been somehow amplified. …….
Analysis of ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica shows a very strong correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and temperatures. But what causes what? Proponents of solar influence point out that that temperatures sometimes change first. This, they say, suggest that warming causes rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not vice versa. What is actually happening is a far more complicated interaction (see Ice cores show CO2 only rose after the start of warm periods).
Think that temperature have been going down recently, take a look at:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527

On water vapor, check out those MN climate slides again. The state climatologist does look at water vapor and documents it rise. Much of the debate on the models is whether increased temperatures being caused by an increase in CO2 will be offset by negative feedback (e.g. more clouds) or whether there is more likely to be positive feedback which will result in accelerated changes.

It is interesting that some wholeheartedly believe the research process is being corrupted by funding sources in regards to climate change research. I think that a case can be made for too many folks jumping on the research bandwagon but that is different than corrupt science. If you look at the history of controversial issues like GW you should conclude that it is amazing that there is any sort of consensus on climate change. Look at history, whether it was smoking and cancer, coal and acid rain, or a variety of other sources of pollution and environmental or human health effects, it was always the industry most affected that funded much of the research and controlled policy. Independent research funded by governments, etc. often was the true voice. Industry funded research often resulted in raising more questions to divert attention and raising the level of uncertainty with the science so that no action was taken. Why, in the case of global climate change, haven't the industries most effected (e.g. oil, coal) been able to drown out the majority of scientists this time? I guess it must either be a global government conspiracy or that stealthy carbon reduction/sequestration industry juggernaut.

IowaBayDog
01-13-2009, 11:16 AM
I am also a strong believer in polluter pays. If you view CO2 as a pollutant, as does the Supreme Court, it make good sense to have a system of incentives and disincentives to reduce CO2 emissions.


I hope your are paying your pollution tax every time you exhale!! Pure drivel. You still haven't answered the question of whether you are investing you personal fortune in this cause that is so dire and settled scientifically.

Henry V
01-13-2009, 12:09 PM
Well IBD, you seem to want to equate an individual human's respiration with the millions of tons of CO2 coming from smokestacks across the world. I agree that equating the two is drivel. The polluter pays concept is about taking responsibility which is a pretty conservative concept from what I have learned here. There are lots of examples throughout modern history where the polluter did not pay up front and society as a whole was left paying much more in the long run. Do a search on "super fund sites" for great examples.

I would be glad to answer your question. It will be a nice little bookend to our discussion. You certainly have followed the tried and true process, you know, present contrary data, accuse me of ignoring it, attack the contrary data that I present, ignore the challenge of showing specific problems with the data I presented, and then accuse me of being a hypocrite. It works great on Al Gore and other messengers, right?

Well, sorry to disappoint you. My family has made lots of changes to our lifestyle to save energy and reduce our carbon footprint. To name a few, how about installation of a geothermal heat pump system at a huge cost, how about primarily driving a Prius and a diesel car that both average over 40 mpg, how about reducing miles driven as much as possible. Is that good enough for you or do you want more details?

IowaBayDog
01-13-2009, 02:41 PM
Well, sorry to disappoint you. My family has made lots of changes to our lifestyle to save energy and reduce our carbon footprint. To name a few, how about installation of a geothermal heat pump system at a huge cost, how about primarily driving a Prius and a diesel car that both average over 40 mpg, how about reducing miles driven as much as possible. Is that good enough for you or do you want more details?


Sorry that doesn't cut it, those are all things that are supposed to save you money in the long run. Diesel? Those are down right evil and we won't even talk about the negative environmental impact of those nasty batteries in that Prius. I'm sure all those poor folks in Detroit on the unemployment line are glad you bought foreign made cars.

What dollars have you given to pure research or carbon credits? Not dollars invested to save you in the long run. This Global Warming is dire, the planet is dying and you sit back and do nothing but try to save yourself a few bucks :rolleyes:

What is the temp in MN as you wrote this -20F or lower? It was -14 here this morning so I let my Suburban run an extra 1/2 hour to help the environment.

badbullgator
01-13-2009, 02:54 PM
How long does it take to break even in cost savings with that prius compairde to my car that gets 24 mpg and cost much less? BTW where does that power to charge those batteries come from?

With gas cost falling I have been able to use the boat much, much more in an effort to increase my carbon footprint and offset all the work you guys are doing to make smaller "footprints"

toddh
01-13-2009, 04:58 PM
BTW where does that power to charge those batteries come from?

good ol' North Dakota coal-fired power plants :razz:

Henry V
01-13-2009, 08:51 PM
Sorry that doesn't cut it, those are all things that are supposed to save you money in the long run. Diesel? Those are down right evil and we won't even talk about the negative environmental impact of those nasty batteries in that Prius. I'm sure all those poor folks in Detroit on the unemployment line are glad you bought foreign made cars.

What dollars have you given to pure research or carbon credits? Not dollars invested to save you in the long run. This Global Warming is dire, the planet is dying and you sit back and do nothing but try to save yourself a few bucks :rolleyes:

What is the temp in MN as you wrote this -20F or lower? It was -14 here this morning so I let my Suburban run an extra 1/2 hour to help the environment.
Hmmmm, I wonder why is decided to pass up this question the first time you threw it out there?

No way I ever could have predicted those responses, but I am disappointed in the lack of creativity and effort. Nothing about endangering my family, wearing sandals, eating granola, etc, etc.

IBD, you are misinformed about diesel cars and batteries. You are also under the false impression that reducing carbon means that we have to regress to a primitive lifestyle. A nice simple viewpoint to rally around but this is all about the future, not the past.

I'll will give you some credit though, in that first sentence you almost grasped the relationship between saving money, conserving energy, and reducing carbon. So close but then it slipped away........

Also, yes its frickin cold here, but then again you still don't get the difference between weather and climate, do you? I do own a GM product that does not get driven much. When GM produces a commuter car that can compete in the market, I'll buy one. Toyota has produced hybrids for 10 years. What were they ever thinking?

Keep that suburban running. The terrorists and Hugo Chavez need the support.

Should I now go over all the questions you failed to answer? You know, just what data was "cherry picked"?, etc, etc. Ah, forget it.
BBG said
How long does it take to break even in cost savings with that prius compairde to my car that gets 24 mpg and cost much less? BTW where does that power to charge those batteries come from?
I'll let you figure out the math. The car has 100K. It cost $22K. It has averaged 42mpg with nothing but basic maintenance. It seats 4 very comfortably.

Since both of you think the car plugs in, neither of you have any idea how a hybrid car works. Perhaps you should be engineers for GM or Chrysler.

kjrice
01-14-2009, 12:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM

subroc
01-14-2009, 04:35 AM
Set the flamingo free!

IowaBayDog
01-14-2009, 05:27 AM
IBD, you are misinformed about diesel cars and batteries. You are also under the false impression that reducing carbon means that we have to regress to a primitive lifestyle. A nice simple viewpoint to rally around but this is all about the future, not the past.



I am more informed about diesel cars and batteries than you will ever be, those are things your fellow environmentalist wackos say about the batteries and diesel cars.

Here's some info for you from that right wing conspiracy at Berkeley. Gas wise they pollute less but there overall environment impact is substantial. At 100K your about ready to pollute by replacing the batteries.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~coreyp/hybridenvimp.html

"The greatest environmental impact comes from the pollution caused by the elaborate battery system that powers the electric engine. The battery pollution is substantial because the creation of the batteries requires destructive mining to produce the batteries and the caustic substances that power the batteries must later be disposed of. The caustic substances that power the batteries are very poisonous and when released into the environment leech into the waterways and poison groundwater."

IowaBayDog
01-14-2009, 05:53 AM
Here is a picture for you Henry to explain the cherry picking from Mr. Seeley's chart. Even an Algornik who fell for the Hybrid farce should be able to understand.

zeus3925
01-14-2009, 09:26 AM
Iowa:

Isn't there a saying that came from Iowa--don't try to teach a pig to sing, it just frustrates the teacher and infuriates the student.

IowaBayDog
01-14-2009, 09:44 AM
Iowa:

Isn't there a saying that came from Iowa--don't try to teach a pig to sing, it just frustrates the teacher and infuriates the student.



Something like that, I'm not a native Iowan to verify its roots....good advice nonetheless!

Steve Amrein
01-14-2009, 12:48 PM
How long does it take to break even in cost savings with that prius compairde to my car that gets 24 mpg and cost much less? BTW where does that power to charge those batteries come from?

With gas cost falling I have been able to use the boat much, much more in an effort to increase my carbon footprint and offset all the work you guys are doing to make smaller "footprints"



The power for the electric car is free just plug it in the wall.

Marvin S
01-14-2009, 04:15 PM
Iowa:

Isn't there a saying that came from Iowa--don't try to teach a pig to sing, it just frustrates the teacher and infuriates the student.

I don't think it was about pigs - didn't it originate in MD, said by a guy training chessies?

IowaBayDog
01-14-2009, 04:35 PM
I don't think it was about pigs - didn't it originate in MD, said by a guy training chessies?


HEY! oh wait, yah you're probably right.

Henry V
01-15-2009, 02:57 PM
I am more informed about diesel cars and batteries than you will ever be, those are things your fellow environmentalist wackos say about the batteries and diesel cars.

Here's some info for you from that right wing conspiracy at Berkeley. Gas wise they pollute less but there overall environment impact is substantial. At 100K your about ready to pollute by replacing the batteries.

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~coreyp/hybridenvimp.html

"The greatest environmental impact comes from the pollution caused by the elaborate battery system that powers the electric engine. The battery pollution is substantial because the creation of the batteries requires destructive mining to produce the batteries and the caustic substances that power the batteries must later be disposed of. The caustic substances that power the batteries are very poisonous and when released into the environment leech into the waterways and poison groundwater."

Wow, must have been painful to click on a link to Berkeley. It looks like you survived though. Talk about cherry picking. What about the other two paragraph at that link? What about a comparison of total impacts among various types of cars? You act as if all other cars don't need a lead battery or that your car battery never needs to be replaced. I totally admit that car batteries have an environmental impact and never said otherwise. I also know that batteries get recycled to mitigate some of their impacts. Please keep in mind that this discussion was about GW/climate and carbon before you tried to divert it to learn about my life and car batteries.

Nice graph and analysis. To be clear, this is not "cherry picking". All the available climate data for the state are on that graph. You may want to look up this definition whenever you get around to looking up definitions of weather and climate.

I'll take your comments one by one from left to right.
1) There is no comparable data in the past for Minnesota. You can speculate it was warmer all you want.
2 & 3) You see a 30 year cold period around the turn of the century and assume what folks would say about it. OK, maybe. Without a bunch of earlier temperature data it is hard to say. Yes, look what the earth has done all on its own. For 130 years there has been a clear overall trend of increasing temperatures.
4) The dotted line was put there by the state climatologist, not me. Take it up with him. If you want to ignore the 130 year trend and only pay attention to short term deviations from the long term trend, that's you prerogative. Let's see, what else happened during this time period, a dramatic increase in CO2 emissions. I know, its just a coincidence. Lastly, please post the link for that data past 2000.

T. Mac
01-15-2009, 03:44 PM
2 & 3) You see a 30 year cold period around the turn of the century and assume what folks would say about it. OK, maybe. Without a bunch of earlier temperature data it is hard to say. Yes, look what the earth has done all on its own. For 130 years there has been a clear overall trend of increasing temperatures.

And yet the world is not as warm as it was 2000 years ago.

Having listened to this debate here and elsewhere, can someone please tell me what the temperature goal is that the GW protagonists are trying to achieve? Are we trying to mimic the climate of the 1600's? Even though this period is in what is called the little ice age? Or are we trying to get back to the biblical periods of 2-3,000 years ago? But weren't those temperatures warmer than now? And if global warming is caused by the release of CO2 stored in fossil fuels, what was the climate before that carbon was removed from the atmosphere?

It seems that trying to make a non static entity like earth into a steady state model is futility in the making.

Henry V
01-15-2009, 07:41 PM
IBD,
In the interest of providing one last bit of information, a whole bunch more climate related graphs for Minnesota are available at:http://climate.umn.edu/climateChange/climateChangeObservedNu.htm. There is also a good link to a stream flow paper where you can view an abstract.

The complete temperature record for the northern and southern parts of the state through 2007 is at http://climate.umn.edu/climateChange/TaveANNnorthSouthO.gif . There is no drop in temperatures from 2000 to 2007 unless I am looking at the graph upside down.

You can count on this all being bunk. I will take a different view and, for now, believe things are changing and that CO2 has something to do with it.

T Mac
Check out http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html and scroll down the page to the articles under “what happened in the past”.

IowaBayDog
01-15-2009, 08:24 PM
Henry,

Your right and thank you for falling into the trap, there is no valid historical data to make any predictions on Global Climate Change. Using 150 years of data to speculate on what the earth has done for hundreds of thousands of years or will do in the next thousand years is just as statistically insignificant as looking at the ALL TIME record lows today across the midwest and making assumptions of 100 year trends. There is NO SIGNIFICANT data that backs up global warming claims only speculation fueled by the need for research money and profiteering snake oil salesmen. They are happy to have you as a customer. Thank you for falling into the trap and proving the point.

Pete
01-15-2009, 10:21 PM
What is so bad about batteries for the environment besides the lead and acis which is contained?
Am I missing something?

JDogger
01-15-2009, 11:12 PM
What is so bad about batteries for the environment besides the lead and acis which is contained?
Am I missing something?

No more so than anybody else here, Pete.;)

JD

T. Mac
01-16-2009, 12:30 AM
What is so bad about batteries for the environment besides the lead and acis which is contained?
Am I missing something?


Nothing except that the hybrid car batteries are no longer lead/acid as lead/acid batteries will not hold up to the demands of the vehicles and are too heavy to be practical.

Henry V
01-16-2009, 08:50 AM
Henry,

Your right and thank you for falling into the trap, there is no valid historical data to make any predictions on Global Climate Change. Using 150 years of data to speculate on what the earth has done for hundreds of thousands of years or will do in the next thousand years is just as statistically insignificant as looking at the ALL TIME record lows today across the midwest and making assumptions of 100 year trends. There is NO SIGNIFICANT data that backs up global warming claims only speculation fueled by the need for research money and profiteering snake oil salesmen. They are happy to have you as a customer. Thank you for falling into the trap and proving the point.
Classic stuff IBD. 130 years of an empirical data record means nothing and then you point out a 10 year period to show there is cooling or put lines on a chart contrary to the data. Ok. The majority of climate models predict warming now and in the future and the last 20 years has seen large climate changes particularly in the northern hemisphere. I thought earlier you admitted that there was warming but that humans were not the cause. Now we are clearly back to standing on there is no global warming. Ok.

Exactly who is profiteering from all this? You never cleared that up after I pointed out that industry usually stifles this sort of research yet in this case they have not though they have much to lose. Researchers are profiteering as part of the global conspiracy right. Its the carbon sequestration and green energy juggernaut profiteering and funding I guess.

Let's just agree to disagree. I hope you are right and see no downside in the long run to making changes to reduce carbon emissions. You clearly know you are right and seemingly enjoy a non-conservative approach to energy use.

subroc
01-16-2009, 05:22 PM
...You clearly know you are right and seemingly enjoy a non-conservative approach to energy use.

There it is.

Because we don't believe in your view of man caused global warming, we must be energy wasters or lack any knowledge of conservation. Yeh, we just go park over the old storm drains and change our oil. You know (wink, wink) like all those non-believers.

Is it possible, that someone could believe in energy conservation and not believe in man caused global warming?

Is it possible that someone could think alternative (renewable) energy sources are a good idea and not believe in man caused global warming?

Is it possible that someone could just not want man caused global warming advocates to not blow the whole thing up by forcing their advocacy down our throats? Forcing the adoption of technology that isn’t fully developed into mainstream use causing additional unnecessary cost and hardship to the consumer? Advocates of your ilk never look at the law of unintended consequence. You know advocating mandatory ethanol; all it did was raise the price of energy, increase the cost of food and didn’t reduce emersion at all. Some think overall with processing and use it actually raised emissions being sent into the atmosphere. We know, you all just hate the oil companies but just so much foolishness, carbon credits, one sheet of toilet paper, etc.

Well, enough of a rant for today

Juli H
01-16-2009, 06:47 PM
Is it possible, that someone could believe in energy conservation and not believe in man caused global warming?

Is it possible that someone could think alternative (renewable) energy sources are a good idea and not believe in man caused global warming?




well said (or asked, I guess)

Juli

Clint Watts
01-16-2009, 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by subroc

Is it possible, that someone could believe in energy conservation and not believe in man caused global warming?

Is it possible that someone could think alternative (renewable) energy sources are a good idea and not believe in man caused global warming?


I agree.

Henry V
01-16-2009, 11:42 PM
There it is.

Because we don't believe in your view of man caused global warming, we must be energy wasters or lack any knowledge of conservation. Yeh, we just go park over the old storm drains and change our oil. You know (wink, wink) like all those non-believers.

Is it possible, that someone could believe in energy conservation and not believe in man caused global warming?

Is it possible that someone could think alternative (renewable) energy sources are a good idea and not believe in man caused global warming?



My post was directed at one person who, based on his posts in this thread, seems to care little about conservation of energy.

Conserving energy and alternative energy should make sense to most everyone. Do not take my statement in any way as trying to paint with a broad brush. Review my posts here. I have said many times I accept that some do not believe in GW. I have never said what people should or should not do about it either (i.e. shoving anything...) Of course, I have been asked what I am doing about it and I have then been told that I am not doing enough.


Is it possible that someone could just not want man caused global warming advocates to not blow the whole thing up by forcing their advocacy down our throats? Forcing the adoption of technology that isn’t fully developed into mainstream use causing additional unnecessary cost and hardship to the consumer? Advocates of your ilk never look at the law of unintended consequence. You know advocating mandatory ethanol; all it did was raise the price of energy, increase the cost of food and didn’t reduce emersion at all. Some think overall with processing and use it actually raised emissions being sent into the atmosphere. We know, you all just hate the oil companies but just so much foolishness, carbon credits, one sheet of toilet paper, etc.

Interesting. Who here is now making sweeping statements to stereotype a group of people and who is making assumptions about what policies I support or advocate. Ethanol, yeah, right. etc, etc....
Here is an interesting article if you have an interest in alternative energy: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16419-top-7-alternative-energies-listed.html

Pete
01-17-2009, 08:39 AM
Everybody should have a windmill in their back yard

I for one would rather have 1 nuclear power plant to look

Pete

Henry V
01-17-2009, 09:26 AM
Pete,
Nuclear could be in the mix just as it is now. As discussed here http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/eper_04.htm it is a very subsidized sector just like all the rest of the energy industry. Nuclear plants are huge investments in the short and long term relative to other technologies. That's a major reason why there are no new plants, besides the fact that many peoplee become "environmentalists" once a plant is proposed anywhere near their community.

Pete
01-17-2009, 09:54 AM
Henry
I think there are no new nuclear plants because of the environmentalists and their rants.

Nuclear is safe and cost effective,,,renewable and has a low environmental inpact.

Peoples fears of what could happen which has been evangilized by the fear mongers are the hold up.
I spent most of my adult life in a nuke town (59 experimental sites)and new many scientists and engeneers and they will tell a different story than what the media does.
Chernoble doesn't exist in US plants,,,,, and 3 mile island is the worst case scenerio and it turned out pretty dam good.

Its safer inside a plant than sitting outside throwing birds for our dogs.


Anyway its mostly a political subject and not a rational one

Pete

subroc
01-17-2009, 11:11 AM
...Here is an interesting article if you have an interest in alternative energy: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16419-top-7-alternative-energies-listed.html


I follow global warming, energy and environmental issues “reasonably well.”

I read the article.

I have no problem with anyone, any nation, any entity using the methods in the article to generate energy. I am all for all the methods in the article.

I have a problem with the clown (insult intended) that wrote the article determining anything about how we should use all, including those that aren’t highlighted in the article or considered “green,” energy sources available. If he is so sure of his position, he should get him some investors and start an energy company and prove it.

Don’t force your advocacy down the rest of our throat and force us to pay the freight for unproven technology.

BTW, when these technologies are finally proven and of reasonable cost I will be the first to get in line to own them. Give me a wind machine and a set of batteries that can power a house in the northeast and charge my car all at a reasonable cost and I’m in. Artificially raise the cost of conventional energy to make these unproven technologies attractive is doing nothing more than fleecing the public. It is fraud perpetrated by advocates, nothing more.

IowaBayDog
01-17-2009, 03:19 PM
My post was directed at one person who, based on his posts in this thread, seems to care little about conservation of energy.




Henry believes everything he reads on the internet (probably why he owns a prius) and has not ability to detect sarcasm. That "one person" lives 2 miles from a Nuclear plant and has no problem with it and its clean energy. I even hunt and train downstream of it regularly.

Here's another tidbit, go to your Toyota dealer and ask them why they charge a premium for a Toyota Prius. The answer will be because for every Prius they get they have to take in 2 Tundra's and/or Sequoia's and deeply discount them to move them off the lot. So your "green" purchase just subsidized 2 of the worst gas guzzlers made to be put on the road. Verify and confirmed from 2 different dealers via recent (last 8 months) purchasers.

subroc
01-17-2009, 03:31 PM
:D chuckling :D

I hunt near a Nuclear Power Plant as well.

Seabrook Station.

Henry V
01-19-2009, 09:47 AM
Could anyone point out where I said that I was against nuclear power? Way to assume and jump to conclusions folks.

Nuclear power is one potential power source on the table. While it is convenient to point to the environmental community as the primary reason that no new nuclear plants have been built in this country, as Pete so clearly stated, this view ignores the other parts of the equation. We just had 8 years of an administration that was very nuclear plant friendly from a regulatory standpoint yet no new plants have been proposed. Do you really think it is the threat of the “environmentalists”? Perhaps you should all dig a little deeper and look at the costs of construction, the payback period on financing, the liability insurance, etc, etc, and then compare nuclear plants to the other power source options out there for the future. Take a look at these two articles: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html , which has a great section titled "New Nuclear Construction” and
http://seekingalpha.com/article/114084-new-nuclear-plants-not-viable-without-government-support,
Funny, environmentalists are not mentioned as an obstacle, it all seems to relate to economics. Also, I am sure that the coal industry is really pulling for more nuclear plants too. I wonder if the same sort of economic arguments could be made for oil refinery construction? Of course not, it is so much simpler to just blame it on those darn “environmentalists”.
Here also is a fact filled sheet from NRDC http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/plants/plants.pdf. While I realize you may have trouble getting past their global climate rhetoric, please try and focus on the cost of nuclear power subsidize in the past and expected costs in the future.

I know human nature is to look for the simple answer to a problem. Unfortunately, nuclear power is not the simple answer to our energy future when you scratch below the surface. It will take huge subsidize to expand the industry, much like the subsidize for other industries. The question then becomes, what do we subsidize to ensure a bright energy future?

Also, while you may think it is “clean” there clearly are risks associated with nuclear power plants that need a full cost accounting and assessment and a comparison to the risks of other power sources.

I have fished near a couple nuclear plants but I won't be fishing near Chernobyl anytime soon regards,

Henry V
01-19-2009, 10:02 AM
I have a problem with the clown (insult intended) that wrote the article determining anything about how we should use all, including those that aren’t highlighted in the article or considered “green,” energy sources available. If he is so sure of his position, he should get him some investors and start an energy company and prove it.[/FONT]

Don’t force your advocacy down the rest of our throat and force us to pay the freight for unproven technology.

BTW, when these technologies are finally proven and of reasonable cost I will be the first to get in line to own them. Give me a wind machine and a set of batteries that can power a house in the northeast and charge my car all at a reasonable cost and I’m in. Artificially raise the cost of conventional energy to make these unproven technologies attractive is doing nothing more than fleecing the public. It is fraud perpetrated by advocates, nothing more.
The article is what it is, nothing more, nothing less. This researcher at Stanford did the study and makes the conclusions. What specific part of it do you see as wrong or as advocacy?

If you look at the current investments in wind energy compared to other alternative energy options, many other people have apparently concluded the same thing as he did about wind power.

I hope you are just as concerned about the current subsidize that artificially lower the costs of conventional energy and the lack of total cost accounting as you are with "artificially" raising the costs of conventional energy.

Henry V
01-19-2009, 11:28 AM
IBD,

Why all the fixation on the Prius? I get that you think that anyone who buys one is an idiot but my wife and I are secure in the decision. It is a good dependable family car that saves on fuel costs and by most accounts is a "green" car compared to others. You have now repeatedly tried to tell me why this purchase was actually bad for the environment and bad for US automakers. I can only imagine what runs through your head when you see a Prius on the road. I just took one of my children back to college and drove about 1,000 miles on about $48 worth of gasoline. At the same time my house was being heated at the equivalent of $0.70 propane. Yes, it is clear from this data that I am an idiot for making these long term choices. If you want to believe that my purchase caused the sale of two other Toyota vehicles, OK, that's your prerogative too.

How about if you tackle some of the more substantive issues that I have put out there the past few pages.
You know, like how Lindzen is paid by industry and how that may affect his viewpoint, the questions in the climate models about negative vs positive feedback, the concept of polluter pays, the fact that CO2 is on the rise, differences between weather and climate, the supposed bias in the empirical data from MN, etc. I appreciate the soundbites in response to these issues and blaming the messenger (NASA scientists not even part of the discussion, gov't employees, university scientists, state climatologists (which was particularly interesting since you posted a press release from a state climatologist as evidence against climate change), Prius owners, etc ) but certainly a master debater such as you can offer more to further the debate on these issues.

How about with start with an answer to a simple question. In post 56 you said
....climate is changing, duh,...Yet your other posts suggest that you do not believe climate change/global warming is occurring. A couple times, I have asked where you stand but you have not given a direct answer. So, let's get back to basics, just where do you stand? Climate is not changing or climate is changing but it is part of natural cycles and man has nothing to do with it.

As I stated in post 60 the latter is "Certainly a fair position to take.".

Cody Covey
01-19-2009, 12:38 PM
i personally feel (yes im late to discussion haha) that it would be ignorant to say that the climate isn't changing but to say it is all caused by us is a little ridiculous. Especially since what they used to say was going to happen has not happened. They said that the polar ice caps were going to melt and make the oceans colder then making the temps colder ( yes the simple version) but the caps didn't melt the way they said they were and yet we have been cooling for 6ish years and steady temp the 4-5 years before that. Shouldn't we be in an inferno right now? Notice how they changed it from global warming to global climate change? You can't shove stuff down peoples throats that isn't happening so they had to try something else.

subroc
01-19-2009, 06:54 PM
More on the fact that the earth temperature peaked a few years back and is falling, just when the left wing alarmists were screaming loudest. It appears the ice is growing as well.

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

IowaBayDog
01-19-2009, 07:38 PM
How about with start with an answer to a simple question. In post 56 you saidYet your other posts suggest that you do not believe climate change/global warming is occurring. A couple times, I have asked where you stand but you have not given a direct answer. So, let's get back to basics, just where do you stand? Climate is not changing or climate is changing but it is part of natural cycles and man has nothing to do with it.

As I stated in post 60 the latter is "Certainly a fair position to take.".


Yes the climate is changing just as it has for thousands upon thousands of years due to natural cycles influenced by many factors. Man's contribution being miniscual at best having little or no overall impact. Being cleaner and less wasteful is good, forcing trillions of dollars of money to be spent on a hoax is not. If you like your Prius that is great enjoy it, everything I have stated about them is fact and can be found on several environmentalist sites you must frequent. That's the thing the environmental endgame is not conservation its bringing us back to the stone age. They are against, coal cause its dirty, wind because a bird might die and the Kennedy's might don't like the looks, nuclear because its dangerous, hydro cause a fish can't spawn. There are even enviro looneys who don't like Geothermal on any large scale because it will lower the Earth's core temperature.

What do I think when I see a Prius, most of the time its "Hope it came with a shovel" cause there usually stuck in the 6 inches of snow the snow plow leaves across the road.

zeus3925
01-19-2009, 10:41 PM
Yes the climate is changing just as it has for thousands upon thousands of years due to natural cycles influenced by many factors. Man's contribution being miniscual at best having little or no overall impact. Being cleaner and less wasteful is good, forcing trillions of dollars of money to be spent on a hoax is not. If you like your Prius that is great enjoy it, everything I have stated about them is fact and can be found on several environmentalist sites you must frequent. That's the thing the environmental endgame is not conservation its bringing us back to the stone age. They are against, coal cause its dirty, wind because a bird might die and the Kennedy's might don't like the looks, nuclear because its dangerous, hydro cause a fish can't spawn. There are even enviro looneys who don't like Geothermal on any large scale because it will lower the Earth's core temperature.

What do I think when I see a Prius, most of the time its "Hope it came with a shovel" cause there usually stuck in the 6 inches of snow the snow plow leaves across the road.

Whoa there, Iowa. The man may disagree, but let's cool the name calling.

There are plenty of "hoaxes" to go around here. There ain't no such thing as clean coal technology.

Another misconception is is that geothermal is clean energy. Hydrothermal fluids often come with dissolved nasties, like arsenides, sulfides, and other toxic minerals. The fluids sometime carry some toxic gasses and potent acids. Disposal of those fluids can be a headache. Geothermal sources don't cool the earth's core, but eventually they kill the heat source that drives them. While the USGS estimated that there was enough dry geothermal to supply energy to the country for a number of centuries, experiments at Los Alamos failed to develop technology to harness it.

I am surprised at your panning of the wind power industry. I see hundreds of wind power generators whenever I traverse your fair state. If you go to Vestas website they are sure proud of the fact their windmills reduce CO2. There are quite a few Iowa farmers that are benefiting from that wind power.

Cody Covey
01-20-2009, 12:28 AM
so what im hearing is that oil is still our best option?!

subroc
01-20-2009, 05:17 AM
so what im hearing is that oil is still our best option?!


I expect if you have an automobile that runs on gasoline and a furnace that burns oil then the answer for you is yes.

If you have a natural gas furnace you will need natural gas to run that.

If you are choosing something new, you will need to do your own cost benefit analysis to determine if the technology is proven and cost effective unless you are willing to pay the premium for unproven or less than cost efficient/effective technologies.

It appears that many preach alternatives but fail to act. Al Gore is a prime example. While preaching all alternatives his home used massive amounts of resources (you can look it up). Until he was called on it he hadn’t made any modifications. After being called on it he has since, I believe, made some modifications. He is pretty much a phony.

Now if one is wealthy, they could take all these great cutting edge technologies and install many of these systems in their homes and the cost be dammed, but if you have an existing structure, the cost of these systems for the average man or woman will/could be excessive.

Now if you are an activist and your first impulse is to just hate the oil companies, I expect the best thing for you would be to stop using oil and use alternative products for your energy needs. That effort will have a two-fold benefit. You will feel better by not using the dreaded product “oil” from your enemy the oil companies and it will leave more oil available for your fellow citizens, that don’t share your hatred of oil and oil companies, to use. It may cost you more but there is a premium to being on the leading or cutting edge of anything.

IowaBayDog
01-20-2009, 05:25 AM
I am surprised at your panning of the wind power industry. I see hundreds of wind power generators whenever I traverse your fair state. If you go to Vestas website they are sure proud of the fact their windmills reduce CO2. There are quite a few Iowa farmers that are benefiting from that wind power.

Sarge,

You may need a little reading comprehension brush up, my statements were all opinions of the environmental wackos not my own.
"They are against, coal cause its dirty, wind because a bird might die..."

But thanks for throwing in the Geothermal and clean coal stuff to prove my point. Wind power does provide a lot of jobs in Iowa, not mine though, it is highly subsidized and there are skeptics to whether it will ever pay off and they may be right. I think it is a good investment myself to provide added capacity in high usage times and has little environment impact unless you are a Kennedy. A power storage system is needed to make it more reliable but those are even a higher Capital cost making it even more fiscally unfeasible.

zeus3925
01-20-2009, 08:33 AM
But thanks for throwing in the Geothermal and clean coal stuff to prove my point. Wind power does provide a lot of jobs in Iowa, not mine though, it is highly subsidized and there are skeptics to whether it will ever pay off and they may be right. I think it is a good investment myself to provide added capacity in high usage times and has little environment impact unless you are a Kennedy. A power storage system is needed to make it more reliable but those are even a higher Capital cost making it even more fiscally unfeasible.

Actually, I threw that in for you on purpose. Enjoy!

Marvin S
01-22-2009, 08:42 PM
From IBD, Issues & Insights, 1-21-2009

Beyond Belief -

Climate Change: Despite years of media bombardment about the imminent dangers of global warming, the alarmists are losing ground. Fewer Americans are buying into the myth.

From a Rasmussen poll -

Recently polled - 44% of US voters blame long term planetary trends for the (perceived) global warming: only 41% say human activity is responsible.

In July 2006 - 35% believed the cause of warming to be natural, while 46% said humans were responsible.

Last April 34% said long term global trends, while 47% said man was to blame.

Lefties - I think you are losing the propaganda war - you may actually have to get a real job.

subroc
01-24-2009, 06:34 AM
How important is Global Warming? Dead Last!

http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority

http://people-press.org/reports/images/485-1.gif

BlackDog1337
01-24-2009, 07:08 AM
How important is Global Warming? Dead Last!

http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority

http://people-press.org/reports/images/485-1.gif

Social Security is 3 lol i think that might should be moved down a bit lol

zeus3925
01-24-2009, 08:32 AM
I would expect that GW would be ranked something like we see in the Pew poll. Several things affect people's understanding of issues.

People tend to focus on issues that are immediately before them.

Secondly, the problem must be limited in scope and easily understandable.

Thirdly, the solutions must be perceived as workable and quick in achieving success.

The perception of global warming is akin to the proverbial frog in water slowly warming to the boiling point. GW is an issue that is not easily understandable. The "fixes" appear to be long, expensive and, to a degree, painful.

Right now, the without addressing the top two issues,on the PewPoll list, fixes for the others on the list will not be possible or be anemic at best.

Henry V
01-24-2009, 10:50 AM
So what exactly is the point of posting these poll results? Do you want us to conclude that global warming/climate change is not important because only 30% ranked it as a “top priority”. Given the economy and two wars, etc I am amazed that global warming is still listed by 30% of American as a “top priority”. I certainly wouldn’t have rated it that high, but I do wonder how many folks rated it in their top 3 or top 5 priorities. Unfortunately, the poll report does not give such details.

If I didn’t know better, I could jump to the conclusion that this poll was posted to suggest that those of us that think differently on this topic are somehow out of touch. Funny, I remember similar things being said about our views on Sarah Palin being a slam dunk winner for the republican ticket.

As the survey summary states:
The 15-point decline in the percentage calling environmental protection a top priority this year is steep, but not unprecedented given the broader shift in public priorities.

Since you are interested in these polls, you should also take a look at this one from Pew. http://people-press.org/report/417/a-deeper-partisan-divide-over-global-warming
Here is a line from the 2008 report.
Overall, 71% of Americans say there is solid evidence of higher global temperatures, compared with 77% at the beginning of last year. There is less of a consensus about the cause of global warming. Roughly half of Americans (47%) say the earth is warming because of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels.

If the fact that only 30% of Americans view global warming as their “top priority” makes you feel better or that folks with an environmental mindset want to move us back to the stone age makes you feel better, then keep up this level of discussion.

If you think the Antarctic is warming then you should take a look at this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue

If you think the artic ice is on a long term increase then take a look at this: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Want to know what CO2 levels are doing check out this: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

In a related article at: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm NOAA scientists state:
Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.
Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.
So, what I have learned here is that many believe the climate is changing but that humans have no influence on the process. Do you folks believe that humans have played a role in documented increases in atmospheric CO2 levels? If so, can someone here give me some idea of what is likely to happen from this increase in CO2 in the atmosphere since it is not going to be global warming? Maybe since this is not related to climate change I should start a new thread if I want any answers.

Henry V
02-01-2009, 10:56 PM
For scientific evidence that the tropics have expanded. See http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16516-drought-warning-as-the-tropics-expand.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

And I am still waiting for someone to help me understand how this trend will affect the planet since I have learned here that it can't be global warming.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png

Please also help me understand how its all good that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is now higher than ever based on hundreds of thousands of years of record from ice cores.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

Cody Covey
02-02-2009, 01:03 AM
has anyone said that the earth WASN'T warming at one point in time. or that co2 levels have gone up. all that most here are saying is that global warming isn't man made, the earth isn't even warming anymore and you people still spout this stuff as fact...i do applaud you for sticking to your guns and trying to use pretty graphs that provide no evidence helping your cause

Henry V
02-02-2009, 09:46 AM
has anyone said that the earth WASN'T warming at one point in time. or that co2 levels have gone up. all that most here are saying is that global warming isn't man made, the earth isn't even warming anymore and you people still spout this stuff as fact...i do applaud you for sticking to your guns and trying to use pretty graphs that provide no evidence helping your cause

Go review the first two pages of this thread. Many posts there suggest that GW/CC is a hoax and bunch of bull. When you dig a little deeper it appears that many here would not deny that the earth has warmed recently but then there is a denial that it is anything but part of a natural cycle. As I said more than once earlier, I respect this point of view.

The graphs are empirical data. CO2 has increased to levels rarely seen before on this planet. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. NOAA and others have concluded that the increase in CO2 levels the past 100+ years can be attributed to humans burning fossil fuels. If you choose to connect the dots, you could conclude that humans are contributing to GW/CC. Of course, as has been discussed earlier there is much uncertainty in climate models and whether there will be negative feedback mechanisms to mitigate the forcing of increased CO2 levels.

