NationStates Jolt Archive

Well I think they are trying to nail the coffin shut on the Kyoto treaty. I think it wasnt well thought through in the first place. Looks as if Bush is shopping a new plan. Sounds alright to me so far. Will have to see.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/03/g8.bush.ap/index.html

Well I think they are trying to nail the coffin shut on the Kyoto treaty. I think it wasnt well thought through in the first place. Looks as if Bush is shopping a new plan. Sounds alright to me so far. Will have to see.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/03/g8.bush.ap/index.html
"They?" Now that the treaty has come into force, Bush want's to submit his own little plan to pretend like he cares for the environment. The thing is, what he is imposing is a toothless measure.

america isnt the only nation to not follow the treaty, australia wont as well because of their large coal industry.

america isnt the only nation to not follow the treaty, australia wont as well because of their large coal industry.
And the fact that they have such a small population. The Kyoto protocol limits the ammount of emissions a country can make according to its population and what status it has (EU countries have the harshest standards while China, and developing countries are better off). Australia would have been screwed because of their limited population while Japan can actually afford to emit more. But there are a lot of countries that follow the treaty.
127 in all (the UN has 191 members, as a comparison):
List of Signatories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kyoto_Protocol_signatories)
While there are some nations that aren't on board, there's a whole lot more that are.

Kyoto was flawed but better than nothing which is what the US proposed for years.
Imagine a man laying wounded in the street. Those of us who signed up to Kyoto are trying to give first aid. We don't know any but we can see that we need to stop the bleeding somehow.
Bush says " wait, in a few years we'll have a magic spray that'll solve that bleeding problem". The patient could be dead by them.
We need new technology, no doubt, (that's the magic spray for those having trouble following my thought process) but we need to regulate on the old poluting technologies now. First Aid Now.
But of course the major polluters are petrochemical companies and Bush has vested interests there.
These are pathetic have measures and the rest of the world should impose santions on the very worst polluters who are making no effort to reform.
(I realise that the US does not necessarily come in that group as a lot is being done at a local level)

Well I think they are trying to nail the coffin shut on the Kyoto treaty. I think it wasnt well thought through in the first place. Looks as if Bush is shopping a new plan. Sounds alright to me so far. Will have to see.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/03/g8.bush.ap/index.html
I couldnt find anything definite in the article about what this new treaty is supposedly about apart from some investment in hydrogen technology which I thought everyone was doing already so I dont see how this will cut emisssions.

These are pathetic have measures and the rest of the world should impose santions on the very worst polluters who are making no effort to reform.
(I realise that the US does not necessarily come in that group as a lot is being done at a local level)
The US is actually one of the worst polluters, next to China and Russia, mainly because of American love for big cars. I'm glad that several cities have however banded together to enforce the protocol in their own juristdictive areas.

Kyoto wasn't great but it was a start. If GWB can propose something better then I'm all for it. personally nothing will be done until Oil prices hit $100 a barrel.

Then all Americans blame everyone for letting them drive around in SUV's.

The US is actually one of the worst polluters, next to China and Russia, mainly because of American love for big cars. I'm glad that several cities have however banded together to enforce the protocol in their own juristdictive areas.

Very true, America is not the biggest polluter jsut because it has 300 million people and industrial. It belches out more CO2 per head than any other nation.

It's not jsut the SUV's though, its the poor polltions laws for industry as well.

I am all for Bushes plan to be honest we don't know how much damage this global warming will actually do ( most of the ice ages that were not caused by asteroids were from the planet being further away from the sun) so why should we worry ourselves if all this could be wrong

I couldnt find anything definite in the article about what this new treaty is supposedly about

That's American politicians for you.

Step 1: Get underpants
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!

See? It's easy!

Well, Israel signed the Kyoto treaty, so I can now be all smug and high and mighty to all you silly little non-Kyoto-Treaty-signed Americans.

Before any accuses me of trolling, I WAS JOKING!!!

Time will tell if this is an actual proposal or a publicity stunt. Remember our Moon/Mars landing? It still hasn't been explained how that one was going to happen.

If it is an actual proposal, then progress could finally be made.

I am all for Bushes plan to be honest we don't know how much damage this global warming will actually do ( most of the ice ages that were not caused by asteroids were from the planet being further away from the sun) so why should we worry ourselves if all this could be wrong

Yeah, why bother... Why should we risk our economy when we might not boil to death in the next twenty years? After all, this could all be wrong, and then we'd be angry we did anything. On the other hand, if it's right, and we do nothing, we won't be alive to notice! Win-Win!

Australia's not in because it's big brother the US isn't in.
We are still depending on coal but some here want Australia go nuclear.

The US is actually one of the worst polluters, next to China and Russia, mainly because of American love for big cars. I'm glad that several cities have however banded together to enforce the protocol in their own juristdictive areas.
Yeah, I realise that. it's just difficult to quanitfy how much the US cuts CO2.
The government does nothing at a federal level but here are some excellent local schemes.
Of course if one area gets too hot for the polluters they can just move to the next state that needs the employment so the government "hands off" policy is crap. We do have to acknowledge that some of them do try to do something.

The most rediculous idea is of carbon sinks. Where you offset your CO2 output against forests which have thousands of years of carbon stored in them. All fine until the next forest fire when the whole lot is released back into the environment.

The US will have to realise that global warming is real soon but I feel that they'll leave it until it's way too late then they can "lead " the charge on recovery by which time millions will have died. (subtext= as long as they're not americans who cares!!)

Bush spoke of his administration's investment of $20 billion (16.55 billion euros) in developing hydrogen-powered vehicles, zero-emission power stations and other technology.
Which has been about as fruitful as the dollar tree in my back yard.

Blair, who has described global warming as "probably the most serious threat we face" wants an agreement among G8 leaders on the scientific threat posed by global warming and the urgent need for action.
As opposed to Bush who believe it doesn't exist (but don't tell him the Easter Bunny isn't real...)

Well, Israel signed the Kyoto treaty, so I can now be all smug and high and mighty to all you silly little non-Kyoto-Treaty-signed Americans.

Before any accuses me of trolling, I WAS JOKING!!!

What was that Sancta? You want to see our economy tank if we signed and approved it? Even Kerry was against Kyoto! (Go figure)

Anyway, I'm going to review this more indepth before I come out for or against it.

Ihatevacations']As opposed to Bush who believe it doesn't exist (but don't tell him the Easter Bunny isn't real...)

It is still a theory and not a fact!

How much meteorology have you studied?

It is still a theory and not a fact!

How much meteorology have you studied?
I would love to hear YOU explain why global warming is a myth

Ihatevacations']I would love to hear YOU explain why global warming is a myth

I would love to hear YOU explain why it is fact and not a theory.

BTW: Theory and Myth are two different words. I never said it was a myth. I said it was a theory. Big difference.

What was that Sancta? You want to see our economy tank if we signed and approved it? Even Kerry was against Kyoto! (Go figure)
Can you say ONE thing without slandering the Democrats? Shit, we wern't even fucknig talking about republicans or democrats and you bust out an attack on John Kerry. I'ma go to the magic shop and buy a troll alarm

and you explain why its just a theory

Ihatevacations']Can you say ONE thing without slandering the Democrats?

Actually I was praising Kerry for opposing it. I was Praising the Senate Democrats for siding with the Republicans in opposing Kyoto.

and you explain why its just a theory

1. There's an 11 year active/inactive solar cycle. The Sun does have an effect on our weather wether you acknowledge it or not.
2. There's a 25 year heating/cooling cycle of the Earth. Why do you think about 20 odd years ago people were screaming about global cooling?

I guess you don't know these 2 things. Global Warming is just a theory and not fact. Besides that, satellites have detected a DROP in atmospheric temperatures. We don't know that much about the Atmosphere yet. We are only now unlocking it.

I am all for Bushes plan to be honest we don't know how much damage this global warming will actually do ( most of the ice ages that were not caused by asteroids were from the planet being further away from the sun) so why should we worry ourselves if all this could be wrong

Surely it is better to do something and put our minds to rest than be sorry if we do nothing?

1. There's an 11 year active/inactive solar cycle. The Sun does have an effect on our weather wether you acknowledge it or not.
2. There's a 25 year heating/cooling cycle of the Earth. Why do you think about 20 odd years ago people were screaming about global cooling?

I guess you don't know these 2 things. Global Warming is just a theory and not fact. Besides that, satellites have detected a DROP in atmospheric temperatures. We don't know that much about the Atmosphere yet. We are only now unlocking it.

http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming10.htm - 2002

If the hypothesis of man-made global warming were true, then the sea would be warming up, and the Arctic sea ice would be shrinking.

OK, I am getting a headache from searching, but sea temperatures now = higher. Everyone will admit global warmingi s a occuring but the people in the Bush cabinet it seems

Ihatevacations']http://www.fathersforlife.org/REA/warming10.htm - 2002


OK, I am getting a headache from searching, but sea temperatures now = higher. Everyone will admit global warmingi s a occuring but the people in the Bush cabinet it seems

Here's another thought that I guess you haven't thought about yet. You do know how islands are formed right? Look at Hawaii. It was formed by undersea volcanoes. Hotspots under the Earth's crust could also be the cause of the temperature of the water to rise.

Here's another thought that I guess you haven't thought about yet. You do know how islands are formed right? Look at Hawaii. It was formed by undersea volcanoes. Hotspots under the Earth's crust could also be the cause of the temperature of the water to rise.
You'll have to explain how that's possible, because as far as I know, the emmissions you're suggesting can't occour on earth.
There's a wide range of things that would go completely bonkers if what you suggest were to happen.

You'll have to explain how that's possible, because as far as I know, the emmissions you're suggesting can't occour on earth.
There's a wide range of things that would go completely bonkers if what you suggest were to happen.

You didn't learn about how islands were made in Geography class? You realize that we set on tetonic plates that is over a layer of molten rock (AKA Lava) When they shift we have an Earthquake but occassionaly, they'll open up a fissure in the crust and lava escapes. When this happens under the ocean and not onland, we get an underwater volcanoe. When they go boom, it heats up everything around them. This inturn causes water temperature to rise. When it gets big enough, it can pop out of the water and thus when the lava hits the ocean it immediately cools. After years or so (depending on how long its been going on, an Island will form from the volcanic activity.

You didn't learn about how islands were made in Geography class? You realize that we set on tetonic plates that is over a layer of molten rock (AKA Lava) When they shift we have an Earthquake but occassionaly, they'll open up a fissure in the crust and lava escapes. When this happens under the ocean and not onland, we get an underwater volcanoe. When they go boom, it heats up everything around them. This inturn causes water temperature to rise. When it gets big enough, it can pop out of the water and thus when the lava hits the ocean it immediately cools. After years or so (depending on how long its been going on, an Island will form from the volcanic activity.
I wasn't talking about how islands form (btw, this can happen without volcanic activity). You suggest there's MASSIVE volcanic activity all over the seabeds of the world. Enough to raise ocean temperatures. That takes more than a few Haiti's spontaneously forming overnight.
The amount of activity you're talking about would also generate earthquakes all over the planes - continously - and most likely poison all the water on earth and as a consequence ruin our athmosphere.

I'll say it again: Please explain how you can make the claim. I don't see how this can take place. Especially considering the geology of planet earth.

I'll say it again: Please explain how you can make the claim. I don't see how this can take place. Especially considering the geology of planet earth.

I already told you how. Tetonic plate movements that open up fissures on the ocean floor. This heats up the water and thus the water temperature rises. It isn't that hard to explain. I've stated this to you twice now in regards to under water fissures.

Most western countries have signed Kyoto.
It is already been put into action in Canada.

PS: Earth's climate has always been unstable. Changes in the ecology can result in a climate swing. Human activities might affect it a lot, we're not 100% sure but it looks that way. Whatever the cause is, and whatever the climate change's amplitude, the costs will be tremendous if we don't see it coming. Just imagine what would happen if the Gulf Stream current changes its course (which is a real possibility).

PS(2): Aren't people sick of all this urban smog, traffic congestion, and all? It has increased a lot in the last years. Smoggy days are up 300% in most North American cities; transit time (from home to job) has increased by 50% over the last 10 years. Our lives are becoming miserable.

I already told you how. Tetonic plate movements that open up fissures on the ocean floor. This heats up the water and thus the water temperature rises. It isn't that hard to explain. I've stated this to you twice now in regards to under water fissures.
That cannot raise ocean temperatures unless it goes on on a massive, continous scale. And the geology of planet earth makes that impossible.

I asked you to explain how what you suggest is possible. You haven't. Your argument is similar to me saying "well it could be aliens" you saying "What the fuck?!" and me saying "well it could!".
You haven't explained how it is possible.

Most western countries have signed Kyoto.
It is already been put into action in Canada.

PS: Earth's climate has always been unstable. Changes in the ecology can result in a climate swing. Human activities might affect it a lot, we're not 100% sure but it looks that way. Whatever the cause is, and whatever the climate change's amplitude, the costs will be tremendous if we don't see it coming. Just imagine what would happen if the Gulf Stream current changes its course (which is a real possibility).

PS(2): Aren't people sick of all this urban smog, traffic congestion, and all? It has increased a lot in the last years. Smoggy days are up 300% in most North American cities; transit time (from home to job) has increased by 50% over the last 10 years. Our lives are becoming miserable.

I read something about a certain current (can't remember which one it was) that was slowly shutting down in the Atlantic a while ago... I may have been seeing things, though. Has happened before.

That cannot raise ocean temperatures unless it goes on on a massive, continous scale. And the geology of planet earth makes that impossible.

Actually, it does but since I guess that you just don't care for the explaination, you write it off. To bad. *shrugs*

I asked you to explain how what you suggest is possible. You haven't. Your argument is similar to me saying "well it could be aliens" you saying "What the fuck?!" and me saying "well it could!".
You haven't explained how it is possible.

Yes I did but you just brushed it off. *shrugs*

"They?" Now that the treaty has come into force, Bush want's to submit his own little plan to pretend like he cares for the environment. The thing is, what he is imposing is a toothless measure.

One good thing is that Bush admits his wrong by signing a charter in wich he recognises the fact of global warming.. Guess that the US neocons that don't believe sience here on NS are now with the back against the wall with their "theories". Wether he goes with Kyoto or not, he is far from his statements in wich he denied, constantly, the scientifical fact of global warming. Nice to see him agreeing with facts that EU, Russian, Japanese and the non creational scientists of the US know allready more then a decade.

One good thing is that Bush admits his wrong by signing a charter in wich he recognises the fact of global warming.. Guess that the US neocons that don't believe sience here on NS are now with the back against the wall with their "theories". Wether he goes with Kyoto or not, he is far from his statements in wich he denied, constantly, the scientifical fact of global warming. Nice to see him agreeing with facts that EU, Russian, Japanese and the non creational scientists of the US know allready more then a decade.

Another person who states its a scientific Fact. The only fact is that the global atmospheric temps are going down and not up which actually dispells the fact that global warming is going on.

Fact: The earth has a CYCLICAL warming and cooling cycle
Fact: The sun as an 11 year active/inactive cycle.

Couple this with geological events... and you can make a convincing case it don't exist. I had my biology professor in college backpedaling from global warming. It is still a theory and not fact.

Edit: Kyoto was a bust even before it was going to be put into effect. It wasn't going to do anything and I applaud the US Senate for putting up a massive objection to it even before Bill Clinton signed it. Clinton never sent it to Congress because it would never pass.

Well I think they are trying to nail the coffin shut on the Kyoto treaty. I think it wasnt well thought through in the first place. Looks as if Bush is shopping a new plan. Sounds alright to me so far. Will have to see.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/03/g8.bush.ap/index.html

Total BS and just the sort of hype needed to keep on keeping on with the slow form of suicide industry has in mind for us all. Way to address the needs of no-one at all, Georgie-boy.

Way to go.

His "legislation" will probably be designed by industry and power generation and thus will do nothing to address the problem.

Anything that impedes business in any way is bad.

I couldnt find anything definite in the article about what this new treaty is supposedly about apart from some investment in hydrogen technology which I thought everyone was doing already so I dont see how this will cut emisssions.

I think the biggest note was 0 emissions power plants. If applied to coal power. Than thats a huge deal.

Another person who states its a scientific Fact. The only fact is that the global atmospheric temps are going down and not up which actually dispells the fact that global warming is going on..
Euh...you live in the sventies? Even your hero, Bush recognises the fact of global warming now.
Fact: since the late 80ties, every year is breaking temperatures.
Fact: the very few US scientist that are beaten with every study must be soon now as irelevant and only speaking in the name of their US sponsors in the oil business.
BTW, temperatures arer not going down but up, like everybody knows (even Bush) now, you loose :D


Fact: The earth has a CYCLICAL warming and cooling cycle
Fact: The sun as an 11 year active/inactive cycle..
The cycling warming of the earth is one that has to be mesured in terms of centuries, last one was the heating in the 12th century in wich we saw lots of vineyards in England, Flander and other Northern regions, gone later and starting again (thank's to the climate) since the late seventies..(Fact)Then we had the small iceage between the 17th and half early 19th century. But it is not like you want to tell something of decades and the cyclingterm is not fixed yet by studies.
The cycle of the sub has nothing to do with global warming, nice try. BTW, it is not 11 years...
All this, has been studied by the best scientists (EU, off course) since decades, before any US scientist had attention for the facts.And even the cycle did not prevent global warming. But since your president knows this now to and suscribes the fact as the last person in the world, I guess that your opinion is not relevant anymore.
Try better next time, you're getting irelevant.And very unfactual. Your antisience opinion puts yourself in the same category as the "creationists" or other weirdo's. What's next, the denial of daylight?

Another person who states its a scientific Fact. The only fact is that the global atmospheric temps are going down and not up which actually dispells the fact that global warming is going on.

Fact: The earth has a CYCLICAL warming and cooling cycle
Fact: The sun as an 11 year active/inactive cycle.

Couple this with geological events... and you can make a convincing case it don't exist. I had my biology professor in college backpedaling from global warming. It is still a theory and not fact.

Edit: Kyoto was a bust even before it was going to be put into effect. It wasn't going to do anything and I applaud the US Senate for putting up a massive objection to it even before Bill Clinton signed it. Clinton never sent it to Congress because it would never pass.

You went to college? I always assumed you were about 13.

Your facts may be true, (although I would like to see some references to the "fact" that global atmospheric temperature is going down) but that doesn't mean you can ignore other facts.

Fact: Increased CO2 in an environment traps heat.
Fact: The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen greatly in the last 200 years.
Fact: We can't do anything about the earth's warming/cooling cycle or the Sun's active/inactive cycle or undersea vulcanism or any other red herring that you want to toss into your argument.
Fact: We can reduce CO2 emissions.

America invaded Iraq despite the evidence that they had no weapons of mass destruction, but they won't do anything about CO2 emissions despite the fact that the vast majority of the worlds scientists say that we need to reduce them.

I'd like to think that global warming is just a theory, but in 30-70 years time, if it turns out to be a fact, the rest of the world is going to turn on america and say "Told you so" and your children and grandchildren will be so screwed they'll be wishing they were africans.

What's next, the denial of daylight?

The Sun is a clever, yet subtle EU plot against American industry and international competitiveness.

Did you not receive your memo?

I already told you how. Tetonic plate movements that open up fissures on the ocean floor. This heats up the water and thus the water temperature rises. It isn't that hard to explain. I've stated this to you twice now in regards to under water fissures.

Do you understand the temperatures needed to heat up the oceans even a single degree? Undersea volcanic activity could never possibly account for changes in ocean temperature.

The Sun is a clever, yet subtle EU plot against American industry and international competitiveness.

Did you not receive your memo?


Nice one :D

Since you're such an expert on your "tetonic plate" theory one would have thought you would know how to spell tectonic, or were you too busy arguing with your professor to get the spelling right?

I think he's more of an expert on 'teutonic' plates...

LOL

I think the biggest note was 0 emissions power plants. If applied to coal power. Than thats a huge deal.

He has already hinted his plans. Reactivate the nuclear power plants. After all they are zero immissions.

If the Gulf Stream current shuts down or changes its path, guess what happens? Since the Gulf Stream is part of the "climatic conveyor belt", a dynamic system that covers 2 major oceans (Atlantic and Indian), this could have global consequences. If the water doesn't flow the way it does right now, then the heat transfer between the tropical and temperate regions would stop... Currently, the "climatic conveyor belt" is responsible for dampening the north-south climatic differences, and generating moisture transferts (monsoon rains, cloud systems).

So what happens?
Europe becomes much colder, the North Sea water starts to flow further south, England becomes bitter cold. Europe's climate will then be equivalent to North America's climate (same temperature at same latitudes), and some of the northern regions might have to be evacuated.

The African deserts will become even hotter (and dryer than the Atacama), dunes would be on the move, and South Africa would have a lot of rain & colder climate.

The monsoon rain system would probably stop or become weaker, triggering catastrophic harvests in Asia.

In America, Mexico and the Midwest would be affected by stronger, drier winds.


And by the way, a weakening of the Gulf Stream has already been recorded over the last 5 years.

In America, Mexico and the Midwest would be affected by stronger, drier winds.


And by the way, a weakening of the Gulf Stream has already been recorded over the last 5 years.

Expect not one whit of concern from Americans regarding this. They will dismiss climate change in Mexico, and simply crank up the A/C across the midwest.

Even if midwesterners begin to perish from climate change in the thousands, they'll comfortably dismiss that too, chastizing people for not being able to afford A/C units. They'll grouse if public moneys or energy are used to keep their fellow citizens from dying of heat prostration in emergency shelters, too - mark my words.

And as far as the Gulf Stream goes, what do they care what direction it flows in? It starts next to Texas, that's the sum total of their interest in it.

Basically, they've written off the rest of the planet, and they're more than ready to write off their own people, too.

Care to prove me wrong, anybody?

Expect not one whit of concern from Americans regarding this. They will dismiss climate change in Mexico, and simply crank up the A/C across the midwest.

Even if midwesterners begin to perish from climate change in the thousands, they'll comfortably dismiss that too, chastizing people for not being able to afford A/C units. They'll grouse if public moneys or energy are used to keep their fellow citizens from dying of heat prostration in emergency shelters, too - mark my words.

And as far as the Gulf Stream goes, what do they care what direction it flows in? It starts next to Texas, that's the sum total of their interest in it.

Basically, they've written off the rest of the planet, and they're more than ready to write off their own people, too.

Care to prove me wrong, anybody?

I know I personally won't care if people in the midwest start dying from heat prostration. It's not as though people up here in the Northeast are the ones calling global warming a hoax.

Investing in lower emission technologies is all well and good and is what's needed for long term treatment. But the results may take too long to prevent significant climate change.

Kyoto is more like the shock therapy necessary to keep things from going too far downhill, but it's not workable in the long term. Still, it's better than doing nothing.

I know I personally won't care if people in the midwest start dying from heat prostration. It's not as though people up here in the Northeast are the ones calling global warming a hoax.

My apologies. It's not always easy trying to figure out American geopolitics. Nonetheless, I stand by my basic assertions. As far as Americans are concerned, there is no line to be crossed vis-a-vis climate change and America's comprehension of the consequences of their inactions.

It's someone else's problem, and always will be.

Since you're such an expert on your "tetonic plate" theory one would have thought you would know how to spell tectonic, or were you too busy arguing with your professor to get the spelling right?

Strange, one would have tought that a Teuton knight would spread less unfactual bullshit. Guess he mixed up between tectonic and Teuton in his (small) creationist dictionary. :p

My apologies. It's not always easy trying to figure out American geopolitics. Nonetheless, I stand by my basic assertions. As far as Americans are concerned, there is no line to be crossed vis-a-vis climate change and America's comprehension of the consequences of their inactions.

It's someone else's problem, and always will be.

I understand. The death grip that the south and midwest have on this country makes it seem like our entire population thinks like they do. Frankly, I have very little sympathy if they are the ones affected the most by global warming, considering how much they do to block any kind of relevant discussion on the matter. I know it's cutting off my nose to spite my face, but what can I say? I'm a bitter and resentful person.

Trend in global average surface temperature (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm).
EPA: Global Warming: Climate (http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/Climate.html)

Now, since we've disproved one of corneliu's so-called facts maybe we should insist on references for all past and future facts from corneliu.

Kyoto was flawed but better than nothing which is what the US proposed for years.
Imagine a man laying wounded in the street. Those of us who signed up to Kyoto are trying to give first aid. We don't know any but we can see that we need to stop the bleeding somehow.
Bush says " wait, in a few years we'll have a magic spray that'll solve that bleeding problem". The patient could be dead by them.
We need new technology, no doubt, (that's the magic spray for those having trouble following my thought process) but we need to regulate on the old poluting technologies now. First Aid Now.
But of course the major polluters are petrochemical companies and Bush has vested interests there.
These are pathetic have measures and the rest of the world should impose santions on the very worst polluters who are making no effort to reform.
(I realise that the US does not necessarily come in that group as a lot is being done at a local level)
Actually, Kyoto is a lot less like "first aid" and a lot more like "chemotherapy".

First aid helps the body in a localized way while leaving little or no effect on the rest of the body. Chemo, in trying to eradicate a specific problem area, ends up doing damage to other areas of the body and is not always successful.

Kyoto is like chemo in that it tries to fix the "cancer" (pollution), but in doing so, it damages other parts of the body (economics).

If Kyoto were truly more like first aid, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the punitive measures that act more like chemo that make me against Kyoto.

Trend in global average surface temperature (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm).
EPA: Global Warming: Climate (http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/Climate.html)

Now, since we've disproved one of corneliu's so-called facts maybe we should insist on references for all past and future facts from corneliu.

I know him since years on NS,(member with other nations since the beginning) never saw such a liar and propagandist. His "facts" are in fact biased opinions, sciense is a form of heresy for him when it does not fits his neocon agenda, lucky enough, kids like him are marginals. He is a bit sectarian.

Actually, Kyoto is a lot less like "first aid" and a lot more like "chemotherapy".

First aid helps the body in a localized way while leaving little or no effect on the rest of the body. Chemo, in trying to eradicate a specific problem area, ends up doing damage to other areas of the body and is not always successful.

Kyoto is like chemo in that it tries to fix the "cancer" (pollution), but in doing so, it damages other parts of the body (economics).

If Kyoto were truly more like first aid, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the punitive measures that act more like chemo that make me against Kyoto.


Alright. Let's hear your plans then.

If business is never to be "touched" then nothing will change.....

Another person who states its a scientific Fact. The only fact is that the global atmospheric temps are going down and not up which actually dispells the fact that global warming is going on.

Fact: The earth has a CYCLICAL warming and cooling cycle
Fact: The sun as an 11 year active/inactive cycle.

Couple this with geological events... and you can make a convincing case it don't exist. I had my biology professor in college backpedaling from global warming. It is still a theory and not fact.



Well it is a fact that you have theory's instead of facts, you denie that the planet is round to I guess.

Facts: http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

(thank's Kradlumania for the graphics)

If Kyoto were truly more like first aid, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the punitive measures that act more like chemo that make me against Kyoto.

Well, please feel free to give the allusiona slip and detail these 'puntive measures' for us. Do let us know what actual impact Kyoto would have had on your day-today existence.

It's all fine and well to deal with these things in a detached, abstracted kind of way when it's affecting other people, right? But it's just a hazy, ethereal kind of thing, nothing that has too much of an impact. Correct?

If you're more concerned about the implications for the bottom line of the shareholders of major corporations than the lives of your fellow human beings (the non-shareholders, those awful people who can't afford A/C, etc.),stop beating about the bush, just come right out and say so.

If the planet was a human being, it'd be undergoing not just chemo, but radiation therapy as well. Not to mention surgeries to remove (hopefully) non-malignant tumours. And any other form of treatment available to it.

The US is like one of those tumours. A tumour in the brain, which is trying everything in its' power to forestall treatment. Why? Because it knows it wouldn't be allowed to continue to grow and rot out the body it is infesting. A sentient tumour; one gifted (or cursed, really) with a dimly-developed sense of self-preservation.Not a sense of survival, mind you; merely self-preservation.

The rest of the body can whither and die, so long as the tumour can remain inviolate.

Kyoto is like chemo in that it tries to fix the "cancer" (pollution), but in doing so, it damages other parts of the body (economics).
.

Typical selfish opinion of ones who's religion is business. Since when do we place economics over lives and health? Only a neocon can be that shortsighted. Saving the planet will meen that you have to be prepared to give up comfort. Why not, was the standard of energyconsumption in the West before WWII so that it made people unhappy?). Are people less happy with one car instead of 3 cars in the US per family? Why not architectural innovations to have a cool house inseat of stupid houses with a lot of glass directed to the south with Airco in it? The Scandinavians and French and Austrians (Alps) have a advance of 15 years on the US in their low energy houses.

There are things that the US can do which would lower emissions and actually improve the US economy.

Insisting on better fuel performance in cars would be a major step. Emissions would be reduced, the US would need less $60-a-barrel oil from the Middle East and wouldn't be wasting money on imperialist jaunts half a world away.

Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309076013?OpenDocument)

If G8 can come up with a proposal that invests in new technology AND makes all countries reduce carbon emissions i'm all for it.

However, the technology must be made availiable to poorer countries, and not so the USA/EU can make a quick buck out of it.

It's interesting to note that when Bush wants to go terrorizing the world for oil (and U.S. companied did get contracts in Iraq) he expects the world to help him. As soon as Kyoto and the U.S. doing it's bit for the world (including itself) the USA is and always has been isolationist. All the politicians seem like hypocrites.

Where does the Bush administration thinks that hydrogen comes from? To produce hydrogen requires a great deal of energy, which might shift the resource is needed but in the US, they will probably still use highly polluting energy sources like coal in order to do it.
The zero-emissions coal plants can only be built in certain areas that have the correct underground composition to be able to contain the CO2. As well if there was an accident it could be worst than a nuclear centre meltdown, people in the surrounding areas and those in the way of the air is blowing would suffocate for the over-concentation of CO2.
There needs to be research on technologies that reduces carbon emission but they should be something done now to reduce them as well.

One wonders what Mr. Bush will do with all his 'hard-earned' cash when the world has become uninhabitable, and our non-renewable energy reserves have run dry with no alternatives prepared in its stead?

Well it is a fact that you have theory's instead of facts, you denie that the planet is round to I guess.

Facts: http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/17.htm

(thank's Kradlumania for the graphics)

Its still a theory. Why is it still a theory you may ask? Because there is too much evidence against it. I'm sorry that I've studied meteorology since I was 6yo. I wanted to be a meteorologist for years but the math keeps escaping me. I asked one of my friends who IS a meteorologist and he doesn't believe in Global Warming either. He is not a republican either. Anyone that has any rudamentary meteorology training, like me (and I still forcast weather at the Campus Weather Service when school is in session) will be able to tell you that.

It is still a theory because of the fact that we still know crap about our own atmosphere. We've only been studying it for about 50 years now thanks to the satellites.

Here's another thing. If Global Warming was occuring, don't you think that Antartica won't be cooling down? It is cooling you know and it isn't warming up.

And before I end, I'm going to leave with this question.

Why was the Dark Ages (AKA middle ages) HOTTER than they are today?
http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2003/faxback/4.08.03middleages.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html?oneclick=true

Its still a theory. Why is it still a theory you may ask? Because there is too much evidence against it. I'm sorry that I've studied meteorology since I was 6yo. I wanted to be a meteorologist for years but the math keeps escaping me. I asked one of my friends who IS a meteorologist and he doesn't believe in Global Warming either. He is not a republican either. Anyone that has any rudamentary meteorology training, like me (and I still forcast weather at the Campus Weather Service when school is in session) will be able to tell you that.

It is still a theory because of the fact that we still know crap about our own atmosphere. We've only been studying it for about 50 years now thanks to the satellites.

Here's another thing. If Global Warming was occuring, don't you think that Antartica won't be cooling down? It is cooling you know and it isn't warming up.

And before I end, I'm going to leave with this question.

Why was the Dark Ages (AKA middle ages) HOTTER than they are today?
http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2003/faxback/4.08.03middleages.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html?oneclick=true

Take your self-righteous indignation somewhere else, Corny. Your appeal to authority based on the fact that you've been interested in meterology since you were a kid nonwithstanding, all you offer is anecdotal evidence based on the opinion of one "meteorologist" that you "know", and you even throw in that he's not a Republican to somehow further validate your claim.

The second article you linked does not work. The first spends half the article demonstrating why that study may be significantly flawed, and how even if it is true (which it probably is), it still does nothing to explain the rapidity of the temperature increase in the past few decades.

Take your self-righteous indignation somewhere else, Corny. Your appeal to authority based on the fact that you've been interested in meterology since you were a kid nonwithstanding, all you offer is anecdotal evidence based on the opinion of one "meteorologist" that you "know", and you even throw in that he's not a Republican to somehow further validate your claim.

The second article you linked does not work. The first spends half the article demonstrating why that study may be significantly flawed, and how even if it is true (which it probably is), it still does nothing to explain the rapidity of the temperature increase in the past few decades.

Now that you critiqued it, why was the dark ages warmer than they are today? They had no known major industry. They didn't have CFCs back then. The only carbon dioxide (0.04% of all greenhouse gasses!) came from breathing and other sources that actually produce it naturally. So why were they a hell of alot warmer than they are today?

Now that you critiqued it, why was the dark ages warmer than they are today? They had no known major industry. They didn't have CFCs back then. The only carbon dioxide (0.04% of all greenhouse gasses!) came from breathing and other sources that actually produce it naturally. So why were they a hell of alot warmer than they are today?

Well, frankly, I do not know. I will not be like you and pretend that I am an expert on matters that I have no clue about. All I know is that your own article mentioned that the study does little to explain why temperatures are rising so dramatically. I have a feeling it has something to do with the warming and cooling cycle of the planet that you were acting like you knew about.

Now that you critiqued it, why was the dark ages warmer than they are today? They had no known major industry.
Actually, the Dark Ages were slightly warmer for some time (800 to 1000 AD), then got colder. That's why the Vikings had to abandon their settlements in Greenland: they were living at the edge of the vegetation limit, and even a minor climatic change (let's say, -1 degree) would push them away.

We have to consider the fact that our modern civilization has developed during a 500 years time frame with a very stable climate. And given the facts gathered by ice carrotting, and dendrochronology, this WON'T continue forever. Climate is unstable, has always been.

Push a little too much carbon, it'll swing out of balance for a few centuries at least. Add a little more solar activity, you'll get another swing. Shake the clathrates, you'll get a major event. Change the northern lands albedo by introducing new cold-resistant tree specied and you'll stabilize climate; cut these trees down, you'll increase the chances of a ice age. Cut open Central America or close the Mediterranea, you'll get other global changes. And so on.

So many events have triggered climatic changes through history, that it would be stupid not to consider a major increase in CO2 (due to human activity) as a major factor in climate change.

So the question is, when climate change will happen (and whatever the causes are), will our civilization be ready? I don't think so. Our whole economic system has never taken climatic changes, population transfers and changes in vegetation/weather into account. We'll most likely crumble. We're so much more vulnerable than most civilizations of Antiquity.

Well, frankly, I do not know. I will not be like you and pretend that I am an expert on matters that I have no clue about. All I know is that your own article mentioned that the study does little to explain why temperatures are rising so dramatically. I have a feeling it has something to do with the warming and cooling cycle of the planet that you were acting like you knew about.

Because NOBODY knows why. Is being done by humans? Is it naturally occuring? Some other outside force?

You do know that Nitrogen and Oxygen are greenhouse gasses too right? There is more of that than any other element in our atmosphere. Me? I personally believe that it is naturally occuring. After all we are coming out of a mini ice age.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on anything. Just stating that we don't know enough to reach a conclusion. We shouldn't all jump to conclusions either.

You do know that Nitrogen and Oxygen are greenhouse gasses too right?
Hmmm ever so slightly.
But water vapor is.

Hmmm ever so slightly.
But water vapor is.

Yes water vapor is a greenhouse gas. and we have an abundance of water on this dirtball of a planet. Maybe we should rename this planet waterworld! :D

Anyway, alot of water is evaporated day after day. Thus the planet is throwing up more greenhouse gases (by a variety of means) than us humans.

And before I end, I'm going to leave with this question.

Why was the Dark Ages (AKA middle ages) HOTTER than they are today?


Sorry kiddo, I was the one who mentioned that fact in the context, not you, you're a bit late to start mentioning it now.

BTW, I deal with meteorology and climate daily on glaciers. And as a winefreak i can tell you that the last 19 years were the warmest ever and gave birth to dozens of professional winegrowers in England, Flanders, Holland on latitudes thought not possible withouth global warming. Reverse of the medal is the to hot climates for winegrowers in southeren Europe now wich make them make less fine wines and is origine of production lose to.

Sorry kiddo, I was the one who mentioned that fact in the context, not you, you're a bit late to start mentioning it now.

BTW, I deal with meteorology and climate daily on glaciers. And as a winefreak i can tell you that the last 19 years were the warmest ever and gave birth to dozens of professional winegrowers in England, Flanders, Holland on latitudes thought not possible withouth global warming. Reverse of the medal is the to hot climates for winegrowers in southeren Europe now wich make them make less fine wines and is origine of production lose to.

Ohhh Congratulations for not answering my question. Instead you go off on a tangent. Now can you answer my question? Why were the Middle Ages hotter than today?

Maybe the warming in the dark ages was down to the cyclic nature of the sun's activity and the cycle of Earth's warming and cooling? But that has nothing to do with the facts that you conveniently ignore. How about discussing the actual facts instead of constantly trying to sidetrack people with specious arguments?

These are scientific facts, not theories:

Increasing CO2 in an environment traps more heat.
The amount of CO2 in our environment has increased greatly over the last 200 years.

Ohhh Congratulations for not answering my question. Instead you go off on a tangent. Now can you answer my question? Why were the Middle Ages hotter than today?

It's funny. I wrote my previous post without reading this one. My post seems even better now. *pats self on back*

Ohhh Congratulations for not answering my question. Instead you go off on a tangent. Now can you answer my question? Why were the Middle Ages hotter than today?
They weren't as far as some things are concerned. There's a problem with the lobster population in the Helgoland bight. They're dying because their eggs hatch too early and the food they'd eat at the time isn't around. This is because of only a few degrees change. If the temperatures would cycle to such extremes as you are suggesting, then lobsters would have died out a long time ago, at least in the Helgoland bight.

Maybe the warming in the dark ages was down to the cyclic nature of the sun's activity and the cycle of Earth's warming and cooling? But that has nothing to do with the facts that you conveniently ignore. How about discussing the actual facts instead of constantly trying to sidetrack people with specious arguments?

About the fact that no one knows, and I mean no one, why the temperatures were hotter back then. They didn't have the crap we do now and yet they were warmer than today. Yes I believe it is a natural occuring thing. I don't think we're doing anything more than what nature does. Shall we see if we can get nature to conform to everything? They seem to be the biggest problem. Not humans.

These are scientific facts, not theories:

Increasing CO2 in an environment traps more heat.

I suggest you actually read up on greenhouses. The Greenhouse effect is not the same thing as what takes place in an actual greenhouse. For one, air is still moving in outside air and heat still has places to go. In an actual greenhouse, this does not happen. Heat has nowhere to go and air doesn't have the circulation as the outside. BTW: CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the Atmosphere. As far as I know, we haven't taken CO2 readings in the atmosphere to see if this has risen significantly.

The amount of CO2 in our environment has increased greatly over the last 200 years.

Still doesn't explain why the middle ages were hotter than today! You are also counting out the environmental factors too such as water vaper and others that give off CO2s.

Still doesn't explain why the middle ages were hotter than today! You are also counting out the environmental factors too such as water vaper and others that give off CO2s.
In case you didn't read my earlier post: The middle ages might have been hotter, but the oceans at the time weren't. The fact that there still is a lobster population that's starting to die out now shows that the water temperature couldn't have been warmer than today. It takes a damn lot of energy to heat the ocean by about two or three degrees, and this didn't happen in the middle ages.

In case you didn't read my earlier post: The middle ages might have been hotter, but the oceans at the time weren't.

Now I'm going to have to ask you to prove that the oceans weren't hotter during the Middle Ages.

The fact that there still is a lobster population that's starting to die out now shows that the water temperature couldn't have been warmer than today.

Since that is only speculation about the past, how do we know the samething didn't happen back then? We don't know unless someone actually written about it.

It takes a damn lot of energy to heat the ocean by about two or three degrees, and this didn't happen in the middle ages.

Proof?

How do we know the temperatures were warmer in the dark ages? Did some one invent a time machine while I was at my grandmothers and go back and check it with thermometers and things? The thermometer wasn't recorded to have been invented (especially not in Europe) until after the term "dark ages" was even thought up

Global warming is not due to human activity. It is a natural part of the planet, which has alternating cycles of warming and cooling. More CO2 and H2SO4 are produced in one ordinary volcaninc eruption than has been produced by all human pollution during the past 200 years. Thus, these treaties do nothing but hurt the economy and contribute nothing towards controlling global warming. We should save the money and spend it on things that we can actually affect.

Ihatevacations']How do we know the temperatures were warmer in the dark ages? Did some one invent a time machine while I was at my grandmothers and go back and check it with thermometers and things? The thermometer wasn't recorded to have been invented (especially not in Europe) until after the term "dark ages" was even thought up

Science actually proved that the Middle Ages were warmer than today. I provided links for the statement I've made.

Anyway, alot of water is evaporated day after day. Thus the planet is throwing up more greenhouse gases (by a variety of means) than us humans.
But don't forget condensation and precipitation. If the temperatures are rising, then more water would evaporate, but since the atmosphere is cooling down, it would all rain down on us again, and that would put less water vapor in the air... making the amount of water vapor in the air constant, right? (and if I'm wrong, none of the "let's insult people" stuff, just explain, get to the point, and move on, please).

'As far as I know, we haven't taken CO2 readings in the atmosphere to see if this has risen significantly.'

No, the scientists just guessed. They woke up one morning and thought 'aha, lets go and invent some unsupported evidence for global warming'. Christ.

But don't forget condensation and precipitation. If the temperatures are rising, then more water would evaporate, but since the atmosphere is cooling down, it would all rain down on us again, and that would put less water vapor in the air... making the amount of water vapor in the air constant, right? (and if I'm wrong, none of the "let's insult people" stuff, just explain, get to the point, and move on, please).

You are right that the atmosphere is cooling down (another strike on global warming) but about what else you've described, I'll have to look into it.

Science actually proved that the Middle Ages were warmer than today. I provided links for the statement I've made.
since i don't care to look, repost

You are right that the atmosphere is cooling down (another strike on global warming
You yourself said we don't know that much abotu the atmosphere and the ANTI-global warming website I quoted did not say anything about the atmosphere. It said the seas warming and the arctic ice cap melting would be signs of global warming.

You are right that the atmosphere is cooling down (another strike on global warming) but about what else you've described, I'll have to look into it.
Well, I got the cooling down thing from you...
And what I said was just a hypothesis. I'm not sure you could look very much into it, but sure, you can if you want to...

http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2003/faxback/4.08.03middleages.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html

The two articles I posted.

I think he meant that he wanted proof that the oceans didn't heat up during the Middle Ages.

Hmm...didn't think of it that way. I will delete my post, then. I ask you to do the same.

Ihatevacations']You yourself said we don't know that much abotu the atmosphere and the ANTI-global warming website I quoted did not say anything about the atmosphere. It said the seas warming and the arctic ice cap melting would be signs of global warming.

True though will be caused by humans or will it be naturally occuring? For me, I think it'll naturally occur.

As for the atmosphere cooling, I did see an article about it awhile back. I'm looking for it.

I suggest you actually read up on greenhouses. The Greenhouse effect is not the same thing as what takes place in an actual greenhouse. For one, air is still moving in outside air and heat still has places to go. In an actual greenhouse, this does not happen. Heat has nowhere to go and air doesn't have the circulation as the outside. BTW: CO2 only makes up 0.04% of the Atmosphere. As far as I know, we haven't taken CO2 readings in the atmosphere to see if this has risen significantly.

I didn't say anything about greenhouses, but since you mentioned it, all you have said about greenhouses is incorrect. Air circulates and heat dissipates. But, as usual, that has nothing to do with the facts.

The proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.04%. So what? It only takes a few of molecules of Sarin to kill a human, elephant or blue whale. So what? You're stating a fact there, you're not arguing anything about global warming.

It just goes to show how much you know. We have taken measurements in various ways to show that atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen significantly. But that was done scientifically, so you will probably dispute that also.

And by the way, Oxygen and Nitrogen are not greenhouse gases (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html), so you don't seem to understand the very basics of what you are so sure you disagree with.

Still doesn't explain why the middle ages were hotter than today! You are also counting out the environmental factors too such as water vaper and others that give off CO2s.

Whether the Middle Ages were warmer than today has no bearing on the issue we are discussing. If you want to go start a thread about the weather in the Middle Ages maybe some people from the Dark Ages Meteorological Society will join you, but those of us discussing the Kyoto treaty and global warming will stay here.

Whether the Middle Ages were warmer than today has no bearing on the issue we are discussing. If you want to go start a thread about the weather in the Middle Ages maybe some people from the Dark Ages Meteorological Society will join you, but those of us discussing the Kyoto treaty and global warming will stay here.

Actually, it does have a bearing on what we are discussing. Everyone says that this is relatively new. Guess what? It aint. The Middle Ages were alot warmer and even Thomas Jefferson touched on the subject as an amature meteorologist. It does have full bearing on this cause because what happened in the middle ages implies that it is a naturally occuring event unless they had industry on par with what we have today, which I sincerely doubt.

I didn't say anything about greenhouses, but since you mentioned it, all you have said about greenhouses is incorrect. Air circulates and heat dissipates. But, as usual, that has nothing to do with the facts.

The proportion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.04%. So what? It only takes a few of molecules of Sarin to kill a human, elephant or blue whale. So what? You're stating a fact there, you're not arguing anything about global warming.

It just goes to show how much you know. We have taken measurements in various ways to show that atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen significantly. But that was done scientifically, so you will probably dispute that also.

Whether the Middle Ages were warmer than today has no bearing on the issue we are discussing. If you want to go start a thread about the weather in the Middle Ages maybe some people from the Dark Ages Meteorological Society will join you, but those of us discussing the Kyoto treaty and global warming will stay here.

The Middle Age argument is important because it shows that human industry has had almost no effect on global warming. These treaties will do nothing but hurt the economy and cost money.

Again, almost all of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. Trees produce small amounts of CO2 in addition to oxygen, and pine trees produce tons of hydrocarbons. The Los Angeles area was more polluted before it was settled than it is now due to these trees.

Climate change is a natural part of the Earth's cycles and it comes from the Earth itself, not human beings. We produce so little CO2 that we can't change the climate. Much of it comes from volcanic activity.

Actually, it does have a bearing on what we are discussing. Everyone says that this is relatively new. Guess what? It aint. The Middle Ages were alot warmer and even Thomas Jefferson touched on the subject as an amature meteorologist. It does have full bearing on this cause because what happened in the middle ages implies that it is a naturally occuring event unless they had industry on par with what we have today, which I sincerely doubt.

What has this to do with global warming and the greenhouse effect? Global warming and the greenhouse effect is a theory that predicts that in our current environment, if we continue to pour out more and more CO2, a Greenhouse effect will occur heating up the planet. It has nothing to do with climate in the middle ages, it makes no predictions of past events. We are not discussing past weather patterns. It quite obviously was a naturally occuring event, but we are talking about a manmade event some 500 years later. It really does have nothing to do with the subject and you are just using it because it happens to be a fact that you can reference when you cannot find a single fact to refute any of the facts presented against you.

The Middle Age argument is important because it shows that human industry has had almost no effect on global warming. These treaties will do nothing but hurt the economy and cost money.

Again, almost all of the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from natural sources. Trees produce small amounts of CO2 in addition to oxygen, and pine trees produce tons of hydrocarbons. The Los Angeles area was more polluted before it was settled than it is now due to these trees.

Climate change is a natural part of the Earth's cycles and it comes from the Earth itself, not human beings. We produce so little CO2 that we can't change the climate. Much of it comes from volcanic activity.

The DOE (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html) would disagree with you.

Now I'm going to have to ask you to prove that the oceans weren't hotter during the Middle Ages.
Here we go: My hypothesis is that lobsters hatch earlier when subjected to higher temperatures.
Our berried females each produced an average of just over 1.2 million eggs. Temperature had a significant effect on the length of time it took for the eggs to mature and hatch. Eggs held at 21 °C took, on average, 54 days from mating to the peak day of hatching, whilst those held at 17 and 13 °C took 73 and 133 days respectively. It was obviously advantageous to hold berried females in warmer water to reduce the incubation time, but we needed to determine whether the speed of development of the eggs had any effect on the resulting phyllosoma larvae. This we did by measuring the size and fitness of the larvae from the three incubation temperatures.
Source (http://www.niwa.co.nz/pubs/au/29/eggs.htm)
Now, their food Zoo- and Phytoplankton isn't readily available (Zooplankton also lives off of phytoplankton):
The major environmental factors influencing phytoplankton growth are temperature, light and nutrient availability
Source (http://www.chesapeakebay.net/plankton.htm)
Ergo, we have the wonderful situation of high temperatures earlier in the year. This leads to A) the eggs hatching earlier B) the phytoplankton (and therefore the zooplankton too) not to develope in time, since there isn't as much light around.

Since that is only speculation about the past, how do we know the samething didn't happen back then? We don't know unless someone actually written about it.
Considering that we still have lobsters around today, they probably didn't die out in the middle ages...
[/QUOTE]

What has this to do with global warming and the greenhouse effect? Global warming and the greenhouse effect is a theory that predicts that in our current environment, if we continue to pour out more and more CO2, a Greenhouse effect will occur heating up the planet. It has nothing to do with climate in the middle ages, it makes no predictions of past events. We are not discussing past weather patterns. It quite obviously was a naturally occuring event, but we are talking about a manmade event some 500 years later. It really does have nothing to do with the subject and you are just using it because it happens to be a fact that you can reference when you cannot find a single fact to refute any of the facts presented against you.

No, you are wrong. It has everything to do with this. By showing that the same thing occured during the Middle Ages without the CO2 produced by humans today, it can be proven that global warming as a result of human industry is not true.

The planet pours out more CO2 in one volcano than humans produced with 300 years of industry.

Furthermore, global warming isn't progressing as projected. Antarctica, which supposedly should have warmed up due to global warming, is in fact cooling. The stratosphere is cooling as well which also contradicts the global warming hypothesis.

Science actually proved that the Middle Ages were warmer than today. I provided links for the statement I've made.

Jesus Corneliu, quit acting like this is some sort of frickin' classroom quiz. I for one am not impressed by this overtendency on your part to play up to the favour of some unseen teacher-figure.

You think providing links is the end-all and be-all of everything. I hope that provides you some cool comfort in about forty years, when your eastern seaboard is dyked. If it hasn't been abandoned already.

What has this to do with global warming and the greenhouse effect?

Aren't you listening? It has to do with it because of the fact that there was NO INDUSTRY during the middle ages and they were hotter than they are today. This tells me that it is probably a natural occurance.

Global warming and the greenhouse effect is a theory that predicts that in our current environment, if we continue to pour out more and more CO2, a Greenhouse effect will occur heating up the planet.

Thanks for using the word theory. It is still a theory and thanks for describing it. However, the mere fact that we haven't experienced the temperatures that the people who have predicted this, is enough to dispell it. We should've felt its effects long before now and we haven't.

It has nothing to do with climate in the middle ages, it makes no predictions of past events.

Fine. Discount the facts in evidence. Since there was no Industry during the middle ages, how would you explain that they were hotter than we are today? It is an interesting question to ask and so far, no one is asking it and no one is answering it. It has a bearing on today's question regarding global warming. Does it occur naturally?

We are not discussing past weather patterns.

Whose discussing weather patterns? I'm talking temperatures as related to today. I'm not talking about wether it rained today or 100 years ago on this date.

It quite obviously was a naturally occuring event,

Kudos. You've admitted that it naturally occurs. If it occured back then, why can't it do the same today? Why do we have to cripple economies just because of a simple naturally occuring event?

but we are talking about a manmade event some 500 years later.

How do we know its man-made? The fact is, we don't know.

It really does have nothing to do with the subject and you are just using it because it happens to be a fact that you can reference when you cannot find a single fact to refute any of the facts presented against you.

Actually, the fact is that the Atmosphere is cooling down. Fact is that we haven't experienced events the way people who tout it. So why can't we make a correlation from the past to future? Why do we have to rely on the present and not look at the past? That is short-sighted. As a scientist, you can't look at what is occuring in the present but what has also occured in the past.

No, you are wrong. It has everything to do with this. By showing that the same thing occured during the Middle Ages without the CO2 produced by humans today, it can be proven that global warming as a result of human industry is not true.


You couldn't be more wrong. It proves only that the planet warmed up in the middle ages, it makes no predictions about what happens when you pump a whole load of CO2 into the atmosphere.

The DOE (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html) would disagree with you.

All this says is that human production of CO2 is rising. In fact, it shows that the concentration is growing slower than the rate of human production. This seems to suggest that the increase in CO2 isn't related to human industry, or it would outpace the rate of human production.

Secondly, the effects predicted by this growth aren't happening. Apparently, something else is driving the planet's warming.

Did you know that termites produce 45 billion tons of CO2 and methane each year, or almost 5 times the amount produced by humans?

You couldn't be more wrong. It proves only that the planet warmed up in the middle ages, it makes no predictions about what happens when you pump a whole load of CO2 into the atmosphere.

No, it shows that pumping CO2 in to the atmosphere isn't doing anything because the same effect occured when there wasn't these quantities of human-produced CO2 being pumped in to the atmosphere.

For about the 100th time, the atmosphere is not cooling down.

What exactly did you study at college because you do not have a basic understanding of logic? You are making the logical mistake a child would make and until you can make that logical leap there is no point discussing it with you.

There is no connection between temperature changes in the middle ages and the greenhouse effect. You have given perfectly good reasons for why the earth can heat up or cool down due to various terrestrial and solar cycles. These terrestrial and solar cycles may be the cause of the fact that the atmospheric temperature is rising. However none of that logically has any bearing on the theories of global warming and the greenhouse effect. The theories still stand as theories and scientists believe that they are starting to see the evidence of this happening.

If you can't understand that, there's no hope for this discussion.

All this says is that human production of CO2 is rising. In fact, it shows that the concentration is growing slower than the rate of human production. This seems to suggest that the increase in CO2 isn't related to human industry, or it would outpace the rate of human production.


No, it doesn't suggest that. You just made it up.

I give up. I'm not lowering myself to this level anymore.

If temperatures rising recently really is just natural, what is there to say that the pollutants that we're putting in the air right now won't heat everything up faster or prevent the Earth from continuing this heating/cooling cycle? What if it just stays like that and doesn't change? I mean, I bet the government will be just as stubborn as they are now, so they probably won't have done much. And if it's not natural, then that means we have to do something about it.

Kradlumania, welcome to the sandbox. Yes, those are people. And no, they're not coming up for air.

They like it down there. So don't worry about 'lowering yourself', okay?

*taps shoulder*

http://www.libertymatters.org/newsservice/2003/faxback/4.08.03middleages.htm
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html

The two articles I posted.
Granted. But how does that support global warming not existing? The glboe warms to the ponit that an ice age is incurred, then it cools back down again.

If the world was fair, we could put a dome around the US and let them breathe alone their own polution.

You guys still discuss with the Americans on this? Brave people!

If the world was fair, we could put a dome around the US and let them breathe alone their own polution.

You guys still discuss with the Americans on this? Brave people!

You're acting as if all Americans think the same way, believe the same things, and are all stuck up brats. It's not as if citizens=government. This is what I hate. When people make generalizations about a country by just looking at the government! (I also hate it when people refer to the government as a nation, like "America thinks this...")

Natural climate changes are very very gradual but they still wreak havoc. The earth's climate is very delicate. And influence on it will lead to a sort of feedback effect that intensifies the problem. It works like that no matter if it's cooling or heating.
Fortunately the climate is also self-regulating, but that's a very very slow process that can take several hundreds of years.

The increase in temperature over the last 120 years is significantly greater than anyone would expect, and corrosponds with the industrial revolution. In the same period of time, the amount of CO2 in the athmosphere have increased by aprox. 30%.
Noone can say for sure if the current rise in temperature (globally it's increasing. If you claim the opposite, you must know something noone else in the world knows), is caused by a manmade greenhouse effect... But even the most optimistic projections in accordance with IPCC, shows a major impact on our climate, caused by our pollution, over the next 70 years.

Here's some links for you if you want to eradicate your ignorance.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/2860.php)
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

Did you give up on your planet-wide continous vulcanic eruption yet?

If the world was fair, we could put a dome around the US and let them breathe alone their own polution.

Unfortunately, Quebec gets all the shit that's sent over the Ohio valley.
http://www.seshat.ca/temp/smog.gif

Ihatevacations']Granted. But how does that support global warming not existing? The glboe warms to the ponit that an ice age is incurred, then it cools back down again.

Global warming occurs, but it is not due to humans. These cycles go back to the beginning of the Earth (I think it is due to the axial tilt) and are no less normal than the weather or tides. Life produces CO2, not just human industry, and they produce far more than we ever realistically could. In the end, a climate change protocol will help nothing and hurt the economy.

Global warming occurs, but it is not due to humans. These cycles go back to the beginning of the Earth (I think it is due to the axial tilt) and are no less normal than the weather or tides. Life produces CO2, not just human industry, and they produce far more than we ever realistically could. In the end, a climate change protocol will help nothing and hurt the economy.
Yeah because it would costs businesses more money who would, instead of taking pay cuts to their multimillion dollar cheques, would lay off people

Ihatevacations']Yeah because it would costs businesses more money who would, instead of taking pay cuts to their multimillion dollar cheques, would lay off people

Yes, that's true. There's no way to change this because profits are the most important thing in a capitalist economy. Why is unemployment so high in Europe? Because it is extremely expensive to operate there, and companies look for the place where they can get the largest return on their investment (yes, they consider employees investments).

However, many executives are paid very little. Their wealth comes from stock holdings, not salaries. (I think Warren Buffet gets only 300k a year).

However, many executives are paid very little. Their wealth comes from stock holdings, not salaries. (I think Warren Buffet gets only 300k a year).

Wow, only 300k? What a completely selfless man, how does he afford to feed his kids?

Wow, only 300k? What a completely selfless man, how does he afford to feed his kids?
I assume they eat imported Italian leather belts and shoe rubber from Spain

However, many executives are paid very little. Their wealth comes from stock holdings, not salaries. (I think Warren Buffet gets only 300k a year).

Gee 300K plus stock options?

I'm goddamn lucky if I can gross ten percent of that. Stock options? Don't make me laugh. I haven't been able to afford to see a dentist in over two years.

But we all have our own particular crosses to bear. My heart goes out to that poor, poor beleagured man.

Gee 300K plus stock options?

I'm goddamn lucky if I can gross ten percent of that. Stock options? Don't make me laugh. I haven't been able to afford to see a dentist in over two years.

But we all have our own particular crosses to bear. My heart goes out to that poor, poor beleagured man.

You know what's even worse:

His stock is worth around $100,000 a share. I wonder why he never splits it?
(because he owns a lot of it)

It must be a burden to only get 300,000 a year... :rolleyes:

Sorry, I have terrible news:

He only made 100,000 dollars this year. Must have been tough to take that pay cut...

Global warming occurs, but it is not due to humans. These cycles go back to the beginning of the Earth (I think it is due to the axial tilt) and are no less normal than the weather or tides. Life produces CO2, not just human industry, and they produce far more than we ever realistically could. In the end, a climate change protocol will help nothing and hurt the economy.
Way to mix up things by not explaining the mechanisms.
What you said is true, but the conclusion you reached is dead wrong.

The climate cycles on earth is somewhat due to the axial tilt and the movement of the earth's magnetic feild. So far so good... Saying it goes back to the beginning of the earth is wrong. Our atmosphere and climate have changed over the history of the planet. Our current climate is nowhere near what it was when the earth first formed an atmosphere... Nor is the atmosphere the same.

Global warming have occured.. As have global cooling. It keeps occouring very very slowly. Ideally - that means without our influence - the heating and cooling cycles get's slower and less radical with time. The climate change we're introducing isn't natural and it's not easily reversed. It's also very extreme in both temperature change and speed. Much much much more extreme than anything nature can do.

Many processes on the planet produces CO2. Much more of it than we humans produce. The oceans absorbs enomous amounts and will slowly regulate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But it's a process that takes decades. The CO2 produced in nature is constant. It maintains the current ca. 0.4 promille of CO2 in the atmosphere even with the oceans (and other things) soaking up the bulk of it.
Sudden large increases in CO2 outlet can't be readily dealt with by nature. If it could, the climate would be radically different. Our fossile fuel consumption for the last 100-150 years have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere by ca. 30%. We're producing more and more of it (CO2 isn't the only culprit, but the other gasses are measured in terms of how much CO2 if takes to make the same impact), and there is no way nature can handle it. Even if we completely halt all CO2 emmision, it will still take decades before the CO2 level is normalised.
So yea, there's no way we can compete with nature in emitting CO2, but then, it's completely besides the point.

In the end, it's unrealistic to think a climate change protocol that is powerful enough to stop us from trashing our biosphere will ever be adopted.

Reveiw the links I provided above if you want to know something about global warming

I will. The only way global warming can be controlled is by technological innovation and ecological regulation. If we allow forest fires to occur and regularly renew forests by cutting down huge trees and replacing them with new ones (rainforests exempted, of course), we could absorb a lot more CO2, because new, fast growing trees process more CO2 than old ones. The other main way is to replace coal with nuclear, or even better wind/solar. They're expensive, but great for the economy and its high-tech sector.

I will. The only way global warming can be controlled is by technological innovation and ecological regulation. If we allow forest fires to occur and regularly renew forests by cutting down huge trees and replacing them with new ones (rainforests exempted, of course), we could absorb a lot more CO2, because new, fast growing trees process more CO2 than old ones. The other main way is to replace coal with nuclear, or even better wind/solar. They're expensive, but great for the economy and its high-tech sector.
Yups. Replacing what we consume will keep the status quo. Too bad we never thought of that before. Fossile fuels aren't part of the natural CO2 cycle that goes on in nature, that's why it's beyond what nature can handle. Something like a forest fire doesn't add to the CO2 level because new CO2 consuming growth will appear where the fire happened.
I'm not a huge fan of nuclear energy because of the waste problem. The only really good place to put it is in outer space and that's hardly very economic. But we have made great progress in both wind, wave, water and solar energy. It's just not very attractive to invest in it when we already have perfectly good energy sources. It's just one of the reasons why capitalism sucks.
Anyway, I doubt we can avoid drastic climate changes. We've already taken it way too far. Especially the last 30 years have been insane. I hope - but doubt - we'll change soon. If not, our children will hate us.

For about the 100th time, the atmosphere is not cooling down.

For the 100th time it is cooling down.

What exactly did you study at college because you do not have a basic understanding of logic?

I'm studying History and Political Science. I'm not studying philosophy. However, I do know how to read data.

You are making the logical mistake a child would make and until you can make that logical leap there is no point discussing it with you.

Despite the fact that it has been reported that the atmophere is actually cooling and not warming?

There is no connection between temperature changes in the middle ages and the greenhouse effect.

There is no connection between temperature changes today in comparison to human technology.

You have given perfectly good reasons for why the earth can heat up or cool down due to various terrestrial and solar cycles. These terrestrial and solar cycles may be the cause of the fact that the atmospheric temperature is rising. However none of that logically has any bearing on the theories of global warming and the greenhouse effect.

Why because you say it doesn't? I have to disagree with that assertion. I"m sorry if what we're saying isn't exactly what you wanted to hear but when you're dealing with science, you have to deal with, not only the present but the past too. The past indicates that we have had warming trends before. That was before the advent of heavy industry. Based on facts in evidence from the past, I have to conclude that Global Warming is a natural occuring phenomena. If you can't look at past evidence, then you can't logically argue this topic. You have to study the past in order to understand the future.

The theories still stand as theories and scientists believe that they are starting to see the evidence of this happening.

We already know it occurs naturally so what is there to prove? I am saying that humans haven't caused global warming. It occurs naturally and at its own pace. We will never ever ever be able to do anything about it.

If you can't understand that, there's no hope for this discussion.

If you can't understand the fact that this has been going on for centuries then there is no hope for this discussion.

Ihatevacations']Granted. But how does that support global warming not existing? The glboe warms to the ponit that an ice age is incurred, then it cools back down again.

Its a natural occuring event. If its natural, there's nothing to worry about. I'm saying it doesn't exist because people are saying that we are the cause. No we are not the cause. There is no man-made global warming. Nothing has been stated that this is a natural occuring event. Since it is natural (based on evidence from the past) I'm not going to worry about it.

Global warming existing? Yes but naturally. There is no such thing as man-made global warming. As we have stated countless times.

If you can't understand the fact that this has been going on for centuries then there is no hope for this discussion.

Reading your posts, I feel like this thread has been going on for centuries. Indeed, there is no hope.

Its a natural occuring event. If its natural, there's nothing to worry about. I'm saying it doesn't exist because people are saying that we are the cause. No we are not the cause. There is no man-made global warming. Nothing has been stated that this is a natural occuring event. Since it is natural (based on evidence from the past) I'm not going to worry about it.

Global warming existing? Yes but naturally. There is no such thing as man-made global warming. As we have stated countless times.


There is so much evidence from Ice cores that global warming is a natural occurence its staggering. But people like to point fingers. Make industrialized nations feel bad. Oh it must be those greedy Americans or whomever you pick fault. There is absolutely no evidence this is human caused. Frankly I highly doubt we can coax nature into cooling down. We have yet to figure out the cycles of Earth.

Wow, only 300k? What a completely selfless man, how does he afford to feed his kids?

BTW so you know Warren Buffet is worth 10 times that 300k. The guy is brillant. He is also a philanthropist.

Its a natural occuring event. If its natural, there's nothing to worry about. I'm saying it doesn't exist because people are saying that we are the cause. No we are not the cause. There is no man-made global warming. Nothing has been stated that this is a natural occuring event. Since it is natural (based on evidence from the past) I'm not going to worry about it.

Global warming existing? Yes but naturally. There is no such thing as man-made global warming. As we have stated countless times.

No, you've told blatant lies, ignored facts, ignored the whole point of the argument and shown yourself to be intellectually incapable of debate. God bless the American education system because you certainly didn't.

Its still a theory. Why is it still a theory you may ask? Because there is too much evidence against it.

looks like we can add 'basic scientific terminology' to the list of things you fundamentally misunderstand. being a theory is a good thing.

There is so much evidence from Ice cores that global warming is a natural occurence its staggering.

no.

there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the earth's climate has changed in the past. there is also an overwhelming amount of evidence that current climate change is being dramatically influenced by all that damn stuff we keep pumping into the air.

in the words of the ipcc,
"The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature ... is inconsistent with natural forcing." (see here (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm))

and

"[A]ll recent studies reject natural forcing and internal variability alone as a possible explanation of recent climate change... Changes over the past 30 to 50 years are very unlikely to be due to internal variability as simulated by current models... Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are likely to have made a significant and substantial contribution to the warming observed over the second half of the 20th century..." (see here (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/465.htm))

I was always under the impression that global climate works on a sort of double pendulum effect (this would be so much easier if I could sketch it with a pencil). That is, not only does average temperature vary on a short cycle (i.e. it gets progressively hotter each summer for thirty years and then it gets progressively cooler each summer for thirty years, and then the cycle repeats - and I made those numbers up btw for the purpose of explaining myself), but there is also a much longer cycle within which the high- to low-temperature range of that short cycle moves up and down. So while the average temperature in the past fifty years may have climbed 1.7 degrees or whatever, we may still be in a long-term cooling trend overall, leading ultimately to another ice-age. Anyone know the latest thoughts on that idea?

(Edit: btw I skipped the last four pages as it is 3am...forgive me if I am rehashing)

It's a pity that the debate on global warming seems to be centring around the shady concept of "scientific fact". To use such terminology to attempt to discredit a scientific theory is disingeneous and shows gross ignorance of the scientific method. Perhaps the issue needs to be rephrased in a way that is actually meaningful to scientists. Try this:

The most complex multivariate analyses (i.e. analyses taking lots of extra variables into account - eliminating other factors that are known to have an effect on climate) show a statistically significant relationship between increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and increasing global temperatures. That means regardless of the natural stochasticity of the system (all the noise as a result of natural climatic fluctuations). That tends to get most scientists sitting up and listening. Even Bjorn Lomberg, the so-called "skeptical environmentalist", concludes his chapter on climate change saying that the current evidence gives cause for concern.

Another little misconception is that "some models show increased global temperatures; others show us heading into another ice-age - they don't have a clue what's happening, so it's all likely to balance out in the end". What such skeptics don't understand is that the Earth's climate is a so-called "chaotic system" - in practical terms, you can predict that a change is going to occur, you just don't know what direction that change will take. It's like the example of an avalaunch down a mountainside - if you set off an explosive at a site that you know is structurally unstable, you can predict the severity of the resulting avalaunch to a fair degree of accuracy. What you can't predict is the exact positions of all the rocks at the end of it.

And even if you're still not prepared to accept the actual evidence for climate change, there is absolutely no room for doubt that the actual rise in greenhouse gas partial pressures (carbon dioxide levels) is as a result of anthropogenic activity. Even if you don't think this will cause global temperature changes, there are some other potentially severe direct effects of elevated carbon levels. For example, the initial sequestration of carbon by plants in photosynthesis can occur in two ways. Most plants (C3 plants) initially produce a 3-Carbon molecule. In warmer regions, it is advantageous for some plants (C4 plants) to produce a 4-carbon molecule. However, if carbon dioxide concentrations increase, the advantage that C4 plants gain over C3 plants is reduced. Corn is a C4 plant. There is therefore a very real risk of reduced cereal productivity as a result of a loss in competitive ability with weeds regardless of whether the increased atmospheric carbon concentrations give rise to climatic change. The agricultural industry could suffer greatly as a result, and people living in poorer countries are likely to be affected the most.

There is so much evidence from Ice cores that global warming is a natural occurence its staggering. But people like to point fingers. Make industrialized nations feel bad. Oh it must be those greedy Americans or whomever you pick fault. There is absolutely no evidence this is human caused. Frankly I highly doubt we can coax nature into cooling down. We have yet to figure out the cycles of Earth.

Its a lost cause. There is no way we can coax nature to cool down. You are right that there is too much evidence from Ice cores to point it at a natural event. However, these so called scientists try to paint this into that we are the cause. Give me a break.

I can't wait to see what this crowd does when we hit a cold snap :D

I was always under the impression that global climate works on a sort of double pendulum effect (this would be so much easier if I could sketch it with a pencil). That is, not only does average temperature vary on a short cycle (i.e. it gets progressively hotter each summer for thirty years and then it gets progressively cooler each summer for thirty years, and then the cycle repeats - and I made those numbers up btw for the purpose of explaining myself),

Not to far off on your numbers actually. Its a 25 year cycle so good job :)

but there is also a much longer cycle within which the high- to low-temperature range of that short cycle moves up and down. So while the average temperature in the past fifty years may have climbed 1.7 degrees or whatever, we may still be in a long-term cooling trend overall, leading ultimately to another ice-age. Anyone know the latest thoughts on that idea?

That we're heading for another mini-ice age? I've heard a rumor to that affect. Is it true? Don't know. Really can't even hazard a guess. Not with facts not in evidence.

(Edit: btw I skipped the last four pages as it is 3am...forgive me if I am rehashing)

Nah! Quite alright :)

No, you've told blatant lies, ignored facts, ignored the whole point of the argument and shown yourself to be intellectually incapable of debate. God bless the American education system because you certainly didn't.

Actually, I was taught in science class to look at all the evidence. However, by looking at the evidence from the past, it clearly shows that global warming is a natural occurance. You cannot deny this fact.

looks like we can add 'basic scientific terminology' to the list of things you fundamentally misunderstand. being a theory is a good thing.

I understand it just fine. However, when you have people that don't look at the past when they are trying to understand something, they'll never be able to get a grasp of it. I have looked at the past. There have been warming trends before. Warming trends like we are experiencing now. We really aren't doing anything to this cycle. This cycle will never end. It'll occur many more times. Since it is naturally occuring and there's nothing that can be done about it, why worry? I'm not worried about it at all.

It is entirely true that the world's climate shows fluctuations over time. Ice cap evidence shows warming trends and cooling trends. What is so worrying about the current trend is the rapidity of it. The Earth normally takes millenia to undergo warming to the extent that we may now observe over a few decades.

Following David Attenborough's series "The state of the planet", somebody wrote in with the comment "What David Attenborough calls global warming, I call evolution". These are the two scientific concepts that are most commonly abused in the popular press, and that comment is one of the most cringeworthy I've heard.

Under normal warming cycles, evolution (or shifts in geographical distributions, as for arthropods and gymnosperm trees) is given time to occur. The current global warming trend will almost certainly not allow many species the time to adapt, and a mass extinction would not be so unlikely if current rates of change persist.

It is entirely true that the world's climate shows fluctuations over time. Ice cap evidence shows warming trends and cooling trends. What is so worrying about the current trend is the rapidity of it. The Earth normally takes millenia to undergo warming to the extent that we may now observe over a few decades.

Actually, how do we know that it didn't rapidly happen back then? There is still alot we don't know. It could've happened rapidly then. I think we've only just discovered the fact that it does happen fast. Climate changes take time yes, but nothing stated that a heating and cooling trend can't happen rapidly.

The current global warming trend will almost certainly not allow many species the time to adapt, and a mass extinction would not be so unlikely if current rates of change persist.

Ladies and gentlemen, this statement here could explain mass extinctions in the past.

Actually, how do we know that it didn't rapidly happen back then? There is still alot we don't know. It could've happened rapidly then. I think we've only just discovered the fact that it does happen fast. Climate changes take time yes, but nothing stated that a heating and cooling trend can't happen rapidly.

The resolution provided by the ice-cap data/fossil record etc. may not be great, but it does allow us to put a broad timescale on trends. We see gymnosperm trees migrating North/South, and you can observe those trends over millions of years. They come out as steady changes, and scientists can easily make sense of them. If current warming occurs at predicted rates, it would not show up geologically as a trend, but as a sudden catastrophic event. Even the K/T boundary spans a registerable timescale, compared to this! If climatic change has occurred at such rapidity in the past, you expect to see instantaneous peaks of mass extinction. All mass extinctions observed so far have taken millions of years.

Basically, there is no evidence for such rapid global warming in the past. Unless you're talking about climatic fluctuations, which the models take account of anyway.


Ladies and gentlemen, this statement here could explain mass extinctions in the past.

Many mass extinctions from the past are well-explained. And you're right - climatic change (even slow climatic change) accounts for many of them. However, if we are observing climatic changes as a result of anthropogenic activity, we cannot excuse it by saying "never mind, it's happened before". And we can do something about it.

The resolution provided by the ice-cap data/fossil record etc. may not be great, but it does allow us to put a broad timescale on trends. We see gymnosperm trees migrating North/South, and you can observe those trends over millions of years. They come out as steady changes, and scientists can easily make sense of them. If current warming occurs at predicted rates, it would not show up geologically as a trend, but as a sudden catastrophic event. Even the K/T boundary spans a registerable timescale, compared to this! If climatic change has occurred at such rapidity in the past, you expect to see instantaneous peaks of mass extinction. All mass extinctions observed so far have taken millions of years.

I've already stated that Climates change over time. You just proved something to me that I already know. That climate changes and there is nothing we can do about it.

Basically, there is no evidence for such rapid global warming in the past. Unless you're talking about climatic fluctuations, which the models take account of anyway.

I have to disagree with you here. There were to many active volcanoes back then spewing up ash, dust, co2 and everything else under the sun (literally :D) This blocks out the sun and thus temps rise because there is nowhere for the heat to go. Therefor, temperatures rise rapidly. Now that's a greenhouse. Remember the astroid that caused the dinosaures to become extinct? It blocked out the sun. Couple that with the greenhouse effect.......No more dinosaures :D

Many mass extinctions from the past are well-explained.

They are? :eek: Astroids. Yea but the trick is, is it actually factual. Some of that is still theory and not scientific fact. We still don't know what caused the dinosaures to become extinct but the well accepted theory is the Astroid theory.

And you're right - climatic change (even slow climatic change) accounts for many of them.

Thank you :)

However, if we are observing climatic changes as a result of anthropogenic activity, we cannot excuse it by saying "never mind, it's happened before". And we can do something about it.

No we can't do something about it. If it occured before, it'll happen again despite our best efforts. Even if we weren't tossing up CO2 (which we do everytime we exhale :rolleyes:) it still would happen. So how do you propose we stop climate change? Fact is, you can't.

no.

there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that the earth's climate has changed in the past. there is also an overwhelming amount of evidence that current climate change is being dramatically influenced by all that damn stuff we keep pumping into the air.

in the words of the ipcc,
"The observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature ... is inconsistent with natural forcing." (see here (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm))

and

"[A]ll recent studies reject natural forcing and internal variability alone as a possible explanation of recent climate change... Changes over the past 30 to 50 years are very unlikely to be due to internal variability as simulated by current models... Anthropogenic greenhouse gases are likely to have made a significant and substantial contribution to the warming observed over the second half of the 20th century..." (see here (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/465.htm))

Your wrong in thinking there is no ice core evidence supporting natural fluctuations in the Earths temps.
A huge read but maybe this will help a bit. Deals with a wide area of climatic information.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

I understand it just fine.

no, you don't. anyone that can say things like:
"Why is it still a theory you may ask? Because there is too much evidence against it."
has absolutely no understanding of the meaning of the word 'theory'. look it up in even a basic science textbook some time. you'll be surprised.

However, when you have people that don't look at the past when they are trying to understand something, they'll never be able to get a grasp of it. I have looked at the past. There have been warming trends before. Warming trends like we are experiencing now. We really aren't doing anything to this cycle. This cycle will never end. It'll occur many more times. Since it is naturally occuring and there's nothing that can be done about it, why worry? I'm not worried about it at all.

except that according to the consensus opinion of all of our current understanding, natural causes are not able to explain the observed warming, even if we make up unknown multiplier factors for which we have no evidence. as the ipcc said (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm), "the overall trend in natural forcing over the last two, and perhaps four, decades of the 20th century is likely to have been small or negative". in other words, natural forcing is quite possibly cooling some of the effect of anthropogenic climate change.

Your wrong in thinking there is no ice core evidence supporting natural fluctuations in the Earths temps.

and apparently you are wrong in thinking you have a solid level of reading comprehension. where did i ever deny the existence of non-anthropogenic climate changes? that's right, i didn't. what i do claim is that the current evidence shows that natural forcing is unable to explain the observed data, and that anthropogenic emissions are a significant factor in current climate change.

how about this? i dare you to go find some peer-reviewed articles from reputable scientific journals to support your argument that current climate change is entirely (or even mostly) a result of natural forcing. then we can talk.

no, you don't. anyone that can say things like:
"Why is it still a theory you may ask? Because there is too much evidence against it."
has absolutely no understanding of the meaning of the word 'theory'. look it up in even a basic science textbook some time. you'll be surprised.

I know full well what a theory is. Global Warming is a theory, much like evolution is a theory. The theory of Relativity. Why are they theories? Because we can't experiment the way it should be though I did hear a rumor that we'll be putting Einstein's theory of Relativity to the test soon. :p What will be say if experiments disprove his theory? That'll be interesting.

except that according to the consensus opinion of all of our current understanding, natural causes are not able to explain the observed warming, even if we make up unknown multiplier factors for which we have no evidence.

Why can't it explain current warming trends? I can tell you why it can't! Its because we don't have any records of it. That's why. We have had heating trends before. Probably on par with what we are experiencing now. Do I have proof? No because we don't have data from back then even though we have pinpointed the fact that the middle ages were warmer than today and that was without industry. So I can point to this and prove that Global Warming is a natural occurance. I've always believed it to be such.

as the ipcc said (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/467.htm), "the overall trend in natural forcing over the last two, and perhaps four, decades of the 20th century is likely to have been small or negative". in other words, natural forcing is quite possibly cooling some of the effect of anthropogenic climate change.

I wonder how much evidence they have from the past. I'm going by what has already been proven (middle ages warmer than today) and they don't know why since there was no heavy industry like we have today. I'm still waiting on an explaination of this. No one can give me one so I am concluding that Global Warming is natural and therefor, I'm not worried about it.

I know full well what a theory is. Global Warming is a theory, much like evolution is a theory. The theory of Relativity. Why are they theories? Because we can't experiment the way it should be

incorrect. care to try again?

though I did hear a rumor that we'll be putting Einstein's theory of Relativity to the test soon. :p What will be say if experiments disprove his theory? That'll be interesting.

welcome to 1919. have fun measuring the deflection of starlight during the eclipse.

I wonder how much evidence they have from the past.

one could go check for one's self, ya know. it's not like i haven't been linking to the full text of the report (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm). you should take a look at the whole thing sometime, but chapter two is the most relevant to your current line of argument.

the short answer to your wondering is "more than you".

I'm going by what has already been proven (middle ages warmer than today) and they don't know why since there was no heavy industry like we have today. I'm still waiting on an explaination of this. No one can give me one

oh really?

"The Northern Hemisphere mean temperature estimates of Jones et al. (1998), Mann et al. (1999), and Crowley and Lowery (2000) show temperatures from the 11th to 14th centuries to be about 0.2°C warmer than those from the 15th to 19th centuries, but rather below mid-20th century temperatures... The restricted evidence from the Southern Hemisphere, e.g., the Tasmanian tree-ring temperature reconstruction of Cook et al. (1999), shows no evidence for a distinct Medieval Warm Period."

"Medieval warmth appears, in large part, to have been restricted to areas in and neighbouring the North Atlantic. This may implicate the role of ocean circulation-related climate variability. The Bermuda rise sediment record of Keigwin (1996) suggests warm medieval conditions and cold 17th to 19th century conditions in the Sargasso Sea of the tropical North Atlantic. A sediment record just south of Newfoundland (Keigwin and Pickart, 1999), in contrast, indicates cold medieval and warm 16th to 19th century upper ocean temperatures. Keigwin and Pickart (1999) suggest that these temperature contrasts were associated with changes in ocean currents in the North Atlantic."

both quotes from section 2.3.3 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm) of the ipcc report

No we can't do something about it. If it occured before, it'll happen again despite our best efforts. Even if we weren't tossing up CO2 (which we do everytime we exhale :rolleyes:) it still would happen. So how do you propose we stop climate change? Fact is, you can't.

So that's your big idea, is it - "nothing to see here, folks, go home and watch reuns of Seinfeld"?

Complacent, defeatist, drivel that barely disguises an agenda designed to enable heavy industry to continue the downward spiral toward impending ecological ruin and mass extinctions.


Signpost ahead: you're in the Bush Apologist Zone.

So that's your big idea, is it - "nothing to see here, folks, go home and watch reuns of Seinfeld"?

I never watched Seinfeld. I have more important things to do than waste my time watching garbage.

Complacent, defeatist, drivel that barely disguises an agenda designed to enable heavy industry to continue the downward spiral toward impending ecological ruin and mass extinctions.

Eh? I"m sorry for the fact that Global Warming is a natural occurance. I'm sorry that China is going to be your biggest polluter than the US since we actually have environment restrictions as it is. I'm sorry that the Middle Ages were warmer than today. I'm sorry for the fact that the Atmosphere is cooling down thus blowing this theory straight to hell.

I'm sorry for the fact that the Atmosphere is cooling down thus blowing this theory straight to hell.

You keep right on thinking things are cooling, pally. Never mind all the records for high temperatures that keep being broken day after day, week after week...

Never mind the tornados we're now suddenly seeing appear over the city in which I've lived the majority of my life. Dismiss the tropical moulds and insect life that are gaining toeholds in Canada, of all places. Ignore the introduction of African Hantavirus in North American rodents. Forget the Antarctic ice-shelf that collapsed into the open waters of the ocean. Toss to one side the fact that the tree-line in Ungava bay and the Northwest territories is moving northward, toward the polar cap. Stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" real loud, and maybe the permafrost will stop melting.

I feel so coooooooooooooool I must be Corneliu.

I'm sorry that the Middle Ages were warmer than today...

in some areas around the north atlantic, but not in the rest of the world. and not 'warmer than today' so much as 'warmer than the 19th century'.

I'm sorry for the fact that the Atmosphere is cooling down thus blowing this theory straight to hell.

source this claim

What, you still busy assembling your inevitable line-by-line deconstruction of my post?

You keep right on thinking things are cooling, pally. Never mind all the records for high temperatures that keep being broken day after day, week after week...

HAHAHA!!! You know jack about the weather and its obvious! What time of year are we in? Anyone? Oh yea that's right... S-U-M-M-E-R! What happens in summer time? It gets hot. I just had a 14 degree temperature drop. Why? Because of Rain! Its summer time pally. It'll get hot. In winter, it'll get cold with record cold temperatures. :eek: Global Cooling if we follow your logic.

in some areas around the north atlantic, but not in the rest of the world. and not 'warmer than today' so much as 'warmer than the 19th century'.

The Middle Ages were warmer than they are today. It is a fact jack.

source this claim

Why when all your going to do is denounce it.

HAHAHA!!! You know jack about the weather and its obvious! What time of year are we in? Anyone? Oh yea that's right... S-U-M-M-E-R! What happens in summer time? It gets hot. I just had a 14 degree temperature drop. Why? Because of Rain! Its summer time pally. It'll get hot. In winter, it'll get cold with record cold temperatures. :eek: Global Cooling if we follow your logic.

Ha ha ha ha ha, way to completely dismiss everything else I said. Pedant.

And your version of events doesn't explain why beer parlour patios are open, with people wearing short sleeves, in January, in Toronto the last four years running.

Shall I shovel some more sand into your sandox for you, Corny? I think the tops of your ears might be showing.

Lemme just add...

Bjorn Lomborg, one of the very few people with any sort of credibility who doubt's that we're experiencing a man made global warming right now, really isn't very credible at all.
Much of his material is based on completely ignoring contradicting material.
His collegues world wide have accused him of tampering with his evidence and research and he's universally regarded as a hack. Most of his research have been discredited. He officially been accused of using scientifically unsound methods.
The man have managed to cling on to his position mostly because world leaders across the globe wants to promote what he says. The Danish government (the current one) went so far as to launch an investigation into the scientific society as a counter measure. It wasn't successful and was borderline slander.

That said, even Bjorn Lomborg agrees with the IPCC models being used to project climate developement. He agrees that we'll do permanent harm to the biosphere if we keep up current emmision levels... And he agrees we'll start to face serious, permanent enviroment change within the next 70 years.

Corneliu even the scientists who want to agree with you can't. I suggest you explore IPCC's homepage. Read the repport Free Soviets linked to and perhaps Bjorn Lomborg's homepage or his books. You don't need any background knowledge to understand any of these things.

Alternatively, I think you'll be stoned to death by your children or grandchildren.

Ha ha ha ha ha, way to completely dismiss everything else I said. Pedant.

Yea I dismissed it because your opening line sucked. :rolleyes:

And your version of events doesn't explain why beer parlour patios are open, with people wearing short sleeves, in January, in Toronto the last four years running.

You do know that weather goes in cycles right? Sometimes you'll have a mild winter (I know this) and sometimes you can have a brutal winter (Know this first hand as well) Just because you stated that patios are opened in January, doesn't mean global warming is happening. It means that you just had a mild winter. Give me a break. I've experienced mild winters myself so it doesn't wash with me. I'm also preparing for a brutal winter this year.

Shall I shovel some more sand into your sandox for you, Corny? I think the tops of your ears might be showing.

I think you have no grasp of how the weather actually works. We can discuss the more if you like! I'm more than willing to discuss the weather with people that know jack about it.

Ha ha ha ha ha, way to completely dismiss everything else I said. Pedant.

And your version of events doesn't explain why beer parlour patios are open, with people wearing short sleeves, in January, in Toronto the last four years running.

Shall I shovel some more sand into your sandox for you, Corny? I think the tops of your ears might be showing.
It's very unlikely that has anything to do with global warming. Maybe persistent record temperatures continually over 15+ years would give some slight indication. What you're talking about happens everywhere, every year. Cold, warmth, rainfall, draught... You name it

Folks, the ONLY purpose of the Kyoto Treaty was to cripple the US economy. The Europeans can't compete, so they came up with a clever scheme. As for the merits of the "climate change", there are three incontrovertible points (which reflect the consensus of scientists BTW - I'm speaking as someone with PhD in Physics and doing mathematical modeling for a living, with 22 years of experience):

1) There's not much evidence of any global warming

2) There's absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that human activities are causing global climate change or are even capable of doing so

3) Any politician who sincerely believes that governments actually have the power to change global climate is a dangerous egomaniac who should be locked up in a mental institution or, as a bare minimum, kept away from any power

:rolleyes:

I refuse to waste more of my time on the likes of you.


Don't expect one iota of sympathy from me when your house of cards comes crashing down all around you and yours.

Address this, the stuff Corneliu completely ignored:

Never mind the tornados we're now suddenly seeing appear over the city in which I've lived the majority of my life. Dismiss the tropical moulds and insect life that are gaining toeholds in Canada, of all places. Ignore the introduction of African Hantavirus in North American rodents. Forget the Antarctic ice-shelf that collapsed into the open waters of the ocean. Toss to one side the fact that the tree-line in Ungava bay and the Northwest territories is moving northward, toward the polar cap. Stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" real loud, and maybe the permafrost will stop melting.

I actually found this website. Its quite fascinating and it really does explain global cooling AS WELL AS global warming.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

This question was raised in my head.

Are we headed for another Ice Age?

As for the article, I found it to be fully of evidence. Some that actually does support Global Warming but not by humans but naturally (as we've already stated hundreds of times).

Its an interesting read.

"What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within our big icehouse climate. Dismissing political calls for a global effort to reverse climate change, she said, ' It's really farcical because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to adapt to the change.' "

I don't want this to be steamrollered. I want to hear how any of this is happening when things are supposedly getting colder.

Address this, the stuff Corneliu completely ignored:

Never mind the tornados we're now suddenly seeing appear over the city in which I've lived the majority of my life. Dismiss the tropical moulds and insect life that are gaining toeholds in Canada, of all places. Ignore the introduction of African Hantavirus in North American rodents. Forget the Antarctic ice-shelf that collapsed into the open waters of the ocean. Toss to one side the fact that the tree-line in Ungava bay and the Northwest territories is moving northward, toward the polar cap. Stick your fingers in your ears and say "la la la" real loud, and maybe the permafrost will stop melting.

Address this, the stuff Corneliu completely ignored:

Never mind the tornados we're now suddenly seeing appear over the city in which I've lived the majority of my life.

Have they occured during spring, summer, and fall? If the answer is yes then call it severe weather because that is precisely what happens. When conditions are right, tornadoes form. :rolleyes:

Forget the Antarctic ice-shelf that collapsed into the open waters of the ocean.

Forget the fact that Antartica is actually GETTING COLDER and not warmer!

Toss to one side the fact that the tree-line in Ungava bay and the Northwest territories is moving northward, toward the polar cap.

Come to think of it, we are coming out of an Ice age. Because we are, the treelines are moving northward :rolleyes:

The Middle Ages were warmer than they are today. It is a fact jack.

hmm, who do i believe - some kid on the internet that doesn't know the meaning of the word 'theory' or a whole host of peer-reviewed scientific papers? this one is a tough call...

Why when all your going to do is denounce it.

oh, i'm sorry. i thought you were here for an argument. irrelevant ranting is next door, room 203b

if you are going to make factual claims that are wildly at odds with the scientific consensus, you are going to have to back that shit up. that or go play quietly in a corner and let the grownups do the talking.

Forget the fact that Antartica is actually GETTING COLDER and not warmer!
Actually, the theory behing global warming means that Earth will get much warmer in most of its tropical/equatorial regions, but actually colder in some temperate to cold regions.
This is because in a warmer climatic model, the convection cells aren't working the same way; heat isn't distributed well in certain regions. Numerous computer simulations have shown a change in convection cells and oceanic water flows (streams). Now, will these models be proved or disproved? It's a chilly question.

Have they occured during spring, summer, and fall? If the answer is yes then call it severe weather because that is precisely what happens. When conditions are right, tornadoes form. :rolleyes:

Tornados don't just start appearing with regularity in areas known for hundreds of years to be free from tornados. There is, or are, extenuating circumstances that do not fit into a textbook on severe weather conditions. Tornados don't just happen anywhere, anytime. Try again.



Forget the fact that Antartica is actually GETTING COLDER and not warmer!

Tell that to the melting ice-shelves that are collapsing into the ocean. Maybe they've been dipping into the anti-freeze again, those clownish libertines.



Come to think of it, we are coming out of an Ice age. Because we are, the treelines are moving northward :rolleyes:

Odd that the tree-line has been on the move northward only within living memory, then. Must've missed hearing about the great Ice Age of 1899.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I actually found this website.

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

hey, i remember that website. it was used by somebody else in some argument about global warming a few months ago. i remember it because i showed that it had clearly faked its data, and lied about its sources. let me go find that thread. you were there, i think. being attacked by someone nominally on your side, because that person was completely delusional.

The US will have to realise that global warming is real soon but I feel that they'll leave it until it's way too late then they can "lead " the charge on recovery by which time millions will have died. (subtext= as long as they're not americans who cares!!)
Contrary to popular belief, most people are not denying the phenomenon of global warming. Rather we deny humanity's effect upon the rate of warming as put forth by the environuts.

hey, i remember that website. it was used by somebody else in some argument about global warming a few months ago. i remember it because i showed that it had clearly faked its data, and lied about its sources. let me go find that thread. you were there, i think. being attacked by someone nominally on your side, because that person was completely delusional.

ah yes, here it is:
The Greenhouse Effect (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406692&page=2&pp=15), and the possibly drug-induced journey of our friend Urantia II.

...we deny humanity's effect upon the rate of warming...

Pity the rest of humanity doesn't believe that, now isn't it?

Oh Noes, our Gdp won't grow so fast. Noooooooooo!!11!!oneoneone!.

Tell that to the melting ice-shelves that are collapsing into the ocean. Maybe they've been dipping into the anti-freeze again, those clownish libertines.

Only the Antarctic Peninsula is actually warming up. The rest of the continent (the majority of it) has shown a cooling trend. As shown here:
http://www.unis.no/research/geology/Geo_research/Ole/AntarcticTemperatureChanges.htm
Within the Antarctic Peninsula a warming trend has, however, persisted, with exception of the spring season. The cooling has been modest in coastal East Antarctic regions, but more pronounced at the Amundsen-Scott Base and at the South Pole.

I think I read a similar report put out by John Hopkins University.

Anyway, Coreliu is correct in saying Antarctica has been cooling down. Only the Antarctic Peninsula has shown a warming trend in the last 40+ years. The rest of the continent has been cooling down.

This question was raised in my head.

Are we headed for another Ice Age?
...
Come to think of it, we are coming out of an Ice age. Because we are, the treelines are moving northward :rolleyes:
How can both of those be happening at the same time? How can we be both coming out of AND be going into an Ice Age at the same time? Shouldn't you pick just one to support and base your arguments on?

How can both of those be happening at the same time? How can we be both coming out of AND be going into an Ice Age at the same time? Shouldn't you pick just one to support and base your arguments on?

You have to come out of an Ice Age before you can go back into an ice age. That is why temperatures are getting warmer. It is getting warmer and thus treelines are moving north but then the situation will reverse itself (as it has done before) and the tree line will move back south and we'll enter a new ice age.

I am not worried about Global Warming. Its a natural occurance and Humans aren't having much an effect on it. Nother we can do will ever stop the Earth's natural heating and cooling cycle.

Because NOBODY knows why. Is being done by humans? Is it naturally occuring? Some other outside force?



According to your president today, it is done by Humans. He recognised a fact that was allrady recognised by all other since years.
Your opinion must be the most isolated on earth now.

Goodby rest peacefully in your cave on your "flat earth while the sun turns around it".

According to your president today, it is done by Humans. He recognised a fact that was allrady recognised by all other since years.
Your opinion must be the most isolated on earth now.

Goodby rest peacefully in your cave on your "flat earth while the sun turns around it".

Ahhh but the question is, is he right? I don't believe he is!

*gasp* I say the President is wrong? OMG the world is ending! NOT!!

Anyone who has studied weather can tell you that everything goes in cycles. We are just in a warming trend that will correct itself over time. Its done that before.

Ahhh but the question is, is he right? I don't believe he is!

*gasp* I say the President is wrong? OMG the world is ending! NOT!!

Anyone who has studied weather can tell you that everything goes in cycles. We are just in a warming trend that will correct itself over time. Its done that before.

1) You have not studied weather. Even a blue rabit knows more about science and climate then a rabiate anti science person. Don't pin yourself on the cycles, like I mentioned before here in teh topic, this is not one.
2) Regarding the time you spend on NS, your only specialisation is NS. Ok, you're a kid and don't have a job so you have time to spread your unfactual nonsense, like proven again and again here and in other topics.

1) You have not studied weather. Even a blue rabit knows more about science and climate then a rabiate anti science person. Don't pin yourself on the cycles, like I mentioned before here in teh topic, this is not one.

HAHAHA!! I was studying weather. I still forcast weather too for the Campus Weather Station. I've been studying weather since I was 6 and though I am no longer a meteorology major :(, I still keep up with the weather and track it.

2) Regarding the time you spend on NS, your only specialisation is NS. Ok, you're a kid and don't have a job so you have time to spread your unfactual nonsense, like proven again and again here and in other topics.

1.) I'm not a kid
2.) I do have a job but alas, I'm on break! I can give you the number for the office but I don't know if anyone is actually in the office while school is out of session.

And do to your hatred... have a :fluffle:

About the rising temp in the middle ages: There was and it was man made.

How?

Massive deforestation in Europe, with feudal system kicking up peasants started to carve out their lands into the woods, burning them.

Burning forests = lots of CO2.

What made the temp go down?

Answer: pestilences towards the middle ages cut down the european population by a third, so less land was required and the forest grew again.

Better luck next time in following oil barons' environmental dung.

About the rising temp in the middle ages: There was and it was man made.
How?
Massive deforestation in Europe, with feudal system kicking up peasants started to carve out their lands into the woods, burning them.
Burning forests = lots of CO2.
What made the temp go down?
Answer: pestilences towards the middle ages cut down the european population by a third, so less land was required and the forest grew again.
Better luck next time in following oil barons' environmental dung.

What about the Holocene Optimum? It saw temperature rises by as much as 2 degrees Celsius from 5,000 to 3,000 BC, and this was before large-scale deforestation had occured, and human population densities were much lower. The Sahara was wetter, and civilization was jump-started because of this change.

The Middle Ages saw temperature increases of less than .5 degrees Celsius, and even now it is at best .5 degrees warmer than average. So, how is it that the temperature of the Earth warmed faster, and for a longer period of time when there was little human ecological effect as opposed to a period of considerable human ecological changes?

About the rising temp in the middle ages: There was and it was man made.
How?
Massive deforestation in Europe, with feudal system kicking up peasants started to carve out their lands into the woods, burning them.
Burning forests = lots of CO2.
What made the temp go down?
Answer: pestilences towards the middle ages cut down the european population by a third, so less land was required and the forest grew again.
Better luck next time in following oil barons' environmental dung.

What about the Holocene Optimum? It saw temperature rises by as much as 2 degrees Celsius from 5,000 to 3,000 BC, and this was before large-scale deforestation had occured, and human population densities were much lower. The Sahara was wetter, and civilization was jump-started because of this change.

The Middle Ages saw temperature increases of less than .5 degrees Celsius, and even now it is at best .5 degrees warmer than average. So, how is it that the temperature of the Earth warmed faster, and for a longer period of time when there was little human ecological effect as opposed to a period of considerable human ecological changes?

What about the Holocene Optimum? It saw temperature rises by as much as 2 degrees Celsius from 5,000 to 3,000 BC, and this was before large-scale deforestation had occured, and human population densities were much lower. The Sahara was wetter, and civilization was jump-started because of this change.

The Middle Ages saw temperature increases of less than .5 degrees Celsius, and even now it is at best .5 degrees warmer than average. So, how is it that the temperature of the Earth warmed faster, and for a longer period of time when there was little human ecological effect as opposed to a period of considerable human ecological changes?

Nice post Vetalia.

Nice post Vetalia.

Thanks. :)

Thanks. :)

No problem :)

"They?" Now that the treaty has come into force, Bush want's to submit his own little plan to pretend like he cares for the environment. The thing is, what he is imposing is a toothless measure.
Out of a planet with 275 nations, only about 20 nations have agreed to and adopted the Kyoto Accords. Kyoto is not as popular as the libs try to make it sound otherwise the entire planet would be following it.
All Kyoto does is ban energy use and punish Americans for living in the wealthiest nation on earth. It does nothing to create green energy sources. Nothing at all. It also requires nations to surrender their soverignty, which is something that nations simply will not do.
The Bush proposal is much better because it protects national soverignty and emphasizes creation of green energy sources. Something the promoters of Kyoto have failed or refused to do.
The Kyoto Accords are nothing but an attempt to establish a one world government by repealing the soverignty of the world's 275 nations.

What about the Holocene Optimum?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html


It appears clear that changes in the Earth's orbit have operated slowly over thousands and millions of years to change the amount of solar radiation reaching each latitudinal band of the Earth during each month. These orbital changes can be easily calculated and predict that the northern hemisphere should have been warmer than today during the mid-Holocene in the summer AND colder in the winter. The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes, however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today's temperatures. We also now know from both data and "astronomical" (or "Milankovitch") theory that the period of above modern summer temperatures did not occur at the same time around the northern hemisphere, or in the southern hemisphere at all.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

and

"We now know that conditions at this time were probably warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the extratropics of the Northern Hemisphere. This summer warming appears to have been due to astronomical factors that favoured warmer Northern summers, but colder Northern winters and colder tropics, than today (see Hewitt and Mitchell, 1998; Ganopolski et al, 1998). The best available evidence from recent peer-reviewed studies suggests that annual, global mean warmth was probably similar to pre-20th century warmth, but less than late 20th century warmth, at this time (see Kitoh and Murakami, 2002)."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=67

care to try again?

Out of a planet with 275 nations, only about 20 nations have agreed to and adopted the Kyoto Accords. Kyoto is not as popular as the libs try to make it sound otherwise the entire planet would be following it.

1) The Kyoto Protocol was accepted by 150 countries. Of these countries, 72 have RATIFIED the final version. Ratification means total acceptance & steps taken to comply.

2) Countries that RATIFIED the Kyoto Protocol include the most of the European Community, Canada, Russia, Japan, Mexico, ...

3) Countries that have totally rejected the Kyoto Protocol are a minority. In fact only 6 countries (on 175) have decided to TOTALLY REJECT the protocol. These countries are: the USA, Australia, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Monaco, Zambia. Wow... the US with buddies Monaco and Zambia are clearly a huge majority! LOL

So your data is totally wrong.

Ref.:
http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf

1) The Kyoto Protocol was accepted by 150 countries. Of these countries, 72 have RATIFIED the final version. Ratification means total acceptance & steps taken to comply.

2) Countries that RATIFIED the Kyoto Protocol include the most of the European Community, Canada, Russia, Japan, Mexico, ...

3) Countries that have totally rejected the Kyoto Protocol are a minority. In fact only 6 countries (on 175) have decided to TOTALLY REJECT the protocol. These countries are: the USA, Australia, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Monaco, Zambia. Wow... the US with buddies Monaco and Zambia are clearly a huge majority! LOL

So your data is totally wrong.

Ref.:
http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf
No your figures don't compute. 72 does not make a majority. 72 out of 275 means that most of the world has rejected Kyoto.

Although you may be correct on this, there are other warming periods that occured with the same drmatic increases. The Eemian interglacial saw temperature increases of abut 2 degrees Celsius 131,000 years ago in a very rapid timeframe, and the temperature rise was sustained year-round, with icecaps melting and massive expansion of forests northward.

Is the present warming trend the same as the HE? The Antarctic is cooling and ice is expanding, opposite global warming predictions

However, even if the CO2 increase is solely due to humans, climate change treaties are meaningless and ineffective. China and India are exempt, and developing countries are the producers of the vast increases in CO2 (they burn only fossil fuels). Their increases in CO2 equal the entire industrialized world, and car markets are booming by 73% a year. China refuses to sign any protocols, so while developed economies slow as a result, China can just blow buy us and the problem will just keep getting worse. I can not support any protocol until all of the worlds major greenhouse gas producers sign it, and it is reasonable as to avoid economic damage. If global warming is not our fault, then it will be a waste of time and money.

Although you may be correct on this, there are other warming periods that occured with the same drmatic increases. The Eemian interglacial saw temperature increases of abut 2 degrees Celsius 131,000 years ago in a very rapid timeframe, and the temperature rise was sustained year-round, with icecaps melting and massive expansion of forests northward.

your point being what exactly? are you claiming that the ipcc is lying or misinformed when it writes that "the observed change in patterns of atmospheric temperature in the vertical is inconsistent with natural forcing"?

Is the present warming trend the same as the HE? The Antarctic is cooling and ice is expanding, opposite global warming predictions

actually, we don't have enough data for the interior of antarctica to say much about it other than it's temp has risen overall in the past 50 years, with a slight cooling trend in the past two decades. in no way is it the opposite of current climate change predictions. in fact, interior ice expansions are one of the predicted effects as warmer, wetter air moves from the melting edges of ice sheets to the colder interiors.

However, even if the CO2 increase is solely due to humans, climate change treaties are meaningless and ineffective.
...
I can not support any protocol until all of the worlds major greenhouse gas producers sign it, and it is reasonable as to avoid economic damage.

and here we get to the crux of the argument. they don't want to pay to clean up the mess, so the creationists... i mean global warming skeptics... latch on to any claim, no matter how ridiculous and thoroughly debunked, in order to avoid blame and actually having to do something.

*Bump*

Free Soviets, did I mention you kick ass? Three cheers for doing all the argumenting for me.

*Bump*

Free Soviets, did I mention you kick ass? Three cheers for doing all the argumenting for me.

He does, and I agree about controlling global warming based upon the evidence he provided. However, the agreement has to be fair, reasonably timed to avert economic damage, and apply equally to everyone. Perhaps a new agreement will be drafted that we can agree on.

Free Soviets, did I mention you kick ass? Three cheers for doing all the argumenting for me.

thanks. global warming is one of my 'must defend the good name of science' issues. second only to evolution.

He does, and I agree about controlling global warming based upon the evidence he provided. However, the agreement has to be fair, reasonably timed to avert economic damage, and apply equally to everyone. Perhaps a new agreement will be drafted that we can agree on.
Funny. I both agree and disagree heartily. The Kyoto treaty is a joke. It does almost nothing and encourages western financial pressure on poor countries, helping us to keep them down. It sets a piss poor standart and frankly I find it extremely unethical. In some ways, it's quite on par with our war on errorism. Also, seeing our response (our, as in the world) to Kyoto, I have no illusions about future treaties. Noone's even remotely interested in doing something effective, and as you imply, when all aren't willing, all are paralyzed. Speaking of which, I'll never understand how our dear leaders manage to sleep at night.

thanks. global warming is one of my 'must defend the good name of science' issues. second only to evolution.
I understand where you're comming from. Both subjects are pet peeves of mine. Lucky for me there are guys like you, who do a much better job at defending them than I do. I have the bad habit of getting utterly pissed at people, instead of calmly refuting their arguements. So thank you once again. You're doing a great job and I hope you'll keep it up. Also, you set a high standart, and highly flammable as I am, you aptly demonstrate why I need to control myself.