The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 6 of 54 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 540

Thread: Speaking of Global Warming

  1. #51
    Senior Member zeus3925's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Twin Cities Metro, MN
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    Wikipedia answers your question, Gerry, this way--

    Mauna Loa was originally chosen as a monitoring site because, located far from any continent, the air was sampled and is a good average for the central Pacific. Being high, it is above the inversion layer where most of the local effects are present and there was already a rough road to the summit built by the military. The contamination from local volcanic sources is sometimes detected at the observatory, and is then removed from the background data.[5]
    I don't think ML data is by itself proving anything, unless it correlates with data from other monitoring sites.
    Zeus

    I don't want to feed an ugly dog!

  2. #52
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Perhaps someone can clarify for me ... why would so much emphasis be placed on the Mauna Loa readings, an active volcano. Might not changes in CO2 levels there be related to other things besides global warming.
    No, the final data reported from this laboratory is not related to any local volcanic activity.
    From the wiki:
    "Mauna Loa was originally chosen as a monitoring site because, located far from any continent, the air was sampled and is a good average for the central Pacific. Being high, it is above the inversion layer where most of the local effects are present and there was already a rough road to the summit built by the military. The contamination from local volcanic sources is sometimes detected at the observatory, and is then removed from the background data."

    From the NOAA website:
    We have confidence that the CO2 measurements made at the Mauna Loa Observatory reflect truth about our global atmosphere. The main reasons for that confidence are:

    "The Observatory near the summit of Mauna Loa, at an altitude of 3400 m, is well situated to measure air masses that are representative of very large areas.
    All of the measurements are rigorously and very frequently calibrated.
    Ongoing comparisons of independent measurements at the same site allow an estimate of the accuracy, which is generally better than 0.2 ppm."

    There is a good map of sampling sites for various things at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/flask.html

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by luvmylabs23139 View Post
    So I grew up in CT and we saw a lot more Cardinals in the dead of winter than the summer! I have Cardinals year round here in NC.
    Good for you. Cardinals occur throughout a natural range and need relatively warm weather. They rarely ever used to get this far north. Now it is a common occurrence. The range of occurrence of many plants and animal is changing. Here is some national data on wintering range of birds based on a the long-term winter dataset:

  4. #54
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,897

    Default

    How about the DoDo bird? Got a graph for that one Henry?
    Bill Davis

  5. #55
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by swampcollielover View Post
    Henry V ...you know as well as I do that much of the base data gathered on Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide was shall we say manipulated to support the original hypothesis. This is fact...Junk science has been the trademark of the Democratic Party for many years. In the 70's it was Global cooling, then came Global warming.....now that theses aren't working out Gore and the boys are talking Global Climate Change....the way we all tell when a Democrat is telling a lie is when he is talking!
    I have no idea what the heck you are talking about (perhaps you need more tinfoil layers?). Most of the climate monitoring data is just data collected at science stations around the world. This is not a political issue for me. It is a matter of science. You and the other deniers are the ones making it a political issue. Is there a theory on global cooling, yes. A few scientists believed in it then and fewer now. There was never anything remotely close to the relative consensus by climate scientists now have on global warming/climate change.

  6. #56
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huntinman View Post
    How about the DoDo bird? Got a graph for that one Henry?
    Hmmm.... How about you?, Do you have any data to support any one of your numerous and ever changing statements on this topic. How about one that shows cooling as you stated; or one that refutes the examples I presented where humans have indeed changed the atmosphere which, as you stated, was not possible; or please explain your "logic" again in your response to HPL where you somehow thought the post against you somehow "made your point", or how CO2 and ozone are some how related and germane to this discussion or lastly, how about any evidence that this whole things is a ruse to redistribute money?

    Now, back to the regular schedule and content of the echo chamber.

  7. #57
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,819

    Default

    Henry, what of the theory that CO2 levels follow a warming change, not cause it?

    Then, beyond, ascertaining that climate is changing, can we really say it is human activity causing it? Since we do know that the earth's climate has changed even before humans produced activity to impact the changes, how can we separate what could be human activity v. circumstances that are simply naturally occurring?

    Unfortunately, the matter has become political because we are being told that the developed countries must lower their standard of living to abate the issue. The net result being use less energy, pay more for the energy that is used. Then when we find that we have enough NG to make a significant difference, the "powers that be" now conclude that's not good enough, we must use wind or solar (at great cost) instead. Meanwhile, countries with emerging industrialization, like China, are very happy to use fuels like coal. As China continues to grow its industrialization, the coal they use will wipe out the austerity of already-developed economies. (And with our policies coal will stay cheap for China, since it is being squeezed out of the energy picture in places like the US).