Speaking of evidence, what evidence do you have that this is all part of a natural cycle or that the CO2 increase is not due to humans. Funny that you discount my evidence but then provide none yourself for your point of view. You could start with backing up your earlier statement. I'd like to know who are the "they"s and would like to see the pretty graph of the last 6ish years. On use of CC vs GW, both terms have always been used.


They said that the polar ice caps were going to melt and make the oceans colder then making the temps colder ( yes the simple version) but the caps didn't melt the way they said they were and yet we have been cooling for 6ish years and steady temp the 4-5 years before that. Shouldn't we be in an inferno right now? Notice how they changed it from global warming to global climate change? You can't shove stuff down peoples throats that isn't happening so they had to try something else.

Since you do not believe humans have any role in this, please provide your evidence and pretty graphs to the contrary or at least let me know what you think this increase in CO2 will result in since it is not global warming.

Henry V
02-02-2009, 11:41 AM
Global warming threatens forests:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/01/22/study.forests.dying/

U.S. scientists generally agree on climate change:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

Steve Amrein
02-02-2009, 12:44 PM
I wanted to show you guys a picture of one of the 3 engines inmy new boat. 3 1050 HP engines on racing fuel with a top speed of 93 MPH in 3 foot seas. At wide open throttle it gets about 4 gallons to the mile. You cant see from the picture but I was smoking a cigarette, talking on my cell phone and drinking a beer. We flew down to the keys on my buddy's private jet. It only used about 2500 gals. of fuel. Since quitting my job and going to work for Algore has been great.

twall
02-02-2009, 07:36 PM
U.S. scientists generally agree on climate change:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

An opinion poll is hardly, regardless of whose opinion it is, something to justify manmade global warming. When hasn't the climate changed? Our climate will always be better for some species than others.

National security is a much more important to develop alternative, diverse energy sources.

Tom

Henry V
02-02-2009, 10:08 PM
Here is a bit more detail on that "opinion poll".
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

I never said it proved anything. It is just survey information.

Bubba
02-03-2009, 12:17 PM
I'm a Controls Engineer and spend a significant part of every day staring at time series data in an effort to establish cause/effect relationships. One glance at Al Gore's chart indicates that the CO2 concentrations have a strong correlation to temperature and that there is a noticable lag- CO2 concentrations follow temperature changes by what looks to be about 1000 years. I couldn't find the raw data but I did find some pretty interesting examinations of the relationships.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000Natur.408..698V

Evidence for decoupling of atmospheric CO2 and global climate during the Phanerozoic eon.Veizer J, Godderis Y, François LM.
Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik, Ruhr Universität, Bochum, Germany. veizer@science.uottawa.ca

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are believed to drive climate changes from glacial to interglacial modes, although geological and astronomical mechanisms have been invoked as ultimate causes. Additionally, it is unclear whether the changes between cold and warm modes should be regarded as a global phenomenon, affecting tropical and high-latitude temperatures alike, or if they are better described as an expansion and contraction of the latitudinal climate zones, keeping equatorial temperatures approximately constant. Here we present a reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures throughout the Phanerozoic eon (the past approximately 550 Myr) from our database of oxygen isotopes in calcite and aragonite shells. The data indicate large oscillations of tropical sea surface temperatures in phase with the cold-warm cycles, thus favouring the idea of climate variability as a global phenomenon. But our data conflict with a temperature reconstruction using an energy balance model that is forced by reconstructed atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The results can be reconciled if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were not the principal driver of climate variability on geological timescales for at least one-third of the Phanerozoic eon, or if the reconstructed carbon dioxide concentrations are not reliable.

Bottom line is that CO2 doesn't appear to be the forcing function.

We return you now to my regularly scheduled GDG

Bubba

Marvin S
02-03-2009, 05:50 PM
Please also help me understand how its all good that the CO2 level in the atmosphere is now higher than ever based on hundreds of thousands of years of record from ice cores.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

Nice graph - :)

My unscientific assumption is we are going through a period of high CO2 similar to those that occurred 125,000; 240,000; 320,000 & 410,000 BP. Someone correct me if that is incorrect. Why would we waste a lot of precious resource if the issue is going to correct itself?

But like the stimulus bill there are those who want credit for accomplishing nothing. If things are left alone they will work their way to where they should be. A person has to be of relatively shallow ambition to not see that this is something being foisted on the taxpayer under the guise of fixing something.

I own this little oil stock, symbol DNR. It has treated it's shareholders well though there were times that was subject to debate. They buy oilfields the bigs can no longer operate at a profit & provide secondary & tertiary input into the wells to extract more oil. One of the injection ingredients they use is CO2. They find CO2 in underground deposits that they tap & transport to the well sites. They also get CO2 as a byproduct of the manufacturing process which they also transport to the well heads.

My question - if CO2 occurs naturally in deposits large enough that it is economical to drill & provide infrastructure to move, & volcanic eruptions spew large unmeasured amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, what makes anyone believe they can deal with this by regulation?

Does anyone have that answer?

YardleyLabs
02-03-2009, 06:40 PM
Nice graph - :)

My unscientific assumption is we are going through a period of high CO2 similar to those that occurred 125,000; 240,000; 320,000 & 410,000 BP. Someone correct me if that is incorrect. Why would we waste a lot of precious resource if the issue is going to correct itself?

.....

Bubba's point about correlation not necessarily being causative is fair. But on the question of why should we worry about something that will correct itself, it's important to realize that the last time there was a comparable temperature spike, accompanied by a milder CO2 spike, homo sapiens was in the earliest stages of development and only surviving in a small part of the world. Unless one is a Neanderthal or a dinosaur (and I've been accused of being both), you might not to want to be too eager to repeat the experience.

Henry V
02-03-2009, 10:52 PM
Bottom line is that CO2 doesn't appear to be the forcing function.

We return you now to my regularly scheduled GDG

Bubba
Sorry to interrupt. I wrote "correlation does not prove causation" many pages ago so I know where you are coming from. I have also noted the complexity of the issue and the uncertainty. There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it could be partly responsible for forcing things now. Some of this and the lag time in the graph is explained at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html?full=true

The earth would be much colder if CO2 and other greenhouse gases were not in the atmosphere. (take a look at what CO2 in the atmosphere has done for Venus at http://www.universetoday.com/guide-to-space/venus/how-hot-is-venus/)

Marvin, do a search on "the carbon cycle" or "carbon sources". Lots of references there. CO2 emissions attributable to human activity directly is only about 5% of all emissions. So, yes, it is easy to conclude that humans could not have much influence in the grand scheme of things but then again, there is a lot of evidence that the recent and very fast rise in CO2 levels can be attributed to humans. It would also be easy to conclude that the planet's carbon cycle was in pretty good balance/equilibrium for 800 years until we started to release billions of additional tons of carbon and remove a bunch of the earth's perennial vegetation. Check out http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Thanks for all of this information folks. It appears I am now understanding your perspective better. Let me know if I got this right.
First, there is general agreement that the earth is warming but it is all because of natural cycles and has little or nothing to do with CO2 levels.
Second, there is acceptance that CO2 is reaching unprecedented levels, but this too is most likely due to natural cycles despite evidence to the contrary. (i.e., the Mauna Loa graph is no big deal)
Third, even if the large increases in CO2 had some effect on climate, we should not worry because there is nothing that we can do about it and nature will take care of things.
Fourth, Al Gore must be worked into most all discussions but only by those who believe items one, two, and three.;)

On a related note, if you don't agree that humans are responsible for the CO2 increase, could someone help me understand why CO2 stayed relatively constant for 800 years and then, about 100 years ago the concentration began to rise and during the last 50 years it has increased by 36%. Was it all the volcanic activity in the past century, are the oceans releasing CO2 (warning, there is recent evidence to the contrary), did plants become more efficient at using CO2?. Where is this CO2 coming from? and, if you would indulge another question again, if CO2 does not result in warming then what effects might it cause or should we simply not be concerned.

I will now try get off the dead horse but will post interesting updates to keep this thread fair and balanced.

JDogger
02-03-2009, 11:06 PM
At least Jeff and Henry have a sense of humor...thank you.

JD

zeus3925
02-05-2009, 09:22 AM
There's a lot of argy bargy over CO2 emission. Normally you would expect a biological counter move particularly by marine biota. The massive layers of limestone that we see owe their existence to marine organisms and plankton locking up CO2 in their skeltons and shells. The skeletons and shells then rain down to the bottom on the death of the organism. Over time this becomes limestone.

With increased heat input you normally would expect to see an increase in carbonate forming marine biota. The is a Catch 22 here. The oceans are becoming more acidic and this is killing off or retarding organisms that form carbonates by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Throw in large scale deforestation and the problem gets worse.

badbullgator
02-05-2009, 09:32 AM
Hell it was 31 degs here in sunny south florida this morning....first time in over 10 years for this area

Henry V
02-10-2009, 11:09 PM
Birds and climate change.
An article at http://features.csmonitor.com/discoveries/2009/02/10/global-warmings-pitch-go-north-young-bird/. There are more out there.
Full report at: http://www.audubon.org/news/pressroom/bacc/pdfs/Birds%20and%20Climate%20Report.pdf

zeus3925
02-12-2009, 07:36 AM
Hell it was 31 degs here in sunny south florida this morning....first time in over 10 years for this area

If one days weather proves a point then take a look at this one.

http://monroenews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090211/NEWS01/102119978

twall
02-12-2009, 04:31 PM
Birds and climate change.
An article at http://features.csmonitor.com/discoveries/2009/02/10/global-warmings-pitch-go-north-young-bird/. There are more out there.
Full report at: http://www.audubon.org/news/pressroom/bacc/pdfs/Birds%20and%20Climate%20Report.pdf

Not what I would call proof of climate change. The Audubon report starts out talking about a century of observations but the report only refers to the past 40 years. I wonder why that is? Maybe it supports their hyposthesis better?? That allude to the main reason for the shift north being a warmer climate. They don't address the increased number of oberservers in that time frame. They briefly mention changes in land use. Here in Ohio the landscape has changed dramatically due to how the land is used not climate.

The most interesting thing I found was the birds counts are from December but the temperature graft is January temps? Couldn't they find December temps for the 40 year period? Or, did the January temps better support their hypothesis?

In the end, this is just anecdotal evidence used to support a position they want.

Tom

Henry V
02-12-2009, 06:58 PM
Here's some information on the recent WEATHER in Australia.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36900/australialsta_tmo_2009025_lrg.jpg
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36900/australialsta_tmo_2009025_palette.jpg

related articles at http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE50S0OA20090201

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=36900

IowaBayDog
02-12-2009, 07:51 PM
Ahh, I see Henry when anecdotal localized weather patterns support your agenda they are legit, but record cold temps have nothing to do with CLIMATE change.

Henry V
02-13-2009, 10:02 AM
Ahh, I see Henry when anecdotal localized weather patterns support your agenda they are legit, but record cold temps have nothing to do with CLIMATE change.

Nice try IBD. As I said above I am just trying to keep this thread fair and balanced. Since some folks, including you, have demonstrated a clear interest in WEATHER reports on this thread that only indicate it is cold, I just thought I would do the same from the other perspective.

You know, like that weather service based report from Iowa that you posted on page 5 where 2008 was the 12th coldest year on record. Funny that you only highlighted the temperature part of the report and failed to note any significance to the fact that it was the 4th wettest year on record. Of course, that is not worth noting since it doesn't support you point of view.

IowaBayDog
02-13-2009, 11:52 AM
Funny that you only highlighted the temperature part of the report and failed to note any significance to the fact that it was the 4th wettest year on record. Of course, that is not worth noting since it doesn't support you point of view.


What's the significance of the wettest year? The Global Warming kooks have all bases covered. GW causes floods, drought, Hurricanes, Tornados. The Midwest drougt was blamed on GW so the wettest year actually works in the favor of the Natural Cycle folks.

T. Mac
02-13-2009, 12:22 PM
... As I said above I am just trying to keep this thread fair and balanced. Since some folks, including you, have demonstrated a clear interest in WEATHER reports on this thread that only indicate it is cold, I just thought I would do the same from the other perspective.

....

Just to further the fair and balanced concept, breadfruit plants at one time grew in Greenland and alligators roamed above the arctic circle. I doubt that man had any influence on this rather man was influenced by it for the eventual migration/relocation to areas now closer to the tropics. The point of most is that the Earth's climate is always in flux. And while there is evidence that there may have been several natural events which greatly effected the Earth's climate for several years/centuries thereafter, to say that any one particular (the current or immediate past) climatic stage is more normal than another is if nothing else very humancentric. Personally, I think I'd much prefer a global warming world compared to a global cooling world and reversion into another iceage. Yes climate zones may be altered requiring mass migrations of people, but this is nothing that hasn't happened before. Think the Aleutian ice bridge and the migration of the people who would become the native Americans, Aztecs, Incas, etc. Why did the most advanced cultural/scientific civilizations develop in the tropic regions and further south? Why did the northern civilizations remain fairly nomadic? And yet now we'd like to think that this trend has reversed and it is the northern (mid northern) civilizations that are the more advanced and that the southern civilizations are now the nomads pushing back north.

T. Mac

Henry V
02-13-2009, 01:17 PM
What's the significance of the wettest year?
Well, let's see. As I stated earlier, one year proves nothing much less one day's worth of weather. If you want to know the projections for climate in the midwest, check out this website at:http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewmidwest.htm

and note this graphic
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/LargerImages/RegionGraphics/Midwest/MWClimate.jpg

Also, you may want pay attention to the consistent projections that precipitation events will be larger and less frequent with an overall increase in volume. The empirical data in Minnesota have documented this is happening. Of course, you did not experience anything like this in Iowa the last few years, have you? Again, I know, just another anecdotal coincidence that's part of natural cycles beyond any human influence.

T. Mac. OK, I know your perspective. I have directly responded to similar questions earlier in this thread.

subroc
02-15-2009, 07:16 PM
Former astronaut speaks out on global warming claims intimidation.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/national/general/view/2009_02_15_Former_astronaut_speaks_out_on_global_w arming/srvc=home&position=recent

lenny7
02-16-2009, 01:17 PM
Is the global warming crisis over?

To ask if the global crisis is over is to imply that there was one to begin with.

Lush Lumbago
02-17-2009, 07:53 AM
15 degrees, Henry. Geez I better sell my snow machine now. She's a Polaris and like new. Maybe I can sell her to IowaBD.

Henry V
02-17-2009, 04:01 PM
For more crazy anecdotes that relate to Michigan see: http://www.miclimatechange.us/ewebeditpro/items/O46F14331.pdf

IowaBayDog
02-17-2009, 07:06 PM
15 degrees, Henry. Geez I better sell my snow machine now. She's a Polaris and like new. Maybe I can sell her to IowaBD.


Yah dat South Range is down right tropical dese daze! I see by Google Map they straightened out da road so dose Findlanders don't have to turn some much comin home from da bar!! Woulda helped me in College!

Lush Lumbago
02-18-2009, 09:54 PM
Yah dat South Range is down right tropical dese daze! I see by Google Map they straightened out da road so dose Findlanders don't have to turn some much comin home from da bar!! Woulda helped me in College!

Da only problem is dat dey run dat road on automatic pilot --on da old map.

Marvin S
02-26-2009, 11:52 AM
In tropical Western WA last night 4 inches of snow, another 2 this AM. We usually have the dogs in some water by this time.

No one's garden produced last summer, too cold. Ripened the tomatoes in the shed.

As these are the practical applications of the GW craze - would one of the GW supporters please explain what is missing?

badbullgator
02-26-2009, 01:53 PM
In tropical Western WA last night 4 inches of snow, another 2 this AM. We usually have the dogs in some water by this time.

No one's garden produced last summer, too cold. Ripened the tomatoes in the shed.

As these are the practical applications of the GW craze - would one of the GW supporters please explain what is missing?


Come on Marvin....that is local weather remember that does not count unless it benifits the GW nuts:D

Henry V
02-27-2009, 12:58 PM
Come on Marvin....that is local weather remember that does not count unless it benifits the GW nuts:D
BBG, would you please quote one place in this 18 page thread or one place in any other GW/CC thread where someone has posted a weather report to support that global warming/climate change is happening? Thanks in advance.

Please do not count my one post a page ago which was only meant to report the weather and had no associated opinion on what that weather report meant.

Uncle Bill
02-27-2009, 05:08 PM
Goooollleeee, Henry. You still posting your ludicrous trash on this thread? There was a time when I was certain the V in your name stood for Vapid. Keep this up, and you'll convince more than just me.:confused:

Out of curiosity, how much has Algores group bilked you out of? But hey!.. it's for a good 'cause' eh?:rolleyes:

UB

Henry V
02-28-2009, 10:22 AM
Another interesting article in Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=risks-of-global-warming-rising

Henry V
02-28-2009, 10:40 AM
Goooollleeee, Henry. You still posting your ludicrous trash on this thread? There was a time when I was certain the V in your name stood for Vapid. Keep this up, and you'll convince more than just me.:confused:

Out of curiosity, how much has Algores group bilked you out of? But hey!.. it's for a good 'cause' eh?:rolleyes:

UB
Sorry UB. I'll just keep posting the facts from time to time and reserve the right to respond to interesting weather reports.

Speaking of vapid, glad to see you continue to refer to Al Gore. Maybe it is about time to post one the standard old "GW is bunk" articles too. It has been a while.

I guess you don't find it hypocritical or even a little bit interesting that the only folks posting weather reports to back their view are those that do not believe in human caused global warming. Some of these same folks then turn around and make a statement like:
....that is local weather remember that does not count unless it benifits the GW nuts
and also start posts like this http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=20995

subroc
02-28-2009, 10:59 AM
Another interesting article in Scientific American

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=risks-of-global-warming-rising

Henry V

Has scientific America ever printed an article or posited the supposition that man my not be the cause of global warming and it could be sunspots, natural weather change that is part of the rising and falling of mean/median temperature that has been going on for millions of years, highlighted that the weather change may be normal and illustrated the opening of the arctic may be a good thing or, etc, etc…

It would seem that when a theory as radical as man caused global warming is made but not proven that an honest scientific magazine would occasionally present opposition information. It appears they are putting advocacy ahead of honest scientific truth when man caused global warming is, in actuality, a theory.

