Global Warming Update/s [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : Global Warming Update/s

Pages : 1 [2] 3

KV1M

04-26-2008, 06:26 PM

Good, I can double mine and feel guiltless. I'll be using your carbon credits! :D

Really? You gonna pay for those?
If not keep feeling guilty, I'm not giving them to you.

N4VGB

04-26-2008, 06:34 PM

Really? You gonna pay for those?
If not keep feeling guilty, I'm not giving them to you.

Sorry dude, no credits for you in London, they're mine by default! :D

n2ize

04-26-2008, 06:55 PM

That's very funny, since there is a verified drop in global average temperature on earth also!

I think your referring to recent data from Hadley that showed a short term temperature dip. I already addressed that at length in another thread and pointed out that similar (and even larger) dips have occured over the past 50 = 100 years as indicated via the HADCRUT3 data sets. Yet they are not indicative of a cooling trend and the overall trend still indicates a rising temp, i.e. warming trend.

I don't have the data sitting right in front of me at the moment. But you can probably find it here.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/

N4VGB

04-26-2008, 07:00 PM

I think your referring to recent data from Hadley that showed a short term temperature dip. I already addressed that at length in another thread and pointed out that similar (and even larger) dips have occured over the past 50 = 100 years as indicated via the HADCRUT3 data sets. Yet they are not indicative of a cooling trend and the overall trend still indicates a rising temp, i.e. warming trend.

I don't have the data sitting right in front of me at the moment. But you can probably find it here.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/

Researched all the data and drew my own conclusions. It's called independent thought! Try it, you might actually like it. :)

WARNING! It does cause headaches at times, uses up a lot of paper & ink cartridges also. :)

N1LAF

04-26-2008, 07:16 PM

KV1M

04-26-2008, 07:18 PM

Researched all the data and drew my own conclusions. It's called independent thought! Try it, you might actually like it. :)

WARNING! It does cause headaches at times, uses up a lot of paper & ink cartridges also. :)

You! Research! Independent thought!

You?!

BWAAAAHAHAHAAA!
Stop it Jethro! You're killin me here!

KV1M

04-26-2008, 07:22 PM

Todd, here is a SUV you may be able to live with:

2008 Ford Escape-Hybrid
The Escape Hybrid is an environmentally conscious car with a comfortable interior and tough exterior, but it can't match the driving dynamics or overall quality of top-class SUVs. It ranks in the middle of its class, a few spots behind the gasoline-powered Escape.

Like the Escape gas model, the hybrid version earns praise for providing a more comfortable ride and mature appearance with its redesign.

MSRP: $21,745 - $26,505
Invoice: $20,500 - $24,879
MPG: 34 City / 30 Hwy

http://usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/cars-trucks/2008-Ford-Escape-Hybrid/

I do like it, it's not the size but the fact they use these vehicle classes to by pass clean air and fuel economy regulation that I don't like.

Definitely a way to get the "must have giant vehicle to make up for diminished manliness/show off perceived wealth" crowd to clean up a little.

N4VGB

04-26-2008, 07:30 PM

Definitely a way to get the "must have giant vehicle to make up for diminished manliness/show off perceived wealth" crowd to clean up a little.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!! :D:D:D

The soccer moms around here are going to be shocked!!!

KV1M

04-26-2008, 07:32 PM

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!! :D:D:D

The soccer moms around here are going to be shocked!!!

Soccer moms are just making up for not having any, you know that.

N4VGB

04-26-2008, 07:35 PM

Soccer moms are just making up for not having any, you know that.

I thought it was to haul all those rug rats and sports gear? Try it in a Mini Cooper and get back to me. :eek:

KV1M

04-26-2008, 07:40 PM

I thought it was to haul all those rug rats and sports gear? Try it in a Mini Cooper and get back to me. :eek:

Nice try, going to the other extreme isn't going to work either.
My mom did just fine with me and my brother playing baseball, football and hockey driving us around in a 1976 Chevy Nova. Plenty of trunk space Jethro.
The I need a giant vehicle excuse is a cover. No soccer mom needs an SUV.

N4VGB

04-26-2008, 07:43 PM

Nice try, going to the other extreme isn't going to work either.
My mom did just fine with me and my brother playing baseball, football and hockey driving us around in a 1976 Chevy Nova. Plenty of trunk space Jethro.
The I need a giant vehicle excuse is a cover. No soccer mom needs an SUV.

Since the soccer moms around here are usually hauling a full load, their carbon footprint is a lot lower than your mom's was hauling only 2 of you around. Do some basic math. :)

KV1M

04-26-2008, 07:49 PM

Since the soccer moms around here are usually hauling a full load, their carbon footprint is a lot lower than your mom's was hauling only 2 of you around. Do some basic math. :)

3 kids (IF they are nice to the neighbors) and 2 soccer balls.

Sure they are.

N4VGB

04-26-2008, 07:56 PM

3 kids (IF they are nice to the neighbors) and 2 soccer balls.

Sure they are.

You are a strange bird. :p And must have lived in some strange places in the U.S. :rolleyes:

KC9IUX

04-26-2008, 09:35 PM

Our source of heat. (http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=812)

Why is it, fellas who's hobby is dependant on solar cycles, can't believe it?

n2ize

04-26-2008, 09:42 PM

Researched all the data and drew my own conclusions. It's called independent thought! Try it, you might actually like it. :)

WARNING! It does cause headaches at times, uses up a lot of paper & ink cartridges also. :)

That you researched all the data I very much tend to doubt. Of course we could ask you a few questions about the particular datasets you analyzed and the methodologies you utilized in your analysis but I'll spare you the added typing

KU0DM

04-26-2008, 09:43 PM

Researched all the data and drew my own conclusions. It's called independent thought! Try it, you might actually like it. :)

WARNING! It does cause headaches at times, uses up a lot of paper & ink cartridges also. :)

Wait, whenever I do that and post sources you claim I am being a parrot and that I am a "whelp" and that discredits me.

I say that all the time and you insist I am just parroting someone!

So I refuse to believe you parrot.

N4VGB

04-26-2008, 10:32 PM

Wait, whenever I do that and post sources you claim I am being a parrot and that I am a "whelp" and that discredits me.

I say that all the time and you insist I am just parroting someone!

So I refuse to believe you parrot.

It's just hard to believe anyone could look at all the sources and numbers and theories involved in this global warming issue and then sound just like Al.

n2ize

04-26-2008, 10:46 PM

It's just hard to believe anyone could look at all the sources and numbers and theories involved in this global warming issue and then sound just like Al.

Oh yeah, just like your theory about social security and gay marriage.

ac4r

04-26-2008, 11:02 PM

Doing my part to counter you carbon footprint guys ,9 mpg 3900 lb Jeep.

ad4mg

04-26-2008, 11:06 PM

Doing my part to counter you carbon footprint guys ,9 mpg 3900 lb Jeep.

Did you get to pop a cap in anyone on your ride?

KU0DM

04-26-2008, 11:12 PM

It's just hard to believe anyone could look at all the sources and numbers and theories involved in this global warming issue and then sound just like Al.

What do you think you have done to my sources?

Plus everyone else's...

AC0Y

04-26-2008, 11:29 PM

Below is a quote from Daily Tech. with support from some interesting agencies.
:p
"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it."

N4VGB

04-26-2008, 11:39 PM

What do you think you have done to my sources?

Plus everyone else's...

Nothing. You only believe the sources that support your view and discount all others. One PhD that says what you already believe is a true source and all others are false. I can't help anyone else on their approach to research and independent thought, I've got my approach and you've got yours.

And not a one of you guys on the Al Gore team have addressed a single question that I've ask you on the practical side of this issue. Every one of the industries that you shut down in the U.S. for environmental reasons has moved overseas, where there are little or zero environmental regulations. You have actually caused the amount of pollution dumped into the waters and atmosphere of this earth to increase by your own actions. Congratulations.

ad4mg

04-26-2008, 11:57 PM

3-D: Every one of the industries that you shut down in the U.S. for environmental reasons has moved overseas, where there are little or zero environmental regulations. You have actually caused the amount of pollution dumped into the waters and atmosphere of this earth to increase by your own actions. Congratulations.

Twisted logic. Number one, no industries are shut down for environmental reasons. The owners or stockholders may elect to shut them down if they cannot meet the requirements of environmental regulation.

By your twisted, distorted logic, it is the fault of those who have concerns for our environment that the greedy pigs running these "industries" have chosen to dump their toxic s**t on other countries in favor of their bottom line.

I say lets move any industries that feel disenfranchised by environmental regulation to your back yard.

I work in the construction industry, mostly heavy industry, and good companies invest in the proper equipment to make their operations environmentally sound. The profit driven bastard children of the neoconservative movement who don't give a damn about the environment are better off elsewhere.

You'll read one day where one of these pigs will be executed in a 3rd world country when the damage they cause is noticed. You may (or probably don't) recall a certain chemical corporation operating in India some time ago that caused catastrophic damage to the local environment, killing and maiming, and damaging generations of people in the name of corporate greed.

BP seems to dealing with similar issues.

It is the fault of the corporation if they cannot operate in a manner that isn't harmful to others. They choose to be environmental pigs. Regulation doesn't make them this way. Without regulation, they would all operate like the pigs that they are.

But I'm sure you, being the consummate expert on everything, have a different opinion.

n2ize

04-27-2008, 12:34 AM

Below is a quote from Daily Tech. with support from some interesting agencies.
:p
"Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

This is well understood and no, it doesn't "wipe out" 100 years of global warming any more than 1 or 2 days of poor sales nessesarilly "wipes out" a years worth of profits in business. The important factor is trend over time which is still upward. The 0.65-0.75 dec anomalie seen here is not unique. datasets from the same sources have shown similar anomalies over the past 100 years.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it."

Solar activity is definately a driver for climate. However, the idea that it is presently a larger driver than greenhouse gases is speculative at best. You might find the following interesting.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/BardDelaygue.pdf

N4VGB

04-27-2008, 12:37 AM

You'll read one day where one of these pigs will be executed in a 3rd world country when the damage they cause is noticed. You may (or probably don't) recall a certain chemical corporation operating in India some time ago that caused catastrophic damage to the local environment, killing and maiming, and damaging generations of people in the name of corporate greed.

But I'm sure you, being the consummate expert on everything, have a different opinion.

Remember it well indeed and you do recall it was an accident that brought it about, correct? Not at all any intentional action on the part of the company. Oh but what does that matter. Great thing that it was in India to make cheap batteries for you to use, I'm fine with it being in the U.S. and paying 3 times the price for batteries, how about you?

We've got as much or more crude oil than the middle east but if you had to pay the $10-12 per gallon for gasoline that would be necessary to extract and process crude in the U.S. on a large scale, you'd cry like a baby.

I live under nuke towers and sleep like a baby, may melt down tomorrow but I'm fairly sure it won't be done purposely. One of the largest TNT producers for the U.S. DoD was next door to me, it went KABOOM about twice a year and once accidentally dumped several thousand gallons of pure ammonia, that stuff will clear your sinuses right out! Had to pack up and leave home for a day, should have sued eh?

I'm semi-retired and don't have to do anything for a living. What about you, total economic collapse good for you also? I'll just be a spectator.

n2ize

04-27-2008, 12:46 AM

Nothing. You only believe the sources that support your view and discount all others. One PhD that says what you already believe is a true source and all others are false.

Actually it's a lot more than 1 Ph.D. More like the vast majority of the worlds most reputable climate researchers.

I can't help anyone else on their approach to research and independent thought, I've got my approach and you've got yours.

It's more a matter of science which, judging from you r postings here you clearly do not understand. Nor have you challenged a single scientific article that Duncan or I have posted here. One would think it would be a simple matter for you since you claim to have studied ALL the research.

And not a one of you guys on the Al Gore team have addressed a single question that I've ask you on the practical side of this issue.

Actually I have addressed several of your questions and have posted links to detailed articles discussing the questions you asked. You conveniently ignored each and every one.

Every one of the industries that you shut down in the U.S. for environmental reasons has moved overseas, where there are little or zero environmental regulations. You have actually caused the amount of pollution dumped into the waters and atmosphere of this earth to increase by your own actions. Congratulations.

What a load of hogwash. While it is true that some industries have fled overseas where they can exploit non-existant environmental standards and cheap labor please, don't blame the actions of greedy corporatists on Americans who want cleaner air and cleaner water.

Environmental regulations were a direct response to a serious and growing pollution problems that was (and still is to an extent) plaguing this nation and the world. Part of the reason we have cleaner water and cleaner air in parts of this country is due to environmental regulations and enforcement.

You are talking to intelligent men and women who are not taken in by such asinine hogwash.

N1LAF

04-27-2008, 12:52 AM

n2ize

04-27-2008, 01:09 AM

But the data does question the CO2 and temperature link. Every data piece I have seen has CO2 level change LAG temperature change, every time. That and CO2 is actually a trace gas, meaning a very small percentage, only 0.038% of atmospheric volume. Though it does have thermo properties, the small percentage in the atmosphere really makes it neglectable.

CO2 actually tracks better with human population than temperature.

Not exactly. The warming and cooling periods are extremely long, lasting many thousands of years. It not just a simple lead-lag but more like a lead..lag..then closely correlate the rest of the time.

As a greenhous gas CO2 works quite well else it might be snowing outside as I speak.

NL7W

04-27-2008, 02:04 AM

Not exactly. The warming and cooling periods are extremely long, lasting many thousands of years. It not just a simple lead-lag but more like a lead..lag..then closely correlate the rest of the time.

As a greenhouse gas, CO2 works quite well else it might be snowing outside as I speak.

Causes of Global Climate Change

Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output.

"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.

Major Causes of Global Temperature Shifts

(1) Astronomical Causes

* 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
* 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
* 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
* 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )

(2) Atmospheric Causes

* Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
* Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps

(3) Tectonic Causes

* Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
* Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.

For more details see:

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_233658.htm

Playing with Numbers

Global climate and temperature cycles are the result of a complex interplay between a variety of causes. Because these cycles and events overlap, sometimes compounding one another, sometimes canceling one another out, it is inaccurate to imply a statistically significant trend in climate or temperature patterns from just a few years or a few decades of data.

Unfortunately, a lot of disinformation about where Earth's climate is heading is being propagated by "scientists" who use improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, or faulty computer models to make analytical and anecdotal projections about the significance of man-made influences to Earth's climate.

During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image318.gif

Each year Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record." The UN's executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.

Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2). Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data (1).

A Matter of Opinion

Has man-made pollution in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases caused a runaway Greenhouse Effect and Global Warming?

Before joining the mantra, consider the following:

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 humans invented industrial pollution.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image160.gif

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.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image192.gif

NOTE: "Human additions" represent such a small percentage of the total Greenhouse Effect (0.28%) that they are barely visible in this "pie chart" at the scale represented.

Atmospheric concentrations of the various greenhouse gases have been adjusted for heat retention potential of each. For example, the global warming potential (GWP) of various man-made chloroflourocarbons (CFC's) range between 1,300 and 9,300 times greater potency as greenhouse gases than CO2. Methane has a GWP of about 21 and nitrous oxide a GWP of about 310.

Comparing greenhouse gases by strict concentration only, the total human component is somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2%, depending on whose numbers you use. Adjusted for GWP, the total human contribution to Earth's overall greenhouse effect is about 0.28%. For more information see the data behind the numbers.

4. If global warming is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere then does CO2 also cause increased sun activity too?

This chart adapted after Nigel Calder (6) illustrates that variations in sun activity are generally proportional to both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature (Figure 3).

Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be "effects" and our own sun the "cause".

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image191.gif

Makes me go, "Hmm..."

Reference: The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research) seminar, University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 6, 1998. Solar wind is used here as a measure of sun intensity.

These facts speak for themselves...

FUN FACTS about the Non-Pollutant CARBON DIOXIDE!

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.

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.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!

The case for a "greenhouse problem" is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
- Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."
- former President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are...
- former Vice President Al Gore (now, chairman and co-founder of Generation Investment Management-- a London-based business that sells carbon credits) (in interview with Grist Magazine May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An Inconvenient Truth)

"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming."
- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT)

"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."
- Dr. William Gray (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction ) (in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
- Petr Chylek (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia) Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting. (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."
- Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado. After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
- Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada -- recent quote from the Calgary Herald

n2ize

04-27-2008, 03:00 AM

Each year Government press releases declare the previous year to be the "hottest year on record." The UN's executive summary on climate change, issued in January 2001, insists that the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium. The news media distribute these stories and people generally believed them to be true. However, as most climatologists know, these reports generally are founded on ground-based temperature readings, which are misleading. The more meaningful and precise orbiting satellite data for the same period (which are generally not cited by the press) have year after year showed little or no warming.

Actually that is not true. Sattelite data has indeed shown warming both in accordance with terrestrial proxies and and to a degree which coincides with what scientists have predicted via simulation and models.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png

Dr. Patrick Michaels has demonstrated this effect is a common problem with ground- based recording stations, many of which originally were located in predominantly rural areas, but over time have suffered background bias due to urban sprawl and the encroachment of concrete and asphalt ( the "urban heat island effect"). The result has been an upward distortion of increases in ground temperature over time(2).
The "Urban heat island effect"has also been debunked. This is partly evident from the close correlation between sattelite and earth based proxies as illustrated in the links above. Further evidence nullifying the "UHIE" is discussed here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43

Satellite measurements are not limited in this way, and are accurate to within 0.1° C. They are widely recognized by scientists as the most accurate data available. Significantly, global temperature readings from orbiting satellites show no significant warming in the 18 years they have been continuously recording and returning data (1).
As mentioned above they have indeed shown warming.

Steve, if you're going to debunk modern science 20 year old disproven arguments are not gonna cut it.

NL7W

04-27-2008, 03:04 AM

Actually that is not true. Sattelite data has indeed shown warming both in accordance with terrestrial proxies and and to a degree which coincides with what scientists have predicted via simulation and models.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png

The "Urban heat island effect"has also been debunked. This is partly evident from the close correlation between sattelite and earth based proxies as illustrated in the links above. Further evidence nullifying the "UHIE" is discussed here.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43

As mentioned above they have indeed shown warming.

Steve, if you're going to debunk modern science 20 year old disproven arguments are not gonna cut it.

You haven't proved a thing. No supporting data. So typical. More politics run amok.

I have millions of years of Earth's history to back me up.

Next please...

W4DFW

04-27-2008, 03:07 AM

The problem is that it's a fact that warming on earth is global. Aerospace researchers belive that the melting of the polar cap on mars is a regional event and they further believe that globally Mars has endured a degree of global cooling rather than warming.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Does it strike anyone as odd that someone who believes in man-made global warming would suggest that "aerospace researchers belive <sic> that the melting of the polar cap on mars is a regional event . . " but can offer no readily accepted proof that man is behind the current claimed global warming and that regional events are just as likely on Earth as they are on Mars?

Hmmm. . . .

N4VGB

04-27-2008, 03:16 AM

Steve, if you're going to debunk modern science 20 year old disproven arguments are not gonna cut it.

Don't you get it Steve!? See the response? N2IZE master of the universe!? And on top of that he's probably sucking up or planning to suckup some of that free grant money to research his newly created science.

Steve, you have some that propagate the theories for their own purposes and others who can't believe they're not the masters of the universe and it suits their view of themselves to be the despoilers and saviors of the world. It makes them in control!

Great presentation with facts that are still being used in the debate by the top PhDs in the world, no matter what our resident perpetual grad student says.

Sometimes I hope the trajectory projections on Apophis are actually wrong and it is going to smack the crap out of the earth. Can't wait to hear the masters of the universe cure for that one.

KU0DM

04-27-2008, 03:26 AM

W4DFW

04-27-2008, 03:28 AM

Wow, take a blow to the head lately? :p

I don't think you know sarcasm when you hear it.

............Bob

KU0DM

04-27-2008, 03:29 AM

As the man quotes a ":p"

Got Emoticons?

N4VGB

04-27-2008, 03:36 AM

Wow, take a blow to the head lately? :p

I know it hurts kid, but it's the truth. :):):)

KU0DM

04-27-2008, 03:40 AM

I know it hurts kid, but it's the truth. :):):)

Is it truth or sarcasm?

One thinks it truth, the other sarcasm.

Make up your minds! :p

n2ize

04-27-2008, 03:45 AM

Don't you get it Steve!? See the response? N2IZE master of the universe!? And on top of that he's probably sucking up or planning to suckup some of that free grant money to research his newly created science.

Steve, you have some that propagate the theories for their own purposes and others who can't believe they're not the masters of the universe and it suits their view of themselves to be the despoilers and saviors of the world. It makes them in control!

Great presentation with facts that are still being used in the debate by the top PhDs in the world, no matter what our resident perpetual grad student says.

Sometimes I hope the trajectory projections on Apophis are actually wrong and it is going to smack the crap out of the earth. Can't wait to hear the masters of the universe cure for that one.

There's an old saying that goes "be careful what you wish for".

Still quite obsessed with my education eh ? You think about it an awful lot so I guess I've made quite an impression upon you.. You still haven't addressed a single solitary article pertaining to science that I presented here. I'm not at all surprised, frankly I don't think you can.

Ah well, it's getting late and I've overstayed my time here. I guess you'll be carrying the ZED through the night and through the morning. Maybe I'll drop in sometime tomorrow and se how yer doin. meanwhile enjoy the overnight.

n2ize

04-27-2008, 03:53 AM

You haven't proved a thing. No supporting data. So typical. More politics run amok.

I have millions of years of Earth's history to back me up.

Next please...

Ha...yeah right Steve... sure,,,anything you say. :D:D and to think I almost missed this gem. This is one of the funniest BS flub outs I've ever read. One word of advice. If you go back to school (as you once mentioned you may) don't try this technique on your teachers. They might not appreciate your sense of humor and hold it against your grade.

n2ize

04-27-2008, 03:59 AM

Does it strike anyone as odd that someone who believes in man-made global warming would suggest that "aerospace researchers belive <sic> that the melting of the polar cap on mars is a regional event . . " but can offer no readily accepted proof that man is behind the current claimed global warming and that regional events are just as likely on Earth as they are on Mars?

Hmmm. . . .

You are absolutely right. For once I entirely agree with you. I offered no proof. There is no proof. Proof is virtually meaningless in science.

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/behavior/e&be_notes/E&BE_04_Sci_Meth&Philo.pdf

http://www.carlton.srsd119.ca/chemical/Proof/default.htm

KU0DM

04-27-2008, 04:03 AM

I have millions of years of Earth's history to back me up.

Millions of years ago, did they:

Have a population as large as today?
Significant concentrations of these people?
Cars?
Fossil fuel powered power plants?
Increased overall waste?
Grow at astounding rates?

What happened in the last "million years" can't really be compared to today's situation, because of the fact that many independent variables simply weren't around then, and a few that WERE around then, aren't necessarily around now.

N4VGB

04-27-2008, 04:30 AM

Don't panic, we're all tiny insignificant beings. Not at all rulers of even this tiny planet we inhabit. It's amazing that we lasted this long. Five great extinctions of this planet have been completed in the past and number six may be underway. None of the past ones were from the actions of the inhabitants of the planet and this one isn't either. :):):)

n2ize

04-27-2008, 04:51 AM

N4VGB

04-27-2008, 05:04 AM

If thats your excuse to remain ignorant and dismiss science then you have that right. It doesn't mean the rest of society will follow you.

And I'm supposedly obsessed with your education!? There's no room in there for anybody else, you've got all the love one man can stand from himself. :p

I believe that was very current science that Steve presented you, you just choose to ignore it. Cool it, you'll probably be successful in sucking up those grants and remaining hidden in academia forever. :p

Just keep setting the hook in the mouth of the suckers and reeling them in. Hope you catch a limit every day. ;)

W4DFW

04-27-2008, 05:34 AM

n2ize

04-27-2008, 06:11 AM

Well, you got us there.

I won't even go back millions of years, but a few thousand. 10 to 15 thousand years ago the glaciers that covered much of central North American down into the US of A began to melt. There were no cars then. I'm unsure of the concentration of people, as that issue seems to wax and wain a bit depending . . .

Most probably, there were no fossil fueled power plants, but I could be wrong.
I will stand corrected if some lib'rul socialist can show that man caused the glaciers that covered much of the US of A to melt.

Uh ? did it ever occur to you that things can happen for different reasons ? Or do you take great pride in stupid ?

N1LAF

04-27-2008, 11:50 AM

Millions of years ago, did they:

Have a population as large as today?
Significant concentrations of these people?
Cars?
Fossil fuel powered power plants?
Increased overall waste?
Grow at astounding rates?

What happened in the last "million years" can't really be compared to today's situation, because of the fact that many independent variables simply weren't around then, and a few that WERE around then, aren't necessarily around now.

The point is that it is possible that todays temperature changes are naturally occurring, not man made. To not take this (naturally occurring) approach as a possibility to explain temperature variations, is being close minded.

There are more 'evidence' that Steve has not pointed out, but I will. This takes place during the past 10,000 years, so it is recent history in terms of total earth history.

Up to the beginning of the Holocene, the earth was in the grips of a glacial period. Keep in mind that technically, we are still in the ice age. When the earth entered the interglacial period, there had to been a massive melt that occurred, that would have made our very recent warm up look small. Fast enough that in 3000 years, wooded forests developed in Canada, where it has glacial ice right now. The location - Garibaldi Provincial Park, some
40 mi (60 km) north of Vancouver, British Columbia

During this recent warming, one of the glaciers in Canada has been uncovering well preserved tree stumps. These stumps are still rooted, with an estimated age of 7000 years.

1. Over 7000 years ago, and after the last glacial period, this Garibaldi Provincial Park area was warm enough to support this forest.

2. A recent colder period between now and 7000 years ago, the glaciers expanded over this forest. Existing world wide glacier ice has been constantly expanding and retreating for the past 7000 years.

3. This wasn't a 'regional' event.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Fast-Melting-Glaciers-Expose-7-000-Years-Old-Fossil-Forest-69719.shtml

Johannes Koch of The College of Wooster in Ohio, who based his doctoral thesis (published on Oct. 31 at the Geological Society of America annual meeting in Denver) at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, British Columbia on this discovery.

The life time of these trees also shows the age of the local glaciers. "The pristine condition of the wood can best be explained by the stumps having spent all of the last seven millennia under tens to hundreds of meters of ice. All stumps were still rooted to their original soil and location. Thus they really indicate when the glaciers overrode them, and their kill date gives the age of the glacier advance. The recently warming climate released the stumps from their icy tombs," said Koch.

Koch made a comparison between the death time of these trees and others encountered in the Canadian southern and northern Coast Mountains of British Columbia and the mid- and southern Rocky Mountains to similar findings from the Yukon Territory, Alps, New Zealand and South America. The age of the Canadian fossil trees matched that of Oetzi, the "Iceman" found in a glacier between Italy and Austria, and similarly well-preserved trunks from Scandinavian glaciers. "The radiocarbon dates seem to be the same around the world," said Koch.

N1LAF

04-27-2008, 12:10 PM

Can anyone explain this?

whale was preserved in the sediments of the Champlain Sea, an arm of the ocean that extended into the Champlain Valley for 2500 years following the retreat of the glaciers 12,500 years ago.

http://www.uvm.edu/whale/HowDidAWhaleGetInVermont.html

The Champlain Sea

The Champlain Sea was an inland arm of the Atlantic Ocean that flooded lowland areas following the retreat of the great continental ice sheets between 12,000 and 13,000 years ago. Ocean waters occupied areas depressed below sea level by the weight of continental ice sheets, ice sheets which at times were over a mile thick. Once the weight of the ice disappeared, the land slowly rebounded until it was once again above the level of the sea. (The elevation of present day Lake Champlain is approximately 95 feet above sea level.)

During its maximum extent, the Champlain Sea covered an area of over 20,500 square miles in portions of Ontario, Quebec, New York and Vermont. This area includes much of what is now the St. Lawrence River Valley, the lower Ottawa Valley and the Champlain Valley.

The general oceanographic conditions of the Champlain Sea are thought to be similar to those that presently exist in the James Bay region of Canada. Plant and animal communities in and around the Champlain Sea were likely similar to those that exist near the present Gulf of St. Lawrence, where species that inhabited the former inland sea are still found.

1. Glacier melt must have been much faster then compared to what we are seeing today

NL7W

04-27-2008, 09:19 PM

And I'm supposedly obsessed with your education!? There's no room in there for anybody else, you've got all the love one man can stand from himself. :p

I believe that was very current science that Steve presented you, you just choose to ignore it. Cool it, you'll probably be successful in sucking up those grants and remaining hidden in academia forever. :p

Just keep setting the hook in the mouth of the suckers and reeling them in. Hope you catch a limit every day. ;)

Personally, I've already sucked up $1.5M in competitive federal grant monies myself. IZE doesn't have the gumption to go after federal grant funding. It's just not in him... even though he claims to be a huge fan of the Federal Government -- desirous our citizens remain bloated-with-entitlements. He remains cloistered, hiding behind his degree(s).

I'll repeat these for those who won't refute in-kind, asking us to visit their hopelessly biased websites:

FUN FACTS about the Non-Pollutant CARBON DIOXIDE!

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.

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.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!

Then, there's the issue of REALCLIMATE.ORG... A Resolved Question

Is realclimate.org biased?
Realclimate.org is funded by Environmental Media Services, founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, [I]former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign.

EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications.

Fenton Communications client list includes organizations associated with a diverse array of social issues, but they are most known for their work with liberal causes such as MoveOn.org and Greenpeace.

Since that is such a 'leftward' bias already, and since the 'leftward' bias of AGW and GW is pretty much a known fact.

Doesn't that cast some doubt on realclimate.org? It's an award winning blog. A blog...

Doesn't that make you think realclimate.org has an agenda? All in all, more foolishness by Al Gore!

N9MOQ

04-27-2008, 09:23 PM

http://icanplainlysee.files.wordpress.com/2007/03/gw-inquisition.gif

NL7W

04-28-2008, 07:48 AM

http://i22.tinypic.com/solu6t.jpg

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2253/hoho2.jpg

http://i15.tinypic.com/65z2gew.jpg

Big Al's Carbon Footprint:
http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/1368/20070904je8.png

... and the coup de grâce:
http://i13.tinypic.com/8345tg1.jpg

Toodles!

n2ize

04-28-2008, 10:11 AM

And I'm supposedly obsessed with your education!? There's no room in there for anybody else, you've got all the love one man can stand from himself.

Again, I'll have respect for what you have to say regarding this topic when you challenge at least one of the scientific articles I linked to. Thus far you haven't addressed a single one. All you've done is try to put me down. That's not good debating.

I believe that was very current science that Steve presented you, you just choose to ignore it.

Actually its not current science and I didn't ignore it at all. I presented a scientific challenge to it. Both you and Steve chose to ignore the information I presented. No surprise there. It seems obvious that neither of you are interested in debating the topic in a scientifically challenging manner.

Cool it, you'll probably be successful in sucking up those grants and remaining hidden in academia forever. :p

I have been both in ther academic and corporate business world. I did well in both. I like the academic world. The work is very interesting, it keeps me on the forefront of my field, it pays well, and I enjoy the pleasure of helping others to learn new ideas which they will use to meet new and exciting challenges both today and tomorrow. I have the good fortune to be able to say that I love the kind of work I do. I live a good, full, life, I have a good home in a nice area and good friends and co workers. Even if you could offer me more money I would have to say, no thanks, I am quite contented and happy where I am, with my life and what I do. No need to change and no desire to change.

Just keep setting the hook in the mouth of the suckers and reeling them in. Hope you catch a limit every day. ;)

If you want to discuss climate change scientifically then lets discuss it scientifically. You asked a few questions and I gave my point of view and presented links to articles written by researchers explaining my points. Now, if you want to read those articles and comment on them in a respectful and scientific way, perhaps providing a link or two to your own articles then I am all ears and I would be happy to oblige you in a sensible conversation. But if you prefer to engage in childish put downs and attacks against my education, job, background, etc... while ignoring any scientific discussion that challenges your position then I am really not interested.

n2ize

04-28-2008, 10:48 AM

Then, there's the issue of REALCLIMATE.ORG... A Resolved Question
Is realclimate.org biased?
Realclimate.org is funded by Environmental Media Services, founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign.

EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications.

Fenton Communications client list includes organizations associated with a diverse array of social issues, but they are most known for their work with liberal causes such as MoveOn.org and Greenpeace.

Since that is such a 'leftward' bias already, and since the 'leftward' bias of AGW and GW is pretty much a known fact.

GW isn't left biased ? GW is a known and measured fact. AGW is a valid and well supported scientific theory. Neither the fact that GW is occurring nor AGW were created bythe left. They were created by researchers performing scientific analysis. GW and AGW have been politicized and transformed into a left versus right issue by predomiantly right wing and corporate interests and to a smaller extent by some left wing extremists. Personally I am not interested in GW or AGW from a left/right political perspective. Nor am I interested in what Al Gore has to say about it. Al Gore is not a climate researcher,he did not invent GW or AWG and I have no concern for Al Goreor his opinions. I am interested in it from strictly a scientific perspective. There has been far too much politicization of the subject which has detracted from the scientific basis of the subject.

Doesn't that cast some doubt on realclimate.org? It's an award winning blog. A blog...
[.
Doesn't that make you think realclimate.org has an agenda? All in all, more foolishness by Al Gore!

if you feel real climate is biased then challenge the content of the articles directly. read the articles I presented take a single point from one of the articles and challenge it with information from another reputable scientific source of information.

Realclimate in and of itself is not peer reviewed. Real climate articles are merely compilation summaries of information from other sources such as climate research organizations, i.e. NASA, NOAA, Hadley, Academic research facilities, etc.compiled by climate researchers. If you read any realclimate article you can readilly trace it's context to various sources that lie outside of realclimate itself including online sources, scientific journals, and even peer reviewed professional journals. Virtually anything appearing on realclimate can be sourced elsewhere.

Want to talk about this topic sensibly here's a challenge. One of your articles listed the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) as a source of corruption of earth temperature based proxy data. Lets focus on that issue alone. Forget Al Gore and everything else. Your scientist, I think his name was Michaels, claims that terrestrial based temperature proxies are innacurate due to urban sprawl and the UHIE, My articles contradict that and show that error correction techniques have paid off and earth based proxy data is indeed reasonably accurate, coincides with expected temperature change predicted by climate models, and, coincides with sattelite warming data.,

Now, want to discuss this in greater depth ? We can take it to the next level and discuss it in depth. Or continue on with Al Gore nonsense.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 01:55 PM

Want to talk about this topic sensibly here's a challenge. One of your articles listed the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE) as a source of corruption of earth temperature based proxy data. Lets focus on that issue alone. Forget Al Gore and everything else. Your scientist, I think his name was Michaels, claims that terrestrial based temperature proxies are innacurate due to urban sprawl and the UHIE, My articles contradict that and show that error correction techniques have paid off and earth based proxy data is indeed reasonably accurate, coincides with expected temperature change predicted by climate models, and, coincides with sattelite warming data.,

I'm sure there was a valid scientific reason for the official temp recording sensor to be between runways at the local airport. Sun on black asphalt runways doesn't effect temps does it? I'm pretty sure the constant jet wash wouldn't cause any inordinate spikes to be averaged into the temp would it? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

n2ize

04-28-2008, 08:14 PM

I'm sure there was a valid scientific reason for the official temp recording sensor to be between runways at the local airport. Sun on black asphalt runways doesn't effect temps does it? I'm pretty sure the constant jet wash wouldn't cause any inordinate spikes to be averaged into the temp would it? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Good point. Now here's my rebuttal. What you are saying would be a problem if there was only one thermometer and it was located on a hot runway. It might also be a problem if ALL thermometers used were located on hot runways. What changes the equation is that there are enormous multitudes of proxies located all over the world and in a wide range of locations. Futhermore, reasearches are a bit more clever than you think. Understanding that such conditions can cause serious temperature anomalies they go through great pains to correct for this type of error.

The links I provided above link to sources describing this. They also discuss the error corrections techniques and show that there is a correlation between warming shown by terrestrial proxies and predictive simulations and sattelite proxies. In light of that it would seem that although temperature proxies are subject to certain anomalous readings researchers have done a pretty good job to correct for the margin of error posed by such anomalous readings.

K4GUN

04-28-2008, 08:35 PM

I posed this question before and as I predicted, never got a reasonable answer from the "sky is falling" crowd. Let's take the position that GW is real. I'm not a climate expert, but I'll take on faith that it is real.

Let's get some real context here. Under current conditions and projections, how much is the global temerature expected to rise in the next 100 years? How much will the sea level rise in that time? Now, what would happen if human pollution were to be reduced by 50% starting tomorrow? What impact would that have on temperatures and sea levels? Now, take it down to zero. Let's say every last human died tomorrow and the last guy managed to bury the other 6 billion and turn off all the lights before offing himself with a lead-free bullet. What happens to global temperatures then?

I'm curious about the answer here. I want actual numbers here and not just a wild-arse guess. I have my suspicions about the answer, but I want to hear it from somebody who thinks they actually know.

K3XR

04-28-2008, 08:55 PM

Will Al Gump give his "prize" back??

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

NL7W

04-28-2008, 09:01 PM

There has been far too much politicization of the subject which has detracted from the scientific basis of the subject.

That's right, GW is hugely political -- espoused by the Left. The so-called scientific "truth" skewed by biased conclusions and summations by many in the politically astute scientific community -- relying on continued GivMint funding. Remember, I have exquisite experience with garnering [always] politically dependent federal grant monies -- to the tune of $1.5M. I know what goes on in plain sight and behind the scenes. What's your experience with the federal government's technical and scientific community?

I brought you real numbers concerning CO2 and how we puny humans contribute little to warming on a global scale. You choose to ignore them -- they make too much sense.

Meanwhile, my home of southcentral Alaska is forecasting periods of snow well into May -- all because of GW!

Toodles.

n2ize

04-28-2008, 10:33 PM

That's right, GW is hugely political -- espoused by the Left. The so-called scientific "truth" skewed by biased conclusions and summations by many in the politically astute scientific community

Actually that is not valid. The science behind GW and AGW was not politically biased . I would suggestyou read the book, "Censoring Science" by Mark Bowen.
Tryto read it objectively if you can.

-- relying on continued GivMint funding. Remember, I have exquisite experience with garnering [always] politically dependent federal grant monies -- to the tune of $1.5M. I know what goes on in plain sight and behind the scenes. What's your experience with the federal government's technical and scientific community?

Rest assured it's plentiful.

I brought you real numbers concerning CO2 and how we puny humans contribute little to warming on a global scale. You choose to ignore them -- they make too much sense.

Give me a chance to respond to them. if you would like to suspend the political bickering, the Al Gore nonsense, and the "I'm smarter than you" rhetoric and have a respectful discussion about science then I would be happy to oblige you. Set aside the "left versus right", the "hippie verus soldier", and all the silliness and talk about the subject sensibly I will do it with you.

Meanwhile, my home of southcentral Alaska is forecasting periods of snow well into May -- all because of GW!

And here in New York we had virtually no snow and a relatively mild winter with rain and thundershowers in January. In the Adirondack region of upstate NY many old timers are saying they have never seen the kind of warm winters they are seeing in recent years. The important point being that Gloobal clamate change deals with global glimate, not regional weather. If you would like to discuss this in a sensible, scientific, and gentlemanly manner with no hard feelings toward who may be right or wrong then I would be happy to talk it over with you.

It's your call.

n2ize

04-28-2008, 10:36 PM

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 10:41 PM

Okay... good point and very reasonable. Why don't you gather some information I will too and we will discuss it in a gentlemanly and sensible fashion with no hard feelings over who may be right or wrong. OK ?

Just exactly how would you expect to garner such unpredictable data for even starting that conversation!? Weird science 101!? Even the Gore shuns from such a discussion? Unless you're going to run that one about all the ice melting and all the land that is predicted to go under water? I kind of like the idea of fishing downtown Miami. :)

KC9IUX

04-28-2008, 10:48 PM

I'd make a detailed post, but I have tires to burn.

K4GUN

04-28-2008, 10:50 PM

Okay... good point and very reasonable. Why don't you gather some information I will too and we will discuss it in a gentlemanly and sensible fashion with no hard feelings over who may be right or wrong. OK ?

I appreciate that. I also realize that such numbers may not exist. I'm genuinely trying to figure a few things out so any context you can give with respect to temperature changes associated with reductions in human activity would be helpful. I seem to recall numbers relating to what will happen if all nations signed on to the Kyoto Protocol and I was a bit shocked at how little difference it made.

n2ize

04-28-2008, 10:52 PM

Just exactly how would you expect to garner such unpredictable data for even starting that conversation!? Weird science 101!? Even the Gore shuns from such a discussion? Unless you're going to run that one about all the ice melting and all the land that is predicted to go under water? I kind of like the idea of fishing downtown Miami. :)

Very simply. Examine it scientifcally. Look at what scientific simulations, modelling have predicted, look at alternative hypothesis and analyse or discuss it critically. People do it all the time.

n2ize

04-28-2008, 10:55 PM

I'd make a detailed post, but I have tires to burn.

Okay.Burn your tires you...POLLUTER, Then get back to us. :D

KC9IUX

04-28-2008, 10:59 PM

Raining, out of diesel.

Why is global warming a bad thing? Besides all the hysteria.

More plant friendly gas is bad? More plants are bad?

Longer growing seasons are bad?

KV1M

04-28-2008, 11:10 PM

Raining, out of diesel.

Why is global warming a bad thing? Besides all the hysteria.

More plant friendly gas is bad? More plants are bad?

Longer growing seasons are bad?

Flooded coastal cities and low lying areas are bad.
Lost agricultural area is bad.
Severe pollution from flooded cities is bad.
Loss of established ports is bad.
Poisoned fisheries from the toxic outflow from the flooded cities is bad.

There is a lot that can be very bad if the GW proponents are correct.
Worse than a thousand Katrinas bad.
Everywhere.

BTW Dilmus, if you wanna fish in poisoned waters you go to it girl!

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 11:14 PM

Flooded coastal cities and low lying areas are bad.

I still think fishing the flats of Miami would be fun. The Keys and all those bridges would make such great fish attractors. :D

KC9IUX

04-28-2008, 11:15 PM

KV1M

04-28-2008, 11:17 PM

I still think fishing the flats of Miami would be fun. The Keys and all those bridges would make such great fish attractors. :D

Might be at that, couldn't eat em though.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 11:20 PM

Where is all the flooding going to come from?

Antarctica?

The Arctic is floating ice, no rise possible.

The oceans are awfully darn big, it would be an incredible amount of water to raise water levels a fraction of an inch.

What are levels at today, compared to the last 100 years?

Darn low here at Lake MI.

You mean you haven't seen the Al Gore computer simulation of Florida and Bangladesh disappearing under the seas from all that melted ice, I believe he is stating 30+ meters of rise in sea levels from all that melted ice. It is a real yank my doodle dandy of a production and a must see for everyone. :)

NL7W

04-28-2008, 11:23 PM

Give me a chance to respond to them. if you would like to suspend the political bickering, the Al Gore nonsense, and the "I'm smarter than you" rhetoric and have a respectful discussion about science then I would be happy to oblige you.

BTW, I am smarter than you. :D I'm also much funnier; I am a happy, clinging to my guns and religion, Republican.

Do your research and dig deep now... I'll have my talking points all lined up to respond.

KV1M

04-28-2008, 11:25 PM

You mean you haven't seen the Al Gore computer simulation of Florida and Bangladesh disappearing under the seas from all that melted ice, I believe he is stating 30+ meters of rise in sea levels from all that melted ice. It is a real yank my doodle dandy of a production and a must see for everyone. :)
Yeah, 30 meters is a bit much. But I do think a 15 meter rise is very reasonable to expect, and more than enough to drown most of the port cities on the planet.

KV1M

04-28-2008, 11:27 PM

BTW, I am smarter than you. :D I'm also much funnier; I am a happy, clinging to my guns and religion, Republican.

Do your research and dig deep now... I'll have my talking points all lined up to respond.

Yup because talking points is all you have.
That's because you aren't smarter.
And you've never really been funny except to yourself.
It's been said the dumber you are the happier you'll be, so I guess you probably are pretty happy then.

NL7W

04-28-2008, 11:28 PM

Yeah, 30 meters is a bit much. But I do think a 15 meter rise is very reasonable to expect, and more than enough to drown most of the port cities on the planet.

Ah! Then the New World Order could get to build shining, new cities -- devoid of any historically conservative entanglements! How rapturous for the Libs!

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 11:29 PM

Yeah, 30 meters is a bit much. But I do think a 15 meter rise is very reasonable to expect, and more than enough to drown most of the port cities on the planet.

I'll take 15 meters, finishes of New Orleans and closes that money pit. ;)

KV1M

04-28-2008, 11:32 PM

Ah! Then the New World Order could get to build shining, new cities -- devoid of any historically conservative entanglements! How rapturous for the Libs!

Did I say that? Even imply it? Nope.
Probably be rebuilt by some NeoCon dictator, people always gravitate towards dictators in times of stress.

n2ize

04-28-2008, 11:33 PM

BTW, I am smarter than you. :D I'm also much funnier; I am a happy, clinging to my guns and religion, Republican.

Do your research and dig deep now... I'll have my talking points all lined up to respond.

Instead of talking points how about a scientific discussion ? Do you have some objection to a respectful scientific discussion ?

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 11:34 PM

Did I say that? Even imply it? Nope.
Probably be rebuilt by some NeoCon dictator, people always gravitate towards dictators in times of stress.

In that case we'll be recalling you from London! :p:p:p

NL7W

04-28-2008, 11:36 PM

Yup because talking points is all you have.
That's because you aren't smarter.
And you've never really been funny except to yourself.
It's been said the dumber you are the happier you'll be, so I guess you probably are pretty happy then.

I'll steal from my signature...

"There is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness." -- George Washington, First Inaugural Address, Apr. 30, 1789

"Republicans are generally happier because, "To be conscious of one's virtue is happiness."

In essence, right and wrong are known to conservatives; we know our bounds, and are happy with them. Whereas Libs know no moral or ethical bounds, lack virtue, and therefore will never attain reasonable happiness and satisfaction.

And, yes, I am happy. Here's why:

I appreciate living in the greatest Nation known to Mankind.
I appreciate the freedoms granted me by our forefathers' wisdom.
I appreciate and am happy that my singular vote counts; that my voice and vote is heard in local, state, and federal processes, and carries weight.
I appreciate the wisdom and forthrightness of our Nation's current Supreme Court.
I appreciate the ability to worship and glorify God in the manner of my choosing.
I appreciate, am thankful for, and am happy that Americans can live and work freely throughout our great Nation and it's possessions.
I am happy industrious persons in America can live their dreams. My family and I are living them today.
I am happy and thankful for my modest Alaskan home, land, Alaskan friends and Alaskans' independence and spirit.
I am happy and thankful for God's gift of varied experiences throughout my short lifetime thus far.

There is so much to be appreciative, thankful, and happy about in the greatest Nation on God's green Earth.

What are you happy about today?

Toodles.

N4VGB

04-28-2008, 11:39 PM

Instead of talking points how about a scientific discussion ? Do you have some objection to a respectful scientific discussion ?

That's been tried already, you discount all other sources of data except the ones you chose to believe.

KV1M

04-28-2008, 11:42 PM

Talking points Steve, and old ones at that.
Dusting them off so soon? Where's the new ones?

n2ize

04-28-2008, 11:52 PM

That's been tried already, you discount all other sources of data except the ones you chose to believe.

No, as I said before. I did not discount other sources. Just because I disagree does not imply I discount. I regarded those sources and then presented a challenge to them. That is how a debate on an issue works. One person presents a point then the other presents a counter point.

Again, you posed a few questions and I responded to them with references to scientific articles. You failed to respond to my counter points and instead preached lengthy sermons about my education, about "masters of the world" and other irrelevant nonsense while ignoring the counter points that I presented.

Based on the responses you have presented here I guess a respectful scientific discussion is not what you are interested in.

NL7W

04-29-2008, 12:06 AM

And you've never really been funny except to yourself.

Ah yes... only YOU would know this quality, eh? Your narcissism is rearing it's ugly head.

Watch your leftist supporters chime in -- too little, too late!

NL7W

04-29-2008, 12:09 AM

Talking points Steve, and old ones at that.
Dusting them off so soon? Where's the new ones?

Not happy, eh?

NL7W

04-29-2008, 12:13 AM

That's been tried already, you discount all other sources of data except the ones you chose to believe.

He's not very good at playing dodge-ball. He's getting whacked too often. His effort and agility are lacking.

N4VGB

04-29-2008, 12:22 AM

He's not very good at playing dodge-ball. He's getting whacked too often. His effort and agility are lacking.

Which one? :)

n2ize

04-29-2008, 12:29 AM

He's not very good at playing dodge-ball. He's getting whacked too often. His effort and agility are lacking.

Actually I haven't been "whacked" at all. I presented counterpoints to which neither of you were able to rebute. Then I even offered to engage a valid, scientific, discussion and both of you balked.

I can only conclude that a sensible, respectful scientific discussion is not something either of you are interested in. I can only imagine why.

N4VGB

04-29-2008, 01:01 AM

I can only conclude that a sensible, respectful scientific discussion is not something either of you are interested in. I can only imagine why.

Simple review of the previous posts in this thread readily make the answer apparent. You refuse to view the subject in any larger terms than the current "climatologists", who use their narrow view and comparatively very short hard data period to secure to themselves a bright future of taxpayer theft.

n2ize

04-29-2008, 01:23 AM

Simple review of the previous posts in this thread readily make the answer apparent. You refuse to view the subject in any larger terms than the current "climatologists", who use their narrow view and comparatively very short hard data period to secure to themselves a bright future of taxpayer theft.

Once again. You failed to respond to any of the challenges I presented. Why I can only imagine. My only guess is that you are not here to have rational discussions. Ah well it's up to you. Have a good overnight here on the ZED.

n0ov

04-29-2008, 02:01 AM

n2ize

04-29-2008, 02:36 AM

KC9IUX

04-29-2008, 02:48 AM

The end is near! (http://junkscience.com/blog_js/2008/04/25/ecochondria-is-not-new/)

N4VGB

04-29-2008, 02:52 AM

The end is near! (http://junkscience.com/blog_js/2008/04/25/ecochondria-is-not-new/)

Remeber it all very well. Different songs sung by different singers but the beat stays the same for 40 years, old music. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

n2ize

04-29-2008, 03:00 AM

Global warming and the Not Guilty verdict of the Police in New York City have one thing in common. Too many people with too little information jumping to conclusions.

The greatest difference --- New York Police -- 50 shots, two dead.

Global Warming --- many environmentalist shooting off their mouths, economy is not dead, but it has been wounded.......

Okay... So Global warming ain't happening. And all those scientists are jackasses. Keep on as you are. Stupid reigns supreme. Your children and grandchildren will thank you for it baby.

KC9IUX

04-29-2008, 03:06 AM

Okay... So Global warming ain't happening.

Short term? Yes it is.

Is it going to be a long term trend? Check the five day forcast. They can't see that far.

It could be over.

The upswing of sunspot activity might lead to a cooling trend.

NL7W

04-29-2008, 06:21 AM

Actually I haven't been "whacked" at all. I presented counterpoints to which neither of you were able to rebute. Then I even offered to engage a valid, scientific, discussion and both of you balked.

I can only conclude that a sensible, respectful scientific discussion is not something either of you are interested in. I can only imagine why.

Ah, you posted blog links -- which equate to nothing.

I posted a myriad of detailed data, which you have ignored. I posted an important snippet on Man's minuscule contribution to CO2 emissions, as compared to the rest of Earth's natural processes, and you punch your ignore button again.

Nice try on turning the tables -- it doesn't wash. :mad:

Go back to the drawing board... keep writing with your clandestine and invisible CO2-based dry-erase marker.

Toodles.

N4VGB

04-29-2008, 09:18 AM

I posted a myriad of detailed data, which you have ignored. I posted an important snippet on Man's minuscule contribution to CO2 emissions, as compared to the rest of Earth's natural processes, and you punch your ignore button again.

Asking for a civil scientific debate and then automatically discounting all counter data presented is, well, it's a bit strange?

Since we've got accord on the fact that water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas in the world and after watching the announcement of the first hydrogen fuel cell vehicle by Honda several times today. I can't help but wonder what would happen if all the vehicles on earth were instantly converted to hydrogen tomorrow? Hydrogen fueled vehicles emit water & water vapor from their tailpipes. Could we be shooting ourselves in the foot with this fuel option? :confused:

n2ize

04-29-2008, 02:52 PM

Asking for a civil scientific debate and then automatically discounting all counter data presented is, well, it's a bit strange?

Why is it strange ? Yet again and for the hundredth time. You presented questions and I provided a link to scientific articles addressing your questions which you refused to read or acknowledge or rebut. A civil debate does not mean I have to agree with you. A civil debate means you present a point and I present a counter point and we try to reason which of the two points is more valid. Often such debates lead nowhere however they do often serve as tools to raise awareness and further interest and deeper knowledge of the topics being discussed.

K4GUN

04-29-2008, 02:59 PM

Flooded coastal cities and low lying areas are bad.
Lost agricultural area is bad.
Severe pollution from flooded cities is bad.
Loss of established ports is bad.
Poisoned fisheries from the toxic outflow from the flooded cities is bad.

There is a lot that can be very bad if the GW proponents are correct.
Worse than a thousand Katrinas bad.
Everywhere.

BTW Dilmus, if you wanna fish in poisoned waters you go to it girl!

This post illustrates why so many people are so skeptical of the Algore diciples. This is also why I asked for more information on how global temperatures would be affected by a complete end to all pollution and human activity. I'd still like to hear from N2IZE on this matter, but I'm pretty sure what he will report is that global temperatures and sea levels would still rise by a considerable degree for a long time. They would not rise quite as much and would come down quicker. Is that about accurate?

Here's the problem with all of this. It means that according to the alarmists, global warming is inevitable. If its inevitable, then why in the hell are we still scrambling around trying to change consumer choices? Very clearly, the priority needs to be moving huge numbers of people away from the coasts, evaucating the cities, cleaning up everything that will be under water in a few years and finding places for everybody to live. In addition, we need to be figuring out how the maximize crops in new areas and how to shift everything North in terms of growing seasons.

Nobody is talking about this stuff. If they truly believe that GW is as inevitable as they have claimed, this would be the topic of discussion. The fact that its not tells me there is another agenda. That agenda seems to revolve around making the US less competitive, vehicles less fun to drive and taking away consumer choices. It looks suspiciously like a deception to get Americans other free people to be less free.

When Algore starts making plans to relocate Miami, New York, and New Orleans, I'll start taking him more seriously. According to him, we don't have too much longer.

N4VGB

04-29-2008, 03:11 PM

Why is it strange ? Yet again and for the hundredth time. You presented questions and I provided a link to scientific articles addressing your questions which you refused to read or acknowledge or rebut. A civil debate does not mean I have to agree with you. A civil debate means you present a point and I present a counter point and we try to reason which of the two points is more valid. Often such debates lead nowhere however they do often serve as tools to raise awareness and further interest and deeper knowledge of the topics being discussed.

Then quit sniveling. Thou hast espoused thine self as an analytical data expert. Plug us in some numbers on what happens if all motorized vehicles in the world convert to hydrogen as fuel. Should be a simple matter of replacing the CO2 numbers with the amount of water vapor emitted by hydrogen fueled vehicles? Since water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas in the world and hydrogen is espoused as the logical replacement for gasoline in the world, some rapid studies on the amount of water vapor added to our atmosphere should be done immediately.

Norway, the world's third ranked crude oil exporter, is pushing for rapid conversion to hydrogen fuel there. So I'm sure that the scientific community has hard data on the effects of introducing so much more water vapor into our atmosphere?

:D:D:D

n2ize

04-29-2008, 03:36 PM

This post illustrates why so many people are so skeptical of the Algore diciples. This is also why I asked for more information on how global temperatures would be affected by a complete end to all pollution and human activity. I'd still like to hear from N2IZE on this matter, but I'm pretty sure what he will report is that global temperatures and sea levels would still rise by a considerable degree for a long time. They would not rise quite as much and would come down quicker. Is that about accurate?

Here's the problem with all of this. It means that according to the alarmists, global warming is inevitable. If its inevitable, then why in the hell are we still scrambling around trying to change consumer choices? Very clearly, the priority needs to be moving huge numbers of people away from the coasts, evaucating the cities, cleaning up everything that will be under water in a few years and finding places for everybody to live. In addition, we need to be figuring out how the maximize crops in new areas and how to shift everything North in terms of growing seasons.

Nobody is talking about this stuff. If they truly believe that GW is as inevitable as they have claimed, this would be the topic of discussion. The fact that its not tells me there is another agenda. That agenda seems to revolve around making the US less competitive, vehicles less fun to drive and taking away consumer choices. It looks suspiciously like a deception to get Americans other free people to be less free.

The fact that you refer to scientists and laymen who feel that scientists may be correct about global warming as "Al Gore disciples" and "alarmists" shows a great deal of extreme bias on your part. I consider myself a reasonably intelligent person, I have read a considerable amount of information about climate research and I conclude that present day warming bears a correlations with man made activity. I don't subscribe to the idea that all warming is man made but I do believe that man made pollution ois a valid component of present day warming. I gathered my information from articles and journals writIen by researchers and pertaining to the subject. I acknowledge that not everyone agrees with me. Now does that automatically make me an Al Gore disciple? Does that make me an alarmist ? I also find things like evolution and superstring theory interesting. Does that make me a super string alarmist ?

As far as global warming being a manner of stifling American competition I tend to have doubts. Why would vehicles be less "fun to drive" if they were more fuel efficient or ran on alternatives to fossil fuels ? Are you saying that is a vehicle uses a less polluting source than fossil fuels it will be less fun to drive ? Matter of fact changing the way we live to reduce greenhouse gas emissions doesn't necessarily mean that gas burning gars, motorcycles and planes would be outlawed. It doesn't mean that gas would no longer be sold. All it means is that fossil fuel consuming cars would no longer be the mainstay of daily transportation and that hopefully less polluting alternatives can be implemented.

It seems to me that if the goal is to make America less competitive there are many other ways to accomplish that goal than via a mass global warming conspiracy..

Think about it for a minute. lets say global warming is all made up. So you are talking about a monstrous conspiracy. First you need to get the oil companies to play along with it, because, chances are they will wind up selling less oil and making less moneyis we switch to devices that produce fewer greenhouse gases.

Then you need to get the vast majority of the scientific community in on the conspiracy. That may involve bribing and coercing thousands of reputable scientists to stake their reputations and forsake their field of interest for the sake of whatever has been offered to go along with the conspiracy. That alone would be monumental task and, if such a conspiracy were ever proven it would put science on hold indefinitely. If the majority of scientists are lying to the world about global warming then they are probably lying to us about astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology etc.

Lastly, who is the driving force behind this major worldwide science conspiracy ? is it Bush ? Is it Gore ? Is it the French ? The Russians ? The Cubans ? The Islamics ? The Europeans ? Who has orchestrated such a massive and superb scientific conspiracy.

As far as why we are not taking steps to move cities away from the coast and why we are not taking steps to adapt to the new climate well, where do you suggest we begin ? I think the key point is that at present we are hopefull of changing certain things in such a way as to mitigate the degree and severity of climate change. Indeed humans are quite adaptable. The question is not so much "will we be able to adapt" but, "how rapidly can we adapt". If global warming occurs as an accelerating and rapid rate (regardless of cause) and enough ice melts over time as to make coastal cities difficult to inhabit the process of adaptation will be dependent upon the rate of change and how quickly we can adapt. It is much easier to adapt to a new location and life if a place like New York City or Miami were to flood over a period of 100 - 200 years or more versus 25-50 years.
Presently there is much more emphasis on mitigating the causes of climate change rather than adaptation. However, in the future that may change as time marches on.

As far as data goes I will try and gather some data regarding potential effects of climate change. Actually the range of possibilities is quite large and depends of numerous variables and overall effects range from worst cas4e scenarios to least case scenarios.

n2ize

04-29-2008, 03:56 PM

Then quit sniveling.

I'm not sniveling.I am requesting a respectful discussion on the topic.

Thou hast espoused thine self as an analytical data expert.
No I haven't. I have espoused myself as a person who has taken some time to do some reading and have decided that man made pollution is a component of present day global climate change. However, I have never stated that I am a climate researcher nor an authoritative source with regards to climatology.

Plug us in some numbers on what happens if all motorized vehicles in the world convert to hydrogen as fuel. Should be a simple matter of replacing the CO2 numbers with the amount of water vapor emitted by hydrogen fueled vehicles? Since water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas in the world and hydrogen is espoused as the logical replacement for gasoline in the world, some rapid studies on the amount of water vapor added to our atmosphere should be done immediately.
You do raise a valid point.There are indeed concerns about switching from the majority CO2 producers to majority water vapour producers. Simply thrwoing everything over to hydogen may have some adverse effects. However, there are also certain differences between the ability of CO2 to act as a forcing agent versus CO2. Some of these properties are discussed in the links provided below. Nonetheless you do raise an interesting and valid concern. Blindly switching from one source of energy to another is not necessarily without it's own potential problems. Indeed, the ability to supply the worlds energy needs yet do it in away that least upsets the natural balance of the world around us is indeed a very challenging problem and for one which nobody has a singular and conclusive answer.

Here are a couple of links discussing radiative forcing with respect to CO2 and water vapour. If ytou get a chance , read them and tell me what you think.

http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/spring04/atmo451b/pdf/RadiationBudget.pdf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

Norway, the world's third ranked crude oil exporter, is pushing for rapid conversion to hydrogen fuel there. So I'm sure that the scientific community has hard data on the effects of introducing so much more water vapor into our atmosphere?
Read the links I posted above for some insights into the role of water vapour as a climate forcer.

K3XR

04-29-2008, 03:57 PM

".....The LEFTS latest war on the family"

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=E22AE43A-FF8A-47EC-A8C2-AADD133A2E01

K4GUN

04-29-2008, 04:03 PM

I said nothing about conspiracy theories. Don't ascribe such things to me. I simply pointed out that what the alarmist claim doesn't make any sense, even when using their own data. The data I have heard reported doesn't make any claim that mitigation is even feasable. Many seem to be using flawed logic here. Even if we grant the human activity causes global warming (and I am not ready to grant that), that doesn't mean that there is anything that humans can do to slow it or reverse it. At least not soon enough to actually make a real difference in the future of mankind.

This is why I have my doubts about the entire thing. Those who are on your side of this debate, have relied on human stupidity to get their agenda through. Its faulty logic on many different levels. First of all, correlation does not imply causation. Second of all, if humans have tripped the trigger on GW, there is nothing to suggest that there is anything we can do to slow it or reverse it. Next, there is nothing that indicates that the planet has a stable and preferred temperature. Finally, if things are as bad as claimed and the glaciers really are headed for a rapid melt down, why are you (collectively) not doing anything about preparing the population?

None of it makes sense. You don't need to be a scientist to see this. For some reason, most media outlets don't have the guts to even ask the qeustions, let alone search for the answer.

KV1M

04-29-2008, 04:50 PM

This post illustrates why so many people are so skeptical of the Algore diciples.

And why is that? 15 meters is not a huge rise given the amount of ice going into the oceans. Perhaps a quick look at some topological maps will help you understand.

As for my warning of extreme pollution from a perpetually flooded city?
It's spot on.
You ask how it could be bad and I supplied a worst case scenario.
So what's your problem? Was your question just rhetorical?

As for being a disciple of Gore, not quite. I am not convinced it is a problem caused by man yet. I AM convinced man is helping to be worse than it would have been though. And I don't doubt the ocean rise levels predicted, they are based on easily calculated formulas. Not much ambiguity in those predictions should the worste happen. The only question at that point will be if it's 15 meters or 35 meters.

K4GUN

04-29-2008, 05:43 PM

And why is that? 15 meters is not a huge rise given the amount of ice going into the oceans. Perhaps a quick look at some topological maps will help you understand.

As for my warning of extreme pollution from a perpetually flooded city?
It's spot on.
You ask how it could be bad and I supplied a worst case scenario.
So what's your problem? Was your question just rhetorical?

As for being a disciple of Gore, not quite. I am not convinced it is a problem caused by man yet. I AM convinced man is helping to be worse than it would have been though. And I don't doubt the ocean rise levels predicted, they are based on easily calculated formulas. Not much ambiguity in those predictions should the worste happen. The only question at that point will be if it's 15 meters or 35 meters.

15 meters? That's the current prediction under the best situation? Have you looked at a topographical map of the US lately? Have you noticed that most of the population centers on the Eastern Seaboard are well below 15 meters? Most of Florida would be gone. Boston, Virginia Beach, Manhattan, Rhode Island, Houston, large parts of Baltimore and Washington DC are all gone if that's the case.

This further proves my point. If you seriously believe that this is the best outcome, you're incredibly irresponsible if you're not helping prepare for it.

N1LAF

04-29-2008, 07:21 PM

Seems like everyone is skirting this question.
If there are glacier ice now where there was forests 8000 years ago, and water levels were higher 8000 years ago, then why wouldn't this warming be outside of the norm? 8000 years is recent history. And there were no cars and trucks back then.

Can anyone explain this?

whale was preserved in the sediments of the Champlain Sea, an arm of the ocean that extended into the Champlain Valley for 2500 years following the retreat of the glaciers 12,500 years ago.

http://www.uvm.edu/whale/HowDidAWhaleGetInVermont.html

The Champlain Sea

The Champlain Sea was an inland arm of the Atlantic Ocean that flooded lowland areas following the retreat of the great continental ice sheets between 12,000 and 13,000 years ago. Ocean waters occupied areas depressed below sea level by the weight of continental ice sheets, ice sheets which at times were over a mile thick. Once the weight of the ice disappeared, the land slowly rebounded until it was once again above the level of the sea. (The elevation of present day Lake Champlain is approximately 95 feet above sea level.)

During its maximum extent, the Champlain Sea covered an area of over 20,500 square miles in portions of Ontario, Quebec, New York and Vermont. This area includes much of what is now the St. Lawrence River Valley, the lower Ottawa Valley and the Champlain Valley.

The general oceanographic conditions of the Champlain Sea are thought to be similar to those that presently exist in the James Bay region of Canada. Plant and animal communities in and around the Champlain Sea were likely similar to those that exist near the present Gulf of St. Lawrence, where species that inhabited the former inland sea are still found.

1. Glacier melt must have been much faster then compared to what we are seeing today

KV1M

04-29-2008, 07:25 PM

15 meters? That's the current prediction under the best situation? Have you looked at a topographical map of the US lately? Have you noticed that most of the population centers on the Eastern Seaboard are well below 15 meters? Most of Florida would be gone. Boston, Virginia Beach, Manhattan, Rhode Island, Houston, large parts of Baltimore and Washington DC are all gone if that's the case.

This further proves my point. If you seriously believe that this is the best outcome, you're incredibly irresponsible if you're not helping prepare for it.

Excellent observation! Yup, same for the rest of the planet as well.

But as for doing something about US cities, I don't live there remember?

As for me I AM preparing for it. I am buying a converted barge in Europe.
As the land floods my family will be just fine.

In the meantime I am going to keep acting like humans are the cause and keep my carbon emissions to a minimum.

BTW - I don't have to believe it, it's pretty much a given at this point. Just a matter of how fast now.

Nice try attempting to make me the bad guy though, you're better off going after Dilmus though. He's going to hold barbecues to offset my carbon savings. Or maybe Frozen Steve since he just deserves it.

K4GUN

04-29-2008, 07:37 PM

BTW - I don't have to believe it, it's pretty much a given at this point. Just a matter of how fast now.

Nice try attempting to make me the bad guy though, you're better off going after Dilmus though. He's going to hold barbecues to offset my carbon savings. Or maybe Frozen Steve