    Then the cost of energy is reflected in all other commodities, not the least of which is food. These increased costs are felt most in that middle class who earn just above the levels that qualify for assistance with these basic commodities. When the cost of food, heat and transportation consume a larger portion of those incomes there is a lot of hurt. There is little question in my mind that those making these pronouncements of needed austerity are not affected at all by the austerity they visit upon the bulk of the population. Gore, of course, and his lavish, energy-consumptive lifestyle is the most obvious example; though many of our legislators might be equally unaffected by the legislation that demands energy austerity.

    I apologize here for leaving the topic ... but as we react to the science, economic affects result ... and that makes it political, even if we would rather keep the science isolated.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  8. #58
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,897

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry V View Post
    Hmmm.... How about you?, Do you have any data to support any one of your numerous and ever changing statements on this topic. How about one that shows cooling as you stated; or one that refutes the examples I presented where humans have indeed changed the atmosphere which, as you stated, was not possible; or please explain your "logic" again in your response to HPL where you somehow thought the post against you somehow "made your point", or how CO2 and ozone are some how related and germane to this discussion or lastly, how about any evidence that this whole things is a ruse to redistribute money?

    Now, back to the regular schedule and content of the echo chamber.
    It's a religion for you guys... You have bought into it totally. I don't believe all the BS. There are cycles to everything, especially wether patterns. It warms, it cools. It was doing it way before we got here... And will be doing it when we are gone. Echo? The only echo is you echoing algore.
    Bill Davis

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    Henry, what of the theory that CO2 levels follow a warming change, not cause it?

    Then, beyond, ascertaining that climate is changing, can we really say it is human activity causing it? Since we do know that the earth's climate has changed even before humans produced activity to impact the changes, how can we separate what could be human activity v. circumstances that are simply naturally occurring?........
    Good questions and discussion Gerry.
    Regarding the C02 lag issue in the historic record please see http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm for some answers to your questions.

    On the human activity link to current elevated levels, they have done isotope analysis to essentially, fingerprint CO2 and have found that the increasing fraction of CO2 is from burning fossil fuels. You may think this is a coincidence, I do not. There is good information on this at: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...perplexed.html


    You are right that the largest contributors to CO2 emissions are the ones with the largest need to reduce. I do not agree with you on the direct cause and effect relationship on the economy. For example, the US is in the process of moving to natural gas asa a larger component of our energy supply. This is good for carbon emissions and will not affect the economy (unless you are in coal country). You forgot to mention that China is also the number one country expanding their renewable energy system with wind and solar. An argument could be made that they are viewing coal as a shorter term solution and renewables for the longer term. They also are having to deal with incredible air pollution problems due to coal and there are forces to move away from it. The US still uses many times more energy per person than any other country it would be conservative to conserve a bit on energy and reduce carbon emissions at the same time.

    Yes, a rise in energy costs affects the economy but then again our economy adjusts and people innovate to find ways to adapt. Energy costs are going to go up in the long run. The days of $35 a barrel oil are over. All that oil being extracted from shale costs a lot more to recover in terms of dollars and energy invested per unit energy returned than the spigots in the middle east. This could lead to a discussion of our energy future. I would prefer one much more diverse than what we have today.

    Glad to see that you correctly point out that increasing energy costs would be a regressive system. Your post directly contradicts the case that several others have stated here that this is a scheme to redistribute wealth. Our food production system will need to adapt to any resulting energy related changes just as it has since the price of oil has doubled in the past 20 years. I think the system could benefit from changes to the status quo.

    Good to stray off topic when there is good reason and relevance. FYI- Our household is suffering from a severe case of high school graduation preparedness syndrome. I may not be able to respond to any replies in the short term.
    Last edited by Henry V; 05-20-2013 at 08:47 AM.

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Detroit Lakes, MN
    Posts
    1,435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by huntinman View Post
    It's a religion for us deniers... We have bought into it totally. We don't believe all the science. There are cycles to everything, especially weather and we do not understand the difference between weather patterns and climate. It warms, it cools. It was doing it way before we got here and the earth was not hospitable to human life for most of its existence... And will be doing it when we are gone and who cares if we accelerate the condition. Echo? That why I post here to hear the echo.
    Fixed it for you.....

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •