NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, here's my position on the whole thing.
Does it exist? Yes. Whether it is a man made event or just a natural cycle is irrelevant. We are living its effects.
Can we stop it? No. And we are better off not even trying. Too much money will be spent for something that is irreversable. Even if emissions are cut, how will that lower temperatures? The atmosphere doesn't clear all that easily, at least not to human attempts. The Kyoto treaty, and that new one the US is writing up, are reminiscent of hail cannons. If any of us wish to stop global warming, we should focus instead on resource conservation and efficiency, which are at the root of most environmnental problems.

Just throwing out an answer to a possibility of 1915-1917.


You mean 1915-1945?

The source was http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/170.pdf I included it the first time I posted it as well. (Not jumping your case, just pointing out that I sourced it.)

There is additional source material here http://www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/Arctic_T_Chg_Commentary.pdf

http://oceanweb.ocean.washington.edu/people/faculty/susanh/423/Graphics/CentennialT.gif
Source: http://oceanweb.ocean.washington.edu/people/faculty/susanh/423/Materials1.html

The eruptions of Mt. Lassen lasted during those years. Before you turn this against me (I know you will) natural events that cause Global Warming are to be expected and from what I understand, the Earth is capable of recovering from even a major eruption, even if it may take a few years.


30 years?

Eruptions such as these stress the global temperature and the constant outpouring of human gasses exagerrate the problem to the detriment of the Earth being able to repair itself. This is merely from what I understand to be the case and cannot be taken as fact.


Probably not, because then you're going to have to account for much larger eruptions since then. (Mount St. Helens, Kilauea, Augustine, to name a few.)

Source: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/VolcanicFacts/volcanic_impact.html

"Pyroclastic flows, debris flows, and lava flows covered over 16 square kilometers. This eruption was moderate compared to major eruptions at other volcanoes in the world during recorded history. No one was killed in the Mount Lassen eruption and damage was minor. -- Excerpt from: Wright and Pierson, 1992, USGS Circular 1073, p.5., and Tilling, 1980, Earthquake Information Bulletin, v.12, n.4, p.163. "


Throwing out loaded questions like these are unfair due to the fact that you don't remotely care what answer I give in return and I'm not qualified to answer questions such as these.


Do what I do, look it up. Try to find the answers. You'll learn something. I have. I've learned a lot on BOTH SIDES of this argument. I still remain convinced that my initial belief is right - the scientists that think they know the answer to this have astonishingly overblown egos. You should HONESTLY look at some of the raw data and how they are getting it.

We all know, somewhere inside, that any temperatures before the 1900's are highly suspect. One of the first things I learned in basic science class was significant digits, and how you CANNOT use digits that aren't a part of the original data. Yet these scientists, in their efforts to prove their point of view, are using fancily manufactured temperature data based on tree growth (moderately accurate, but so many other factors, including rainfall and so much else affect this data), ships logs (from pre-1900's!) and all kinds of other inferred mechanisms. The data cannot possibly be accurate to a tenth of a degree, or likely even anywhere near a degree. Yet they plug it into their formulas and pronounce global warming.

They also ignore things like the increase from 1915-1945 that was almost identical to the one we are experiencing now, and for which they have no explanation, and we are supposed to blindly believe that the earth is warming catastrophically.

Furthermore, as I stated earlier (source: http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm) these same scientists have (according to their own admission) been completely, oppositely, and AS A CONSENSUS, wrong before on this very issue. Why are they right now? Why should we make drastic changes in our activity based on their guesses?

Let me put it this way, what if your stockbroker told you to buy tons of tech stocks just before the crash, and then a few years later he tells you that pharmaceuticals are the answer. Would you trust him with your money again? He could show you graphs and charts as to why he was correct. But if it was your hard earned cash, would you trust him?


My argument with you, one that you find multiple ways of evading, is a an argument of sources. You choose political sources that are funded by Oil Companies. I choose the most scientific sources I can find.

Read your last sentence. You choose the "most scientific sources you can find." By whose estimation? Why not try to find the source data and understand it?

I will say this, it is very difficult to find. I wonder why?

It's not like it is difficult for a layperson to understand. A graph/chart with the global average temperature for each year isn't rocket scientist. But try to find one! You can find lots of them that are anomaly graphs and each one is based on a different "baseline" depending on what THAT PARTICULAR scientists chooses to be the norm. Usually a small section of the 20th century.

It exposes the truth of the matter. They don't know what normal IS for the earth, not to the degree Celsius.

We are living in a 4+ billion year old climate system, and these scientists think that because they have actual data from the past few decades and they are willing to try to cobble together a couple of centuries worth from some pretty wild sources, that they can extrapolate the graph?

It's just absurd, and it would be funny if there wasn't so much riding on it.

I really feel like at least we're looking at each other a bit more rationally which is something.
I stick with most what I've said so far on the matter (though some things I said in haste). I really don't have time at the moment to go through all that you've said but I will find time tomorrow.
I am against major corporations funding scientific projects for their own motives. I feel it cheapens whatever work those scientists may be doing.
Thanks again for the tone of your last post. I'll think about what was said and look more into your points tomorrow.

I do not believe it exists because in the 60's and 70's scientists were whining about global cooling now they have switched to global warming?

they need to make up their mind and to stop trying to scare me lol

I'm bush like. Global Warming does not exist. The president said so his first day of office and hes the president and he is smarter than all of you. Global Warming is just Laberal lies. I hate laberals laberals laberals. They just need to go hug a tree and shut up. Or my good friend dick will tell them to go fuck themselves. He he he he he he he.

There is no evidence of sea levels rising, or ice caps melting on a large scale. There is no evidence of the atmosphere warming in areas that have not been affected by the urban heat island. Global warming is fiction.

There is no evidence of sea levels rising, or ice caps melting on a large scale. There is no evidence of the atmosphere warming in areas that have not been affected by the urban heat island. Global warming is fiction.

Climate Hotmap (http://www.climatehotmap.org/)


Grinnell Glacier
1911: http://www.climatehotmap.org/photos/65.jpg
2000: http://www.climatehotmap.org/photos/65.jpg



Barrow, Alaska
Permafrost thawing is causing the ground to subside 16-33 ft (4.9-10 m) in parts of interior Alaska. The permafrost surface has warmed by about 3.5?F (1.9?C) since the 1960's.

Summer days without snow have increased from fewer than 80 in the 1950's to more than 100 in the 1990's.


Antarctic Peninsula
Since 1945, the Antarctic Peninsula has experienced a warming of about 4.5?F (2.5?C). The annual melt season has increased by 2 to 3 weeks in just the past 20 years.

Greenland
Rapid thinning of the Greenland ice sheet in coastal areas, especially of outlet glaciers, has been measured in two studies during the 1990s. The coastal land ice loss is attributed to a combination of warming-driven factors, including increased melting during warmer summers, high snow accumulation rates feeding the outlet glaciers, and increased rates of melting at the bottom of glaciers due to ocean warming.



You can view the compiled events at their website. The icon(http://www.climatehotmap.org/graphics/glaciers-30.gif) marks areas of glacial retreat.

*snip*

Sounds more like a typical glacial retreat to me. You do know that we are coming out of a mini ice age right? That means temps will be *gasp* warmer.

Your right, there is global warming but we aren't having an impact on it.

Sounds more like a typical glacial retreat to me. You do know that we are coming out of a mini ice age right? That means temps will be *gasp* warmer.

Your right, there is global warming but we aren't having an impact on it.

You have no way of knowing this, so please don't claim you do. This is a gamble on the future existence of humanity, and it's apparently one you're willing to make. That's extremely foolish IMO.


Think about it this way: if we assume that we are causing this, and it turns out we aren't, what have we lost? Some wasted time establishing alternative energy infrastructures maybe, but nothing cataclysmic.

If however we assume this is perfectly natural, and it turns out we are causing it, what have we lost then? A hell of a lot, especially if we end up making this world unliveable.

You have no way of knowing this, so please don't claim you do. This is a gamble on the future existence of humanity, and it's apparently one you're willing to make. That's extremely foolish IMO.

Just like we don't have any idea if we are having an impact. Goes both ways.

Think about it this way: if we assume that we are causing this, and it turns out we aren't, what have we lost? Some wasted time establishing alternative energy infrastructures maybe, but nothing cataclysmic.

We would've lost valuable money that could be used for more important programs.

If however we assume this is perfectly natural, and it turns out we are causing it, what have we lost then? A hell of a lot, especially if we end up making this world unliveable.

And it is perfectly natural. There have been far to many warming and cooling trends to say otherwise.

We would've lost valuable money that could be used for more important programs.Like the reduction of carbon emissions.

Like the reduction of carbon emissions.

How about things like:

Education
Health
Transportation
Defense

How about things like:

Education
Health
Transportation
DefenseThe last one definitely falls behind preventing the world's oceans from acidifying, as they are due to the incredible amounts of carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere. A lot of the emissions are absorbed by the oceans, with the side effect being that the ocean water becomes more and more acidic. If things continue as they are, we can kiss most life in the oceans goodbye.
And proper transportation is a way of curbing carbon emissions. ;)

Here is the scientist's point of opinion:

1. Global Warming is a natural process that the earth has been undergoing since it was first formed.

2. The hole in the Ozone Layer is not a cause of Global Warming, nor was it caused by Global Warming. That honor belongs to the wonderful world of Ozone Depletion and the massive release of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) in the mid 1900's.

3. Here is something that scares me as both a human and as a scientist. As stated by several members of this forum:

"Doesn't our breathing cause Global Warming? Don't we breathe out CO2?"
(I may have paraphrased, but I digress...)

One, we do not breathe out CO2: we exhale a mixture of gases that are 3 parts O2, one part CO2 and a mixture of various other gases. If we were to breathe out entirely CO2, you would suffocate by exaling just into a paper bag just about 10 times.

Two, unless you are exaling billions of tons of CO2 (yes a gas can be measured in tons: that measurement is taken by the displacement of gas at one atmosphere or 776 mmHg) IN A DAY you can not possibibly effect Global Warming.

4. CO2 is not the only cause of Global Warming. Any of the Dioxides, ie. Sulphur, Nirogen, as well as a number of other gases (H2SO4, N2O5)contribute to Global Warming. Most people just say CO2 because that is all they think about. Is death only caused by beestings? NO, so quit assuming Global Warming is caused by CO2 alone....

The best description of Global Warming I could find is here:Wikipedia Global Warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming)

Thank You for your time

I really feel like at least we're looking at each other a bit more rationally which is something.


I agree! Hey, we agree on something!!! :D

Thanks again for the tone of your last post. I'll think about what was said and look more into your points tomorrow.

I meant what I said about looking things up. I freely admit, it takes a lot of time. I still haven't found some of the things I'd like to examine. I cannot find a database of global temperatures for each year. Just the "anomalies." I'm not a "scientist" but I have a degree in Engineering Physics with a minor in Mathematics. In other words, I think that I have a science-oriented mind. I'm not claiming to be a genius, but I think that I should be able to understand the results of their studies, and I think I should be able to look at their data and see how they have arrived at their conclusions.

When I look, I see startling liberties taken to prove a point.

Are we warming right now, it appears that is the case. Are we warming above a baseline? I can't see any solid evidence that these scientists truly know what the baseline is, and if they do, then they aren't doing a good job of presenting that evidence in a way that I can agree with.

Is this warming bad for the planet? I don't see the evidence to show me that it is?

Is this enough warming to make any significant change to the planet? I don't see anything but conjecture that it will make significant changes to the planet.

Is human activity the reason for any, most or all of the change? I don't see enough evidence to base policy on it. In fact, "global warming" forumulas are consistently wrong, almost always predicting much higher temperatures than we are seeing. That is extremely important. The scientists would have you believe that just means that they are off by a percentage, but they could just be WRONG. They aren't able to accurately model the situation. Which is really my point all along. They are arrogant enough to assume that they can model the climate for millions of years in the past, when they can't tell you what the weather will be next week.

There are SO MANY factors that are glossed over when you start looking into it. Reflectivity of pollutants. Natural emissions. You mentioned volcanoes. El Nino. Thermal core activity. Solar radiation. Human activity.

I haven't even hit them all I bet, and yet they place all of their eggs in the "human activity" basket. Why?

How can they POSSIBLY come up with an accurate formula and forecast when their formula doesn't even consider solar radiation, or thermal core activity. There could be some factor that they are not even looking at in their formula that is hugely affecting the system, and they aren't seeing it - but they are blaming it on human activity, because that is all they can see.

There is a saying that every problem looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer.

They are taking the easiest thing to measure, and blaming it for global warming. EVEN THOUGH their predictions, formulas and theories do NOT match up with what they are observing. They continually modify the formulas to try and take into account what they ARE actually observing, without ever asking whether they are looking at the right things. If you've hung your career on global warming via human activities, you lose the perspective to even question yourself.

If these scientists were honest with themselves, they'd admit that they have used highly questionable data to start with, and then they've ignored the fact that their formulas do not match observation, and they'd admit that the situation is far more complex than they are admitting. But then what would they do?

You have no way of knowing this, so please don't claim you do. This is a gamble on the future existence of humanity, and it's apparently one you're willing to make. That's extremely foolish IMO.


But so are you! You don't know either, yet you are willing to mandate radical changes in human behavior based on your beliefs.


Think about it this way: if we assume that we are causing this, and it turns out we aren't, what have we lost? Some wasted time establishing alternative energy infrastructures maybe, but nothing cataclysmic.


Actually, that isn't true. Kyoto is a great example of the cost to humanity. The cost is so high, that they won't exact that cost from developing nations. They won't be required to participate meaningfully because it would strangle them. It would strangle developed nations too.


If however we assume this is perfectly natural, and it turns out we are causing it, what have we lost then? A hell of a lot, especially if we end up making this world unliveable.

I'd prefer that we study it and come up with good science before we start changing human behavior. How about this as a reasonable test. I want to see some global warming theories that accurately predict what is going to happen based on greenhouse gases for a decade. So far they don't, which means the scientists don't have an accurate model for what is going on at all.

Hawkintom']I cannot find a database of global temperatures for each year. Just the "anomalies."

Ha, I think that I finally found it...

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/16.jpg

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

I found this graphic and the text associated with it quite interesting...

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/2.jpg


Over the last 400,000 years the Earth's climate has been unstable, with very significant temperature changes, going from a warm climate to an ice age in as rapidly as a few decades. These rapid changes suggest that climate may be quite sensitive to internal or external climate forcings and feedbacks. As can be seen from the blue curve, temperatures have been less variable during the last 10 000 years. Based on the incomplete evidence available, it is unlikely that global mean temperatures have varied by more than 1°C in a century during this period. The information presented on this graph indicates a strong correlation between carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere and temperature. A possible scenario: anthropogenic emissions of GHGs could bring the climate to a state where it reverts to the highly unstable climate of the pre-ice age period. Rather than a linear evolution, the climate follows a non-linear path with sudden and dramatic surprises when GHG levels reach an as-yet unknown trigger point. http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm

That is an interesting statement. They actually acknowledge that...

A. The Earth has a very unstable temperature range;
B. That it is known for very large DECREASES in temperature, but moderate increases in temperature;
C. CO2 has risen, along with temperature, (according to their data, which I have no idea how they derived) many times in the past without man's help...

Yet they conclude not that the CURRENT warming trend is manmade. :confused:

Desperate Measures,

I found this article interesting...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4565935.stm


Antarctic buffers sea level rise

The ice sheet covering the interior of Antarctica is thickening, researchers report in the journal Science. This bulge, which was recorded by satellite, may temporarily buffer rising sea levels, they believe.

Antarctica's "weight gain" is due to extra snowfall, caused by rising temperatures, the US-UK team thinks.

However, the scientists worry the overall mass of the Antarctic may be decreasing because ice near the coasts is melting, possibly at a greater rate.


If I understood you correctly, you said that scientists should OBSERVE facts and try to make sense of those facts.

Yet in this instance, the fact is that Antarctica is thickening. But the scientists "WORRY that the overall mass MAY BE decreasing..." Note, they do not have any evidence to back that up. The only evidence is the increased thickness of Antarctica. But since that doesn't fit their theories, they try to reconcile it with MAYBE's and WORRIES.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=329#more-329


[T]he hockey stick graph is an incompetent representation of world climate history. The hockey stick matters because of its dominant role in IPCC Reports, as well as many other continuing citations.

The methodology of Mann et al was not properly disclosed in their papers: it contained an algebraic tweak that heavily favours hockey stick shapes. It loaded heavy weighting on the bristlecone pine series, overstated the bristlecones’ explanatory power for the temperature data and overstated the overall statistical significance of the results.[b] The hockey stick data base looks large but most of it is just for show: the bristlecones determine the shape and the appearance of statistical power (the Gaspe cedar series enhances the effect). Remove them from the data base and the famous results collapse. Even if the bristlecones were temperature proxies this would indicate the fundamental weakness of the hockey stick: the fact that the bristlecones do not even constitute a temperature proxy renders the graph worthless.

At that point, [b]the fact that these problems were never discerned by the publishing journals during peer review, nor by the paleoclimate community itself in follow-up analysis over 7 years, nor by the IPCC, government ministries and other high-level authorities before they grabbed the hockey stick graph and began promoting a policy agenda with it; puts all sorts of other questions on the table. If they got this argument that wrong, how do we know they didn’t get their other arguments wrong too? What exactly is the level of due diligence being applied to climate studies and assessment reports that now loom so large over the world’s energy policy agenda?


I don't know how much you guys know about the "hockey stick" deal. I am coming up to speed on it now. Basically, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been touting a graph that shows a hockey stick shaped graph where the Earth's surface temperature was cruising along pretty steady, then in the nineties it takes a rapid turn upwards. Kinda like a hockey stick.

Here is an example:
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/hockeysticknz.jpg

Now, Steve McIntyre (mentioned earlier by me in this thread) comes along and says, "Hey, you have created a formula that TENDS to create that kind of graph regardless of what data you put in, and furthermore, you are using data that is not accurate." Particularly, the "bristlecone" tree-ring data.

That data is a key point for the global warming crowd. It basically says that the more these trees grew, the warmer it was that year. However, there are questions about other mechanisms for the trees to have grown well, including the increased CO2, water efficiency and more.

When this suspect data is removed, suddenly the new graph becomes far less threatening. The lower left graph below in PURPLE is the graph with the BristleCone data removed. It does NOT show global warming. It is also marked as "without merit" as it is still being debated.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/recon/WEB_examples.jpg

It scares me that the IPCC and Mann would work so hard to hide the data and formula they were using.

As recently as February of this year, Mann refused to release the data and formulae he was using. (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=116)

He fought rather hard: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=266

Why? If he was TRULY dedicated to knowing the TRUTH instead of protecting his platform, why would he have any cause to withold that data from another interested party?

I know most of you don't have the time or inclination to read through all of this, but you really should if you feel strongly about the issue. Especially, to see the degree of "circling the wagons" around a position that goes on. The primary focus of the IPCC has been on this hockey stick graph, and it has been shrouded in secrecy until now.

Now that it has been drug out of secrecy by a determined skeptic, we are learning that there are SERIOUS QUESTIONS, not just about the data used, but the review processes and the methodology.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=268

You do know there is more to a hurricane than water temps right? Apparently you need a refresher course too.
Why do you bother? You have almost no significant input to this thread at all! At least when you were arguing poll statistics for the '04 election you had something significant to add. Now you just sound like a dumbass. Is that your intent?
...i forget, this is a game, after all, isn't it?
Get my goat?

BTW, (thanks to the Python)
An argument isn't just contradiction.
Yes it is!
No it isn't!
An argument is a series of connected statements intended to establish a proposition.
Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes!
Look, if i argue with you, i must take up a contrary position.
Yes, but that's not just saying, "no it isn't"
Yes it is!
No it isn't!

.... & so forth ....

Hawkintom']http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=329#more-329



I don't know how much you guys know about the "hockey stick" deal. I am coming up to speed on it now. Basically, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been touting a graph that shows a hockey stick shaped graph where the Earth's surface temperature was cruising along pretty steady, then in the nineties it takes a rapid turn upwards. Kinda like a hockey stick.

Here is an example:
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/hockeysticknz.jpg

Now, Steve McIntyre (mentioned earlier by me in this thread) comes along and says, "Hey, you have created a formula that TENDS to create that kind of graph regardless of what data you put in, and furthermore, you are using data that is not accurate." Particularly, the "bristlecone" tree-ring data.

That data is a key point for the global warming crowd. It basically says that the more these trees grew, the warmer it was that year. However, there are questions about other mechanisms for the trees to have grown well, including the increased CO2, water efficiency and more.

When this suspect data is removed, suddenly the new graph becomes far less threatening. The lower left graph below in PURPLE is the graph with the BristleCone data removed. It does NOT show global warming. It is also marked as "without merit" as it is still being debated.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/recon/WEB_examples.jpg

It scares me that the IPCC and Mann would work so hard to hide the data and formula they were using.

As recently as February of this year, Mann refused to release the data and formulae he was using. (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=116)

He fought rather hard: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=266

Why? If he was TRULY dedicated to knowing the TRUTH instead of protecting his platform, why would he have any cause to withold that data from another interested party?

I know most of you don't have the time or inclination to read through all of this, but you really should if you feel strongly about the issue. Especially, to see the degree of "circling the wagons" around a position that goes on. The primary focus of the IPCC has been on this hockey stick graph, and it has been shrouded in secrecy until now.

Now that it has been drug out of secrecy by a determined skeptic, we are learning that there are SERIOUS QUESTIONS, not just about the data used, but the review processes and the methodology.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=268
So did you read my new posts? How about the next one?

Why do you bother? You have almost no significant input to this thread at all! At least when you were arguing poll statistics for the '04 election you had something significant to add. Now you just sound like a dumbass. Is that your intent?
...i forget, this is a game, after all, isn't it?
Get my goat?

Excuse me but I have studied meteorology. I do know how hurricanes form and what affects a hurricane causing it to strengthen and weaken. I also know that there is a weather cycle. Certain storms form every so number of years.

This is a known fact.

Right now, we are in the part of the weather cycle that will see a marked increase in Hurricane Activity. Soon, we'll see a period of relatively little hurricane activity then the cycle will repeat itself.

Has anyone noticed that the sun is more active than usual?

Here is the scientist's point of opinion:

1. Global Warming is a natural process that the earth has been undergoing since it was first formed.

2. The hole in the Ozone Layer is not a cause of Global Warming, nor was it caused by Global Warming. That honor belongs to the wonderful world of Ozone Depletion and the massive release of Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's) in the mid 1900's.

3. Here is something that scares me as both a human and as a scientist. As stated by several members of this forum:

"Doesn't our breathing cause Global Warming? Don't we breathe out CO2?"
(I may have paraphrased, but I digress...)

One, we do not breathe out CO2: we exhale a mixture of gases that are 3 parts O2, one part CO2 and a mixture of various other gases. If we were to breathe out entirely CO2, you would suffocate by exaling just into a paper bag just about 10 times.

Two, unless you are exaling billions of tons of CO2 (yes a gas can be measured in tons: that measurement is taken by the displacement of gas at one atmosphere or 776 mmHg) IN A DAY you can not possibibly effect Global Warming.

4. CO2 is not the only cause of Global Warming. Any of the Dioxides, ie. Sulphur, Nirogen, as well as a number of other gases (H2SO4, N2O5)contribute to Global Warming. Most people just say CO2 because that is all they think about. Is death only caused by beestings? NO, so quit assuming Global Warming is caused by CO2 alone....

The best description of Global Warming I could find is here:Wikipedia Global Warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming)

Thank You for your time
This inspired me to print this *CURRENT* article ... i am aware this isn't directly global warming argument material but it should be noted that US govt decided not to do anything about Hg as of last week ...


*ahem*

Report: Nearby coal-fired plants polluting Lake Michigan
September 19, 2005, 7:20 PM

CHICAGO (AP) -- Lake Michigan receives more mercury pollution than any of the four other Great Lakes, according to a draft of a government report released Monday.
The National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration's study, which was released by Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., also suggested that a majority of the mercury pollution comes from coal-fired electric power plants in the states that surround Lake Michigan.
Calling Chicago the mercury "hot spot," Kirk said the report, which he requested from NOAA in June, proves the federal government must compel power plants to reduce their mercury emissions sooner than current government regulations. "We should not wait as long as the administration would like," Kirk said. "We have to move more quickly."
The Environmental Protection Agency in March imposed requirements for coal-fired power plants to reduce their mercury emissions about 35 percent by 2010 and 70 percent by 2018. The mercury-emission regulations for coal-fired plants, the first in U.S. history, also would allow plants to delay installing pollution controls by purchasing credits from cleaner plants.
Mercury is a toxic metal that settles in waterways and accumulates in fish. It poses a variety of health risks, with the greatest risk of nerve damage to pregnant women, women of childbearing age and young children.
Coal-fired electrical plants account for 16 of the top 25 sources of Lake Michigan mercury pollution, according to 1999 NOAA data, the most current emission information available. While a majority of Lake Michigan mercury polluters are in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin, some of the pollution originates in Texas, Nevada and Kentucky, the draft study said.
The NOAA study is being reviewed by the EPA, which must sign off on it before it is officially released, said Kirk's spokesman Matt Towson.
EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said Monday the agency was continuing to work with NOAA on the study.
Environmental groups also said Monday during an ad hoc Congressional hearing at Chicago's Shedd Aquarium that the NOAA study shows that mercury emission reductions must be enforced sooner than the EPA rule dictates.
"We should not wait as long as the administration would like," Kirk said. "We have to move more quickly."
The Environmental Protection Agency in March imposed requirements for coal-fired power plants to reduce their mercury emissions about 35 percent by 2010 and 70 percent by 2018. The mercury-emission regulations for coal-fired plants, the first in U.S. history, also would allow plants to delay installing pollution controls by purchasing credits from cleaner plants.
Mercury is a toxic metal that settles in waterways and accumulates in fish. It poses a variety of health risks, with the greatest risk of nerve damage to pregnant women, women of childbearing age and young children.
Coal-fired electrical plants account for 16 of the top 25 sources of Lake Michigan mercury pollution, according to 1999 NOAA data, the most current emission information available. While a majority of Lake Michigan mercury polluters are in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin, some of the pollution originates in Texas, Nevada and Kentucky, the draft study said.
The NOAA study is being reviewed by the EPA, which must sign off on it before it is officially released, said Kirk's spokesman Matt Towson.
EPA spokeswoman Eryn Witcher said Monday the agency was continuing to work with NOAA on the study.
Environmental groups also said Monday during an ad hoc Congressional hearing at Chicago's Shedd Aquarium that the NOAA study shows that mercury emission reductions must be enforced sooner than the EPA rule dictates.
"Mercury pollution control technology is known, doable and not that expensive," said Howard Lerner, executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center. "The only thing standing in the way is owners of coal plants."
"When it comes to mercury, it's too little, too long," he said.
The power industry and Bush administration have resisted more dramatic mercury emission reductions, saying that implementing technology would do little to help public health.
EPA officials also have had said mercury-contaminated fish from abroad poses the biggest threat.
Midwest Generation Inc. spokesman Charley Parnell said two of the Chicago-based company's six coal-burning power plants in Illinois will conduct tests next year to determine if technology effectively reduces mercury emissions.
"We acknowledge that the first-ever mercury regulation needed to be passed and we're supportive," Parnell said. "But U.S. coal-fire plants account for less than 1 percent of mercury emissions. This is truly a global issue."
-------

Excuse me but I have studied meteorology. I do know how hurricanes form and what affects a hurricane causing it to strengthen and weaken. I also know that there is a weather cycle. Certain storms form every so number of years.

This is a known fact.

Right now, we are in the part of the weather cycle that will see a marked increase in Hurricane Activity. Soon, we'll see a period of relatively little hurricane activity then the cycle will repeat itself.

Has anyone noticed that the sun is more active than usual?
It doesn't matter if you did, i did too. The thing is, you aren't providing anything to the argument to qualify your attitude. Do i really have to talk to you like you're a juvenile to get that through?
Yes i noticed we're dealing RIGHT NOW with a specific sunspot orientation, they've named it and all.
As far as your "certain storms form ever so number of years", that is an over-generalization and i would challenge you to predict much of anything from that statement.
M'kay, what materials are used to salt hurricanes, since you've studied them?
(If nothing else you might bother googling ... or someone else will and save you the trouble)

Hawkintom']http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=329#more-329



I don't know how much you guys know about the "hockey stick" deal. I am coming up to speed on it now. Basically, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been touting a graph that shows a hockey stick shaped graph where the Earth's surface temperature was cruising along pretty steady, then in the nineties it takes a rapid turn upwards. Kinda like a hockey stick.

Here is an example:
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/hockeysticknz.jpg

Now, Steve McIntyre (mentioned earlier by me in this thread) comes along and says, "Hey, you have created a formula that TENDS to create that kind of graph regardless of what data you put in, and furthermore, you are using data that is not accurate." Particularly, the "bristlecone" tree-ring data.

That data is a key point for the global warming crowd. It basically says that the more these trees grew, the warmer it was that year. However, there are questions about other mechanisms for the trees to have grown well, including the increased CO2, water efficiency and more.

When this suspect data is removed, suddenly the new graph becomes far less threatening. The lower left graph below in PURPLE is the graph with the BristleCone data removed. It does NOT show global warming. It is also marked as "without merit" as it is still being debated.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/recon/WEB_examples.jpg



http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=268
Well, i do know about it, i've posted it before. You could do an *Archive* search on it if you like.
Seems like a lot of the conditions you're talking about with the bristlecone data could lead a person to think that humidity/aridity and warmth MIGHT JUST HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH A WARMING TREND, but i won't make that call just yet.
I'll give you credit that there is something to consider in this post.
But remember, the MASSES of DATA on this subject aren't dwarfed by a couple of posts. So keep on.

It doesn't matter if you did, i did too. The thing is, you aren't providing anything to the argument to qualify your attitude. Do i really have to talk to you like you're a juvenile to get that through?
Yes i noticed we're dealing RIGHT NOW with a specific sunspot orientation, they've named it and all.
As far as your "certain storms form ever so number of years", that is an over-generalization and i would challenge you to predict much of anything from that statement.
M'kay, what materials are used to salt hurricanes, since you've studied them?
(If nothing else you might bother googling ... or someone else will and save you the trouble)

Ok, 2013 or so Pittsburgh will see its biggest blizzard since 2003.

Denver should have another Blizzard within the next fifteen years.

You can learn alot from seeing the weather conditions of the past. If you see the weather cycle, then you can almost predict when the next storm will hit.

In 2003, the President's Day blizzard hit 9 years and 10 months after the Blizzard of '93 that took place in March.

A few Years ago, Denver saw its worst Blizzard in 20 years.

Don't tell me this is part of Global Warming because it isn't. Global Warming is a natural process as is Global Cooling.

Ok, 2013 or so Pittsburgh will see its biggest blizzard since 2003.

Denver should have another Blizzard within the next fifteen years.

You can learn alot from seeing the weather conditions of the past. If you see the weather cycle, then you can almost predict when the next storm will hit.

In 2003, the President's Day blizzard hit 9 years and 10 months after the Blizzard of '93 that took place in March.

A few Years ago, Denver saw its worst Blizzard in 20 years.

Don't tell me this is part of Global Warming because it isn't. Global Warming is a natural process as is Global Cooling.
I'm pleasantly surprised to see you take a risk like this. :)
Must be good to have the ol' Farmer's Almanac handy, eh?

*ahem*

Hurricanes Getting Stronger, Study Suggests

September 16, 2005
The devastation wreaked along the Gulf Coast by Hurricane Katrina has raised difficult questions about our ability to predict and prepare for natural disasters. The results of a new study suggest that there may be more Katrinas in the future. According to an analysis published today in Science, the number of Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes has almost doubled in the past 35 years.
Peter Webster of the Georgia Institute of Technology and his colleagues analyzed hurricane data collected between 1970 and 2004 around the world. Studying the number, duration and the intensity of the storms, the researchers determined that the number of days with tropical cyclone activity on an annual basis has been declining since a peak in 1995. At the same time, the strength of the storms demonstrate an upswing. "In the 1970s, there was an average of about 10 Category 4 and 5 storms hurricanes per year globally," Webster notes. "Since 1990, the number of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled, averaging 18 per year globally."
Because tropical storms draw energy from ocean water to gain strength, it has been hypothesized that global warming--and the warmer waters associated with it--could lead to stronger hurricanes. Thus the scientists also compared hurricane data to sea surface temperature (SST) measurements around the world. "Our work is consistent with the concept that there is a relationship between increasing sea surface temperature and hurricane intensity," Webster says. "However, it is not a simple relationship. In fact, it's difficult to explain why the total number of hurricanes and their longevity has decreased during the last decade, when sea surface temperatures have risen the most." In their report, the authors conclude that before the observed trend can be attributed to global warming both a longer global data record and a better understanding of how hurricanes fit into general atmospheric and oceanic circulation trends is required.
"Without this understanding," Webster remarks, "a forecast of the number and intensity of tropical storms in a future warmer world would be merely statistical extrapolation." --Sarah Graham


... and ...

from
This season's hurricanes bucking normal patterns
Robert Nolin, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

....
Chris Landsea, a meteorologist with the National Hurricane Center in Miami-Dade, said,
"It's not something we can anticipate way in advance."

The ingredients needed to form a hurricane - warm water, an unstable atmosphere and lack of a wind shear - have been present in the western, not eastern, Atlantic this year. "Why farther west? We don't know," Landsea said.


----
I note the peculiarity of the feller's name here.

I'm pleasantly surprised to see you take a risk like this. :)
Must be good to have the ol' Farmer's Almanac handy, eh?

Don't need it. If I know the pattern of Weather, I can normally predick when the next blizzard or a sever storm will take place. That is if I have the data available.

*snip*

Apparenlty you haven't listened to a word I have said. Hurricanes go through cycles of active and inactive periods. During active seasons, you'll see stronger hurricanes.

A stronger than normal hurricane doesn't mean that its from Global Warming. Hurricanes go through these phases. I'm sure we'll have to put up with them for a few more years before things straighten out.

Pertinent to an aforementioned link ...

(http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=116)

In August 2004, through Nature, we became aware privately of claims that a variation of Preisendorfer’s Rule N had been used to determine the number of retained PC series. This claim was published in November 2004. (We have not been able to verify actual application of this criterion, as actual numbers are impossible to replicate.


and as for

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/...EB_examples.jpg

...Object not found!

Hmmm-ing .... and ...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=266

Yielded --->


Dr. Mann and his other US colleagues are under no obligation to provide you with any additional data beyond the extensive data sets they have already made available. He is not required to provide you with computer programs, codes, etc. His research is published in the peer-reviewed literature which has passed muster with the editors of those journals and other scientists who have reviewed his manuscripts. You are free to your analysis of climate data and he is free to his. The passing of time and evolving new knowledge about Earth’s climate will eventually tell the full story of changing climate.

So what else did you *GLEAN* from those posts?
Seems like you shined 'em up quite a bit.
:rolleyes:

Don't need it. If I know the pattern of Weather, I can normally predick when the next blizzard or a sever storm will take place. That is if I have the data available.



Apparenlty you haven't listened to a word I have said. Hurricanes go through cycles of active and inactive periods. During active seasons, you'll see stronger hurricanes.

A stronger than normal hurricane doesn't mean that its from Global Warming. Hurricanes go through these phases. I'm sure we'll have to put up with them for a few more years before things straighten out.
I've certainly heard quite a few of the words you've said, more appropriately, i've had to stumble through your spelling of them. ;)
I'm aware of the cycles and all that. That doesn't explain the alarm AMONGST SCIENTISTS AND DEGREED INDIVIDUALS on this matter, hence ALL THE PUBLISHINGS ON IT.
I'd recommend further pursuit on the data. It might be worth it.

I've certainly heard quite a few of the words you've said, more appropriately, i've had to stumble through your spelling of them. ;)
I'm aware of the cycles and all that. That doesn't explain the alarm AMONGST SCIENTISTS AND DEGREED INDIVIDUALS on this matter, hence ALL THE PUBLISHINGS ON IT.
I'd recommend further pursuit on the data. It might be worth it.

Simple answer is:

They can't explain it so use Global Warming as a scapegoat. The arguement is flawed.

while some components of global warming may be naturally occuring,we cannot deny the fact that industrialization has an impact on our geosphere. if anyone tries to say that we are not poisoning our own environment gradually and nothing will happen then they are either in denial or they are just greedy corporations who are more interested in profit than doing what the research says we need to be doing.

we will not be able to totally destroy the earth,but if we are not careful,its quite possible that we will become extinct in the future. personally,i dont see this as a great loss. man is selfish and self-destructive. unless we change our way of thinking,we are in danger of becoming a dead path in evolution. mother nature will heal over time and then start over. maybe the next dominant race will be more environment friendly....

listening to corporations....heh but shouldnt our climate be getting colder not warmer?! to my knolege we are between ice-ages in the middle or little past that point ...but hey dont let that stop u when it gets 60 degrees they will probably still tell us that this is natural!!! its getting hot in here...flamewar.we just have to change the way of living and think more about some things but thats so easy and hard at same time.people are selfish.

Simple answer is:

They can't explain it so use Global Warming as a scapegoat. The arguement is flawed.
Well, i guess if i ask a novice for a complicated and erudite answer about something, i should expect a novice answer for a complicated topic. :rolleyes:
.... it's not "arguement" btw.
It would appear that Occam's Razor is a f*cking GODSEND to some people, or at least it would appear to be, wouldn't it? *poke*

Well, i guess if i ask a novice for a complicated and erudite answer about something, i should expect a novice answer for a complicated topic. :rolleyes:
.... it's not "arguement" btw.

Scientists don't know either Straughn.

Scientists don't know either Straughn.
In AT LEAST ONE WAY UP FROM YOU, they *probably* know how to spell "argument".
I think you have no place to limit the prowess of people who know much more about this subject than yourself - i'm not talking about me - i'm talking about hundreds of people who you are insulting with your lack of rational discrimination on the subject and your lack of review of the data and material of the people in question.

This topic isn't a very honorable one for you it would seem.

In AT LEAST ONE WAY UP FROM YOU, they *probably* know how to spell "argument".

Well excuse my spelling. I never claimed to be the world's greatest speller.

I think you have no place to limit the prowess of people who know much more about this subject than yourself - i'm not talking about me - i'm talking about hundreds of people who you are insulting with your lack of rational discrimination on the subject and your lack of review of the data and material of the people in question.

From everything I'm seeing, most of it is based on bad data. Now in my studies, I'm seeing the OPPOSITE of what they have been saying. I'm seeing nothing more than your typical patterns of weather. You'll have your extreme years (what we are in now) and not so extreme years (which will return)

This topic isn't a very honorable one for you it would seem.

Apparently you odn't like to look at the other side.

Well excuse my spelling. I never claimed to be the world's greatest speller.



From everything I'm seeing, most of it is based on bad data. Now in my studies, I'm seeing the OPPOSITE of what they have been saying. I'm seeing nothing more than your typical patterns of weather. You'll have your extreme years (what we are in now) and not so extreme years (which will return)



Apparently you odn't like to look at the other side.
You ARE NOT studying ENOUGH of the DATA to make a call as such UNLESS you ADMIT your mind is ALREADY MADE UP to SUPPORT the Bush/Repub agenda.
That much is clear. Your studies are quantified by WHAT, post it! If there's merit, share it!
Otherwise you're a mouth and no more.
As for your last comment, you haven't read all the posts on JUST this thread.

Sometimes you just have to sit back and look at the big picture. We did that the other day at lunch. Another couple Margaritas and we would have solved the disease of liberalism, but that's for another lunch.

Anyhow, we were tired of hearing how the degree or so that the oceans have warmed was a large factor in the two terrible storms that have occurred in the last 30 days. So we set out to figure out what it would take to cool off the oceans and bring things back nominal.

Turns out that we couldn't get a handle on the enormity of the problem. How much water is in the ocean? Turns out there is something like 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons (326 million trillion gallons). You metric slaves figure it out for yourselves. Only 1.6 percent of the water is locked up in ice.

So we could melt all the ice in the world and it wouldn't affect the water temperature a bit. Not one degree, not even 0.001 degrees.

So what's my conclusion? Another Margarita is in order, but aside from that, Humanity is really giving itself a lot of credit when we thing that we could have affected the temperature of the worlds oceans that much. Man-made global warming is just another ephemeral device that the eco-fanatics want to use to de-civilize the world.

You ARE NOT studying ENOUGH of the DATA to make a call as such UNLESS you ADMIT your mind is ALREADY MADE UP to SUPPORT the Bush/Repub agenda.

Actually, I have viewed alot of data. I actually wrote a report on Global Warming (actually against it) in which I actually had to look data up for my biology class. I got an A on that report too.

I still look at data everyday. Why? Because I forcast the weather here on campus. I continue to study the weather patterns of this area.

That much is clear. Your studies are quantified by WHAT, post it! If there's merit, share it!

Why? You already said my mind is made up so what's the point? I don't trust the government as far as I can throw it and I don't trust theories based on bad or faulty science.

Otherwise you're a mouth and no more.

Goes for you actually.

As for your last comment, you haven't read all the posts on JUST this thread.

I've listened to both sides of this debate. You know what? There's more evidence pointing to it being a natural cycle than us having an effect on it.

Sometimes you just have to sit back and look at the big picture. We did that the other day at lunch. Another couple Margaritas and we would have solved the disease of liberalism, but that's for another lunch.

Anyhow, we were tired of hearing how the degree or so that the oceans have warmed was a large factor in the two terrible storms that have occurred in the last 30 days. So we set out to figure out what it would take to cool off the oceans and bring things back nominal.

Turns out that we couldn't get a handle on the enormity of the problem.

See, that's the typical conservative response. Fortunately, Dr. Roy Spencer has given this some serious thought and come up with an actual PLAN:

"The Spencer-Spencer bill (the name reflects his desire to get full credit for these ideas) will meet the challenges of Global Warming head-on, avoiding most our projected future emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. I propose a gradual phase-in, over periods of up to 10 days, of the following measures:

1) Addition of a $10 per gallon tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. This will result in an immediate reduction in gasoline use, probably remove our dependence on foreign oil, and there will be no need to drill in ANWR. Millions of displaced workers in the petroleum industry will be needed in the rapidly-expanding bicycle manufacturing sector. As a side benefit, the Europeans will no longer be jealous over our low fuel taxes (the real reason for current poor relations), and a new era of cooperation between the U.S. and the EU will emerge.

2) The average gas mileage of cars will be increased to meet a mandated 100 mpg. This will force the automakers to use their high-mpg fuel injection and lean combustion technologies that they have been hiding from us through collusion with the petroleum industry (I read about this terrible injustice while waiting in the checkout line at the grocery store).

3) Electricity generation will be required to be at least 90% from renewable resources. Using my extensive background in physics and economics, I have calculated that this will reduce electricity consumption by close to 90%, a huge savings in energy.

4) Re-institute a national speed limit, set to 35 mph. After our country's previous success with speed limit reductions to 55 mph, a lower limit should be even more attractive to the public. (The 35 mph limit should be more than enough, anyway, since most ground transportation will be by bicycle.)

5) Jogging will be outlawed. It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem. This will have an additional, rejuvenating psychological advantage for the overwhelming majority of us who do not jog, resulting in an immediate jump in productivity and thus GDP.

6) All roads and buildings in cities will be required to be painted white. This will eliminate the urban heat island effect, which is clearly out of control.

Of course, for the good of the country, some people will necessarily be exempt from these new restrictions. Policymakers, scientists, and policymaking scientists, owing to their irreplaceable roles in society, will be the only three groups allowed to travel at any speed and consume any amount of fuel. As a result, "HOV" lanes will be redesignated "PS" lanes. Air travel will also be restricted to only these three groups.

These changes will be difficult at first, but as has been stated repeatedly by scientists and politicians alike, Global Warming is a greater threat to humanity than terrorism, nuclear proliferation, celebrity trials, and editorial bad humor, combined. It is time to put petty partisan politics aside, and unite for the common good of humanity."

http://www.techcentralstation.com/062005G.html

Hawkintom']
5) Jogging will be outlawed. It is a little known fact that the extra carbon dioxide (and methane, an especially potent greenhouse gas) emitted by joggers accounts for close to 10% of the current Global Warming problem. This will have an additional, rejuvenating psychological advantage for the overwhelming majority of us who do not jog, resulting in an immediate jump in productivity and thus GDP.

I'm glad to see someone has filled in the gaps in my analysis. I did notice that he is missing a bovine methane reduction plan. Cow flatulence cannot be overlooked as a source of greenhouse gas.

And now for another Margarita...

When was the last time two category five hurricanes hit the same area a little less than a month apart?

Hawkintom']snip
How about a different approach?
Instead of all this talk about whether or not Global Warming is happening or not. (It is, It isn't)
What exactly are you against in the measures to decrease the amount of pollutants we are creating? Why shouldn't your car use something less (dare I say it) harmful to the environment whether or not it is contributing to Global Warming? Why shouldn't major industries seriously look at the amount of shit that their expelling from their factories and try to decrease that amount? What exactly, in the measures presented by Global Warming advocates, does not appeal to you?

How about a different approach?
Instead of all this talk about whether or not Global Warming is happening or not. (It is, It isn't)
What exactly are you against in the measures to decrease the amount of pollutants we are creating? Why shouldn't your car use something less (dare I say it) harmful to the environment whether or not it is contributing to Global Warming? Why shouldn't major industries seriously look at the amount of shit that their expelling from their factories and try to decrease that amount? What exactly, in the measures presented by Global Warming advocates, does not appeal to you?
I don't believe that anyone has anything against coming up with ways to make cars less pollutant, having major industries seriously look at the amount of shit that they are expelling from their factories and try to decrease that amount.

What I do believe that people have problems with is using global warming alarmism to justify pushing through legislation that would 1) cause undeniable economic harm and 2) have minimal if any apreciable affect.
So far, no one has shown what, if any affect these efforts things like Kyoto would have. Things like Kyoto are primarily "feel good" actions, much like the vaunted Assault Weapons Ban that had no appreciable affect on crime rates in the US.

How about a different approach?
Instead of all this talk about whether or not Global Warming is happening or not. (It is, It isn't)
What exactly are you against in the measures to decrease the amount of pollutants we are creating? Why shouldn't your car use something less (dare I say it) harmful to the environment whether or not it is contributing to Global Warming? Why shouldn't major industries seriously look at the amount of shit that their expelling from their factories and try to decrease that amount? What exactly, in the measures presented by Global Warming advocates, does not appeal to you?
Everything has a cost. Everything has a benefit. The trick is to optimize the ratio. Let's say we decide a national priority is to eliminate Freon from air-conditioning systems in order to preserve ozone. That's got a high benefit to cost ratio because the replacement for freon is available and easily substituted.

Now let's say that it is a national priority to reduce the amount of CO2 that is produced. That is difficult to do, has a questionable benefit, and is very expensive. So should we leap into that effort? No, of course not. The benefit to cost ratio is so low that it would cause more damage to the economy that Bill Clinton and GW, combined.

Everything has a cost. Everything has a benefit. The trick is to optimize the ratio. Let's say we decide a national priority is to eliminate Freon from air-conditioning systems in order to preserve ozone. That's got a high benefit to cost ratio because the replacement for freon is available and easily substituted.

Now let's say that it is a national priority to reduce the amount of CO2 that is produced. That is difficult to do, has a questionable benefit, and is very expensive. So should we leap into that effort? No, of course not. The benefit to cost ratio is so low that it would cause more damage to the economy that Bill Clinton and GW, combined.
I believe we should leap into it. There are impossibly inexpensive alternatives. Mobil would be hurt. You wouldn't.

I believe we should leap into it. There are impossibly inexpensive alternatives. Mobil would be hurt. You wouldn't.
Not necessarily true. And why is it okay to hurt employees of oil companies? Didn't Enron teach you liberals anything?

When was the last time two category five hurricanes hit the same area a little less than a month apart?

U mean cat 4 and it was in 1915.

The cities:

New Orleans and Galveston!

U mean cat 4 and it was in 1915.

The cities:

New Orleans and Galveston!
Forgetting Rita and Katrina?
Your point of view on the formation of hurricanes, like I said before is interesting and has merit. The intensity of the hurricanes has to have warm water. Right? Warmer water, more intensity.

Forgetting Rita and Katrina?

Katrina hit New Orleans as a Category 4

Rita is a Category 4 Right now and is moving towards Galveston.

They weren't Category 5 hurricanes at the time of landfall.

Katrina hit New Orleans as a Category 4

Rita is a Category 4 Right now and is moving towards Galveston.

They weren't Category 5 hurricanes at the time of landfall.
They usually aren't as strong by the time they hit land.

They usually aren't as strong by the time they hit land.

I just told you the last time 2 cat 4 hurricanes hit the United States in the Same year.

The two cities were New Orleans and Galveston in 1915.

Where did Katrina Hit? New Orleans

Where is Rita heading? Galveston

So apparently 2005 will be the 2nd year to add to that list. Not bad. Ninety years apart.

Not necessarily true. And why is it okay to hurt employees of oil companies? Didn't Enron teach you liberals anything?
Look at BP. http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9002330&contentId=3072051
An example of a major oil company preparing for the future. Definately not perfect by any standard but certainly one of the companies at the forefront of preparing for alternative fuels.

"February 2002 BP's chief executive, Lord Browne, renounced the practice of corporate campaign contributions, noting: "That's why we've decided, as a global policy, that from now on we will make no political contributions from corporate funds anywhere in the world." [2]

In March 2002 BP's chief executive, Lord Browne, declared in a speech that global warming was real and that urgent action was needed, saying that "Companies composed of highly skilled and trained people can't live in denial of mounting evidence gathered by hundreds of the most reputable scientists in the world.".[3] In 2005 BP was considering testing carbon sequestration in one of its North Sea oil fields, by pumping carbon dioxide into them (and thereby also increasing yields).[4]

In 2004, BP began marketing low-sulphur diesel fuel for industrial use. BP is committed to creating a network of hydrogen fuelling station in the state of California.

However, BP's image has been tarnished somewhat by its involvement with the controversial Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, criticised for human rights abuses, environmental and safety concerns." Wikipedia

Americans dont take it seriosly cos its one of those things americans (sweeping statement i know but the majority) think is a pussy assed european pansying about thing which doesnt matter when terrorism is more real.
terrorism may kill people but elsewhear (not in america) like south eastern india it kills ten times more than terrorism kills around the globe in a year, and places in britain,other bits of europe are having record breaking weather conditions each year. while monsoons have stoped coming to countys which rely on it...full stop, no rain for several years. and britains so different to how it was everyone her has noticed, because our weather always changes and we brits are obsed with it, now it is more extreme.
global warming or at least if its not global warming either way cutting down emitions will decrease the obviosly (theres no discussion to its rapid change it is worstening)worstening weather

I just told you the last time 2 cat 4 hurricanes hit the United States in the Same year.

The two cities were New Orleans and Galveston in 1915.

Where did Katrina Hit? New Orleans

Where is Rita heading? Galveston

So apparently 2005 will be the 2nd year to add to that list. Not bad. Ninety years apart.
"Your point of view on the formation of hurricanes, like I said before is interesting and has merit. The intensity of the hurricanes has to have warm water. Right? Warmer water, more intensity."

oh for gods sake, blaming Rita and Katrina on Global Warming!?

They are a natural event, nature changes from year to year, its a finicky thing, thes hurricanes were certainly not caused by global warming in my opinion.

Learn how a hurricane is formed and then you will realise how unlikely it is global warming had anything to do with it.

Besides, we are still recovering from the pleistocene ice age, temps have been rising for the past 10,000 years! How on earth can we say that the accelerated temp increase in the past century is purely down to co2 emissions...perhaps we are just going through a period where temps are increasing more rapidly in that 10,000 years since the last ice age. I wonder how many people honestly think, that the earth temperature will rise in a linear fashion? It won't, there will be a period of accelerated temp increase, and a period of less temp increase. The simple answer is, we do not know firstly if we are in one of these periods, and do not have enough evidence (records started in 1700 ish, great, thats only 400 years of data out of 10,000 (4%...) to prove if we are or not, and secondly have no evidence that global warming exists.

Graham Harvey
So the answer: we don't know.

Forgetting Rita and Katrina?
Your point of view on the formation of hurricanes, like I said before is interesting and has merit. The intensity of the hurricanes has to have warm water. Right? Warmer water, more intensity.

Exactly, so if we're entering a hurrican cycle and the water is warmer...

no scientist will doubt that the eco system cannot handle the co2 if we were to release all the carbon from merely the oil locked up in the earth...wede all die fairly quikly without a doubt,so do you think that all the co2 that we release is doing nothing?
There is no argument against the fact that we are making things worst too fast for the earth to cope with.
The british govenment and her scientists tell people global warming is real.
What would be there motive if they were lying to us?

no scientist will doubt that the eco system cannot handle the co2 if we were to release all the carbon from merely the oil locked up in the earth...wede all die fairly quikly without a doubt,so do you think that all the co2 that we release is doing nothing?
There is no argument against the fact that we are making things worst too fast for the earth to cope with.
The british govenment and her scientists tell people global warming is real.
What would be there motive if they were lying to us?

It's a conspiracy to cripple the American economy, of course!

[/sarcasm]

oh for gods sake, blaming Rita and Katrina on Global Warming!?

They are a natural event, nature changes from year to year, its a finicky thing, thes hurricanes were certainly not caused by global warming in my opinion.

Learn how a hurricane is formed and then you will realise how unlikely it is global warming had anything to do with it.

Besides, we are still recovering from the pleistocene ice age, temps have been rising for the past 10,000 years! How on earth can we say that the accelerated temp increase in the past century is purely down to co2 emissions...perhaps we are just going through a period where temps are increasing more rapidly in that 10,000 years since the last ice age. I wonder how many people honestly think, that the earth temperature will rise in a linear fashion? It won't, there will be a period of accelerated temp increase, and a period of less temp increase. The simple answer is, we do not know firstly if we are in one of these periods, and do not have enough evidence (records started in 1700 ish, great, thats only 400 years of data out of 10,000 (4%...) to prove if we are or not, and secondly have no evidence that global warming exists.

Graham Harvey
So the answer: we don't know.
we do, it does and how do you think the tempreture decreases back into an ice age? what happens?

It's a conspiracy to cripple the American economy, of course!

[/sarcasm]

Global Warming was invented by terrorists in their faked research study conducted by Osama and Saddam at Michael Moore's house. Cindy Sheehan was also involved somehow.

I think, its where the gulf stream loses its salinity, and stops? Stopping the constant stream of warm water (and air) causing a colder climate.

But tbh, i don't know.

Graham

The gulf stream? the one that keeps britain from being cold? MY HOME COUNTY IS ON THE SAME LATITUDE AS SIBERIA MATE!! if it wasnt for the golf stream being so nice (its receading due to global warming meaning if the earth warms the ice caps melt the gulf stream moves south england france become ice) and that is why brits are concerned about the weather, cos we give it ten or twenty years before extreme conditions and deaths arise

"Your point of view on the formation of hurricanes, like I said before is interesting and has merit. The intensity of the hurricanes has to have warm water. Right? Warmer water, more intensity."

Unless you have windsheer. If you have windsheer then it doesn't matter the water temps. It'll get sheered apart.

we do, it does and how do you think the tempreture decreases back into an ice age? what happens?

No we don't. No it doesn't. Good question. Could it be that its natural and that we haven't seen it yet so we just flat out don't know? :eek:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't just breathing affect the global warming? I mean, when you exhale, you release Co2, right?
No. You are using carbon from food as an energy source. Food is produced by binding atmospheric carbon. Thus, for the carbon you burn, you'll have to bind just as much by cultivating the food-giving plants.

Using a bicycle instead of car and buying only domestic food, etc, are good choices but they just don't help.
Cars use fossil fuels. That means that carbon is released from the bedrock by extracting and burning it. It doesn't come from any living plant.

It's probably the only thing I agree with mr. George W. Bush: instead of things like Kioto pact, we should use modern technology to prevent pollution.
I agree with Bush on the opinion that the Kyoto agreement is bogus and hurts well-behaving corporations more than the polluters. But, I don't agree with Bush with his equally bogus idea of using non-existing, presently impossible technology. He's lying for the oil clique's benefit.

Basically, the amount of fossil fuels we burn is staggering. You could possibly cultivate about 5% of the carbon that is consumed by transport only in Europe. The only viable method for cutting CO2 emission would be a massive investment in hydrogen-battery cars charged with nuclear fission energy. That's the ONLY technology known today, and we aren't seeing any major developments towards that direction.

Actually, I have viewed alot of data. I actually wrote a report on Global Warming (actually against it) in which I actually had to look data up for my biology class. I got an A on that report too.

Okay, post it. We'll see what you dug up. (Maybe someone will honor your with some plagerism!)






Why? You already said my mind is made up so what's the point? I don't trust the government as far as I can throw it and I don't trust theories based on bad or faulty science.
Okay, maybe you don't understand the difference between what GROUP of or INDIVIDUAL scientist HAS TO PUBLISH and what the GOVERNMENT posts.
This is a glaring example of dangerous ignorance in this matter. Surely, you didn't mean it. And yes i'll stop calling you "Shirley"!







