Printable View
Sooner, it has been stated numerous times that droughts are one of the side effects of global warming. Did you know that about 60% of the land mass of the US is in some form of drought?
No rain in the summer? The lake where I live was at it's lowest this past December. We haven't had any significant rain in two years.
With this post, you have 703 to go.
Forget this summer's ridiculous drought and temps(remember that we are on pace to break last years all time record temps, worldwide).Quote:
Originally Posted by Soonerdawg
You dont actually believe that you are going to convince people that global warming is a "hoax"?
LMAO if you believe that.
Keep laughing, because I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Not something to laugh about. Of course Sooner thinks some here want these to happen to prove a point. Of course I could argue that some on here want things like this to happen because they want Jesus to come back and things like this must happen first for him to return.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/storm_graphi...025435W_sm.gif
Wow, Ernesto looks like it has intensified dramatically the last 2 hours. I dont like this scenario at all. Just about all the models have it entering the gulf and the water in the gulf is really, really warm. Warmer than last year.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/flt/t2/loop-avn.html
Not to affirm or deny global warming, but come on alta. It's hurricane season. What do you expect a tropical storm to do. To be honest, if I'm not mistaken, by this time last year, the U.S. had been hit by a couple of hurricanes already. How many have hit us this year? How many have even come deep into the gulf? As I remember, just a couple of short months ago, you guys were posting links to articles predicting the worst hurricane season on history was going to happen. So far, that hasn't happened. Now, I know we have a couple of months left to go, but what's going to be the reason we haven't had the record hurricane activity like predicted if it doesn't? I have a good guess-some obscure trait of global warming.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Dirty, never posted once about the worst hurricane season ever. Find that post.
I DID say that you never know when a season is going to be bad. One storm can make a season horrible. I pointed out that in 92 Andrew was the first named storm of the season and was in late August.
Continue to make yourself look bad, its entertaining.
Farmers' Almanac Predicts Extra Frigid Winter This Year
Monday , August 28, 2006
http://www.foxnews.com/images/service_ap_36.gif
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_frien...210745,00.html
According to the National Weather Service's Hurricane Center, the Gulf is actually cooler than last year. At this time last year, Katrini time, the Gulf waters ranged from 88-91F. This year they are 84-88F. A little cooler.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
As for hurricanes meaning GW....well, many of us said last year that it is foolish to use a hurricane season as an indication of something like GW, which is suppose to be "global" and the engine of it not directly related to the mechanisms of hurricane formations. Of course we were pronounced to be stupid and told to "just watch" as hurricanes will continue to get bigger and badder because of GW.... I said hurricane seasons, like ALL systems on Earth, are cyclical. Like Dirty said, this season is just beginning, but it doesn't appear that 2006 will be worse than 2005, as was giddily predicted by all the GW advocates.
Whatever, alta. Like I'm going to go through all the GW threads and find it. Frankly, I don't care. Besides, you never did answer my question. What do you expect a tropical storm to do during hurricane season? Disappear? Oh yeah. That's right. That's what the last one did. And, apparently this one never made it to the strength you thought it would.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
You need to look in the mirror before you talk about people looking bad. The sad thing is, your fear mongering is far from entertaining. Maybe if you come down to the Tech/LSU basketball game in December, we can continue this discussion over a couple of stiff drinks. As warm as it will be, maybe we can get some mai-tais.Quote:
Originally Posted by alta
Science tempers fears on climate change. Downgrade 100 year forcast.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...52-601,00.html
Tyler, if you read that article carefully, you would realize that it supports what people have been saying about the dangers of global warming. A 3C rise in global temperatures by 2100 is something to be very, very concerned about. The article stated that there is much more certainty in global warming forecasts than 5 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
You best re-read the article.
Try your best to change the intent Salty but spinning will not help.
Science tempers fears on climate change. Downgrade 100 year forcast.
No spinning, the article stated the the worst-case forecast did not seem likely but that global warming caused by burning fossil fuel is real and is a real danger.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
THE world's top climate scientists have cut their worst-case forecast for global warming over the next 100 years.
A draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained exclusively by The Weekend Australian, offers a more certain projection of climate change than the body's forecasts five years ago.
"For the first time, scientists are confident enough to project a 3C rise on the average global daily temperature by the end of this century if no action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Draft Fourth Assessment Report says the temperature increase could be contained to 2C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions are held at current levels.
In 2001, the scientists predicted temperature rises of between 1.4C and 5.8C on current levels by 2100, but better science has led them to adjust this to a narrower band of between 2C and 4.5C."
Whether or not you believe there is a global warming issue and that GHG are responsble, I think this is a pretty good report on what's contributing to CO2 emissions in the US.
http://uspirg.org/uspirgnewsroom.asp?id2=24976
More detail here:
http://uspirg.org/reports/carbonboom06.pdf
Basically it boils down to (from 1960 to 2001):
Oil burning CO2 emissions from the transportation sector increased nearly 300%, while the residential, electrical and industrial sectors reamined the same or went down.
Coal burning CO2 emissions from the electrical power sector increased nearly 400% while the industrial and residential sector went down.
Netting everything out, it appears that practically all the increases are from these two sectors.
So what to do?
In the transportation industry: Travel less, get a more efficient vehicle, car pool. ride the bus, ride your bike. What else?
In the electrical Power Sector: NUCLEAR POWER, reduce usage at your house (insulate, look for leaks, etc.), solar energy (where feasible), wind power (where feasible)/ What else?
A person doesn't have to develop a religious faith in global warming or global warming caused by man's activities in order to see the logic of reducing use of fossil fuel, cutting travel, Riding a Bike or Walking! Nuclear is unimaginably dangerous but insulating, stopping leaks, using solar and wind power are feasible and economically sound.
Just do it and hope it helps. You don't have to pledge allegiance to the church of global warming. Just do what you know is right and then you can at least say it isn't your fault. Not a bad position to hold!
Everyone likes to be held harmless!
Please let it freeze early and often in Northwest Arkansas!
And snow at least 12 inches at least twice!
And cause me to drive the old 4-wheel-drive truck to work about two weeks in a row!
Consume less. Everything you buy requires energy to produce. You might find you don't need half the crap you buy.Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
I did get to see Al Gore's movie a couple of weeks ago. Most of the stuff I knew, but he covered all the weak attempts to distort the truth and seed doubt of MMGW. After this movie, I came away with a new respect for Al Gore. He is a man driven by passion for an issue that threatens all of mankind which all of our politicians have turned their backs upon. He made a statement that sums this issue up quite well: As long as politicians keep this issue at arm's length, then they have no moral obligation to do anything about it. It is not a political issue, but a moral one.
One more thing, Al was slammed by a USA Today reporter about how he is a hypocrit and not so green. His office replied to this editorial in the letter section about two days later. Basically the fellow didn't research very well, but that truth will never be known as I am sure the guy will never print a retraction editorial and many never read the letters section.
El Nino is taking care of the hurricanes this year and steering them out to sea. Aren't we up to Lane in the named storms category? Still pretty active.Quote:
Originally Posted by dawg80
Like all weather patterns, there are dips and highs, but like global temperatures, they all trend up over the course of several years.
suggested reading for sooner.
http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?a...lnews&id=21448
I was reading something on this the other day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawgbitten
Another article:
http://www.whatistheword.com/story/USWorld_25.html
A couple of notes:
Theoretically, this is the smallest the Arctic ice cap has been in the last 100 years; however, the methods for measuring the cap where not reliable until the mid-70's. The cap is 20% smaller than recorded in 1978 (which is the same time some people said we were going into another ice age).
In neither article do they say they know what the cause is:
"While it's true that the climatic changes in the Arctic is primarily a natural phenomenon, researchers believe that the role of global warming cannot be ignored."
"Cautioning that recent Arctic changes are not well understood and many questions remain, Nghiem said, "It's vital that we continue to closely monitor this region, using both satellite and surface-bsed data."
More Kyoto information:
Europeans missing Kyoto Targets:
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...icle335198.ece
Europeans/Asians skate around climate change pledges
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/nation...1.html?ref=rss
An interesting read on reasons behind Russia signing the treaty:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102204K
From the article:
"American legislators, as well as President Bush, remain staunch opponents of Kyoto because of the economic damage it will cause and because developing countries, whose emissions exceed those of industrial countries, are exempt from the treaty's emissions-reduction requirements.
In addition, the treaty was written to make it easier for Europe to comply than for the United States, putting the U.S. at an economic advantage.
But, for all its bluster, Europe isn't complying anyway. According to a German think thank, 11 of the 15 "old" members of the EU are missing their emissions targets, and, overall emissions in Europe rose last year by 2 percent."
Ford, GM were against increasing their vehicles MPG to come inline with other foreign countries. They said it couldn't be done without damaging their business. Now tell me, how has this helped our economy and their businesses? How has delphi, ford, tiremakers, etc. been doing lately while Toyota, Nissan, and others contine to grab market share?
The only damage done to the economy to meet these guidelines would be expansion of our economy. The only damage would be the energy companies would have to open their wallets and maybe small increases in utilities to the consumer.
And remember, smoking was not dangerous either according to tobacco.
New Strategy employed by Bill since he lost all credibility and no one is believing his Bullsh*t "We can't do nothing about it anyway, so let's be a bunch of quiters and meet our fate head on". Sounds like a great strategy, Bill. He gave you that one? We may not be able to do anything, but we can at least try.
Colorado State professor disputes global warming is human-caused
Views ‘out of step’ with others are good for science, academic says
By Kate Martin
The Daily Reporter-Herald
Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause, one of the nation’s top experts on hurricanes said Monday morning.
Bill Gray, who has studied tropical meteorology for more than 40 years, spoke at the Larimer County Republican Club Breakfast about global warming and whether humans are to blame. About 50 people were at the talk.
Gray, who is a professor at Colorado State University, said human-induced global warming is a fear perpetuated by the media and scientists who are trying to get federal grants.
“I think we’re coming out of the little ice age, and warming is due to changes to ocean circulation patterns due to salinity variations,” Gray said. “I’m sure that’s it.”
Gray’s view has been challenged, however.
Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said in an interview later Monday that climate scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming is due to human activity.
“Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues’,” Pielke said. But challenging widely held views is “good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding.”
“We should always listen to the minority,” said Pielke, who spoke from his office in Boulder. “But it’s prudent to take actions that both minimize human effect on the climate and also make ourselves much more resilient.”
At the breakfast, Gray said Earth was warmer in some medieval periods than it is today. Current weather models are good at predicting weather as far as 10 days in advance, but predicting up to 100 years into the future is “a great act of faith, and I don’t believe any of it,” he said.
But even if humans cause global warming, there’s not much people can do, Gray said. China and India will continue to pump out greenhouse gases, and alternative energy sources are expensive.
“Why do it if it’s not going to make a difference anyway?” he said. “Whether I’m right or wrong, we can’t do anything about it anyway.”
But Pielke said it makes sense to reduce humans’ impact on the climate.
“There are uncertainties. It’s not like you change your light bulbs today, you’re going to have better weather tomorrow,” he said. “It’s even better if those actions you’re taking make sense for other reasons, like getting off Middle Eastern oil or saving money'.
Apparently Dr. Gray hasn't heard anything about Steorn, an Irish based company that is claiming to have discovered the first ever perpetual motion device. If energy could be free, then why use fossil fuels? And that would solve the problem head on. :)
For those here who haven't heard about Steorn and their supposed discovery, go to www.steorn.com to read more about it. It's fascinating, whether it's a hoax or not.
Daniel
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14944138
Study: Oceans have cooled in recent years
Scientists say that despite temperature change, sea levels continue to rise
Boxer takes the reigns away from the idiot from Oklahoma. Can't say I like Boxer, but she may be what is needed for this problem.
Boxer pledges shift on global warming policy with new Senate role
SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer
November 9, 2006 3:39 PMSACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Sen. Barbara Boxer on Thursday promised major policy shifts on global warming, air quality and toxic-waste cleanup as she prepares to head the U.S. Senate's environmental committee.
''Time is running out, and we need to move forward on this,'' Boxer said of global warming during a conference call with reporters. ''The states are beginning to take steps, and we need to take steps as well.''
Boxer's elevation to chairwoman of the Senate Environmental Public Works Committee comes as the Democrats return to power in the Senate. It also marks a dramatic shift in ideology for the panel.
The California Democrat is one of the Senate's most liberal members and replaces one of the most conservative senators, Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma. Inhofe had blocked bills seeking to cut the greenhouse gases contributing to global warming, calling the issue ''the greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people.''
Environmentalists were overjoyed at the change.
''That's like a tsunami hit the committee,'' said Karen Steuer, who heads government affairs at the National Environmental Trust, a nonprofit based in Washington, D.C. ''You can't find two members or people more ideologically different.''
Boxer said she intends to introduce legislation to curb greenhouse gases, strengthen environmental laws regarding public health and hold oversight hearings on federal plans to clean up Superfund sites across the country.
On global warming, Boxer said she would model federal legislation after a California law signed this summer by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. That law imposes the first statewide cap on greenhouse gases and seeks to cut California's emissions by 25 percent, dropping them to 1990 levels by 2020.
A top environmental aide at the White House signaled Thursday that the administration would work with Boxer.
In an e-mail to the senator's chief counsel, George Banks, the associate director for international affairs at the Council for Environmental Quality requested a meeting to discuss global warming, Boxer said.
President Bush has opposed a federal mandate to limit greenhouse gas emissions from industry and automobiles, saying such steps should be voluntary. His administration also has ruled that greenhouse emissions are not a pollutant.
''We look forward to working with Congress in bipartisanship on all issues,'' said Kristen Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the Council on Environmental Quality.
She declined to discuss specifics related to the upcoming global warming discussion.
Democrats and environmentalists have criticized Bush for refusing to send the Senate the 1997 Kyoto accord for ratification. It requires 35 industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
California's law and various bills in Congress set more aggressive targets.
Stephanopoulos: Pelosi May Create Special Global Warming Committee
This morning on ABC’s This Week, George Stephanopoulos reported that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “is considering setting up a special committee in the House to deal with climate change and global warming.”
Also on ABC, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) called climate change “the most serious environmental problem” we face, and said “we’ve got to get action on it” and “not wait until everybody around the world is going to do it.”
Last year, Waxman introduced the Safe Climate Act, which aims to freeze greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 and cut emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020. The bill would create “a flexible economy-wide cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, along with measures to advance technology and reduce emissions through renewable energy, energy efficiency, and cleaner cars.”
Full transcript:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Congressman Waxman, you helped write the Clean Air Act back in 1990 and I think the warm weather this weekend has reminded us all of that global warming, as if we needed another reminder. I’ve been told Speaker Pelosi is considering setting up a special committee in the House to deal with climate change and global warming. Do you think that’s a good idea and what should it do?
WAXMAN: I haven’t heard what she’s thinking along those lines, but I introduced the first global warming bill in the House 18 years ago. I have a bill now pending that has the most co-sponsors in it. What we’ve got to do is hold hearings and that’s what our committee plans to do. This is a serious — this is the most serious environmental problem that we’re facing. We’ve got to get action on it. We may not since this administration won’t even acknowledge the fact of global warming, but we’ve got to set out the way that we can reduce those carbon emissions in this country, not wait until everybody around the world is going to do it, but be the leader and get other countries to work with us as we chart a course of reducing emissions, carbon emissions from motor vehicles and other sources.
LOL. This is the best you can come up with? Did you even read the article?? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
"The temperature drop, a small fraction of the total warming seen in the last 48 years, suggests that global warming trends can sometimes take little dips."
"Most scientists agree that much of the warming in the past 50 years has been fueled by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities. "
"In a previous study, researchers reported that in parts of the Antarctic, 84 percent of glaciers have retreated over the past 50 years in response to a warmer climate."
Page 2?
Sooner and silent bob, this is a must read.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten...061120fa_fact3
This is some real scary information. If true, N.O. is toast.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/16/sc...=1&oref=slogin
January 16, 2007
The Warming of Greenland
By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF
LIVERPOOL LAND, Greenland — Flying over snow-capped peaks and into a thick fog, the helicopter set down on a barren strip of rocks between two glaciers. A dozen bags of supplies, a rifle and a can of cooking gas were tossed out onto the cold ground. Then, with engines whining, the helicopter lifted off, snow and fog swirling in the rotor wash.
When it had disappeared over the horizon, no sound remained but the howling of the Arctic wind.
“It feels a little like the days of the old explorers, doesn’t it?” Dennis Schmitt said.
Mr. Schmitt, a 60-year-old explorer from Berkeley, Calif., had just landed on a newly revealed island 400 miles north of the Arctic Circle in eastern Greenland. It was a moment of triumph: he had discovered the island on an ocean voyage in September 2005. Now, a year later, he and a small expedition team had returned to spend a week climbing peaks, crossing treacherous glaciers and documenting animal and plant life.
Despite its remote location, the island would almost certainly have been discovered, named and mapped almost a century ago when explorers like Jean-Baptiste Charcot and Philippe, Duke of Orléans, charted these coastlines. Would have been discovered had it not been bound to the coast by glacial ice.
Maps of the region show a mountainous peninsula covered with glaciers. The island’s distinct shape — like a hand with three bony fingers pointing north — looks like the end of the peninsula.
Now, where the maps showed only ice, a band of fast-flowing seawater ran between a newly exposed shoreline and the aquamarine-blue walls of a retreating ice shelf. The water was littered with dozens of icebergs, some as large as half an acre; every hour or so, several more tons of ice fractured off the shelf with a thunderous crack and an earth-shaking rumble.
All over Greenland and the Arctic, rising temperatures are not simply melting ice; they are changing the very geography of coastlines. Nunataks — “lonely mountains” in Inuit — that were encased in the margins of Greenland’s ice sheet are being freed of their age-old bonds, exposing a new chain of islands, and a new opportunity for Arctic explorers to write their names on the landscape.
“We are already in a new era of geography,” said the Arctic explorer Will Steger. “This phenomenon — of an island all of a sudden appearing out of nowhere and the ice melting around it — is a real common phenomenon now.”
In August, Mr. Steger discovered his own new island off the coast of the Norwegian island of Svalbard, high in the polar basin. Glaciers that had surrounded it when his ship passed through only two years earlier were gone this year, leaving only a small island alone in the open ocean.
“We saw it ourselves up there, just how fast the ice is going,” he said.
With 27,555 miles of coastline and thousands of fjords, inlets, bays and straits, Greenland has always been hard to map. Now its geography is becoming obsolete almost as soon as new maps are created.
Hans Jepsen is a cartographer at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, which produces topographical maps for mining and oil companies. (Greenland is a largely self-governing region of Denmark.) Last summer, he spotted several new islands in an area where a massive ice shelf had broken up. Mr. Jepsen was unaware of Mr. Schmitt’s discovery, and an old aerial photograph in his files showed the peninsula intact.
“Clearly, the new island was detached from the mainland when the connecting glacier-bridge retreated southward,” Mr. Jepsen said, adding that future maps would take note of the change.
The sudden appearance of the islands is a symptom of an ice sheet going into retreat, scientists say. Greenland is covered by 630,000 cubic miles of ice, enough water to raise global sea levels by 23 feet.
Carl Egede Boggild, a professor of snow-and-ice physics at the University Center of Svalbard, said Greenland could be losing more than 80 cubic miles of ice per year.
“That corresponds to three times the volume of all the glaciers in the Alps,” Dr. Boggild said. “If you lose that much volume you’d definitely see new islands appear.”
He discovered an island himself a year ago while flying over northwestern Greenland. “Suddenly I saw an island with glacial ice on it,” he said. “I looked at the map and it should have been a nunatak, but the present ice margin was about 10 kilometers away. So I can say that within the last five years the ice margin had retreated at least 10 kilometers.”
The abrupt acceleration of melting in Greenland has taken climate scientists by surprise. Tidewater glaciers, which discharge ice into the oceans as they break up in the process called calving, have doubled and tripled in speed all over Greenland. Ice shelves are breaking up, and summertime “glacial earthquakes” have been detected within the ice sheet.
“The general thinking until very recently was that ice sheets don’t react very quickly to climate,” said Martin Truffer, a glaciologist at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks. “But that thinking is changing right now, because we’re seeing things that people have thought are impossible.”
A study in The Journal of Climate last June observed that Greenland had become the single largest contributor to global sea-level rise.
Until recently, the consensus of climate scientists was that the impact of melting polar ice sheets would be negligible over the next 100 years. Ice sheets were thought to be extremely slow in reacting to atmospheric warming. The 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, widely considered to be an authoritative scientific statement on the potential impacts of global warming, based its conclusions about sea-level rise on a computer model that predicted a slow onset of melting in Greenland.
“When you look at the ice sheet, the models didn’t work, which puts us on shaky ground,” said Richard Alley, a geosciences professor at Pennsylvania State University.
There is no consensus on how much Greenland’s ice will melt in the near future, Dr. Alley said, and no computer model that can accurately predict the future of the ice sheet. Yet given the acceleration of tidewater-glacier melting, a sea-level rise of a foot or two in the coming decades is entirely possible, he said. That bodes ill for island nations and those who live near the coast.
“Even a foot rise is a pretty horrible scenario,” said Stephen P. Leatherman, director of the Laboratory for Coastal Research at Florida International University in Miami.
http://www.drudgereport.com/gray.gif ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'...
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...5-7dc37ec39adf
AMS CERTIFIED WEATHERMAN STRIKES BACK AT WEATHER CHANNEL CALL FOR DECERTIFICATION
January 19, 2007
Posted by Marc Morano marc_morano@epw.senate.gov
After EPW blog post yesterday Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord _id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528 check out this blog post from ABC-TV Alabama affiliate weatherman James Spann http://www.jamesspann.com/blog.htm
Also check out Weather Channel response to the controversy http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord _id=3ab9e37d-802a-23ad-430e-1c42aad22006&Region_id=&Issue_id= From Spann blog - his bio:
"In 2005 I upgraded the AMS seal of approval to the new "Certified Broadcast Meteorologist" designation. The CBM is the highest level of certification from the AMS, and involves academic requirements, on-air performance, a rigorous examination, and continuing education.Official bio here: http://www.abc3340.com/news/talent.hrb?i=188
The Weather Channel Mess
January 18, 2007 | James Spann | Op/Ed
Well, well. Some “climate expert” on “The Weather Channel” wants to take away AMS certification from those of us who believe the recent “global warming” is a natural process. So much for “tolerance”, huh?
I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them. Here are the basic facts you need to know:
*Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story. Even the lady at “The Weather Channel” probably gets paid good money for a prime time show on climate change. No man-made global warming, no show, and no salary. Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.
*The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.
In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.
WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.
I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.
Here's an even better article.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53636
TT, the levels of atmospheric CO2 continue to rise. Most TV weather persons are not in the field of climate research so naturally I would expect them to be out of the loop on the topic.
Remember , there is a direct corerlation with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the global average temperature. Post something that says that's not true.
Humans exhale CO2. I think its time to cull the herd in the name of global warming. Let's start by eliminating school zones to quickly get rid of the young stupid ones.
That's true Security. All mammals exhale CO2. Now, perhaps you can estimate how much CO2 humans exhale and how much they dump in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels?Quote:
Originally Posted by Security
Well, if we get rid of about half the world's population, say 3 billion people, then we cut down on human CO2 emissions, and put a dent in the consumption of fossil fuels too. Side benefits include less road rage, less demand on food supplies, and fewer mean people.
Since the US produces 25% of the CO2 created by burning fossil fuels and only has 300 million population, the most equitable method of achieving the most efficient way of removing excessive people/CO2 would be to depopulate the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Security
BTW, humans exhaling CO2 only accounts for less than 1% of the CO2 created by buring fossil fuels.
I've had fun messing with dawgbitten and alta and others in the past about this. Let me just say that I don't doubt that it's getting warmer. Also, I don't doubt that man is responsible for it to a degree. However, my stance is this. When all the people complaining about what man is doing to the environment decide that they want to help solve the problem by no longer using the products that are created by the processes that make this problem, then maybe I will take some action on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
:icon_roll: The HATE and BLAME AMERICA FIRST CROWD speaks.
TT, don't you know when your leg is being pulled.:icon_razz:Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
But we are the leader in CO2 emissions and we need to do something about it. Saw the other day that US industry is going to form a group to set goals for CO2 reductions.
You can't argue with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Yes, but I just knew you wanted that reaction. So, being the nice guy that I am, I provided the entertainment.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Glad to see you guys still arguing over this.
I think you guys are overlooking something here...
There is no such thing as global warming. Chuck Norris was cold, so he turned the sun up.
Now do you believe.....?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/polit...ush_01-23.html
"America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change."
I sure hope so, but more for the reason that we can tell the Middle East to piss off when this point comes. That way we can stop most of the money floating around over there supporting terrorism. The Middle East would struggle to be any kind of force if oil went down the drain. Maybe it would force them to get education and other means of progression instead of reliance on oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by TECH88
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070129/...ming_survey_dc
So lets all agree to stop giving arguments that Global Warming is here and is serious. 91% of America agrees with you. The other 9% aren't going to. Ever. Let's move on.
Green dots for you my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
When Al Gore stops driving around in Suburbans, I will too. Actually, I'll probably stop before he does. And I'll probably start riding a bike to work before he does, too.
As a geologist, we were taught this many years ago at TECH as well. Years of study since has lead me to the same conclusion. The earth goes through natural timed phases of warming and cooling. Always has and always will. Now, is mankind playing a larger part to help warm it, sure. Is it a difference maker. I doubt it.
Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET
Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.
Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.
Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.
The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.
“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.
The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.
Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.