Henry V
03-01-2009, 11:45 AM
Henry V

Has scientific America ever printed an article or posited the supposition that man my not be the cause of global warming and it could be sunspots, natural weather change that is part of the rising and falling of mean/median temperature that has been going on for millions of years, highlighted that the weather change may be normal and illustrated the opening of the arctic may be a good thing or, etc, etc…

It would seem that when a theory as radical as man caused global warming is made but not proven that an honest scientific magazine would occasionally present opposition information. It appears they are putting advocacy ahead of honest scientific truth when man caused global warming is, in actuality, a theory.
Honestly, I do not know what they have published in the past on either side of the argument. Check out page 3 of this thread for a discussion of this periodical. It is a mainstream publication for those interested in science and engineering. I saw the article and provided it here for information. Next time I see a similar article in a mainstream publication that presents evidence to the contrary, I will link that too.
There is plenty of evidence to support what you call a "radical theory". Have you looked at the CO2 fingerprint type research results?

subroc
03-01-2009, 12:06 PM
No, unless you mean identifying the types of CO2 in the atmosphere and their origins (I have read one article on it) but I have read somewhere that CO2 is believed to be a trailing indicator not a leading indicator of temperature change.

But either way, I will give it a look.

The rise in CO2 may have virtually nothing to do with the rise in temperature. Just because CO2 rises some amount doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a direct correlation and temperature will rise.

The most notable reflective gas is water vapor. This fact is apparently left out of most man caused global warming talking points in an effort to place the blame on CO2 there-by giving the man caused global warming advocates what they believe is a causative argument. In my view it is specious at best.

Marvin S
03-01-2009, 12:47 PM
I subscribe to Scientific American, who did a very good article on volcanic activity about a year ago. It's not hard to pick out the agenda driven articles as they show in the footnotes as authored by someone who is grant dependent. They also are generally heavy on hyperbole & short on factual substantiation for same.


The free market through Science & Technology have come a long way in my time. I often marvel at the contribution of the Scientists & Engineers to the better life we enjoy today. If global warming were to prove to be caused by human activity, I am sure the aforementioned groups (not politicians) of individuals can present solutions to the issue.


Check out page 3 of this thread for a discussion of this periodical. It is a mainstream publication for those interested in science and engineering. I saw the article and provided it here for information. Next time I see a similar article in a mainstream publication that presents evidence to the contrary, I will link that too.
There is plenty of evidence to support what you call a "radical theory". Have you looked at the CO2 fingerprint type research results?

Henry - my recollection is they did publish that volcanic activity was a major contributor to CO2 emissions. But that was stated on Page 2 of this thread & the publication discredited.

JDogger
03-01-2009, 09:07 PM
Henry - my recollection is they did publish that volcanic activity was a major contributor to CO2 emissions. But that was stated on Page 2 of this thread & the publication discredited.

and it was one page three where Marvin was discredited;




Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin S http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=365767#post365767)
Please state your qualifications to rate the merit of scientific publications & the articles contained therein.

Just out of interests sake, Marv:

Please state your qualifications to rate the merit of scientific publications & the articles contained therein.

Scientific Regards,

Joe S.

Just sayin' Marv,

JD

Marvin S
03-01-2009, 10:16 PM
and it was one page three where Marvin was discredited; JD

Don't believe so - but you are welcome to look at my qualifications anytime - they are posted - just consider it redundant to do it twice!

JDogger
03-01-2009, 10:28 PM
Don't believe so - but you are welcome to look at my qualifications anytime - they are posted - just consider it redundant to do it twice!

Please link. A search under the parameters of 'Marvin S. qualifications' yields nothing.

JD

Marvin S
03-02-2009, 09:21 AM
Please link. A search under the parameters of 'Marvin S. qualifications' yields nothing.

JD

In your desire to be a wit you referenced the site where they are posted. You will have to do the rest yourself, but it would be patently obvious to someone who had actually read what they disparaged.

JDogger
03-02-2009, 09:55 AM
In your desire to be a wit you referenced the site where they are posted. You will have to do the rest yourself, but it would be patently obvious to someone who had actually read what they disparaged.
I've seen your site.:confused:

Marvin S
03-02-2009, 10:45 AM
I've seen your site.:confused:

Apparently you are not comprehending today - it's sitting at the top of the personal page. Which BTW was only written for those who wanted to know who was operating the site. :)

Hand holding regards!!!

JDogger
03-02-2009, 11:12 AM
Apparently you are not comprehending today - it's sitting at the top of the personal page. Which BTW was only written for those who wanted to know who was operating the site. :)

Hand holding regards!!!

Marvin, how can I make this clear for you? I HAVE VISITED YOUR SITE!

The confused smilie :confused: was a comment on its content.

Here's another smilie http://discussion.treocentral.com/images/smilies/poke.gif

Get it yet?

Marvin S
03-02-2009, 11:26 AM
Marvin, how can I make this clear for you? I HAVE VISITED YOUR SITE!

The confused smilie :confused: was a comment on its content.

Here's another smilie http://discussion.treocentral.com/images/smilies/poke.gif

Get it yet?

It's fairly straight forward to me - find the site - click the personal page - READ - is that a challenge for a lefty also?

BTW - Do you do FT dogs? - if so why don't you post your real name so we can see if you are any good at it! ;-)

Then I will know if your content comment has any significance. :)

luvmylabs23139
03-02-2009, 11:50 AM
What global warming? I've been in central NC for 7 years and this is the first time we've had a real snowfall. I woke up to 6 inches of the white stuff. I almost thought I was back in CT this morning.

badbullgator
03-02-2009, 12:35 PM
http://floridasportsman.com/art/biglaugh.gif

http://www.wtsp.com/news/mostp...r=top (http://www.wtsp.com/news/mostpop/story.aspx?storyid=101492&provider=top)
Showers, thunderstorms and even snow showers are falling across parts of the southeast. Showers and storms with gusty winds moved through central Florida today, while thunderstorms produced tornado warnings in southern Georgia during the early morning hours on Sunday. Meanwhile, colder air is filling in and changing the rain to snow in parts of Alabama and Georgia including Atlanta.
All of this is part of a developing storm system that will intensify later tonight as it approaches the North and South Carolina coasts. As the storm brings heavy rains and strong winds to the southeast coastline, colder air in the central Carolinas and the Mid - Atlantic States will change the rain to snow and begin piling it up later tonight. One area that appears to be in store for a significant snowfall is Washington, D.C. where a massive global warming protest is planned for Monday. It is being billed as one of the largest ever global warming protests in the U.S. Mother nature will not make it easy as Winter Storm Warnings are posted for the area and snow accumulations could reach as high as 6-8" with locally higher amounts south and east of the nations capitol.
The storm system will slowly wind down in the Washington, D.C. area midday Monday, but blustery winds and very cold temperatures will make traveling, or protesting for that matter, rather difficult. Meteorologist Bobby Deskins, 10 Connects

JDogger
03-02-2009, 12:38 PM
It's fairly straight forward to me - find the site - click the personal page - READ - is that a challenge for a lefty also?


I said I had. Do you want me to read it again? I still won't change my opinion.

Nothing I can say will cause you to change yours.

Lets give this thread back to global warming.

JD

Marvin S
03-02-2009, 01:01 PM
I said I had. Do you want me to read it again? I still won't change my opinion.

Nothing I can say will cause you to change yours.

Lets give this thread back to global warming.

JD

You started with the personality thing - I informed you where you could find the information - You run for cover - :p :p

BTW - apparently You are the one without clothes. :) :)

JDogger
03-02-2009, 04:05 PM
You started with the personality thing - I informed you where you could find the information - You run for cover - :p :p

BTW - apparently You are the one without clothes. :) :)

Is the personality thing you refer to;



Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin S http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=408465#post408465)
FYI - the sport does not revolve around your perception of what it should be.

Isn't this from someone who has a website dedicated solely to that point of view?

I used to think from your posts that you were very cool and analytical, but you're really rather emotional aren't you.

Marvin S
03-02-2009, 04:17 PM
I used to think from your posts that you were very cool and analytical, but you're really rather emotional aren't you.

:( :( ........

Patrick Johndrow
03-02-2009, 05:21 PM
I used to think from your posts that you were very cool and analytical, but you're really rather emotional aren't you.


Marvin is cool.

subroc
03-03-2009, 06:42 AM
Is the discovery channel article trying to have it both ways? Article says it is cooling, may cool for 30 years, but then global warming may get us.

This is the specious at best argument that the left wing extremist man-caused-global-warming advocates hang their hats on!




http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause.html

subroc
03-08-2009, 06:07 PM
international event of scientists that are sceptical of the theory of man-caused-global-warming.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html

Gerry Clinchy
03-08-2009, 11:10 PM
Just a thought ... should I believe that people who can't tell us if it will rain on Friday, can tell us that the polar icecaps will melt away in ten years if I don't start driving a Prius?

subroc
03-09-2009, 04:45 AM
:D but they have a model :D

cotts135
03-09-2009, 08:00 AM
international event of scientists that are sceptical of the theory of man-caused-global-warming.

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/newyork09.html


Another look at the Heartland Conference being held in NY.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Gerry Clinchy
03-09-2009, 12:37 PM
Another look at the Heartland Conference being held in NY.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Actually, I think it's kind of refreshing to see intellectual honesty among these scientists.

You don't get to the truth by stifling challenge. The skeptics of global warming theory should be welcomed if getting to truth is the goal.

Not so sure that I want to put my eggs in Greenpeace's basket.

cotts135
03-09-2009, 02:06 PM
Actually, I think it's kind of refreshing to see intellectual honesty among these scientists.

You don't get to the truth by stifling challenge. The skeptics of global warming theory should be welcomed if getting to truth is the goal.

Not so sure that I want to put my eggs in Greenpeace's basket.

Absolutely agree with you. Both sides of a debate should be equally heard. The debate should be based on ones arguments and evidence, from there you can determine where the truth lies. When politicians and big business get involved that is when the issue becomes muddied with ideology and dogmatic positions.

Henry V
03-09-2009, 11:59 PM
Interesting conference and great article.

Wow, it is so surprising that Exxon/Mobil is the major past funder of the organization behind the conference, isn't it. I am also glad to see that economists now get to lend their expertise to the debate on climate change. They too are so good at modeling future events.:)
My favorite from the NYT piece is:

There are notable absences from the conference this year. Russell Seitz, a physicist from Cambridge, Mass., gave a talk at last year’s meeting. But Dr. Seitz, who has lambasted environmental campaigners as distorting climate science, now warns that the skeptics are in danger of doing the same thing.

The most strident advocates on either side of the global warming debate, he said, are “equally oblivious to the data they seek to discount or dramatize.”

Henry V
03-10-2009, 11:12 AM
This climate conference is happening this week too.

http://climatecongress.ku.dk/

It looks like you can view webcasts of this one if you have the bandwidth.

Uncle Bill
03-14-2009, 06:56 PM
It's always fun to find that current hoaxs were discovered eons ago. What goes around comes around eh? UB


The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

dixidawg
03-19-2009, 12:57 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html)

Explorers On Global Warming Expedition Stranded in North Pole by Cold Weather
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Three global warming researchers stranded in the North Pole by cold weather were holding out hope Wednesday as a fourth plane set off in an attempt deliver them supplies.
The flight took off during a break in bad weather after “brutal” conditions halted three previous attempts to reach the British explorers who said they were nearly out of food, the Agence France-Presse reported.
“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”
Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels began an 85-day hike to the North Pole on February 28 to measure sea ice thickness, the AFP reported.
With bad weather hampering supply flights, the team is was down to half-rations, battling desperate sub-zero temperatures and unable to proceed, the AFP reported.
"It'll be a relief to get our new supplies," Hadow said in a statement Wednesday. "Until (the plane) does arrive, we need to conserve energy and can't really move on."
The expedition now expects to arrive at the North Pole in late May.

badbullgator
03-19-2009, 02:37 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html)

Explorers On Global Warming Expedition Stranded in North Pole by Cold Weather
Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Three global warming researchers stranded in the North Pole by cold weather were holding out hope Wednesday as a fourth plane set off in an attempt deliver them supplies.
The flight took off during a break in bad weather after “brutal” conditions halted three previous attempts to reach the British explorers who said they were nearly out of food, the Agence France-Presse reported.
“We’re hungry, the cold is relentless, our sleeping bags are full of ice,” expedition leader Pen Hadow said in e-mailed statement. “Waiting is almost the worst part of an expedition as we’re in the lap of the weather gods.”
Hadow, Martin Hartley and Ann Daniels began an 85-day hike to the North Pole on February 28 to measure sea ice thickness, the AFP reported.
With bad weather hampering supply flights, the team is was down to half-rations, battling desperate sub-zero temperatures and unable to proceed, the AFP reported.
"It'll be a relief to get our new supplies," Hadow said in a statement Wednesday. "Until (the plane) does arrive, we need to conserve energy and can't really move on."
The expedition now expects to arrive at the North Pole in late May.

http://floridasportsman.com/art/roflmao.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10458540#)http://floridasportsman.com/art/roflmao.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10458540#)

Don't you understand GW can cause extra cold winters too...flooding, heat, ice, snow, daylight savings time....causes it all and you are wrong to think otherwise

http://floridasportsman.com/art/roflmao.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10458540#)http://floridasportsman.com/art/roflmao.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10458540#)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/DaGriz/thspitcoffee.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10458540#)

subroc
03-24-2009, 05:28 AM
Well my British friends, I hope you aren't one of the ones the left wing man caused global warming activists want to reduce!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5950442.ece

sinner
03-24-2009, 11:20 AM
All of you experts might enjoy USGS CoreCast. At least you would be on the bleeding edge. Gallons of oil in Montana & North Dakota and a new method to handle the CO2 released by humans.
Stay current!

sinner
03-24-2009, 11:25 AM
USGS CoreCast you experts might want to stay current with this.

Illinois Bob
03-24-2009, 11:40 AM
The other night,the 1958 movie,The Blob,with Steve McQueen was on.I hadn't seen it in a long time so I sat through the last half hour or so.It ends up that freezing the blob was the only way to stop it.They froze it with fire extinqishers and then had a military plane haul it up to the arctic where it would stay frozen forever.It occured to me,If global warming is real,and that thing ever thaws out.We're screwed.:)

Steve Amrein
03-24-2009, 11:50 AM
The other night,the 1958 movie,The Blob,with Steve McQueen was on.I hadn't seen it in a long time so I sat through the last half hour or so.It ends up that freezing the blob was the only way to stop it.They froze it with fire extinqishers and then had a military plane haul it up to the arctic where it would stay frozen forever.It occured to me,If global warming is real,and that thing ever thaws out.We're screwed.:)

I think that we have bunchs of movie nasties that will thawing out.

The big worrie for me will be the invasion from all the weirdos in Cali that will have to move inland flyover country.

Gerry Clinchy
03-24-2009, 07:39 PM
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Interesting that you should mention this. This is very much the opinion of a very nice gentleman I showed investment properties to today. A very intelligent fellow who has a lot of contact with Princeton U due to his own line of work in Information Technology. He referred particularly to a faculty member at Princeton who strongly disagreed with the global warming theories that are getting all the attention.

It's amazing how similar things are the world over. This fellow came to do a 6-yr fellowship at Lehigh University many years ago. Could just barely speak English then. Liked the opportunities here, and sent for his wife. Had children. Now is a U.S. citizen. He said he was tempted to return to China because there is much opportunity there now for his line of work, but his children could never take the radical change in lifestyle. His parents and sister are still in China.

Another interesting aside, he mentioned meeting with an Iranian national recently who expressed that the Iranian populace does not buy into their politicians' view of the U.S. He said much the same is true of the Chinese people at large. The Iranian said that those countries whose politicians most malign the U.S. are the very countries where their populace likes Americans most ;) Ironic.

We came to the conclusion that if we could just get rid of all the politicians, the man-on-the-street, one-on-one, could solve most of these problems the world faces.

Also interesting ... while we fear we are becoming too socialistic; the Chinese politicians fear that their own people are becoming too capitalistic.:D

Kind of a hoot when you think about it. Maybe we should send some of our politicians to China?

T. Mac
04-25-2009, 12:52 PM
And this just in fresh of the presses:
http://www.examiner.com/a-1979807~Study_links_wildfires_in_Sierra_to_climate _change.html
where more than 20 scientists found global warming is the culprit causing the source of global warming. Global warming causing forest fires causing more global warming....

In additon, Take note buried five paragraphs down.

Scientists determined intentional deforestation fires, many set in tropical areas to expand agriculture or ranching, contribute up to a fifth of the human-caused increase in emissions of carbon dioxide, ...


T. Mac

Henry V
04-27-2009, 11:07 PM
Industry Ignored Its Scientists on Climate
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&scp=5&sq=global%20warming&st=cse

Steve Amrein
04-28-2009, 12:05 PM
I heard on the news on the way to work this AM that Algore made 100 million so it must be true. Cause people never lie when money is envolved.

Steve Amrein
04-28-2009, 12:36 PM
It looks like Algore got busted for leaving his ornamental outside lights on during earth hour. link to story "let them eat cake"


http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/29/al-gore-snubs-earth-hour/

subroc
06-14-2009, 08:10 AM
here is an artcle that asks if politicians have their eye on the ball

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5525933/Crops-under-stress-as-temperatures-fall.html

Richard Halstead
06-14-2009, 12:22 PM
I rented and watched the Al Gore movie Inconvient Truth which documents the data that leads you to believe in Global Warming. The movie gives the data which shows actual data that has aperiod of uptrends followed by aperiod of downtrends. The trendis for higher highs and higher lows indicating an upward trend.

But he also mentioned the series of glaciers that covered North America, he didn't indicate if the receding glaciers is part of a continuing trend of receding glaciers. I think we can't ignore the possibility there is Global Warmining. Let's not put all the eggs in one basket ignoring the data. Our best bet would be to continue to develop alterate forms of energyto reduce the US demand for petroleum products.

Uncle Bill
06-14-2009, 01:38 PM
I rented and watched the Al Gore movie Inconvient Truth which documents the data that leads you to believe in Global Warming. The movie gives the data which shows actual data that has aperiod of uptrends followed by aperiod of downtrends. The trendis for higher highs and higher lows indicating an upward trend.

But he also mentioned the series of glaciers that covered North America, he didn't indicate if the receding glaciers is part of a continuing trend of receding glaciers. I think we can't ignore the possibility there is Global Warmining. Let's not put all the eggs in one basket ignoring the data. Our best bet would be to continue to develop alterate forms of energyto reduce the US demand for petroleum products.


Et tu, Richard??? Another one bites the dust. PLEASE don't be so gullible to fall for this bullcrap from Algore and his cronies. Don't you see the hypocrisy in their phoney lyrics to grab more of your tax money?

Noone disputes natural weather changes, but good grief, Richard, can't you see how phoney this carbon credit crap is???

After this goes through your favorite Democrat sponsored legislation, tell me if you are enjoying the electric increases in your power bill, and the gas tax hikes, and the cost of groceries going up to offset the grocers increased costs for power, and trucking in the product.

Get real. Stop being a guppy, and learn the reason why Algore is and has entered this arena...



IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!!!!

UB

Terry Britton
06-14-2009, 01:54 PM
This site points to the $$$ and other facts: www.iceagenow.com

dixidawg
06-15-2009, 07:46 AM
Argentinian glacier keeps growing despite climate "change" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31363631/ns/us_news-environment/)