I've listened to both sides of this debate. You know what? There's more evidence pointing to it being a natural cycle than us having an effect on it.
Then POST IT!!!!
...flashback ... oh no ... cue the music ....

PPRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE it!

Goes for you actually.




WTHF?
Sad. Pathetic, even. :rolleyes:

When was the last time two category five hurricanes hit the same area a little less than a month apart?
GOOD f*cking question.

The benefit to cost ratio is so low that it would cause more damage to the economy that Bill Clinton and GW, combined.
Yeah, know that damage that Clinton caused to the economy with a ... uhm, surplus, and then GW's ... uhm, well, there's a point here somewhere. :rolleyes:

U mean cat 4 and it was in 1915.

The cities:

New Orleans and Galveston!
So those two both reached category 5 before reaching 4?

So those two both reached category 5 before reaching 4?

He said hit the same area. He did not specify which he ment. He said and I quote "hit the same area"

2 Category 4 storms hit the same area in 1915. Precisely at the two cities that were hit or is going to be hit.

That being New Orleans and Galveston.

Unless you have windsheer. If you have windsheer then it doesn't matter the water temps. It'll get sheered apart.
Your awful fond of this windsheer. But that also means the hurricane doesn't happen at all. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China or the intensity of hurricanes due to WARMER WATER?

Your awful fond of this windsheer. But that also means the hurricane doesn't happen at all. What does this have to do with the price of tea in China or the intensity of hurricanes due to WARMER WATER?

Because it affects the formation of hurricanes. If you have windsheer, the intensity will be weak even WITH high temperature waters.

Because it affects the formation of hurricanes. If you have windsheer, the intensity will be weak even WITH high temperature waters.
OK. Will the hurricane be intense without warm temperature of waters and without windsheer?

OK. Will the hurricane be intense without warm temperature of waters and without windsheer?

The answer to that question is no. They do need warm water to be intense.

bump

He said hit the same area. He did not specify which he ment. He said and I quote "hit the same area"

2 Category 4 storms hit the same area in 1915. Precisely at the two cities that were hit or is going to be hit.

That being New Orleans and Galveston.
Well, that's not what i asked. So, being educated on it and all, you might provide the details ...
btw, radio news, for what it's worth, doesn't corroborate your story ....

...and... not a smoking gun but definitely worth considering ...

*ahem*

http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/teaching/Broecker99.html

What If the Conveyor Were to Shut Down?
Reflections on a Possible Outcome of the Great Global Experiment
W. S. Broecker
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Palisades, NY 10964

ABSTRACT
Suggestions that the ongoing greenhouse buildup might induce a shutdown of the ocean's thermohaline circulation raise the questions as to how Earth's climate would change if such an event were to occur. The answer preferred by the popular press is that conditions akin to those that characterized the Younger Dryas--the last kiloyear cold snap--would return. But this extreme scenario is an unlikely one, for models suggest that in order to force a conveyor shutdown, Earth would have to undergo a 4 to 5°C greenhouse warming. Hence, the conditions at the onset of the shutdown would be very different from those that preceded the Younger Dryas. Thus, it is unlikely that new climate conditions would be nearly so severe. Unfortunately, because no atmospheric model to date has been able to create the observed large and abrupt changes in climate state of Earth's atmosphere, we lack even the crudest road map. However, as was the case for each of the abrupt changes recorded in Greenland's ice, if the conveyor were to shut down, climate would likely flicker for several decades before locking into its new state. The consequences to agricultural production of these flickers would likely be profound.
INTRODUCTION
Past shutdowns of the Atlantic Ocean's conveyor circulation appear to have played a key role in triggering the large and abrupt global climate changes that punctuated the last period of glaciation including the millennial duration Younger Dryas (Broecker and Denton, 1990). Modeling studies suggest that the ongoing greenhouse warming and consequent strengthening of the hydrologic cycle might trigger yet another such shutdown (Manabe and Stouffer, 1993; Stocker and Schmittner, 1997). To most science writers, this result has been construed as implying that conditions similar to those that prevailed during the Younger Dryas cold event would return. Were this analogy correct, then indeed a shutdown of the conveyor would have awesome consequences. Iceland would become one large ice cap. Ireland's climate would be transformed to that of Spitzbergen. Winters in Scandinavia would become so cold that tundra would replace its forests. The Baltic Sea would be permanently ice covered, as would much of the ocean between Greenland and Scandinavia. Further, the impacts of such a mode change would not be limited to the northern Atlantic basin; rather, they would extend to all parts of the globe (see Fig. 1). Rainfall patterns would dramatically shift. Temperatures would fall. The atmosphere would become dustier. Finally, the transition to this new state would be completed in decades, and very likely during this transition period, climate would flicker.
But is it realistic to believe that a shutdown of the conveyor a century or so from now would produce the conditions that characterized the last glacial period? The answer is very likely "no," for several reasons. The first has to do with the fact that during the Younger Dryas, Canada and Scandinavia still had sizable ice caps. The second is that the abrupt part of the warming at the close of the Younger Dryas brought climate only about halfway to its interglacial state (Severinghaus et al., 1998). The other half of the transition was more gradual, reflecting perhaps the post-Younger Dryas retreat of the residual ice caps in Canada and Scandinavia. Finally, modeling studies (Manabe and Stouffer, 1993; Stocker and Schmittner, 1997) that forecast a greenhouse-induced conveyor shutdown do so only after a substantial global warming (4 to 5°C) has occurred. Hence, the global climate conditions prevailing at the time of the shut-down would be substantially warmer than those that existed just before the onset of the Younger Dryas. For these reasons, the analogy to the conditions that prevailed during the Younger Dryas surely constitutes a worst case scenario.
If the climate change from Younger Dryas to present is not an apt analogy to that which would accompany a conveyor shutdown, then how might we go about estimating the consequences of such an event? As noted by some readers of my papers that warned of a possible green-house- induced conveyor shutdown (Broecker, 1997a, 1997b), I stopped short of presenting a specific scenario, for I was fully aware of the pitfalls associated with any such attempt.
ALLERØD-YOUNGER DRYAS ANALOGY
A less imperfect analogy to what might happen if the conveyor were to shut down is the climate change that accompanied the abrupt transition from the near interglacial conditions that prevailed during the Allerød to the cold conditions that prevailed during the Younger Dryas (see Table 1). The reasons are as follows. First, this transition represents a shutdown rather than a start-up of the conveyor. Second, the melting of the Northern Hemisphere's residual ice caps nearly halted during the Younger Dryas. Hence this analogy is flawed neither by the influence of changing ice cap size nor by that of changing sea level. But it is flawed in that the base state (i.e., the Late Allerød climate) was different from today's and even more different from that which would prevail at the time of a greenhouse-induced conveyor shutdown. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to compare the climate of the late Allerød with that of the Younger Dryas.
The contrast between climate conditions during the warm Allerød and cold Younger Dryas is recorded in four major ways (see Fig. 2): (1) pollen and beetle remains in lake and bog sediments tell us about differences in continental temperature, (2) moraines formed during the Younger Dryas record advances of mountain glaciers, (3) planktonic foraminifera shells in marine sediments document decreases in surface ocean temperature, and (4) the oxygen isotope records kept in ice and lacustrine calcium carbonate record shifts in hydrological conditions. These records send a consistent message. Conditions during the Allerød were nearly as warm as those that characterized the Holocene. As clearly shown by pollen records, the beginning of the Bolling-Allerød marked a worldwide transition from glacial to interglacial conditions. The lapse back to cold conditions during the Younger Dryas, while documented at many localities throughout the world, has a puzzling signature. It is clearly recorded by the descent of mountain snowlines in the American Rockies (Gosse et al., 1995), in the Swiss Alps (Ivy-Ochs et al., 1996), in the tropical Andes (Van der Hammen and Hooghiemstra, 1995; Clapperton et al., 1997), and in the New Zealand Alps (Denton and Hendy, 1994). The oxygen isotope records in Swiss (Eicher and Siegenthaler, 1983) and Polish (Goslar et al., 1995) lakes, tropical mountain glaciers (Thompson et al., 1995) and in the Greenland ice sheet (Dansgaard et al., 1993) make clear that the hydrologic cycle in the region surrounding the northern Atlantic operated quite differently during the cold episodes (late glacial and Younger Dryas) than during the warm episodes (Allerød and Holocene). That these differences in the hydrologic cycle extended well beyond the region around the northern Atlantic is suggested by the substantially lower rate of global methane production during the Younger Dryas as recorded in ice cores from Antarctica and Greenland (Chappellaz et al., 1993; Brook et al., 1996). As the methane content of the atmosphere is set by the areal extent and temperature of the world's wetlands, these systems must on the average have been drier and colder. The dust record preserved in Greenland ice implies that storminess in the Asian deserts from which the dust has been shown to originate (Biscaye et al., 1997) must have been more intense during the Younger Dryas than during the Allerød.
Finally, the benthic oxygen proxy for the deep Santa Barbara basin (Behl and Kennett, 1996) for the Arabian Sea (Schulz et al., 1998) and for the Cariaco Trench (Hughen et al., 1996, 1998) suggests major alternation in thermocline ventilation between these times. In contrast, the Younger Dryas is weakly expressed in many pollen records, giving rise to numerous claims that it didn't cause significant climate change outside northern Europe. Even in Switzerland, where the snowline descent and 18O change are large and thoroughly documented, the Younger Dryas pollen change is muted. One interpretation for this seeming dichotomy is that while its impacts were global, the Younger Dryas was not simply a return to glacial state. Rather, it lacks an analog and represents yet another mode of operation of the Earth system.
One other aspect of the Allerød- Younger Dryas oscillation must be mentioned. Ice cores from the polar plateau in Antarctica reveal that the millennial-duration climate changes that punctuated the last glacial period were antiphased with respect to those elsewhere in the world (Blunier et al., 1998). During the Allerød, the ongoing warming of the polar plateau came to a halt. Then, at approximately the time of the onset of the Younger Dryas, the warming commenced once again at an even steeper rate than that in progress before the Allerød pause. Based on reconstructions of the radiocarbon content of surface ocean carbon, Hughen et al. (1996) clearly demonstrated that at the onset of the Younger Dryas, the Atlantic's conveyor circulation must have shut down, allowing newly produced 14C to be backlogged in the atmosphere and upper ocean. Then, 200 years later, the backlogging ceased and the excess 14C in the atmosphere and upper ocean was gradually drained back down. I suggested that this drain-down was caused by the inception of a new mode of deep water formation in the Southern Ocean, and that this new mode delivered extra heat to the Antarctic continent, reinitiating the stalled warming (Broecker, 1998).
When the difference in base conditions between those that prevailed during the Allerød and those that would prevail when the greenhouse warming has become sufficiently intense to threaten a conveyor shutdown is taken into account, then the picture looks quite different. As shown by the simplistic scenario presented in Figure 3, while conditions in the northern Atlantic basin would likely become cooler than now, for the rest of the world this change might only ameliorate part of the accrued greenhouse warming. But of course, even if the temperature change could be adequately assessed, we would still lack information regarding those aspects of the climate change which would matter the most (rainfall patterns, soil moisture, storminess, dustiness, etc.). One must keep in mind that as the physics of mode changes is so poorly understood, diagrams such as that in Figure 3 are unlikely to portray what would happen if the Earth system were to undergo a mode switch. The consequences of such a change defy prediction.
The last point to be made is that the Allerød to Younger Dryas transition was punctuated by flickers (see Fig. 4). Electrical conductivity measurements on the GISP2 ice core (Taylor et al., 1993a, 1993b) show that the onset of the Younger Dryas was marked by a period of increased dust fall onto the Greenland ice cap which lasted for about 5 years. This brief dust episode was followed by a several-year-long respite. Then came a second and a third episode each followed by respites. Finally, about 45 years after the onset of the first dust episode, Younger Dryas conditions locked in. As similar flickers accompanied all the Dansgaard-Oeschger (D-O) transitions, the likelihood that they would accompany a greenhouse-induced mode switch is reasonably high.
WHAT TRIGGERS THERMOHALINE REORGANIZATIONS
The trigger for the precipitous Younger Dryas cooling as first proposed by Rooth (1982) was likely the large pulse of fresh water released into the northern Atlantic as a result of the sudden switch in the outlet of proglacial Lake Agassiz from the Mississippi to the St. Lawrence drainage. This switch was triggered by the retreat of the Laurentian ice cap, which formed the northern shoreline of the lake. When the ice dam gave way, the lake surface dropped in a series of steps by about 100 m (Teller and Thorliefson, 1983). The water released flooded eastward into the northern Atlantic and presumably reduced the salinity of surface waters there to the point where deep water could no longer form. Radiocarbon dating places the timing of the drop in lake level resulting from this switch at about 11000 14C yr ago (that is, within the dating uncertainty of the time of the onset of the Younger Dryas). Confirmation comes from the record kept in Gulf of Mexico sediments, which reveals that a reduction in the input of low 18O meltwater from the Mississippi occurred at close to this time (Broecker et al., 1989). I published a full account of this scenario as a popularized article entitled "The Biggest Chill" in Natural History (Broecker, 1987). Unbeknownst to me, the editors added the following subtitle: "When ocean currents shifted, Europe suddenly got cold."Then they went on to say, "Could it happen again?"At the time, this statement greatly annoyed me because I had carefully avoided any mention of the future in the article itself. But now in retrospect, perhaps I should forgive them.
During the course of the 50 000-yr-duration glacial period, 20 climate shifts similar to that marking the beginning of the Younger Dryas occurred. It is highly unlikely that each was driven by a sudden influx of ponded meltwater. Rather, there must have been another cause. One possibility is that these shifts were driven by a salt oscillator (Broecker et al., 1990). During times when the conveyor was off, the northern Atlantic region was extremely cold, and fresh water accumulated in the ice caps of Canada and Scandinavia rather than running off to the sea. This allowed the salinity of surface waters in the Atlantic Ocean to rise. When the density of waters in the northern Atlantic became large enough, conveyor circulation was reinitiated. Once in action, the heat released from the conveyor's upper limb caused the ice caps to recede, releasing fresh water to the Atlantic. Surface water salinities were then driven back down to that level where deep water could no longer form, causing the conveyor to shut down. Viewed in this context, one would conclude that during the Allerød, warm ice cap melting drove down the salinity of the northern Atlantic until the shutdown threshold was reached. Likely the surge of water stored in Lake Agassiz merely pushed the system over the brink; i.e., in the absence of such a surge, the system might well have reached this threshold due to the progressive reduction in salinity caused by the ice cap melting. Similarly, greenhouse-driven polar warming and strengthening of the hydrologic cycle during the coming 100 or so years may push the system over the brink once again, bringing the conveyor to a halt.
As has been emphasized by many authors (see Rahmstorf, 1996), regardless of the impetus, once the conveyor is shut down, a fresh water lid forms in the northern Atlantic, temporarily locking ocean circulation into one of its alternate modes of operation.
MODELS TO THE RESCUE?
But wouldn't predictions based on conveyor shutdowns carried out in linked ocean-atmosphere climate models be more informative than analogies to past changes? I would contend that to date no model is up to the task. No one understands what is required to cool Greenland by 16°C and the tropics by 4±1°C, to lower mountain snowlines by 900 m, to create an ice sheet covering much of North America, to reduce the atmosphere's CO2 content by 30%, or to raise the dust rain in many parts of Earth by an order of magnitude. If these changes were not documented in the climate record, they would never enter the minds of the climate dynamics community. Models that purportedly simulate glacial climates do so only because key boundary conditions are prescribed (the size and elevation of the ice sheets, sea ice extent, sea surface temperatures, atmospheric CO2 content, etc.).
In addition, some of these models have sensitivities whose magnitude many would challenge. What the paleoclimatic record tells us is that Earth's climate system is capable of jumping from one mode of operation to another. These modes are self-sustaining and involve major differences in mean global temperature, in rainfall pattern, and in atmospheric dustiness. In my estimation, we lack even a first-order explanation as to how the various elements of the Earth system interact to generate these alternate modes. One intriguing proposal implies that excess atmospheric dust lowers the mean residence time of water molecules in the atmosphere (Yung et al., 1996). As water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, the resulting reduction in its inventory cools the planet. Of course, maintaining the necessary higher atmospheric dustiness would seemingly require increased storminess and decreased vege tative cover in the dust source regions. Even if it could be shown that, once created, these very different states of climate could be maintained, the question would remain as to how, in a period of just a few decades, the system is able to jump from one of these operational modes to another. In particular, if the villain is indeed a reorganization of the ocean's thermohaline circulation, how does it trigger the atmosphere to jump from one mode of operation to another? So, unfortunately, until the major deficiencies that prevent climate models from spontaneously reproducing glacial conditions and from jumping from one quasi-stable mode of operation to another are conquered, these models have little to offer regarding the prediction of the impacts of a conveyor shutdown.
CONCLUSIONS
The fact that we are unable to provide satisfactory estimates of the probability that a conveyor shutdown will occur or of its consequences is certainly reason to be extremely prudent with regard to CO2 emissions. The record of events that transpired during the last glacial period sends us the clear warning that by adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, we are poking an angry beast (Fig. 5).

Also ...

*ahem*

Melting snow hastens warming in the Arctic
STUDY: Expansion of snow-free days is accelerating climate change.

By DOUG O'HARRA
Anchorage Daily News

Published: September 24, 2005
Last Modified: September 24, 2005 at 06:19 AM


Melting snow has triggered the warmest summers across Arctic Alaska in at
least 400 years, setting in motion tree and shrub growth that will
accelerate warming by two to seven times as the century unfolds.


The slow expansion of the tundra's snow-free season by about 2.5 days per
decade since the 1960s explains 95 percent of the recent rise in summer
temperatures, and is far more influential than changes in vegetation, sea
ice, atmospheric circulation or clouds, according to a report published this
week in Science Express.

Those few extra days when the sun bakes brown tundra instead of getting
reflected back into space by snow produces a surprising impact, wrote
University of Alaska Fairbanks ecologist Terry Chapin and 20 co-authors.
They have warmed the tundra by three watts for every square meter -- as much
heating as you'd get from doubling the concentration of the greenhouse gas
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

"There's been a long-term interest in why it is that high latitude climate
seems to be warming more rapidly than the rest of the world," said Chapin, a
professor at the Institute of Arctic Biology and the first Alaska member of
the National Academy of Sciences. "Basically, I thought that maybe
vegetation would be having a large influence, but the bottom line of that
paper is that snowmelt swamps the vegetation."

Even small increases in the time the landscape spends dark rather than white
make a huge difference in how much solar energy gets absorbed, explained
snow researcher Matthew Sturm, with the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and
Engineering Laboratory at Fort Wainwright.

"If you sort of think about the short summer period, there's just a certain
number of days when we have that nice dark tundra exposed," he said. "If we
add a couple days where we don't have snow cover, we have a big impact. Just
peeling that back a couple days per decade, and there's a lot of warming."

The paper, the "Role of Land-Surface Changes in Arctic Summer Warming,"
arose from a project sponsored by the National Science Foundation.
Coordinated by Chapin and Sturm, it drew on a decade of work by 21
ecologists and biologists, snow and ice experts, climate researchers and
supercomputer jockeys. It crunched a hemisphere of data -- shifts in
temperature, cloud cover, solar energy, snow cover and vegetation.

"We argue that recent changes in the length of the snow-free season have
triggered a set of interlinked feedbacks that will amplify future rates of
summer warming," the authors wrote.

The study is only one of several new reports describing how climate change
appears to be accelerating across the Arctic. Tundra has been greening up
with more shrubs that, in turn, trap more solar energy, according to new
papers published by scientists at Woods Hole Research Center and the Army
research lab. At the same time, Interior spruce forests have declined, under
stress from drought and wildfires.

Scientists say there's no question that overall Arctic warmth has been
influenced both by increases in greenhouse gas concentrations and natural
cycles, though the relative contributions are still not clear.

This newest study suggests that policy-makers should take Alaska's warming
climate as a spur to action, regardless of the causes, said Chapin, the lead
author. That means people ought to find ways to cut back on fossil fuel
consumption while preparing for big changes in the landscape.

"It's a chance for policy-makers and industry to look for innovative ways to
maximize the societal benefit of the fuels that we do use," he said. "I
think there's lots that can be done to reduce fossil fuels that would have
modest or even positive impacts on the economy."

The study found summer warming in Arctic Alaska and western Canada sped up
over time, resulting in an increase of almost three-quarters of a degree
Fahrenheit per decade over the past 40 years. But explaining why was
complicated.

Changes in ocean cycles influence winter temperatures and don't fully
explain summer warmth. Shrinking sea ice also has the biggest impact on fall
and winter conditions. More summer cloudiness tends to "dampen" the amount
of sun beating down over the seasons, the scientists said.

Vegetation has spread, too, with tall shrubs advancing into the tundra and
the tree line slipping north. Spring leaf-out has come 10 to 12 days earlier
in Alaska over the past half century. But all these shifts, while moving
faster and faster, account for only about 2 percent of the summer warming
observed so far, the scientists said.

"The summer warming in Alaska is best explained by a lengthening of the
snow-free season, causing sensible warming of the lower atmosphere to begin
earlier," they concluded.

But as the shrubs expand in the tundra, their influence will grow --
catching more solar heat, trapping more insulating snow, enriching the soil
with nutrients. Eventually vegetation will take over.

"Because of these feedbacks, there are lots of reasons to think that this
warming will continue," Chapin said.

Understanding what factors are pushing the shrub expansion "would reduce the
likelihood of unexpected surprises" in future summer warming, the scientists
wrote.

Chapin, one of the most influential scientists in Alaska, said he hopes to
begin looking into what factors might pushing climate changes in other areas
of Alaska.

"I'm interested in asking similar questions for the boreal forest, where
there's an increase in forest fires," he said.

To be fair, there should be more positive news with the negative, especially considering this subject .... so i figured this would be a glimmer of hope for a few ...

*ahem*

Synthetic Trees Could Purify Air
By Molly Bentley of the BBC

A scientist has invented an artificial tree designed to do the job of plants.
But the synthetic tree proposed by Dr Klaus Lackner does not much resemble the leafy variety.
"It looks like a goal post with Venetian blinds," said the Columbia University physicist, referring to his sketch at the annual AAAS meeting in Denver, Colorado.
But the synthetic tree would do the job of a real tree, he said. It would draw carbon dioxide out of the air, as plants do during photosynthesis, but retain the carbon and not release oxygen.
If done to scale, according to Dr Lackner, synthetic trees could help clean up an atmosphere grown heavy with carbon dioxide, the most abundant gas produced by humans and implicated in climate warming.
He predicts that one synthetic tree could remove 90,000 tonnes of CO2 in a year - the emissions equivalent of 15,000 cars.
"You can be a thousand times better than a living tree," he said.
Carbon sinks
For now, the synthetic tree is still a paper idea. But Dr Lackner is serious about developing a working model. His efforts suggest the wide net of ideas cast by scientists as they face the challenge of mitigating climate change.
Dr Lackner believes that carbon sequestration technology must be part of the long-term solution. Global reliance on fossil fuels will not decrease any time soon, he said, and developing countries cannot be expected to wait until alternatives are available.
The technology calls for two things - seizing carbon and then storing it. Direct capture of CO2, from power plants for example, is the simplest, according to Dr Lackner. But this doesn't work for all polluters. A car can't capture and store its carbon dioxide on-board; the storage tank would be too large.
"It's simply a question of weight," he said, "for every 14 grams of gasoline you use, you are going to have 44 grams of CO2."
The alternative is to capture emissions from the wind. In this case, a synthetic tree would act like a filter. An absorbent coating, such as limewater, on its slats or "leaves" would seize carbon dioxide and retain the carbon.
Dr Lackner predicts that the biggest expense would be in recycling the absorber material.
"We have to keep the absorbent surfaces refreshed because they will very rapidly fill up with carbon dioxide," he said. If an alkaline solution such as limewater were used, the resulting coat of limestone would need to be removed.
Dr Lackner is considering other less-alkaline solutions to prevent carbonate precipitation.
"There are a number of engineering issues which need to be worked out," he said.
Home use
A synthetic tree could be planted anywhere. A small one could sit like a TV on the lawn to balance out the CO2 emitted by one person or family.
But more practically, said Dr Lackner, a device the size of a barn would sit in the open air, near repositories for easy transportation and storage of carbon.
He estimated that 250,000 synthetic trees worldwide would be needed to soak up the 22 billion tons of CO2 produced annually.
But not everyone is rooted to the idea. Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineer Howard Herzog thinks Dr Lackner's design won't hold together on the scale he proposes.
He said you would expend more energy in capturing the CO2 - in keeping the slats coated in absorbent and disposing of it - than you'd save.
"Once the solvent captures the CO2, it holds it on tight," said Dr Herzog, "and it's going to take a lot of energy to break those bonds."
He said that much more research is needed on the technology.
"The idea of air capture is seductive and would really be great to have," said Dr Herzog, "but it's important to separate out the concept from the technical details."
'Early days'
Meanwhile, Dr Lackner is pursuing his idea for carbon storage. While he was at the US Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory, his team worked on a storage method based on a natural chemical process known as rock weathering.
When CO2 binds with magnesium, it creates carbonate rocks which, according to Dr Lackner, retain carbon permanently and safely.
Currently, he said, the process is still too expensive to develop on a large scale.
But Dr Lackner is optimistic that the costs for carbon capture and storage will come down.
"This is still the early days of climate solutions," he said.

Damn, Straughn.

Damn, Straughn.

Unfortunately, no matter how much good science you show them, those in denial about global warming will look upon Straughns posts with about as much interest and comprehension as a dog looking at the Wall Street Journal.

Unfortunately, no matter how much good science you show them, those in denial about global warming will look upon Straughns posts with about as much interest and comprehension as a dog looking at the Wall Street Journal.
Too bad you can't whack them with a newspaper.

Don't think anyone has truly disagreed that global warming exists. No one, however, not even some of the greatest scientific minds, can agree on why it is occurring. Most agree that it is natural but that yes, we are contributing. I feel ever so much better now!

Unfortunately, no matter how much good science you show them, those in denial about global warming will look upon Straughns posts with about as much interest and comprehension as a dog looking at the Wall Street Journal.
The same can be said about the other camp as well.... no matter how much good science you show them, those in denial about global warming as a natural occurance will look upon Hawkintom's posts with about as much interest and comprehension as a dog looking at the Wall Street Journal.

The same can be said about the other camp as well.... no matter how much good science you show them, those in denial about global warming as a natural occurance will look upon Hawkintom's posts with about as much interest and comprehension as a dog looking at the Wall Street Journal.

The thing is...(drumroll,) that both are true. We are going through a natural warming cycle AND man is adding to it. Unfortunately, complex things are spooky to some people, so they therefore overlook multiple causes. Nope, it's either a natural cycle or man, and never the twain shall meet.

But please, if you have a peer-reviewed article that shows the natural cycle isn't being affected by man, I'd love to see it.

The thing is...(drumroll,) that both are true. We are going through a natural warming cycle AND man is adding to it. Unfortunately, complex things are spooky to some people, so they therefore overlook multiple causes. Nope, it's either a natural cycle or man, and never the twain shall meet.

But please, if you have a peer-reviewed article that shows the natural cycle isn't being affected by man, I'd love to see it.
and I would love to see one that proves man is having any affect on it.

I've seen lots of Evolution vs. Intelligent Design, Communism vs. Capitalism, Atheism vs Religion etc threads recently. I would be interested to see a Global Warming thread, with scientific debate.

Does it exist? If so why (proof) and how will it impact all of us? If no, then why not (proof)?

I don't know much, so I'm just starting this, gonna sit back and hopefully enjoy... :)

I think that it clearly exists, and that humanity is making it into a problem, but I suspect that it's actually part of a natural cycle - I haven't bothered to read the thread so forgive me if it's already been said - but did you know that the last Ice Age, the Great Ice Age, never actually ended? There are warm periods, and we exist in the middle of a warm period. Which intrigues me. These climate changes have been happening in cycles for millions of years... I think it would have started happening anyway, humans are just speeding it up. Which is unfortunate, and as much as I'd like to see people stop making the problem worse, it's far too expensive and inconvenient for anything large-scale to be done [in time.]

and I would love to see one that proves man is having any affect on it.
Have you read anything about Global Warming? Or do you need the Savior to make a Second Coming and write it down for you?

he is causing all this problems i feel he is should be sining that kyoto and helping the ozone he causes a quarter of polllution and only a fifth of the world lives there so get bush out :mp5:

he is causing all this problems i feel he is should be sining that kyoto and helping the ozone he causes a quarter of polllution and only a fifth of the world lives there so get bush out :mp5:

Please tell me this is sarcasm!

1) It was Bill Clinton that signed Kyoto (well his rep anyway)
2) It was the Senate that sent a messege to Bill that it would get rejected. This was bi-partisan no less. A unanamous vote.
3) It was signed anyway but never sent to the US Senate for ratification.

Therefore, the US is not bound by the treaty and nor should we since it has been proven that it would do absolutely nothing.

he is causing all this problems i feel he is should be sining that kyoto and helping the ozone he causes a quarter of polllution and only a fifth of the world lives there so get bush out :mp5:

No, not signing Kyoto was a good move. The report the treaty was based on consisted mostly of unverified data - but since it was written by a giant in the field who also had quite a big influence on peer-review journals that was kept quiet.
However, the corrected reports still show that humanity has an influence. It is less obvious to the general public than the "hockystick figure", and it is of course small compared to the natural occuring cycle, but it is there. And since our societies really are not that flexible as many people think (see Katrina for illustration) that is a bad thing.

And of course, the US way of life is extremely wasteful.

Please tell me this is sarcasm!

1) It was Bill Clinton that signed Kyoto (well his rep anyway)
2) It was the Senate that sent a messege to Bill that it would get rejected. This was bi-partisan no less. A unanamous vote.
3) It was signed anyway but never sent to the US Senate for ratification.

Therefore, the US is not bound by the treaty and nor should we since it has been proven that it would do absolutely nothing.
It was signed by Gore, in fact. (It has been suggested he signed it in much the same spirit as Clinton would have shown by shitting on the oval office desk after he'd finished clearing his stuff out...)

It hasn't actually been proven to be worthless as the US produces vastly more carbon dioxide than any of the other signatories, and they're the bunch who are ignoring it.

It was signed by Gore, in fact. (It has been suggested he signed it in much the same spirit as Clinton would have shown by shitting on the oval office desk after he'd finished clearing his stuff out...)

It hasn't actually been proven to be worthless as the US produces vastly more carbon dioxide than any of the other signatories, and they're the bunch who are ignoring it.

Here's the thing about Kyoto:

1) It leaves out developing countries! This leaves them to pollute as much as they want. Look at China and India as prime examples.

2) It has also been proven that Kyoto would do nothing for the environment. It wouldn't have reduced a thing.

Couple that with the fact that this would've hampered the economy by causing massive job losses (4 million jobs).

Thanks to the Senate, Bill Clinton would've lost MORE jobs than President Bush did with a terror attack as well as the corporate scandel crisis. That cost roughly 2 million jobs.

Unfortunately, no matter how much good science you show them, those in denial about global warming will look upon Straughns posts with about as much interest and comprehension as a dog looking at the Wall Street Journal.
ARRGH!!!!
*waaaah*
(sobs)

The thing is...(drumroll,) that both are true. We are going through a natural warming cycle AND man is adding to it. Unfortunately, complex things are spooky to some people, so they therefore overlook multiple causes. Nope, it's either a natural cycle or man, and never the twain shall meet.

But please, if you have a peer-reviewed article that shows the natural cycle isn't being affected by man, I'd love to see it.
F*cking-HALLELUJAH!
Again, i must say, you have the most excellent posts.
*bows*

and I would love to see one that proves man is having any affect on it.
...this is where you get whacked with a newspaper...
Pay-the-f*ck-attention.
Reread the whole thread.
Also, punch up the archives.
Use my name WHENEVER IT APPLIES.
There's plenty of others who've posted on this too.
And then go ahead and research the people involved in the post material, and attempt to discredit them!
Go for it!
Off to the races!

Have you read anything about Global Warming? Or do you need the Savior to make a Second Coming and write it down for you?
Touche`!

Damn, Straughn.
Damn, indeed. :(
I happen to live up in Alaska, we're getting to see a lot more than people like Corny might have you believe.
A lot of stuff tends to go RIGHT past most people ....
*wistfully tweaks a tiny violin*
Since i haven't posted anything particularly useful today on this thread, i might as well get to it.

*ahem*

Glacial Advance
Glaciers in southern New Zealand have begun to gain more ice over the last two years despite the worldwide trend of glacial retreat due to global warming. Heavy precipitation in the Southern Alps is said to be responsible for the reversal of glacial retreat on the South Island. The country's National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research used aerial photographs to reveal that some of the 50 newly advancing glaciers are gaining as much as 3 feet in length per day. But climate scientist Jim Salinger said the rivers of ice are still far from their sparkling glory of a century ago.
from Earthweek
http://www.earthgate.ucsb.edu/weekly_news/articles.html

-and its corollary-
Rivers benefit as global warming pushes large glaciers into retreat

27.02.2003

South Island rivers are benefiting from melting glaciers caused by global warming, but the extra flows will not last forever, warns a glacier expert.

National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research consultant glaciologist Trevor Chinn, who watches the country's 3140 glaciers, said many of the South Island's largest were retreating rapidly.

As they melted, the glaciers added millions of litres of water to the alpine rivers.

The glaciers in the Southern Alps cover 1158sq km and hold 53cu km of snow and ice.

"Current flows are higher than what you would expect from rainfall," said Mr Chinn. "What we are seeing is borrowing water from glacier storage for the Waitaki and Clutha Rivers."

The rapidly melting Tasman Glacier, for example, is boosting flows in the Waitaki River system by more than four cumecs (cubic metres a second).

A 0.5C to 3C rise in average global temperature would see the glaciers reduce in volume 25 to 50 per cent.

That could add up to 8 cumecs of water to the Waitaki system.

"The prediction is that flows in hydro rivers will have a component of water from ice storage. They will be doing better than if the glaciers were advancing."

For the past 20 years, New Zealand glaciers as a whole had been gaining slightly rather than retreating.

But Mr Chinn estimates that in the past century the country has lost 23 to 32 per cent of its glacial area, "making today's extent of glacier ice probably less than at any other time during the past 5000 years".

"Glaciers worldwide are retreating with global warming," he said. "We predict there will be future glacier retreat in New Zealand.

"In the immediate future, a lot of rivers will be running water from ice storage, which is going to take a long time to replenish."

Mr Chinn said the glaciers could not retreat forever.

"Even with a lot of climate warming, it is not going to make them disappear, but they will retreat until they get into equilibrium with the present climate."

How long the retreat lasts depends on the size and shape of the individual glaciers.

The ice-melt flows are expected to taper off in the next 50 years.

"If there was a reversal of the climate and glaciers advanced, you would get water going back into ice storage, but that is highly unlikely," said Mr Chinn.

The flows due to ice melt would be significant in a desert country but were only a small proportion of the water in rivers because of the large amount of rain that fell in New Zealand, he said.

His calculations show that before the arrival of European settlers, there were about 100cu km of glacial ice in New Zealand. That has reduced to about 53cu km, and predictions are that by 2070 it will fall to just 25cu km.

Worldwide, glaciers have generally been in recession since the end of the so-called "Little Ice Age" - a period of cooler temperatures that lasted for 500 years and ended in the 19th century.

During this period, glaciologists believe New Zealand's glaciers reached a maximum probably around the 1600s, after which they began a gradual recession.

Large-scale wasting only started last century, notably after 1950.

An example of extreme retreat is New Zealand's eighth-largest glacier, the Godley, in Mt Cook National Park. In 1862 explorer Julius Haast saw the Godley Glacier bulldozing vegetation as it advanced, but since then it has been in serious retreat, and its terminus is now about 6km farther up the valley.
----
maybe try

http://www.climatehotmap.org/newpoints.html

I should also mention, since it's come up before ...
(http://www.earthgate.ucsb.edu/weekly_news/articles.html)

*ahem*

Ozone Hole Grows
The U.N. reported that the hole in the ozone layer above Antarctica has grown to near-record size this year, suggesting that 20 years of pollution controls have had little effect on the annual phenomenon. Geir Braathen, the World Meteorological Organization's top ozone expert, told a news briefing that the so-called ozone recovery has yet to be confirmed. Last month, U.S. scientists said that the Antarctic region's ozone layer had stopped shrinking, but recovery could take decades as previously released ozone-depleting chemicals filter out of the atmosphere. Chlorofluorocarbons containing chlorine and bromine have been blamed for thinning of stratospheric ozone because they interact with ozone molecules, causing them to break apart.

and

Wildlife Drought
An extended drought is causing elephants and buffaloes to die of starvation in a key Zimbabwe wildlife region. The state-controlled Herald reports the animals have perished in the Matetsi area near Victoria Falls, a popular tourist destination. A critical fuel shortage due to the country's economic crisis has kept diesel from reaching water pumping stations, which normally provide fresh water to wildlife during times of drought.

-
and on a related subject that i'll post more on ...

The Bush Index
The president's zeal to gut environmental protections is matched only by his reluctance to enforce the law. In this special Environmental Crimes edition of The Briefing, we offer a snapshot of Bush's record since 2000:

Percent drop in federal lawsuits for environmental violations: 75
Percent increase in permits for oil and gas drilling on federal lands: 75
Annual savings to industry from Bush's refusal to mandate lead-paint cleanup: $3,000,000,000
Percent decline in federal fines against industrial polluters: 60
Years since number of fines has been so low: 14
Percent decline in federal Superfund cleanups of toxic waste: 52
Acres of untouched forests opened to developers: 58,500,000
Endangered species that live in these areas: 220
Species added to the endangered list by Bush: 31
Species added by Bush's father: 228
Acres designated as wilderness by the Bush administration: 530,000
Acres designated by Ronald Reagan: 10,600,000

Smogging the States
Bush is not only rolling back federal regulations, he's protecting polluters from state laws. Take the new fuel-economy standards that the administration proposed in August. Instead of going after Hummers, the rule targets a far greater threat: California. The state has ordered the auto industry to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by thirty percent by 2016, and eight other states plan to follow suit.
But under a provision on page 150 of the new Bush rule, such state limits would be "expressly preempted."