That global warming has sure been kicking my a$$ lately. It's going to be around mid teens tonight and snow predicted for tomorrow night. It's been so cold in January I sure wish we'd have some global warming pretty soon so I could warm up.
Yaeh, breaking records in the northeast and northwest. And new record snowfalls in Alaska I believe. It's a just another God planned earth cycle baby. Not a political issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by ARKDAWG02
Did you guys know that the entire state of Louisiana was once under water, then tropical and then later covered by a glacier that went as far south as Leesville/Alex. This is what the earth does over very long periods of time folks. Ask any geologist you know out there and he will tell you the same.
This should not be a political issue guys.
How about the time frames for those events? If the ocean water level goes up a foot, what will that mean to Louisiana?Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Not much for somebody in Shreveport, but anybody south of I-10 better start thinking "Western Ozarks".Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Did you see Bill Nye the so-called science guy get his butt handed to him on Larry king Wed night? Even you left wing dems could have seen how articulately and accurately the MIT explained that global warming is little more than fear mongering. :bomb:
There are plenty of REAL climate scientists who would have put the head of that MIT professor on a silver platter.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevnazbell
What field was that MIT guy in anyway? I just saw the tail end of the show.
If you don't think GW is real, go up to Alaska and take a look.
Richard Lindzen. Seems similar to Fred Singer!!Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Takes Industry money.
Larry king needs to re-do that program but this time get a couple of climate scientists who hold the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists that global warming is real and is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Let Al Goreee come intttttoooo your heart, let Al Gooooore come into your heaaaaaaaaart.
I'm hyper right now, wanting the Tech baseball game to begin in two hours!
Cousin Casey Jones won't get to play with his recuperating shoulder, but I believe he will dress out and be in the dugout.
A green dot for anyone who posts a picture of him for me this weekend. Number 29.
If anyone is interested in the relationship b/w faith and stewardship of the earth, go to this site and listen to the broadcast from January 23.
http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_list.php
Agreed. This should not be a political issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////
February 2, 2007
Panel Issues Bleak Report on Climate Change
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL and ANDREW C. REVKIN
PARIS, Feb. 2 — In a bleak and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate change scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.
They said the world is already committed to centuries of warming, shifting weather patterns and rising seas, resulting from the buildup of gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. But the warming can be substantially blunted by prompt action, the panel of scientists said in a report released here today.
The report summarized the fourth assessment since 1990 by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, sizing up the causes and consequences of climate change. But it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming since 1950.
In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, put the confidence level at between 66 and 90 percent. Both reports are online at http://www.ipcc.ch.
If carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reach twice their pre-industrial levels, the report said, the global climate will probably warm by 3.5 to 8 degrees. But there would be more than a 1-in-10 chance of much greater warming, a situation many earth scientists say poses an unacceptable risk.
Many energy and environment experts see such a doubling as a foregone conclusion sometime after midcentury unless there is a prompt and sustained shift away from the 20th-century pattern of unfettered burning of coal and oil, the main sources of carbon dioxide, and an aggressive quest for expanded and improved nonpolluting energy options.
Even an increased level of warming that falls in the middle of the group’s range of projections would likely cause significant stress to ecosystems and alter longstanding climate patterns that shape water supplies and agricultural production, according to many climate experts and biologists.
While the new report projected a modest rise in seas by 2100 — between 7 and 23 inches — it also concluded that seas would continue to rise, and crowded coasts retreat, for at least 1,000 years to come. By comparison, seas rose about 6 to 9 inches in the 20th century.
John P. Holdren, an energy and climate expert at Harvard University, said that the “report powerfully underscores the need for a massive effort to slow the pace of global climatic disruption before intolerable consequences become inevitable.” [Read a report by Mr. Holdren. (PDF format)]
“Since 2001 there has been a torrent of new scientific evidence on the magnitude, human origins and growing impacts of the climatic changes that are underway,” said Mr. Holdren, who is the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “In overwhelming proportions, this evidence has been in the direction of showing faster change, more danger and greater confidence about the dominant role of fossil fuel burning and tropical deforestation in causing the changes that are being observed.”
The conclusions came after a three-year review of hundreds of studies of clues illuminating past climate shifts, observations of retreating ice, warming and rising seas, and other shifts around the planet, and a greatly expanded suite of supercomputer simulations used to test how earth will respond to a building blanket of gases that hold heat in the atmosphere.
The section released today was a 20-page summary for policymakers, which was approved early this morning by teams of officials from more than 100 countries after three days and nights of wrangling over wording with the lead authors, all of whom are scientists.
It described far-flung ramifications for both humans and nature.
“It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent,” said the summary.
Generally, the scientists said, more precipitation will fall at higher latitudes, which are likely also to see lengthened growing seasons, while semi-arid, subtropical regions already chronically beset by drought could see a further 20-percent drop in rainfall under the midrange scenario for increases in the greenhouse gases.
The summary added a new chemical consequence of the buildup of carbon dioxide to the list of mainly climatic and biological impacts foreseen in its previous reports: a drop in the pH of seawater as oceans absorb billions of tons of carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid when partly dissolved. Marine biologists have said that could imperil some kinds of corals and plankton.
A vast improvement in the science of climatology — including “larges amounts of new and more comprehensive data” — has allowed the group to become far more confident and specific in its predictions, compared with its previous assessment in 2001, the authors said.
The report essentially caps a half-century-long effort to discern whether humans, through the buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases released mainly by burning fuels and forests, could influence the earth’s climate system in potentially momentous ways.
The group operates under the aegis of the United Nations and was chartered in 1988 — a year of record heat, burning forests, and the first big headlines about global warming — to provide regular reviews of climate science to governments to inform policy choices.
Government officials are involved in shaping the summary of each report, but the scientist-authors, who are unpaid, have the final say over the thousands of pages in four underlying technical reports that will be completed and published later this year.
Big questions remain about the speed and extent of some impending changes, both because of uncertainty about future population and pollution trends and the complex interrelationships of the greenhouse emissions, clouds, dusty kinds of pollution, the oceans and earth’s veneer of life, which both emits and soaks up carbon dioxide and other such gases.
But a broad array of scientists, including authors of the report and independent experts, said the latest analysis was the most sobering view yet of a century of transition — after thousands of years of relatively stable climate conditions — to a new norm of continual change.
Should greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at even a moderate pace, average temperatures by the end of the century could match those last seen 125,000 years ago, in the previous warm spell between ice ages, the report said.
At that time, the panel said, sea levels were 12 to 20 feet higher than they are now. Muych of that extra water is now trapped in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, which are eroding in some places.
The panel said there was no solid scientific understanding of how rapidly the vast stores of ice in polar regions will melt, so their estimates on new sea levels were based mainly on how much the warmed oceans will expand, and not on contributions from the melting of ice now on land.
Other scientists have recently reported evidence that the glaciers and ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic could flow seaward far more quickly than estimated in the past, and they have proposed that the risks to coastal areas could be much more imminent. But the I.P.C.C. is proscribed by its charter from entering into speculation, and so could not include such possible instabilities in its assessment.
Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, said the lack of clarity should offer no one comfort. “The speed with which melting ice sheets are raising sea levels is uncertain, but the report makes clear that sea levels will rise inexorably over the coming centuries,” he said. “It is a question of when and how much, and not if,” he said, adding: “While the conclusions are disturbing, decision makers are now armed with the latest facts and will be better able to respond to these realities.”
Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, which oversees the I.P.C.C. along with the meteorological group, said society now had plenty of information on which to act.
“The implications of global warming over the coming decades for our industrial economy, water supplies, agriculture, biological diversity and even geopolitics are massive,” he said. “This new report should spur policymakers to get off the fence and put strong and effective policies in place to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.”
The warming and other climate shifts will be highly variable around the world, with the Arctic particularly seeing much higher temperatures, said Susan Solomon, the co-leader of the team writing the summary and the section of the I.P.C.C. report on basic science. She is an atmospheric scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
The kinds of vulnerabilities are very much dependent on where you are, Dr. Solomon said in a telephone interview. “If you’re living in parts of tropics and they’re getting drier and you’re a farmer there are some very acute issues associated with even small changes in rainfall — changes we’re already seeing are significant,” she said. “If you are an Inuit and you’re seeing your sea ice retreating already that’s affecting your lifestyle and culture.”
The 20-page summary is a sketch of the findings that are most germane to the public and world leaders.
The full I.P.C.C. report, thousands of pages of technical background, will be released in four sections through the year — the first on basic science, then sections on impacts and options for limiting emissions and limiting inevitable harms, and finally a synthesis of all of the findings near year’s end.
In a news conference in Paris, Dr. Solomon declined to provide her own views on how society should respond to the momentous changes projected in the study.
“I honestly believe that it would be a much better service for me to keep my personal opinions separate than what I can actually offer the world as a scientist,” she said. “My stepson, who is 29, has an utterly different view of risks than I do. People are going to have to make their own judgments.”
Some authors of the report said that no one could honestly point to any remaining uncertainties as justification for further delay.
“Policy makers paid us to do good science, and now we have high very scientific confidence in this work — this is real, this is real, this is real,” said Richard B. Alley, one of the lead authors and a professor at Penn State University. “So now act, the ball’s back in your court.”
Gee, I'm about to freeze my globally warmed a$$ off up here in Arkansas. It's only supposed to be in the mid teens tonight and in the low 40's tomorrow, that'll be like a heat wave.
Also, wonder where the gases came from millions of years ago when the earth warmed up for a period of hundreds of years. Since there weren't any humans on earth at least you can't blame that on us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
Has this been posted here before?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
So all of these world renowned scientist have finally come out today and said that we are the main driving force behind GW, and STILL some of you guys think it's BS. I love you guys but you are Nucking Futs.:D:icon_wink: I'm sure some of you can, and will dig up another article about how GW is crap, but I will take the word of these guys over some hired gun from Exxon.:laugh:
[quote=MattB;441946]So all of these world renowned scientist have finally come out today and said that we are the main driving force behind GW, and STILL some of you guys think it's BS. I love you guys but you are Nucking Futs.:D:icon_wink: I'm sure some of you can, and will dig up another article about how GW is crap, but I will take the word of these guys over some hired gun from Exxon.:laugh:[/quote
Even though I don't have any research to back this up I would expect there are as many prominent scientists that don't sign onto the global warming theory being caused by man made activities.
It was great and he is right. No different than Global Cooling. The earth gets warm and the earth cools over long periods of time. Period! Nothing but made up politics by the tree huggers, liberal educators (most all scientist are wrapped up in universities and the liberal garbage they spew) and politicians. And before anyone starts, yes I believe dearly in taking care of God's creation.Quote:
Originally Posted by kevnazbell
[quote=ARKDAWG02;442000]LOL. Lets see, I dont have any evidence or research but Im gonna say that many prominent scientist dont "sign on".Quote:
Originally Posted by MattB
Actually, no
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science...ort/index.html
"the group of climate experts unanimously linked the increase of average global temperatures since the mid-20th century to the increase of manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere"
Story Highlights
• Report scientist: Evidence of warming on the planet is unequivocal
• Scientists predict global temperature increases of 3.2-7.1 degrees F by 2100 (not exactly normal heating and cooling of the earth, Tyler :D )
• Sea levels could rise between 7 and 23 inches by the end of the century
[quote=altadawg;442046]Good points, alta. Now what are you going to do to help stop gw?Quote:
Originally Posted by ARKDAWG02
White House Rejects Mandatory CO2 Caps
By John Heilprin
The Associated Press
Friday 02 February 2007
Washington - Despite a strongly worded global warming report from the world's top climate scientists, the Bush administration expressed continued opposition Friday to mandatory reductions in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman warned against "unintended consequences" - including job losses - that he said might result if the government requires economy-wide caps on carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
"There is a concern within this administration, which I support, that the imposition of a carbon cap in this country would - may - lead to the transfer of jobs and industry abroad (to nations) that do not have such a carbon cap," Bodman said. "You would then have the U.S. economy damaged, on the one hand, and the same emissions, potentially even worse emissions."
President Bush used the same economic reasoning when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, an international treaty requiring 35 industrial nations to cut their global-warming gases by 5 percent on average below 1990 levels by 2012. The White House has said the treaty would have cost 5 million U.S. jobs.
"Even if we were successful in accomplishing some kind of debate and discussion about what caps might be here in the United States, we are a small contributor to the overall, when you look at the rest of the world. And so it's really got to be a global solution," Bodman said.
The United States each year contributes about a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, though the share from China, India and other developing countries also is growing.
Bodman said he would make the same argument against carbon caps even if the U.S. share were larger. He and other administration officials at a news conference praised the report Friday by a United Nations- sponsored panel of hundreds of climate scientists from 113 governments, who said there is little doubt the earth is warming as a result of man-made emissions.
But Bodman said technology advancements that will cut the amount of carbon emissions, promote energy conservation, and hasten development of non-fossil fuels can address the problem.
"This administration's aggressive, yet practical strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is delivering real results," added Stephen Johnson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
More than a half-dozen bills have been introduced, mostly by Democrats, calling for some form of mandatory carbon controls in the United States. Democrats newly in control of Congress and other critics of Bush's environmental policies pounced on the long-awaited U.N. report like fresh meat.
"This puts the final nail in denial's coffin," said Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., head of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., a senior member of House panels on energy and natural resources, said he hoped it wouldn't take until Groundhog Day two years from now, when a new president is in the White House, to alter course in the United States.
"It sounds like the Bush administration, having seen the very real shadow of scientific evidence of global warming, has chosen to go back into its hole of denial by saying that it will not support measures to reduce global warming and its disastrous affects on our economy and environment," Markey said.
The White House issued a statement less than four hours after the report's release defending Bush's six-year record on global climate change, beginning with his acknowledgment in 2001 that the increase in greenhouse gases is due largely to human activity.
It said Bush and his budget proposals have devoted $29 billion to climate-related science, technology, international assistance and incentive programs - "more money than any other country."
Bush has called for slowing the growth rate of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, which averages 1 percent a year, but has rejected government-ordered reductions. Last week he also called for a 20 percent reduction in U.S. gasoline consumption over the next 10 years.
"This report really provides strong weight behind those saying we need much stronger action" from the United States and other nations, said Robert Watson, the World Bank's chief spokesman on global warming and former chairman of the U.N. scientific panel responsible for evaluating the threat of climate change.
-------
Jump to today's Truthout Features:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Can someone educate me on how gw is hurting our economy-not trying to be a smart ass.Quote:
"It sounds like the Bush administration, having seen the very real shadow of scientific evidence of global warming, has chosen to go back into its hole of denial by saying that it will not support measures to reduce global warming and its disastrous affects on our economy and environment," Markey said.
[quote=altadawg;442046]It's out there, just many choose to ignore it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ARKDAWG02
I thought that guy on that site I linked had some pretty good stuff:
1) "The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution."
2) "CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks ( Figure 1). Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.
As illustrated in this chart of Ice Core data from the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.
Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward."
3) "Total human contributions to greenhouse gases account for only about 0.28% of the "greenhouse effect" (Figure 2). Anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises about 0.117% of this total, and man-made sources of other gases ( methane, nitrous oxide (NOX), other misc. gases) contributes another 0.163% .
Approximately 99.72% of the "greenhouse effect" is due to natural causes -- mostly water vapor and traces of other gases, which we can do nothing at all about. Eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change"
4) Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants
5) At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
That looks like some pretty good information to me (and there's much more on the same site). There are many out there saying the same thing, but the media has decided to ignore them and focus on what a bad citizen of the world the USA is.
Remember, the UN is generally anti US, so anything that comes from there should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.
[QUOTE=DawgyNWindow;442079]DNW, mankinds contribution to gw started about 8000 to 7500 years ago when agriculture replace wandering food gathering in Mesopotamia and China. Large forests were slashed and burned for fertilizer, houses and fuel thereby put large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Nothing like today's burning of fossil fuels but still enough to affect the climate of the planet. 3000 years later mankind introduced irrigated rice fields which caused a large increase in methane, another, even more potent greehouse gas. Anyway, the historical trend for CO2 levels 8000 years ago was headed in a downward trend based on the changes in the orbital controls. Since then, CO2 levels have been rising when they should have been falling. The same hold true for methane: observed trend is up while the natural trend was down.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
In the past, gw has occurred because the axis of the planet and its orbit brought it closer to the Sun. Whenever this happens every 22000 years, the global temperature goes up BUT levels of CO2 don't go up until 2000 to 4000 years later. Today, the orbit controls are such that average global temperatures should be going DOWN but in fact they are going UP and CO2 levels are going up yearly. Hence, it is easy to see that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is causing the increase in Global Temperature and not orbital controls.
The statement that Atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising for the last 18000 years is false. CO2 levels peaked at ~268 ppm around 12500 years ago and were at 260ppm 8000 years ago when mankind started burning wood on a large scale. If there had been no interference from human activities, the atmospheric CO2 level today would have been 240 ppm. Today the atmospheric CO2 level is ~383 ppm.
Without making this post too long, let just briefly touch on the carbon cycle. CO2 is the main method carbon is moved around from the oceans, land and air. The oceans contain 40,000 billion tons of carbon, fossil fuels about 4000 to 6000 billion tons, and the land (soils and plants) about 3000 billion tons. Anyway, some of this carbon is moving from one reservior to another over long time frames and not so long time frames. 60 billion tons of CO2 is released from the land by decomposition but 62 billion tons taken up by photosynthesis. 90 billion tons of CO2 is released by the oceans by waves breaking on shore but 92 billion tons is taken up by the ocean by physical and chemical processes. The reason those two segments are not balanced is because burning of fossil fuels releases 6 billion tons of CO2 and the 2 extra billion tons plus the 1.5 billin tons of CO2 from deforestation worldwide adds 3.5 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. This yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 is causing today's gw.
DnW, true that CO2 comprises a very small part of atmospheric gases. But it is a very important part. If the atmosphere had no CO2 the average global temperature would be 12F. That sounds cold to me.
[quote=altadawg;442046]Quote:
Originally Posted by ARKDAWG02
So I guess these are the only scientists in the world or are the ones that sign on to GW the only ones you give recognition to?
[quote=ARKDAWG02;442234]yes, apparently the ipcc has purged itself of the many dissenting scientists that dissagreed with their report several years ago. these people have appointed themselves as the final devine arbiters of what is and is not science.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
"some of the members of the panel disagree with us, so they must not be real scientists. get rid of them and replace them with people who agree with us."
very scientific...:rolleyes:
(now i have to change my avatar)
The real deal?
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists
Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007
Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.
Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.
Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.
Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.
The series (see link below to view topics)
Statistics needed -- The Deniers Part I
Warming is real -- and has benefits -- The Deniers Part II
The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science -- The Deniers Part III
Polar scientists on thin ice -- The Deniers Part IV
The original denier: into the cold -- The Deniers Part V
The sun moves climate change -- The Deniers Part VI
Will the sun cool us? -- The Deniers Part VII
The limits of predictability -- The Deniers Part VIII
Look to Mars for the truth on global warming -- The Deniers Part IX
Limited role for C02 -- the Deniers Part X
Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.
"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."
Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.
All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.
"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."
The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.
Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."
The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.
In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.
CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.
"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."