So Long, Yosemite
Bush also wants to gut the standard that protects national parks from developers. Under a new rule drafted by a former aide to Dick Cheney, regulators would no longer have to ensure that parks remain "unimpaired" for future generations -- only that any damage not be "irreversible." Among the stunning vistas you might enjoy on your next trip to Yellowstone: strip mines, oil rigs, logging trucks and cell-phone towers.
(Posted Sep 08, 2005)

-from RS issue date Sep. 22 2005


To NO ONE's surprise, i have more but i shouldn't "spam".

...this is where you get whacked with a newspaper...
Pay-the-f*ck-attention.
Reread the whole thread.
Also, punch up the archives.
Use my name WHENEVER IT APPLIES.
There's plenty of others who've posted on this too.
And then go ahead and research the people involved in the post material, and attempt to discredit them!
Go for it!
Off to the races!
pay the f*ck attention yourself.
Not a single thing has been posted by yourself or anyone other yahoo about man-caused global warming that hasn't been disputed by some other scientists.

You blindly ignore and dismiss any science that goes against your own pre-conceived ideas.

Nothing has been proved one way or another.... otherwise there wouldn't be a debate now would there?

global warming may be natural, it may not be. the bottom line is that its NOT GOOD FOR PEOPLE and therefore we should try to stop it.

pay the f*ck attention yourself.
Not a single thing has been posted by yourself or anyone other yahoo about man-caused global warming that hasn't been disputed by some other scientists.

You blindly ignore and dismiss any science that goes against your own pre-conceived ideas.

Nothing has been proved one way or another.... otherwise there wouldn't be a debate now would there?

I have never ever seen a peer-reviewed, non-oil funded environmental report that suggests that CO2 and other products we pump into the atmosphere are not greenhouse effect inducing and/or harmful to human health, nor have I ever seen an article supporting that man does not product enough of these pollutants to have an effect, however small.

Please link one. I would love to read every single word.

1. How did it get there? unknown

2. Why does it appear to shrink and expand on a cycle? Unknown

Sorry. Doesn't fly with me.

Does it exist? Its a natural phenomenom.

Thank you!

By the way, the Kyoto Treaty was a smart move by Bush. America would be Punished more, while there would be Peat Burning in Tailand.

I have never ever seen a peer-reviewed, non-oil funded environmental report that suggests that CO2 and other products we pump into the atmosphere are not greenhouse effect inducing and/or harmful to human health, nor have I ever seen an article supporting that man does not product enough of these pollutants to have an effect, however small.

Please link one. I would love to read every single word.
Don't hold your breath. After I got mixed up in one of these threads last time, I spend nearly a week trying to find such a thing. I'm 99% sure peer-reveiwed, non-oil funded, scientific research contradicting, or just refuting some detail, of the global research into man's impact on the greenhouse effect, is a myth.

global warming may be natural, it may not be. the bottom line is that its NOT GOOD FOR PEOPLE and therefore we should try to stop it.

Now here is an ignorant statement! Not good for people? How do you think the vikings were able to colonize Greenland? Why did the vikings have to come over here? Because of an abundance of food and need for expansion because of a bigger population.

What isn't good for humanity is Global Cooling. Why? Because the growing seasons would be shorter meaning less food for all of us.

Thank you!

By the way, the Kyoto Treaty was a smart move by Bush. America would be Punished more, while there would be Peat Burning in Tailand.

Actually, you can thank the United States Senate for rejecting the treaty even before it was signed by Al Gore in the 1990s.

Tell that to the people of Micronesia, with their 1000+ islands at sealevel

Now here is an ignorant statement! Not good for people? How do you think the vikings were able to colonize Greenland? Why did the vikings have to come over here? Because of an abundance of food and need for expansion because of a bigger population.

What isn't good for humanity is Global Cooling. Why? Because the growing seasons would be shorter meaning less food for all of us.

Actually, according to how it would affect the Conveyor, Global Cooling might serve to make the equatorial regions significantly cooler and the northern reaches of the ocean slightly warmer...a net loss in average temperature, but the possibility of more temperate climate overall. Inland areas up north would be bitterly cold...but not a heck of a lot of people live in inland areas up north...for obvious reasons.

Global cooling may also lead to less hurricane activity...fewer lost crops.

If global cooling were to occur because of mankind devising a way to scrub the air, this would also mean that there would be global brightening...meaning more light energy getting to plants. Actually, global cooling might contribute to global brightening directly. Cooler temperatures would lead to less dust in the air.

Now, I'm probably not 100% correct here, but at least this should go to show that our environment isn't nearly as simple as some would like us to believe.

Now, I'm probably not 100% correct here, but at least this should go to show that our environment isn't nearly as simple as some would like us to believe.

Which is why some people should stop saying "don't know what all the fuss is about, i'd love it to be a bit warmer" and other people should call the phenomenon "Climate Change". Warmer some places, colder others, wetter some places, drier others.

If the conveyor switches off, the UK will be hotter in summer and icebound in winter.

pay the f*ck attention yourself.
Not a single thing has been posted by yourself or anyone other yahoo about man-caused global warming that hasn't been disputed by some other scientists.

You blindly ignore and dismiss any science that goes against your own pre-conceived ideas.

Nothing has been proved one way or another.... otherwise there wouldn't be a debate now would there?
You don't know much of anything about what i admit or dismiss. Pay better attention, like i said.
I'll point out that Corny and Hawk both thought i was on their side.
AND, just because you believe something doesn't mean others will agree with you. The argument is in the BELIEF. NOT THE PROOF.
I think i've done more than many here, ESPECIALLY yourself, to back up what might appear to be my "opinion". So far you got squat, chump.
Now you might learn the difference and get back to me when you do.

Any other ignorance you want to share with us?

I have never ever seen a peer-reviewed, non-oil funded environmental report that suggests that CO2 and other products we pump into the atmosphere are not greenhouse effect inducing and/or harmful to human health, nor have I ever seen an article supporting that man does not product enough of these pollutants to have an effect, however small.

Please link one. I would love to read every single word.
Seconded!

Now here is an ignorant statement! Not good for people? How do you think the vikings were able to colonize Greenland? Why did the vikings have to come over here? Because of an abundance of food and need for expansion because of a bigger population.

What isn't good for humanity is Global Cooling. Why? Because the growing seasons would be shorter meaning less food for all of us.
Right, and when the huge droughts happen from the *HEAT* you think everything will grow all peachy.
Again, an embarassing post, Corny. :(

Actually, you can thank the United States Senate for rejecting the treaty even before it was signed by Al Gore in the 1990s.
While you're beating on the guy who "invented the internet", i'll give ya this to chew on.

*ahem*

A Polluter's Feast
Bush has reversed more environmental progress in the past eight months than Reagan did in a full eight years
By TIM DICKINSON

What can you say about the environmental record of an administration that seeks to test pesticides on poor children and pregnant women? That argues in court that a dam is part of a salmon's natural environment? That places a timber lobbyist in charge of the national forests and an oil lobbyist in charge of government reports on global warming? That cuts clean-air inspections at oil refineries in half, allows Superfund to go bankrupt and permits the mining industry to pump toxic waste directly into a wild Alaskan lake?
Only this: It's about to get even worse.
Since President Bush was sworn in for a second term, he has not only continued his unprecedented assault on the environment -- he's intensified it. In recent months, the administration has opened up millions of acres of pristine land to developers, allowing them to log and mine without leaving behind "viable populations" of wildlife. It allowed the import of methyl bromide, a cancer-causing pesticide that was due to be banned this year under an international accord signed by Ronald Reagan, and it scrapped plans to regulate lead paint in home-renovation projects, placing millions of children at risk for brain damage. And on August 8th, taking advantage of solid Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, Bush signed into law his long-stalled energy bill, a grab bag of industry favors that provides $10 billion in oil, gas and coal subsidies while exempting Halliburton and other polluters from environmental laws. The measure approves oil exploration in marine sanctuaries, greenlights drilling on millions of acres of public land in the Rocky Mountains and Alaska, fast-tracks sixteen new coal-fired power plants and provides cradle-to-grave subsidies for new nuclear reactors. In a grotesque fit of petro-nuclear synergy, the bill even funds research into refining oil -- using atomic radiation.
The administration's aim is to roll back four decades of environmental progress -- to an era before the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. "These laws were all started under President Nixon," notes Sen. Lincoln Chafee, a Republican from Rhode Island. "The environment has always been something that Republicans have been proud of -- but this administration sees it differently." Others put it even more bluntly. "In the eyes of this administration," says Marty Hayden, legislative director of Earthjustice, the legal arm of the Sierra Club, "Ronald Reagan was an environmental extremist."
Indeed, Bush has undone more environmental progress in the last eight months than Reagan dreamed of in his full eight years in office. "Their goal is to take us back to where we were in the Eisenhower administration," says Buck Parker, Earthjustice's executive director. "Back to a time when the energy industry had free rein, citizens had no input and there were no environmental laws to be enforced."
A review of the damage already done in the second term reveals that the Bush administration has gutted environmental protections across the country, from Alaskan rain forests to the Gulf of Mexico:
Fouling The Air Nowhere is the administration's contempt for the environment more evident than in its about-face on mercury, a potent neurotoxin that causes brain damage in as many as 600,000 children a year. The Clinton administration, declaring the pollution a "threat to public health," ordered coal plants to slash their mercury emissions by ninety percent by 2008. But in March, the EPA implemented a new rule -- entire sections of which were drafted by industry lobbyists -- that allows three times the emission of the Clinton rule and delays implementation of the cleanup until 2030. "I don't think what the EPA is doing is pro-business," says Attorney General Peter Harvey of New Jersey, one of thirteen states suing to overturn the rule. "I think it's anti-humanity."
Drilling The West The administration is approving so many new permits for oil and gas drilling -- more than 6,000 last year alone -- that it can hardly keep pace with the paperwork. In February, the Bureau of Land Management brought aboard five "volunteer" consultants -- whose salaries are paid in full by industry -- to help with the rubber stamping. "What's next?" asks Johanna Wald, director of land programs for the National Resources Defense Council. "Hiring poachers as park rangers?" The energy bill goes even further, allowing federal authorities to open public lands to drilling without even considering alternative uses such as hunting and ecotourism. "You are supposed to find the best use of the land," says Kevin Curtis, vice president of the National Environmental Trust. "But the energy bill basically says, by statute, that oil and gas drilling is the best use of that land." As a result, millions of acres are sure to follow the fate of Jonah Field in Wyoming, where energy companies have turned the once-untouched desert into a Mad Max subdivision of drilling platforms, polluted ponds and pipelines. "The Bush policy is drill, drill, drill at all costs," says Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. "Those of us who want to protect sensitive ecosystems have no voice in this debate."
Polluting The Water Even as oil and gas interests get permission to drill on wild lands, the energy bill exempts most of the industry's 30,000 annual projects from the Clean Water Act -- allowing petrochemical runoff from well pads to bleed into creeks, rivers and aquifers. The bill also exempts one of Halliburton's most profitable practices from the Safe Drinking Water Act. Called hydraulic fracturing, the technique boosts the yield of oil and natural gas by injecting a toxic stew of benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, sodium hydroxide and MTBE into the ground. "Fracing" earns Halliburton $1.5 billion a year -- twenty percent of its total energy revenues -- but also contaminates groundwater. "The exemption is just a piece of pork for Halliburton," says Eric Schaeffer, former director of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement, who quit in 2002 to protest the administration's pandering to industry. "It's astonishing to think that that kind of thing can go unchallenged."
Logging The Forests Mark Rey -- the former timber lobbyist now in charge of the Forest Service -- bragged to a gathering of timber executives last December that the administration would double the amount of logging on public lands in its second term. By May, it had scrapped the Clinton-era regulation known as the "roadless rule," which placed nearly a third of all national forests off-limits to industry. The Forest Service has already mapped roads into 34 million acres. The logging won't come cheap: Last year alone, taxpayers spent nearly $49 million to carve roads into the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, the world's largest intact temperate rain forest. In return, the federal treasury collected less than $800,000 in royalties from industry.
Killing The Fish The energy bill lifts a twenty-five-year moratorium on oil exploration off the East Coast, allowing industry to conduct a new "inventory" of oil and gas reserves -- a maritime version of shock and awe that will pummel the ocean floor with massive acoustic waves and disrupt marine sanctuaries. Bush has also proposed turning 3,500 idle oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico into offshore fish farms to offset losses in traditional fishing -- a move that will actually increase the agricultural pollution that's responsible for the decline in fishing in the first place.
Nuking The Future In June, Bush became the first president to visit a nuclear plant since 1979, when Jimmy Carter toured Three Mile Island after America's worst atomic accident. "It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again," Bush declared, lauding nuclear power as "environmentally friendly" and "one of America's safest sources of energy." To spur construction, the energy bill grants up to $6 billion in tax credits to new nuclear plants -- subsidies traditionally reserved for windmills and other green energy sources. The bill will also reimburse power companies up to $2 billion if their nuclear projects are delayed by citizen opposition and force taxpayers to foot the bill for any American Chernobyls. "We're going back to the 1950s -- nuclear power is good for you," says Curtis of the National Environmental Trust. "But if it's such a great source of energy, then why do they have to do so much to remove all the risks for industry?"
One thing's for certain: there are more rollbacks to come. The energy bill cleared the Senate only after the administration dropped its most controversial provision: opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling. But even before Bush had signed the measure, Sen. Pete Domenici, chair of the Senate Energy Committee, vowed to resurrect the drilling plan in September by tacking it onto the budget bill, which is immune to filibuster. That would effectively lower the number of votes required for Senate passage from sixty to fifty. "We're going to fight it like hell," says Curtis, "but there just aren't fifty-one votes."
The legislature isn't the only branch going along with Bush's environmental assault. Because most of the administration's rollbacks take place behind the scenes, in a series of bureaucratic nips and tucks to existing rules, they are subject to challenge in federal court. But thanks to Bush's effort to stack the bench with anti-regulatory ideologues, the judiciary isn't proving to be much of an obstacle. In July, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the EPA's decision not to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions. And in August, Judge Janice Rogers Brown, one of the reactionary justices confirmed as part of the Senate deal that defused the "nuclear option," refused to block implementation of Bush's mercury rule.
Public outrage has forced the administration to give up a few of its wildest schemes: "blending" raw sewage into drinking water, for example, or exempting 20 million acres of wetlands from the Clean Water Act. But most of Bush's efforts to gut the nation's environmental protections are so incremental, they go unnoticed by the public -- even when they have far-reaching consequences. In August, the Forest Service quietly adjusted the numbers it uses to weigh the benefits of logging vs. tourism, slashing the "recreational value" of the forests by $100 billion. The EPA went a step further: Under its old cost-benefit formula, the agency valued each human life saved from toxic pollution at $6.1 million. But thanks to a new rule, the cost of polluting people to death has plummeted: Under Bush, your life has officially been devalued by $2.4 million.
(Posted Sep 08, 2005)

I dont believe in it.

I dont believe in it.
I don't believe in you.

I have never ever seen a peer-reviewed, non-oil funded environmental report that suggests that CO2 and other products we pump into the atmosphere are not greenhouse effect inducing and/or harmful to human health, nor have I ever seen an article supporting that man does not produce enough of these pollutants to have an effect, however small.

Please link one. I would love to read every single word.

See, it's when simple requests like this are consistently ignored that forces me to conclude that the other side of the argument doesn't have a whole lot of merit.

F*cking-HALLELUJAH!
Again, i must say, you have the most excellent posts.
*bows*

You provide the meat...the factual support. I merely condense it down in an irrefutable and snarky way. (bows in return.)

We make a good team.

You don't know much of anything about what i admit or dismiss. Pay better attention, like i said.
I'll point out that Corny and Hawk both thought i was on their side.
AND, just because you believe something doesn't mean others will agree with you. The argument is in the BELIEF. NOT THE PROOF.
I think i've done more than many here, ESPECIALLY yourself, to back up what might appear to be my "opinion". So far you got squat, chump.
Now you might learn the difference and get back to me when you do.

Any other ignorance you want to share with us?
Obviously Im not getting my point across. Maybe it's because you just don't get it... maybe it's because of willfull ignorance.
If it's the former I'll try to rephrase how I put it.
If it's the latter, sorry I just can't help you. And seeing your propensity for insulting those who disagree with you, perhaps that says which it is.

You are the accuser. The burden of proof is on you. You accuse the human race of destroying the earth by either causing global warming or by exagerating it's affects.

So far, all the evidence that you have posted has in one way or another been disputed by other experts. The very foundation of the global warming alarmists, the Mann hockey stick graph has been discredited in several ways.
Something you accuse the "denyers" of doing Mann himself does. He refused to let other scientists to examine his data or his methodology. Does this in any way shake your confidence in his work? Yet you completely dismiss another scientists work if it isn't "peer reviewed" or if it's "oil industry funded".

Your whole basic arguement about man's affect on global warming fails the common sense test. It was hotter 1000 years ago than it is now. Glaciers are melting now, revealing tropical flora. What does this show? That it's warming now? Of course. It also shows that at some point in history the area that the glaciers are melting, was at one time tropical in nature.

So, the burden of proof is yours... and so far you have failed in that burden.

Such ignorance.

Are you willing to deny that the CO2 produced by major factories and automobiles is a greenhouse gas? (Don't say yes to this one. I'll have you out the door with research in five minutes.)

Are you willing to deny that the depletion of ozone causes more ultraviolet radiation to hit the earth's surface, which, being a higher frequency radiation than those passing through ozone, heats up the earth significantly?

And are you willing to deny that even the slightest change in global climate can cause -drastic- effects on life on earth, insofar as to be detrimental to various forms of plant and animal life?

If anyone is willing to refute/deny ANY of these, please, feel free to do so. I will debate you openly.

The burden of proof is on you. You accuse the human race of destroying the earth by either causing global warming or by exagerating it's affects.

What in the living F*CK do you think my posts consist of, you *expletive-expletive*?
Show me exactly where i made accusations. I'm waiting, but not for long.


]So far, all the evidence that you have posted has in one way or another been disputed by other experts. The very foundation of the global warming alarmists, the Mann hockey stick graph has been discredited in several ways.Who posted that? And just exactly what can you show to back up your erroneous conclusion of this embarassing post?

Something you accuse the "denyers" of doing Mann himself does. He refused to let other scientists to examine his data or his methodology. Yet you completely dismiss another scientists work if it isn't "peer reviewed" or if it's "oil industry funded".You obviously aren't paying attention. This seems to be too complicated a forum for you. You should note the difference in the poster's names.

Your whole basic arguement about man's affect on global warming fails the common sense test.
If you mean "your" sense test, well, back in the oven, you aren't finished yet.

So, the burden of proof is yours... and so far you have failed in that burden.
I may have failed to convince you of anything but i sure as hedoubleHOCKEYSTICK did NOT fail in providing ample proof. You so far have provided ... embarassment for our species in your post.
And not much else.

Such ignorance.

Are you willing to deny that the CO2 produced by major factories and automobiles is a greenhouse gas? (Don't say yes to this one. I'll have you out the door with research in five minutes.)

Are you willing to deny that the depletion of ozone causes more ultraviolet radiation to hit the earth's surface, which, being a higher frequency radiation than those passing through ozone, heats up the earth significantly?

And are you willing to deny that even the slightest change in global climate can cause -drastic- effects on life on earth, insofar as to be detrimental to various forms of plant and animal life?

If anyone is willing to refute/deny ANY of these, please, feel free to do so. I will debate you openly.
Yes yes... please... open up your argument with an insult... so much better than way :rolleyes:

CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas... never said it wasn't. However, do you deny that water vapor is also a "greenhouse gas"? You do realize that water vapor is many many times more critical to the effect of global warming than all the other greenhouse gases combined? Water vapor which has nothing to do with human activities.

You do realize that the world has been in a cycle of warming and cooling ever since forming? This cycle is natural and man has had no affect on it. You do realize that the earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today right? Pray tell me how man, around the time of 1000 AD had any affect on global temperatures?

Debat away.

Just one, just one article that shows that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that man doesn't produce enough to have an effect, that's all we ask. If one is posted, I'll bet good money that it was funded by oil companies or something similar.

The burden of proof? How about a smidgeon of proof from the Global Warming naysayers?

(bunch of stuff)

If you can't win with your argument... by all means result to insults..

Yes yes... please... open up your argument with an insult... so much better than way :rolleyes:

CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas... never said it wasn't. However, do you deny that water vapor is also a "greenhouse gas"? You do realize that water vapor is many many times more critical to the effect of global warming than all the other greenhouse gases combined? Water vapor which has nothing to do with human activities.

You do realize that the world has been in a cycle of warming and cooling ever since forming? This cycle is natural and man has had no affect on it. You do realize that the earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today right? Pray tell me how man, around the time of 1000 AD had any affect on global temperatures?

Debat away.

Yes, water vapor is a greenhouse gas, in a way. But just because there are greater effects on heat retention than CO2 doesn't mean CO2 doesn't have an effect.

Yes, there is a cycle, but that cycle is not isolated...it is not the only variable in play.

Why can't Global Warming naysayers argue without forcing false dichotomies?

If you can't win with your argument... by all means result to insults..

Come on, you're calling the kettle black here...and you're even calling collect. Straughn has supported his argument. You haven't. You haven't even responded to direct questions. Please do so.

Come on, you're calling the kettle black here...and you're even calling collect. Straughn has supported his argument. You haven't. You haven't even responded to direct questions. Please do so.
Please point out at what time I insulted Straughn or anyone else on these forums.

Straughn's post that I snipped was childish at best and insulting at worst.

I was questioning why he/she felt the need to do that?

Please point out at what time I insulted Straughn or anyone else on these forums.

Straughn's post that I snipped was childish at best and insulting at worst.

I was questioning why he/she felt the need to do that?
Maybe because you're ignoring direct questions?

Maybe because you're ignoring direct questions?
Since when has that been concidered an insult? That's now on par with calling someone ignorant and "explitive-explitive"?

Or are insults now fair game?


My point has been, global warming alarmists have the burden of proof. You haven't lived up to it.







And speaking of ignoring direct questions... you Desperate Measures still haven't replied to Hawkintom posts 5 or 6 pages back. Way to go insulting him.

Since when has that been concidered an insult? That's now on par with calling someone ignorant and "explitive-explitive"?

Or are insults now fair game?


My point has been, global warming alarmists have the burden of proof. You haven't lived up to it.







And speaking of ignoring direct questions... you Desperate Measures still haven't replied to Hawkintom posts 5 or 6 pages back. Way to go insulting him.
Which question? Repeat it for me? I looked and saw my interaction with him but didn't see anything unanswered.

Dude we have a Hole in the ozone bigger than Texas so i say it does exist.
Sure it may mean better summers for us but i dont want better sumers i want natural summers.


How can you say better summers i live in arizona ( one of the hottest places in the u.s.) It got up to 110 more than a few times down here and let me tell you it may not be humid like in the costal areas of the world but it sure as hell isn't pleasant. I am definatly down for putting a stop to global warming

You do realize that the earth was warmer 1000 years ago than it is today right?

no, i didn't.

because it's false.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Pray tell me how man, around the time of 1000 AD had any affect on global temperatures?

extensive deforestation for construction and heating, large scale agriculture, metallurgy, etc. not as great an impact as we can have now, certainly. but humans drove a number of species to extinction with pointed sticks and sharpened rocks - we're pretty damn effective at having huge ecological impacts with even basic technology.

no, i didn't.

because it's false.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm



extensive deforestation for construction and heating, large scale agriculture, metallurgy, etc. not as great an impact as we can have now, certainly. but humans drove a number of species to extinction with pointed sticks and sharpened rocks - we're pretty damn effective at having huge ecological impacts with even basic technology.
You're probably going to be asked for proof that those species were hunted to extinction. Maybe they were always extinct?

"The Smoking Gun" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4495463.stm)

Interesting Pictures (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/picture_gallery/05/sci_nat_how_the_world_is_changing/html/1.stm)

The problem as I see it here is the "googlification" of knowledge.

The web is a wonderful beast, and has solved many an argument of mine over simple facts such as "What is the capital of Belarus" or "What is the largest desert in the world". However it fails fairly miserably when it comes to discussing scientifically contentious issues. Its very hard to get any idea of what a respectable source is, or strength of numbers, or quality of experimentation from a web source, especially when the pages that come up first may well not be the best available resource.

Science is a not as it is often portrayed in High School a list of facts and formulae. Science is just as plagued by politics, personal agendas and simple human error as any other field. If you have any interest at all in how science is generally practised I highly recommend The Golem (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521477360/002-7280385-5625662?v=glance), its a pretty accessible read and is from my point of view reasonably accurate in its portrayals of how science goes about its business.

Having said that the web really does make this kind of uncertainty about scientific consensus even more blatant. Even resources like New Scientist often are not particularly reflective of "real" scientific belief. Journalists are rarely well read, qualified, or concerned to report accurately or representatively on science, even in so called scientific magazines. If you are interested in scientific journalism and what you are being fed I found this article fairly entertaining Bad Science (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html)

On to Global Warming.....

Argument: Its natural so we shouldn't worry...

Allegory: (no google quotes no graphs just a similar example) Your weight fluctuates.. its natural.. it goes up .. it goes down.. sometimes you weigh a lot, sometimes you are slim trim and terrific.. your weight is currently heading down (probably naturally). You take up eating McDonald's for breakfast lunch and dinner within a month your weight is at its highest ever. Should you be concerned.. your weight has gone up before .. It may be because you are doing less exercise as well, maybe its natural. Some people will say that they enjoy eating McDonald's every day and it hasn't killed em yet, Some people dispute that McDonald's is even responsible for weight gain... They may be right.. you just don't have the stats. Sure weight gain is natural but you just put on a lot of weight in a short amount of time.. you don't know that its gonna keep going that way but its a good guess.

Aurgument: Science said "A" before .. now they are saying "B" they don't have a clue

Response: Agreed, science chops and changes all the time. Its part of its nature if it didn't then we would be stuck with the same scientific beliefs that we had at the dawn of time. Its not called "Progress" for nothing you know. Few scientists would seriously claim to be 100% right 100% of the time. Its all about taking the available data and making y9our best possible guess at the meaning of that data. The more data you have the better your ideas become and hopefully the better designed your experiment to gather more data become. Consiquently while things quite often head in the wrond direction in science they usually swing back in. You get a bit of a diminishing pendulum swing on most issues. Global warming is no exception. It may well be true that once we get to 4C rise all the CO2 at the equator is released and it rises another 6C the plants then grow faster and decompose more releasing an ever increasing about of CO2 resulting in an unstoppable progress to us becoming a second venus. Or it might do nothing. Chances are it will be something in between.

Argument: Well it hasn't killed us yet, so why should we do anything about it.

Response: Pretty human response really. People are inherently lazy. Unless there is a really good reason to do something we are pretty unlikely to do anything about it. Thats fine if its eating a hamburger,.. you can always stop eating them and go on a diet.. you have probably done some damage but in the end you have pretty much fixed the problem. And some environmental problems are just like this (Ozone layer and CFCs appears to have been an example that fits into that category). Others however are more akin to chopping fingers off. You can chop a few fingers off and still be able to use your hands just fine, you probably wouldn't even notice chopping the little finger off of your off hand, But at some point you are gonna chop one off and suddenly you won't be able to pick anything up any more.. whats more they don't grow back. You may well be able to build a prosthetic finger.. but its never gonna bring your finger back. (loss of biodiversity is likely an example that fits into this category)

The europeans didn't think much about realeasing sulfides and nitrates into the atmosphere much till acid starting falling from the sky...

Global warming is worrying.. plenty of scientists are concerned, even if its not all of em. Global warming, Global dimming there is plenty to be concerned about. Are there nay sayers?... sure. Plenty of scientists said that smoking was good for you. Plenty of media releases said McDonald's is just fine to eat... but just a quick perusal of some of the scientific articles published in reputable publications like "Science" and "Nature" raise some very valid concerns. Do they know all the answers.. no... is that a reason to stick your head in the sand.. well I guess that is not for me to decide ;)

*snip*

Actually you are wrong. It really was warmer a millenium ago.

This forum continues to digress in quite a shameful manner.

Water vapor is indeed a greenhouse gas. Water vapor, however, does not rip the extra O molecule off O3 (ozone) like CO2. You don't see Hydrogen Peroxide (H202) falling from the skies, do you? Well guess what? When CO3, the product of ozone consumption and a "used up" CO2 molecule (one that is no longer a potent destroyer of O3), is only stable at low temperatures. When temperatures rise, the extra oxygen breaks off, leaving CO2 and O. That CO2 goes into acid rain. And we all know what acid rain does. Double whammy.

Water vapor has nothing to do with the hole in the ozone. Your verbal gymnastics can't dodge that.

The earth has indeed been warmer than it is now. However, there is no record of the temperature ever increasing at such a dramatic pace. The ice fields over parts of Scandanavia are a perfect example:

"The permafrost in the bogs of subarctic Sweden is undergoing dramatic changes. The part of the soil that thaws in the summer, the so-called active layer, has become thicker since 1970, and the permafrost has disappeared altogether in some locations. This has lead to significant changes in the vegetation and to a subsequent increase in emission of the greenhouse gas methane. Methane is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas." (American Geophysical Union)

...and guess what? Since 1970, electricity production, which involves burning of coal, producing CO2, has increased by 150% worldwide. Transport emissions have also doubled...again, worldwide. Coincidence? I think not.

Gilligus, water vapor has more affect on the greenhouse effect than all the other greenhouse gases combined... so it doesn't really matter if methane is 25 times greater than CO2 because it's all pretty insignificant compared to water vapor.

As for your assertion that "there is no record of the temperature ever increasing at such a dramatic pace"... it simply is not true. The basis for that... the "hockey stick graph" was disputed many times and the originator of the graph still refuses to let anyone else see his data, his methodology or the model he used to come up with that graph.

Gilligus, water vapor has more affect on the greenhouse effect than all the other greenhouse gases combined... so it doesn't really matter if methane is 25 times greater than CO2 because it's all pretty insignificant compared to water vapor.

As for your assertion that "there is no record of the temperature ever increasing at such a dramatic pace"... it simply is not true. The basis for that... the "hockey stick graph" was disputed many times and the originator of the graph still refuses to let anyone else see his data, his methodology or the model he used to come up with that graph.

What's your support for the fact that CO2 is insignificant? Where? No one ever shows this holy grail of Global Warming naysaying, because it doesn't exist. It's as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sorry FSM followers.) Again, man is not the major factor in global environment, but he is a factor, and all that's needed is a minute change.

Quoted from the Oregonian, 9/28/05 (by Usha Lee McFarling, LA Times-Washington Post Service)

Meteorologists examining the conditions that spawned Hurricanes Rita and Katrina say there is a strong likelihood another intense hurricane will occur in October.

Researchers also warn that the country should brace as many as 40 more years of powerful storms because of a natural ocean cycle now in the midst of the most active hurricane period on record.

"This has been the seventh hyperactive year since 1995," said Stan Goldenberg, a meteorologist with the Hurricane Research Division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Not every year is going to be like this one, but there's going to be plenty of active years to come."

What was unusual about Rita and Katrina is that they formed close to U.S. shores near the Bahamas. This means they did not have a lot of time to grow powerful before hitting land. Both storms swelled to Category 5 in the Gulf of Mexico where waters are 2 to 3 degrees warmer than usual.

Forcasters predict that ferocious storms will recur for the next several decades.

They point to a natural ocean cycle called the Atlantic Multi-Decadal scale that caused weather in the tropical Atlantic to seesaw between cool, windy phases and warm periods with slack winds that spawn frequent, strong hurricanes.

These phases are driven by two massive weather patterns that control monsoon rains over the Amazon and over Africa, said Gerry Bell, lead scientist for NOAA's hurricane forcast program. The continent-sized patterns last for decades and "are so dominant, they control ocean temperature and wind conditions," Bell said.

(emphesis mine -PMA)

These phases are driven by two massive weather patterns that control monsoon rains over the Amazon and over Africa, said Gerry Bell, lead scientist for NOAA's hurricane forcast program. The continent-sized patterns last for decades and "are so dominant, they control ocean temperature and wind conditions," Bell said.

(emphesis mine -PMA)

Yes, we know hurrican activity is cyclical. The Earth has natural cooling and warming cycles...much like it has seasons. But just like seasons don't disprove Global Warming, neither do the natural cycles, because scientists have deterined that man is augmenting natural cycles.

Here's an analogy. Say you have a car. Say you soup it up and gain an additional 15 horsepower. Now, your modifications are not the greatest source of your car's horsepower...in fact it only accounts for a small fraction of your car's power...and yet it has a clear and discernable effect.

The same is true with Global Warming. Our effect is small...it's tiny...it's minute. And yet said effect has consequences. Small changes in the environment have serious repercussions. A cycle that's already heading towards warmer weather is especially susceptible to augmentation by greenhouse gasses.

Or look at it this way. 2 100 pound weights on a scale balance evenly, but it only takes a pound to tip the scales. Sure the 1 pound is only 1 200th of the total weight, but it has an effect.

Actually you are wrong. It really was warmer a millenium ago.

please to be providing peer-reviewed science articles that make that claim

What's your support for the fact that CO2 is insignificant? Where? No one ever shows this holy grail of Global Warming naysaying, because it doesn't exist. It's as real as the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sorry FSM followers.) Again, man is not the major factor in global environment, but he is a factor, and all that's needed is a minute change.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Um hmm. Okay, completely avoiding the argument as to whether these numbers are correct, where is the factual basis in saying that a .117% change is not enough to affect an enhancement of the greehouse effect?

The scientist spent all that time showing how small of a fraction man-made effects are...and then didn't do anything to show what the effects of that .117% are or are not.

Seriously. Think about the outcome if the output of the sun fluctuated by .117%? It'd be huge! How about if your genes were altered by .117%? You'd be a mutant!

In other words, this explanation is one big red herring.

please to be providing peer-reviewed science articles that make that claim
It was called the Medieval Warm Period
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/2001Q2/211/groupE/maya.html
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/mayews01/node5.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4636115.stm
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html

Um hmm. Okay, completely avoiding the argument as to whether these numbers are correct, where is the factual basis in saying that a .117% change is not enough to affect an enhancement of the greehouse effect?

The scientist spent all that time showing how small of a fraction man-made effects are...and then didn't do anything to show what the effects of that .117% are or are not.

Seriously. Think about the outcome if the output of the sun fluctuated by .117%? It'd be huge! How about if your genes were altered by .117%? You'd be a mutant!

In other words, this explanation is one big red herring.
The red herring is your attempt to spin what the site said.

It didn't say that man made emissions caused .117% change in climate, but rather that man made emissions only make up .117% of the total greenhouse effect.

In other words... water vapor and non-man made factors make up 99.883% of the greenhouse effect. 99.883% vs .117%.... it is insignificant.

The red herring is your attempt to spin what the site said.

It didn't say that man made emissions caused .117% change in climate, but rather that man made emissions only make up .117% of the total greenhouse effect.

In other words... water vapor and non-man made factors make up 99.883% of the greenhouse effect. 99.883% vs .117%.... it is insignificant.

Where did I say it said a .117% change in climate? Red herring back in your court, I'm afraid.

If there was a .117% change in your genetic code, would it be insignificant?

The number .117% is meaningless unless you are aware of what that .117% can do. You didn't even bother to ask.

It was called the Medieval Warm Period

didn't read my link to the ipcc report, did you? or your own links for that matter. not a single one of them claims it was warmer then than now, and the only one that counts as peer-reviewed (my link to the full text of the ipcc report on the scientific basis of climate change) shows the opposite.

care to try again?

Where did I say it said a .117% change in climate? Red herring back in your court, I'm afraid.

If there was a .117% change in your genetic code, would it be insignificant?

The number .117% is meaningless unless you are aware of what that .117% can do. You didn't even bother to ask.
You just don't get it... it's not about a .117% change. It's about 99.883% vs .117%.

Where did I say it said a .117% change in climate? Red herring back in your court, I'm afraid.

If there was a .117% change in your genetic code, would it be insignificant? You said it right there.

Seriously. Think about the outcome if the output of the sun fluctuated by .117%? It'd be huge! and there.

How about if your genes were altered by .117%? You'd be a mutant! and there.

You just don't get it... it's not about a .117% change. It's about 99.883% vs .117%.



You said it right there.

and there.

and there.

Never once said .117% change in climate though. How about this. If you had an amount equal to .117% of the final total added to the length of your genetic code, would that end up in a significant effect?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

the numbers on that site are completely made up bullshit.

see that first table? see the endnote where it links to the place where it claims it took that information from? follow that link (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html). now tell me where the fuck they got "natural additions" vs "man-made additions" from? oh, what's this? it's not there. ooops.

i tore a mirror of that site a new one a while ago. let me go find my old posts on it.

Never once said .117% change in climate though. How about this. If you had an amount equal to .117% of the final total added to the length of your genetic code, would that end up in a significant effect?

Nice back pedel there.

How about this... let's say your genetic code is being altered by .1%. That's pretty significant I would gather, not being a microbiologist myself.

Now let's say the affect of the change is 99.883% due to the drugs you used in your life, and .117% due to exposure to ionizing radiation you recieved from natural sources over the course of your life.

The change brought about by the exposure to ionization radiation would be only 0.000117%. That is insignificant.

the numbers on that site are completely made up bullshit.

see that first table? see the endnote where it links to the place where it claims it took that information from? follow that link (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html). now tell me where the fuck they got "natural additions" vs "man-made additions" from? oh, what's this? it's not there. ooops.

i tore a mirror of that site a new one a while ago. let me go find my old posts on it.

Ah, so in addition to saying nothing, it made up it's data to support it's nothing as well.

the numbers on that site are completely made up bullshit.

see that first table? see the endnote where it links to the place where it claims it took that information from? follow that link (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html). now tell me where the fuck they got "natural additions" vs "man-made additions" from? oh, what's this? it's not there. ooops.

i tore a mirror of that site a new one a while ago. let me go find my old posts on it.
Dude, calm down.

We are debating the effects of humans on global warming.

No need to take things so personal.

Ah, so in addition to saying nothing, it made up it's data to support it's nothing as well.

yeah. not only does it's argument just suck and not actually get them anywhere, but they faked their data to utterly fail to back it up. it's a great site.

Nice back pedel there.

How about this... let's say your genetic code is being altered by .1%. That's pretty significant I would gather, not being a microbiologist myself.

Now let's say the affect of the change is 99.883% due to the drugs you used in your life, and .117% due to exposure to ionizing radiation you recieved from natural sources over the course of your life.

The change brought about by the exposure to ionization radiation would be only 0.000117%. That is insignificant.

No back pedal. But your reasoning is incorrect. The total sum of the greenhouse effect is not responsible for climate change, per se, in fact, it mostly preserves the status quo. Without the greenhouse effect, our plantet would be as lifeless as Mars. In other words, the great majority of the greenhouse gasses are in fact needed to retain the normal environment we live in today. It's a balance. It's a very complex balance. As such, small shifts can have unpredictable and drastic results. What your article (based, apparently, on made up data) doesn't say is what affect man's contribution has or how much of an addition to greehouse gasses is needed to make a change.

All it says is: This number is small, so don't worry.

That's just bad science.

We are debating the effects of humans on global warming.

yeah, which is why it is important to not use sources that fake their data. and that perform faulty calculations based on made up data that make them arrive at conclusions that don't follow even from their false premises.

yeah, which is why it is important to not use sources that fake their data. and that perform faulty calculations based on made up data that make them arrive at conclusions that don't follow even from their false premises.
Oh, you mean like the hockey stick graph?

Oh, you mean like the hockey stick graph?

This is the Global Warming naysayers equivalent of "but Clinton..."

Let's throw the hockey stick out then. That still doesn't eliminate the overwhelming evidence everyone in the scientific community not connected to the oil industry has for man-influenced Global Warming.

Drop the goddamn hockey stick graph. We all know that its unsupported.

Do you know anything about biology? Or, say, meteorology?

You know what El Nino is, right? It's the ocean temperature rising a few degrees out somewhere in the pacific, west of Argentina. Big deal, right?

You bet it is. Increased hurricane/monsoon activity, more drastic temperature changes from winter to summer, disruption of precipitation patterns...all from a few measly degrees.

If a few measly degrees in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific ever 6-8 years has THAT much of an effect, then how much of an effect will the 1-2 degrees tacked on every 10 years on a GLOBAL scale do to us?

:gundge:

Global warming, it exists of course, is it due to pollution, or is it a natural phenomenon, who knows? Maybe the earth is still warming up after the last ice age? I am not saying we shouldn't do anything about pollution, not at all, I'm just saying we can't be really sure (of course, I don't know what I'm talking about since I'm not a meteorologist)

Oh, you mean like the hockey stick graph?

so you agree that the source you cited was utter shite and will never ever use it again, right?

Drop the goddamn hockey stick graph. We all know that its unsupported.

i wouldn't be so hasty about that
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11

i tore a mirror of that site a new one a while ago. let me go find my old posts on it.

aha

it's here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=406692), starting with post #28, continuing at #42 and #43. then there is a bunch of spluttering and insane gibbering. i jump in with some math again at #116. there is also #121 and #126 with some more stuff from me. it goes on from there, and cat and g&i have their own things to say throughout. a highly entertaining thread, actually, if only for the clown show.

please to be providing peer-reviewed science articles that make that claim

All you have to do is look through history to see it.

The Vikings are a prime example. Near the end of the 10th century and into the early 11th century, temperatures were warmer. Ice caps retreated and thus it allowed the scandanavian people to grow more food because of the longer growing season.

This caused an over population and some set out from there and landed on Iceland. From there, they moved on to Greenland where they too were able to grow food and develope the colony. They also made their way to present day Canada.

However, things then switched back. Things got colder, the ice caps then advanced and the growing seasons got shorter. They were forced to abandon Canada and Greenland.

This has all been documented by historians.

Drop the goddamn hockey stick graph. We all know that its unsupported.

Do you know anything about biology? Or, say, meteorology?

You know what El Nino is, right? It's the ocean temperature rising a few degrees out somewhere in the pacific, west of Argentina. Big deal, right?

You bet it is. Increased hurricane/monsoon activity, more drastic temperature changes from winter to summer, disruption of precipitation patterns...all from a few measly degrees.

If a few measly degrees in the middle of nowhere in the Pacific ever 6-8 years has THAT much of an effect, then how much of an effect will the 1-2 degrees tacked on every 10 years on a GLOBAL scale do to us?

:gundge:

Yep and El Nino has an effect on the Fishing along the Chilean Coast too. Not to mention it also influences our Hurricane Season.

All you have to do is look through history to see it.

The Vikings are a prime example. Near the end of the 10th century and into the early 11th century, temperatures were warmer. Ice caps retreated and thus it allowed the scandanavian people to grow more food because of the longer growing season.

This caused an over population and some set out from there and landed on Iceland. From there, they moved on to Greenland where they too were able to grow food and develope the colony. They also made their way to present day Canada.

However, things then switched back. Things got colder, the ice caps then advanced and the growing seasons got shorter. They were forced to abandon Canada and Greenland.

This has all been documented by historians.

yes yes, we all know that changes in ocean currents in the north atlantic caused moderate warming in certain coastal areas at various times over a couple centuries. but it's warmer now than it was then, and this time it's gloabl.

yes yes, we all know that changes in ocean currents in the north atlantic caused moderate warming in certain coastal areas at various times over a couple centuries. but it's warmer now than it was then, and this time it's gloabl.

Where did I say anything about Ocean Temperatures?

All you have to do is look through history to see it.


If that's all you have to do, there must be thousands of peer-reviewed studies out there to support this view. Oh, wait...

If that's all you have to do, there must be thousands of peer-reviewed studies out there to support this view. Oh, wait...

I'll believe the historians over scientists.

I'll believe the historians over scientists.
Why?

I'll believe the historians over scientists.

yes, because the historians 1000 ago were so excellent at their craft.

yes, because the historians 1000 ago were so excellent at their craft.

Actually, based on archeological evidence actually points to the fact of very warm temperatures and the movement of people from Scandanavia to Iceland to Greenland and Canada.

I'll believe the historians over scientists.

Frankly, I'd believe a clown over a historian.

Actually, based on archeological evidence actually points to the fact of very warm temperatures and the movement of people from Scandanavia to Iceland to Greenland and Canada.
Archaeology
The science that deals with past human life and activities as shown by fossil relics and by the monuments and artifacts left by ancient peoples.

That just struck me.

Where did I say anything about Ocean Temperatures?

you didn't. but i was being charitable and allowing you to gracefully join me in holding true propositions about climate during the so-called midieval warm period.

Frankly, I'd believe a clown over a historian.
I'd believe a Bull Moose over a clown.

you didn't.

Then don't add words to what I said.

And the warming period did happen.

Actually, based on archeological evidence actually points to the fact of very warm temperatures and the movement of people from Scandanavia to Iceland to Greenland and Canada.

yes to viking expansion, no to 'very warm temperatures'.

yes to viking expansion, no to 'very warm temperatures'.

Actually, history points to very warm temperatures and a longer growing season.

yes to viking expansion, no to 'very warm temperatures'.

Not only that, but how was the weather like in the rest of the world at the time?

But still, the existance of a cycle does not prove that the cycle isn't being affected in some way.

I'd believe a Bull Moose over a clown.

I'd believe a dentist over a bull moose.

I'd believe a dentist over a bull moose.
How can I put an end to this....?
Yo Mama.

Actually, history points to very warm temperatures and a longer growing season.

???

Where is your evidence for this?

How can I put an end to this....?
Yo Mama.

Yo Mama Osama :D

???

Where is your evidence for this?

Why do you care? You wouldn't believe it anyway!

Yo Mama Osama :D
Bows down and admits defeat. Well played...

Actually, history points to very warm temperatures and a longer growing season.

no. it doesn't. it points to inconsistent moderately warm temperatures in a few coastal areas compared to the centuries immediately before and after, but was over-all colder than the 20th century in both those specific areas and worldwide.

This thread is dead and completely void of all competant argument.

Bows down and admits defeat. Well played...

Thank You! :)

*hands you a cookie*

This thread is dead and completely void of all competant argument.
It is not! Where is your source for that?

Thank You! :)

*hands you a cookie*
cookie... cookie... cookie....

Why do you care? You wouldn't believe it anyway!

So basically you made it up.

Has the argument really come down to the Vikings having a few good summers therefore Global Warming doesn't exist?

So basically you made it up.

Actually no. I just know you!

Has the argument really come down to the Vikings having a few good summers therefore Global Warming doesn't exist?

No. It just points to a natural occurence of Global Warming.

Has the argument really come down to the Vikings having a few good summers therefore Global Warming doesn't exist?

History states that the Vikings enjoyed holidays in California, where the temperatures frequently broke 30 degrees C and went home with beautiful tans.

No. It just points to a natural occurence of Global Warming.
Anyone who argues that Global Warming is not naturally occurring doesn't understand the problem. The more I post on this thread and the more I read about, the more I understand the problem. Man is accelerating the process of Global Warming. From what I understand, Man first began to effect Global Warming in the 19th Century with deforestation.

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981

No. It just points to a natural occurence of Global Warming.

so? what does that have to do with the clearly demonstrated anthropogenic climate forcing of the industrial revolution?

History states that the Vikings enjoyed holidays in California, where the temperatures frequently broke 30 degrees C and went home with beautiful tans.

Actually no! So far there has been no evidence of that and I doubt there will ever be too.

Global warming is hard to say. There are severe cases of local warming which have an impact on life, but other regions have gotten colder. Due to the lack of reliable weather stations over the last hundred years, it's impossible to say anything about global warming. Or would you trust soviet weather stations to take reliable data? I dunno, I wouldn't be too quick on that.

Whether it's warming, cooling or just plain destroying, that our industries play a vital role is undisputed. I honestly don't care if I have to live in another ice age or if water world becomes reality, neither appeal to me, which is why the entire "let's not care about the environment" nonsense has to stop.

History states that the Vikings enjoyed holidays in California, where the temperatures frequently broke 30 degrees C and went home with beautiful tans.

You don't need heat to tan. The arctic sun can sunburn you. And California? Nah. New Foundland, yes. The east coast, maybe. Greenland, definately. But you're suggestion a naval folk went cross country to a coast they didn't know through land they didn't know? On foot or horse? I'm not seeing it happen. And I doubt they sailed around the continent. Viking expeditions into the new world were mainly done because of a lack of food in their homelands (at least that's the most likely case. It's unlikely that they just wanted to explore, as they had an entire european continent they could have waged war with. Or Siberia). Once they found the coast and food, I dunno why they should have gone further.

Actually no! So far there has been no evidence of that and I doubt there will ever be too.

Hey, I said it, so it must be true. History also states that the Vikings had ice-cream for lunch.

Hey, I said it, so it must be true. History also states that the Vikings had ice-cream for lunch.

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:


www.what-the-vikings-had-for-lunch.com/ice-cream-sandwiches

www.what-the-vikings-had-for-lunch.com/ice-cream-sandwiches

hmm, what really surprises me is that the flavor they preferred was pistachio.

hmm, what really surprises me is that the flavor they preferred was pistachio.

Well, the data suggests that there wasn't a fair distribution of flavours. In some areas pistachio was the only one available.

Well, the data suggests that there wasn't a fair distribution of flavours. In some areas pistachio was the only one available.

Yes, but those areas only accounted for .117% of the total area.

Yes, but those areas only accounted for .117% of the total area.

But those were the most densely populated areas!

dude, global warming definently exists. I mean, check out the weather patterns lately. Its getting warmer every year. Soon Antarctica melts, and its the end of the world as we know it.

dude, global warming definently exists. I mean, check out the weather patterns lately. Its getting warmer every year. Soon Antarctica melts, and its the end of the world as we know it.

The middle of Antartica is actually getting colder!

The middle of Antartica is actually getting colder!

Which is consistent with models of global warming involving the slowing of the Conveyor.

If you can't win with your argument... by all means result to insults..
Well, if you actually HAD substance to argue with, other than a digital form of hot air, i'd happily indulge you.
You're pwned, you know it, i'll pretty much ignore you for a while i guess.
Except ... 'specially for YOU ... ;)

*ahem*

Scientists feeling heat of global warming
By Jim Erickson, Rocky Mountain News
September 27, 2005

BROOMFIELD - Global climate change is "probably the most important environmental issue facing the world," the Bush administration's point man on the hot-button topic said Monday.
"We know that humans are influencing the climate. There's no question about that,"
said James Mahoney, director of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
"The real questions are: by how much, how reversible is it and what are the best means to reduce the human impacts on the climate?" Mahoney said during a meeting of about 400 atmospheric researchers at the Omni Interlocken Resort.

The Bush administration has been lambasted by climate researchers for failing to endorse the Kyoto Protocol or to otherwise play a leadership role in addressing climate change.
The planet has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past century. Most climate scientists agree that receding mountain glaciers, declining global snow cover, thinning summer sea ice thickness in the Arctic, and rising sea levels are environmental indicators of a warming world.
The Kyoto Protocol, which calls on 35 industrialized countries to rein in emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, was ratified by 140 nations and went into effect in February.
"The United States has a really deep problem with credibility right now," said David Victor of the Center for Environmental Science and Policy in Stanford, Calif.
"We have no credible emission policy at the federal level," Victor said on opening day of the International Carbon Dioxide Conference.
Other researchers agreed, despite Mahoney's assurances that the U.S. government "is doing a great deal" to combat global warming.
"It's pretty much a certainty that big changes will happen, so we should be slowing down our CO2 emissions," said Susan Trumbore, a bio-geochemist at the University of California, Irvine.
Mahoney said the U.S. government spends nearly $2 billion a year on climate change research and another $3 billion annually to promote new energy technologies.
"Not signing Kyoto doesn't mean that this government isn't doing anything," said Mahoney, who later amended his description of climate change to say it's "one of" the world's most important environmental issues.
Each year, global combustion of coal, oil, natural gas and wood emits nearly 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide, into the air.

The Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about half of that carbon.
The rest remains in the air, contributing to the 36 percent increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels since pre-industrial times.
Carbon dioxide levels are higher now than at any time in the past 450,000 years, Mahoney said. If the levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases continue to rise as projected, the planet could warm another 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The consequences could include a greater frequency of extreme weather events, such as Katrina-intensity hurricanes, said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution.
One of the "persistent myths" about climate change is that the problem "will disappear on its own," said Jae Edmonds of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Conventional wisdom says the world's supply of easily accessible oil and natural gas will be exhausted in a couple of decades.
After that, prices for those fuels will skyrocket, and other energy sources will replace them.
It would appear the problem would be solved.
But that scenario ignores the world's abundant coal supply, Edmonds said. Coal can be burned as a solid or converted into liquid and gaseous fuels.
In addition, higher prices for petroleum-based fuels and natural gas will spur the development of new technologies to reach and extract less-accessible deposits.
So, Edmonds said, waiting for the system to run out of fossil fuels won't be a solution.

But those were the most densely populated areas!
ROTFLMAO

Or, the bastardized version,
FLORT

You provide the meat...the factual support. I merely condense it down in an irrefutable and snarky way. (bows in return.)

We make a good team.
Yeah!
Uhm, i should probably tell you ...
I only spoon on my right ....
:eek:

Come on, you're calling the kettle black here...and you're even calling collect. Straughn has supported his argument. You haven't. You haven't even responded to direct questions. Please do so.
Thank you.
*bows*
I note that PMA has trouble dealing with your posts as well.

This thread is dead and completely void of all competant argument.
Read it again and maybe you might glean some insight.

Since Gilligan passed on a week or so ago, i'll breathe a little more "life" into this thread ...

*ahem*

Sea ice melts to record low because of global warming
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 29 September 2005

Arctic sea ice has melted to a record low this month, prompting fears that the entire polar ice cap may disappear within decades.
Satellite images of the northern hemisphere's floating sea ice show that the area of ocean covered by the ice during this month was the lowest ever observed by scientists.
It is the fourth consecutive summer that the area covered by the sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk below even the long-term decline, which began at least as far back as the late 1970s.
A gradual loss of sea ice has taken place for a quarter of a century but scientists believe they may be witnessing an acceleration in the melting process because of climate change and a process of "positive feedback" causing a vicious cycle of melting and warming.
The latest figures were released yesterday by the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Nasa) and the National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Colorado University, which described the loss of September ice as a "stunning reduction".
As predicted by The Independent, the sea ice coverage this month fell about 20 per cent below the long-term average.
For the past four years, the loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic has been equivalent to an area of 500,000 square miles - roughly twice the size of Texas or Iraq.
Ted Scambos, the Colorado University scientist who led the study, said a reasonable explanation for the dramatic loss of sea ice is climate change.
"Since the 1990s, the melting and retreat trends are accelerating and the one common thread is that the Arctic temperatures over the ice, ocean and surrounding land have increased in recent decades," Dr Scambos said.
"Normally a summer low is followed by a rebound back to more normal levels but this has not occurred for the past four summers," said Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre.
"With four consecutive years of low summer ice extent, confidence is strengthening that a long-term decline is under way," Dr Meier said.
"Having four years in a row with such low ice extents has never been seen before in the satellite record. It clearly indicates a downward trend, not just a short-term anomaly," he said.
Mark Serreze said that the loss of Arctic sea ice is likely to make global warming worse because more ocean is exposed to the warming effects of the sun.
"It's likely that we will find this to be the case in coming decades, because of something called a positive feedback loop, in which an initial warming sets in motion a chain of events that causes further warming. The Arctic is very susceptible to this," Dr Serreze said. "Sea ice is white and, therefore, reflects a lot of the sun's energy back into space, whereas dark, open ocean absorbs a lot more energy ... So, a warming Arctic leads the planet to absorb more energy. That, in turn, could cause global average temperatures to rise still more," he said.
Average surface temperatures in the Arctic this summer were between 2C and 3C warmer than average across the Arctic Ocean.
The famous north-west passage through the Canadian Arctic from Europe to Asia was largely free of ice except for a 60-mile swath of scattered ice floes.
The north-east passage which runs north of Russian Siberia was completely free of ice for the period 15 August to 28 September, the Snow and Ice Data Centre said.
"The sea-ice cover seems to be rapidly changing and the best explanation for this is rising temperatures," Dr Serreze said. "Something has fundamentally changed here, and the best answer is warming," he said.
Sea ice in the Arctic expands and recedes each winter and summer but scientists found for the first time that a natural rebound did not occur last winter and that the start of the melting period in spring occurs earlier than average.
It has meant that ice that has remained stable for many years - so called multiyear ice - has begun to melt, according to the scientists' findings.

This thread satirized by Doonesbury:
http://courses.forestry.ubc.ca/hoberg/frst415/Fun%20Stuff/doonsebury%20global%20warming.gif