Lawrence Solomon@nextcity.com
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/s...6fef8763c6&k=0
TT, if it suited your political purposes, you would probably deny that the Sun shines and would quote scientists who supported your position. The plain fact of the matter is that average global temperature is going up and sea levels are rising. Those are 2 facts you can't deny if though you constantly try to do so.. What has been the subject of debate is the cause of this global warming and it is very clear to most thinking people that our burning of large quantities of fossil fuels is the culprit. The very, very few scientists who don't agree are usually tainted by industry money $$$$.
I agree with all of that Salty.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
My point is, as a petroleum geologist, I have studied literally hundreds of the following times in geologic history where you state:
"The plain fact of the matter is that average global temperature is going up and sea levels are rising." As well as their opposite, global temps going down and sea levels falling. These events have provided important marker beds in the subsurface as well as some present day exposures that are key in exploration and understanding the earth. It is one of the basic laws of geology. Therefore, it means little to me other than where we fit, as humans, on the earths graph of current changes. But GOD made the earth this way, as proven throughout it's geologic history in the rock record, time and time again. Now whether man is increasing that rate of change by a dangerous pitch is the question. The media and politicians using some basic science as a their own potential football and wedge against various industries as well as against evil America and it's energy consuming citizens is new.
i agree that global temperatures go up and down based on the orbital controls. That is the way God made things. However, God did not say in the Bible that we should dump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere the result of which is to disrupt His plan for global temperature. Like I said earlier, under God's plan global temperatures should be going down but in fact are increasing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS
The real danger of this global warming event that is currently taking place is that we don't really know how the planet is going to react to the continuing rise in CO2 levels. There is a real possibility that some unforeseen change could occur that would make our forecasts of future climate not valid since they are based on increment change.
Clearly, we are going to keep using energy.....but we should develop alternative fuels and collect some of the CO2 that fossil fuels emit. In other words, slow down the rate at which we are dumping Co2 into the atmosphere.
I can also agree with those ideas.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
I'll give one example. There are hundreds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Do any of you guys like seafood? Crab, Tuna, Shrimp, Halibut? Not to mention all the wonderful local food from the Gulf region?
Gone. Done. Absolutely will NOT be available in 2 to 3 generations. Species and the sub-species that they feed one are dying off. They are losing areas to breed in because of GW and pollution factors.
Have you guys ever heard of the dead zones in the Gulf and in Parts of the Chesapeake, and in others areas of the world? Growing fast. Or the balls of garbage, some the size of small cities, that have been found floating in the Pacific? I only wish I was kidding.
Plus, consumption is forcing too much fishing. Only two things can result. Incredibly high prices with serious cull restrictions, or existinct spieces. Either way, not good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Sounds like somebody needs to read "State of Fear" and "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
That is pretty serious. I'll ask you again, though. What are you, as an individual who is firmly entrenched in the belief that man is the cause of gw, going to do to stop your dependency on the products created by the processes that produce the gases that are causing gw?Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
What he said.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
9701, seriously, educate yourself with something other than what you want to hear and believe. Sometimes the truth is "inconvenient" as Gore would say. What alta has stated is already happening at an alarming pace. The facts are there, easy to see, and not some made up propaganda by some bozo editorial writer backed by some bozo scientist.
DD, I have done very little to nothing. Switched from a gas guzzler to a more efficient mainly because I have better things to spend my money on other than $2+ gallon gas. We switched light bulbs to those economical kind in our home mainly because my child has breathing problems that I blame on the coal burning plant located nearby. Also, the same reason I won't string Christmas lights or burn any other unnecessary light in my home. I figure every ounce of coal I save from being burned will not end up as pollution to make her problems worse.
The most important thing I can think of is having leadership in this country who actually believes in manmade global warming and will steer the country (and the globe) in the direction of solutions. We are smart enough and capable enough to prevent this environmental disaster, but it starts with leadership with a vision to move us to those solutions. Two more years of this is administration is two too many in my opinion.
Dogtor, Timothy Ball claims that CO2 is not causing global warming and yet he doesn't explain what is. Don't you find that a bit strange?Quote:
Originally Posted by DogtorEvil
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
From the article:
Quote:
These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
DD, thanks for pointing that out to me. Unfortunately, that statement is NOT true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
We have a long historical record of the effect the changes of the earth's orbit has on our climate. According to where we are in those cycles, we should be headed into a period where the average global temperature is DECREASING.
The solar output has been more or less constant the past 50 years.
The biggest change has been the increase in atmospheric CO2, a known greenhouse gas. The historical records shows that as the climate changes with the orbital controls, atmospheric CO2 levels affect global temperatures.
Thousands of climate scientists say that atmospheric CO2 is causing our current global warming but a handful says it is something else. Reach your own conclusion.
That's interesting. I'm not going to try to counter what you say because as I've said, I haven't read enough about it, but according to the link the Dogtor posted, that climatolgist mentions the fact that CO2 isn't even a greenhouse gas. According to what I interpretd from reading that article, the gw scientists accepted that CO2 was a factor for gw without having proof of it and still don't. If there is hard definitive proof that this expert is wrong, then why would he come straight out with such bold statements that can be definitively proven false? The same goes with the whole gw debate. If the arguments for gw or so definitively provable, then why would real scientists risk their reputation giving information that can be proven false without a doubt. Is there any research available that proves without a doubt that CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
DD, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is well established. The greenhouse gases are what keep the earth warm. While CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, if it were all removed the average global temperature would be 12F. Venus has an atmosphere that is mostly CO2 and its surface temperature is very, very hot, about 1400F if I recall correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Timonthy Ball looks to be senile. The other scientists who speak against gw just want the publicity or industry $$$$.
Here is a link for some educational material for grades 6 thru 8. The kids today are getting a lot better science than I did!:D
http://cmaps.coexplorer.net/servlet/...tName=htmltext
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Where do the gw scientists get their funding?
Isn't Venus also alot closer to the sun? What is the temperature of Mercury? How do we know that Venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2 because of how hot it is and not vice versa? How do we know that the elevated CO2 levels we have in the atmosphere aren't a result of higher temps on Earth because of a hotter sun cycle instead of higher temps on earth because of higher CO2 levels? Also, where is the literature pointing to the proof that Co2 is a greenhouse gas?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
i agree that if earth had a 100% CO2 atmosphere it would not be as hot as Venus because Earth is further from the Sun. Likewise, if Mars has a cold temperature because it is further away from the Sun and doesn't have any CO2 in the atmosphere. Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere because it is so close to the Sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
Yeah, where is the proof in the literature that homo sapiens is an intelligent creature. Prove that if you can!:laugh:
So are you saying there is no definitive scientific testing proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg