PDA

View Full Version : Let's have another Global Warming Denial Thread



Nicholas Scheuer
10-01-2011, 01:50 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44740060/ns/technology_and_science-the_new_york_times/

After all, Wyoming is whwre all those Cheney voters are.

Flying Orca
10-01-2011, 01:57 PM
Good article - it would seem even the Times has pulled its collective head out.

skuthorp
10-01-2011, 03:51 PM
A forest once gone will almost never grow back in the same manner. Where I live 150 years ago it was temperate rainforest, 200ft trees with a fern understory. Cleared for some years it now grows back as dry woodland with trees that have a lifespan of maybe 60-80 years not centuries. And a prolonged drought, even in our comparatively damp coastal climate, has seen most of these mature trees dying off. This is mirrored in the Amazon, Indonesia, PNG etc where illegal logging and slash and burn for palm oil plantations has done damage that we don't have enough knowledge to estimate.

skaraborgcraft
10-02-2011, 09:58 AM
i deny it....its not happening. However i do look forward to cruising along the ice free shore of Northern Russia as a shortcut to the Pacific. Bonus!

Gerarddm
10-02-2011, 10:14 AM
I seem to recall that you need to plant 5 trees for every one you cut down, to compensate for the loss of CO2 absorbtion of the mature tree until the saplings mature.

At the rate this article says that trees are dying off, that's a LOT of replacement trees.

We better figure out how to terraform Mars fairly soon...

ChrisBen
10-02-2011, 10:19 AM
It took thousands, tens of thousands?, of years for those particular ecological niches to develop. If they were managed to the nth degree like a crop, they won't come back any time soon.

George.
10-02-2011, 10:31 AM
Don't worry, I am sure we will come up with a technological solution. There is no service provided by nature that we can't re-create artificially.

Except, that is, for baby formula, which after over a century and piles of research money still can't replicate mother's milk.

Oh, and rain, which we still cannot even forecast, let alone make.

Oh, and antibiotics, which all originate in nature - we can copy, but not create.

Come think of it, we can't even pollinate our own crops.

JimD
10-02-2011, 10:50 AM
Count me in. Climate change is a myth. Just for starters, we had one of the coolest summers on record. The ice caps are actually growing. Where are all those killer cat 6 hurricanes we're supposed to be getting? ...

ahp
10-02-2011, 05:49 PM
It may have been cooler in your backyard, but not in mine, or in Texas.

WX
10-02-2011, 05:58 PM
Count me in. Climate change is a myth. Just for starters, we had one of the coolest summers on record. The ice caps are actually growing. Where are all those killer cat 6 hurricanes we're supposed to be getting? ...
They are?

skuthorp
10-02-2011, 05:59 PM
Big ozone hole over Arctic this year, because it has been so cold!
http://www.theozonehole.com/arcticozone.htm

RonW
10-02-2011, 06:37 PM
I deny it..........and al gore too..

but I don't deny geo engineering chemtrails..

Flying Orca
10-02-2011, 08:04 PM
I deny it..........and al gore too..

but I don't deny geo engineering chemtrails..

More evidence, if anyone needed it, that you can't fix stupid.

pipefitter
10-02-2011, 10:22 PM
Why do you need someone to deny that the earth is getting warmer? Isn't that what is expected to happen farther out from previous ice ages and exponentially so? There also was a major ice age and one that followed that was known as the little ice age. Why was it smaller than the previous?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507094218.htm

So what is it that you want denied? That the earth is getting warmer, or that man is causing it? I would hope it would be getting warmer, being that we haven't had an ice age, or a atmospheric driver for an ice age in a very long time and well before any type of industrialization. Or are you one of those people that have decided that the earth is supposed to have an ideal and constant amount of ice in which to make this planet ideally habitable?

You do realize that the earth did not always have huge trees, or trees at all for that matter. How you would base the entire evolutionary health of the planet based on what is actually a drop in the bucket of time in relation to the earth's chronological age, or to think that we humans could maintain it as such, is almost as daft as what the climate huggers are on about.

There is more immediately apparent and less debatable conditions in which to talk down man made pollution, or it's deniers, if there is any in that regard, if that's what you are trying to start a debate about. I don't see how man made global warming manages to be the new means in which to be so smug. Especially being that most of these debates in or around these type formats, are more or less politically motivated, more so than scientifically, or even common sensibly.

PeterSibley
10-02-2011, 10:38 PM
Especially being that most of these debates in or around these type formats, are more or less politically motivated, more so than scientifically, or even common sensibly.

The science isn't political but the political types want to make it so .

Follow the money .

Waddie
10-02-2011, 11:50 PM
If the reports are accurate about melt and deforestation, then the planet is warming far beyond any "tipping point". And it doesn't matter if it's natural warming or man made or a combination of both.

Our US population will double over the next 40 years, and our energy needs will more than double. We are finding new sources of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas - that WILL be developed and used because we need them. So will every alternative fuel we can come up with. And even that won't be enough.

If we are warming up as charged, then we better get ready for the consequences, because we sure aren't going to prevent it. So get that beach house up on stilts...... :)

regards,
Waddie

varadero
10-03-2011, 05:18 AM
The trees shown in the article are Lodge Pole Pine. They had a die off in 1980 due to bark beetle. They logged what they could, and burnt the rest. It all grew back, the beetle came back, and they are logging it again. They grow to a usable size in about 25 years. The Lodge Pole Pine is a fire tree, it needs fire to scatter its seed like popcorn, and uses fire to compete with other tree varieties. Forest fire prevention actually assists in the beetle population, and stops the natural cycle of fire-seeding-regeneration-dying-fire-seeding etc. that is normal to some Pine varieties. The planet is warming, but with the last two long cold northern winters, and another one forecast, I think the cycle will continue. I do not think you can blame CO2 for the beetles. If you want to blame a higher level of CO2 for something, try. Trees growing faster and healthier in high CO2 level environment and requiring less water to do so.

TANSTAF1
10-03-2011, 07:34 AM
More evidence, if anyone needed it, that you can't fix stupid.

I missed the evidence. Where is it? What is it?

Oh wait! It's because Shamu says it. Now I get it.

TANSTAF1
10-03-2011, 07:36 AM
The trees shown in the article are Lodge Pole Pine. They had a die off in 1980 due to bark beetle. They logged what they could, and burnt the rest. It all grew back, the beetle came back, and they are logging it again. They grow to a usable size in about 25 years. The Lodge Pole Pine is a fire tree, it needs fire to scatter its seed like popcorn, and uses fire to compete with other tree varieties. Forest fire prevention actually assists in the beetle population, and stops the natural cycle of fire-seeding-regeneration-dying-fire-seeding etc. that is normal to some Pine varieties. The planet is warming, but with the last two long cold northern winters, and another one forecast, I think the cycle will continue. I do not think you can blame CO2 for the beetles. If you want to blame a higher level of CO2 for something, try. Trees growing faster and healthier in high CO2 level environment and requiring less water to do so.

I guess the above is Shamu's evidence? He didn't provide any of his own.

Flying Orca
10-03-2011, 05:39 PM
I missed the evidence. Where is it? What is it?

Read for content, dude. It's, like, a grade three skill. (Hint: the "evidence" of "stupid" to which I refer is quoted, just for you and other stupid people, directly above the bit that you managed to read and quote without getting any on yourself.)

Flying Orca
10-03-2011, 05:42 PM
most of these debates in or around these type formats, are more or less politically motivated, more so than scientifically, or even common sensibly.

You're half right. Opposition to the science is generally politically motivated rather than scientifically (or even common sensibly).

JimD
10-03-2011, 06:14 PM
They are?

I'm sure I read that somewhere.

WX
10-03-2011, 06:26 PM
The only glaciers I know of that are increasing are in Norway and that is due an increase in warmer water further North, this is causing precipitation in the form of snow on the mountains.

brad9798
10-03-2011, 06:31 PM
I am tired of cooperating with nature ... it's time that nature cooperate with us! ;)

RonW
10-03-2011, 06:40 PM
Maybe the great flying porka that knows and understands science so well, can explain to us
what geo-engineering the atmosphere is all about, and how this is going to stop global warming..


More evidence, if anyone needed it, that you can't fix stupid.

WX
10-03-2011, 06:42 PM
I am tired of cooperating with nature ... it's time that nature cooperate with us! ;)
Sorry mate it's a closed system, there's no us and it.:D

TANSTAF1
10-03-2011, 07:08 PM
The only glaciers I know of that are increasing are in Norway and that is due an increase in warmer water further North, this is causing precipitation in the form of snow on the mountains.

Alaskan glaciers grew for the first time in 250 years:

http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for+First+Time+in+250+years/article13215.htm

Himalayan glaciers are growing:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html

New Zealand glaciers are growing:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/09/20/2003272425

Here's a few more:

Growing - Bolam Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Briksdal Glacier, Norway's glaciers growing at record pace (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html) (Agence-France Presse)
Growing - Dôme du Goûter Glacier, Permanent Ice Fields Are Resisting Global Warming (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516101548.htm) (Science Daily)
Growing - Fox Glacier has been advancing since 1985 (http://www.foxguides.co.nz/facts.asp) (Alpine Guides)
Growing - Franz Josef Glacier, A Glacier Grows, Undeterred by Heated Kyoto Debate (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=16325) (CNSNews)
Growing - Guyot Glacier, Icy Bay Glaciers get up and go (http://www.sitnews.us/0607news/062707/062707_ak_science.html) (SitNews)
Growing - Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing ... and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20073) (The Heartland Institute)
Growing - Hotlum Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Hubbard Glacier, Alaska: Growing and Advancing in Spite of Global Climate Change (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/) (USGS)
Growing - Johns Hopkins Glacier is advancing and moving 3000 feet per year (http://www.lcss.net/glacierbay/Glacier_Bay_glaciers_07.htm) (Glacier Bay National Park)
Growing - Jostedalsbreen Glacier, Norway's glaciers growing at record pace (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html) (Agence-France Presse)
Growing - Kolka Glacier is growing again (http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ntv.ru%2F53301%2F&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8) (NTV, Russia)
Growing - Konwakiton Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - McGinnis Glacier, Alaska Range Glacier Surges (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060316193118.htm) (Science Daily)
Growing - Meares Glacier, an advancing glacier tearing up trees and rocks in its path as it grows (http://alaskatours.com/valdez-alaska.htm#COLUMBIA%20AND%20MEARES%20GLACIER%20CRU ISE) (Alaska Tours)
Growing - Mont Blanc Glacier, Global warming makes Mont Blanc grow (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310463/Global-warming-makes-Mont-Blanc-grow.html) (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Growing - Mount St. Helens Glacier, Glacier Grows in Mount St. Helens' Crater (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135148,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Glacier resumes growing in Mount St. Helens crater (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004363415_apwavolcanoglacier.html) (The Seattle Times)
Growing - Mud Creek Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Nigardsbreen Glacier is growing by 25 to 50 meters per year (http://www.jostedal.com/natimg8.htm) (Jostedal Glacier National Park)
Growing - Perito Moreno Glacier, Defiant Argentine Glacier Thrives Despite Warming (http://planetark.org/wen/51455) (Reuters)
Growing - Pio XI Glacier, The biggest glacier in South America keeps growing every year (http://www.visitchile.com/ficha-destino.asp?ciudad=425&idioma=ing) (Visit Chile)
Growing - Rockies: Colorado: 100 More Glaciers Are Discovered (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E0D9113CF93AA35753C1A9679C8B 63) (The New York Times)
Growing - Siachen Glacier, No need for glacier alarm, Siachen is growing (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_no-need-for-glacier-alarm-siachen-is-growing-study_1337620) (Daily News & Analysis, India)
Growing - Trinity Glaciers, Small Glaciers In Northern California Buck Global Warming Trend (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050507094531.htm) (Science Daily)
Growing - Tsaa Glacier, Icy Bay Glaciers get up and go (http://www.sitnews.us/0607news/062707/062707_ak_science.html) (SitNews)
Growing - Watkins Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Whitney Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Wintun Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Yahtze Glacier, Icy Bay Glaciers get up and go (http://www.sitnews.us/0607news/062707/062707_ak_science.html) (SitNews)


(http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/09/20/2003272425)

TANSTAF1
10-03-2011, 07:09 PM
Maybe the great flying porka that knows and understands science so well, can explain to us
what geo-engineering the atmosphere is all about, and how this is going to stop global warming..

Chemtrails?????!!!!! Heh, heh.

Chip-skiff
10-03-2011, 07:12 PM
No denial here. We just finished the solar power system, 4230 watts. Also note the greenhouse and the solar hot water collector (now covered) to heat it in winter. No more coal-fired power for us.

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0a7kApglIzY/Toos2inPjSI/AAAAAAAABmo/iwWEVHU4vYQ/s800/pv5.jpg

I'd rather spend money on things like this than on political campaigns.

WX
10-03-2011, 07:40 PM
Alaskan glaciers grew for the first time in 250 years:

http://www.dailytech.com/Alaskan+Glaciers+Grow+for+First+Time+in+250+years/article13215.htm

Himalayan glaciers are growing:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/himalayas-glaciers-shrink.html

New Zealand glaciers are growing:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/09/20/2003272425

Here's a few more:

Growing - Bolam Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Briksdal Glacier, Norway's glaciers growing at record pace (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html) (Agence-France Presse)
Growing - Dôme du Goûter Glacier, Permanent Ice Fields Are Resisting Global Warming (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070516101548.htm) (Science Daily)
Growing - Fox Glacier has been advancing since 1985 (http://www.foxguides.co.nz/facts.asp) (Alpine Guides)
Growing - Franz Josef Glacier, A Glacier Grows, Undeterred by Heated Kyoto Debate (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=16325) (CNSNews)
Growing - Guyot Glacier, Icy Bay Glaciers get up and go (http://www.sitnews.us/0607news/062707/062707_ak_science.html) (SitNews)
Growing - Himalayan Glaciers Are Growing ... and Confounding Global Warming Alarmists (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20073) (The Heartland Institute)
Growing - Hotlum Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Hubbard Glacier, Alaska: Growing and Advancing in Spite of Global Climate Change (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/) (USGS)
Growing - Johns Hopkins Glacier is advancing and moving 3000 feet per year (http://www.lcss.net/glacierbay/Glacier_Bay_glaciers_07.htm) (Glacier Bay National Park)
Growing - Jostedalsbreen Glacier, Norway's glaciers growing at record pace (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/afp.html) (Agence-France Presse)
Growing - Kolka Glacier is growing again (http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnews.ntv.ru%2F53301%2F&langpair=ru%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8) (NTV, Russia)
Growing - Konwakiton Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - McGinnis Glacier, Alaska Range Glacier Surges (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060316193118.htm) (Science Daily)
Growing - Meares Glacier, an advancing glacier tearing up trees and rocks in its path as it grows (http://alaskatours.com/valdez-alaska.htm#COLUMBIA%20AND%20MEARES%20GLACIER%20CRU ISE) (Alaska Tours)
Growing - Mont Blanc Glacier, Global warming makes Mont Blanc grow (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3310463/Global-warming-makes-Mont-Blanc-grow.html) (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
Growing - Mount St. Helens Glacier, Glacier Grows in Mount St. Helens' Crater (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135148,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Glacier resumes growing in Mount St. Helens crater (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004363415_apwavolcanoglacier.html) (The Seattle Times)
Growing - Mud Creek Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Nigardsbreen Glacier is growing by 25 to 50 meters per year (http://www.jostedal.com/natimg8.htm) (Jostedal Glacier National Park)
Growing - Perito Moreno Glacier, Defiant Argentine Glacier Thrives Despite Warming (http://planetark.org/wen/51455) (Reuters)
Growing - Pio XI Glacier, The biggest glacier in South America keeps growing every year (http://www.visitchile.com/ficha-destino.asp?ciudad=425&idioma=ing) (Visit Chile)
Growing - Rockies: Colorado: 100 More Glaciers Are Discovered (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906E0D9113CF93AA35753C1A9679C8B 63) (The New York Times)
Growing - Siachen Glacier, No need for glacier alarm, Siachen is growing (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_no-need-for-glacier-alarm-siachen-is-growing-study_1337620) (Daily News & Analysis, India)
Growing - Trinity Glaciers, Small Glaciers In Northern California Buck Global Warming Trend (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050507094531.htm) (Science Daily)
Growing - Tsaa Glacier, Icy Bay Glaciers get up and go (http://www.sitnews.us/0607news/062707/062707_ak_science.html) (SitNews)
Growing - Watkins Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Whitney Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Wintun Glacier, Mount Shasta Glaciers Defy Global Warming, Grow (http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jul08/0,4670,GrowingGlaciers,00.html) (FOX News)
Growing - Yahtze Glacier, Icy Bay Glaciers get up and go (http://www.sitnews.us/0607news/062707/062707_ak_science.html) (SitNews)


(http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/09/20/2003272425)
Impressive list but I think you should actually read them yourself.

Fountain said that similar trends were evident in some Scandinavian glaciers during the 1990s, which benefited from increased storminess and precipitation coming off the North Atlantic Ocean. Researchers have also found that glaciers on California's Mt. Shasta have been growing for decades. And glacier recession has been blunted in the mountains of Oregon and Washington state because of increased moisture from the warming Pacific Ocean.

TANSTAF1
10-03-2011, 07:48 PM
Glaciers come and go. They once covered the spot in MA from which I am posting. Greenland used to be, well, green.

Flying Orca
10-03-2011, 07:50 PM
Maybe the great flying porka that knows and understands science so well, can explain to us what geo-engineering the atmosphere is all about, and how this is going to stop global warming..

If you have a question about a legitimate science topic, Ron, I'd be happy to do my best to break it down for you. "Chem-trails" are not a legitimate science topic.

Flying Orca
10-03-2011, 07:52 PM
Glaciers come and go. They once covered the spot in MA from which I am posting. Greenland used to be, well, green.

Yes yes, we know the climate is capable of great variation. We also know that it's overwhelmingly likely that our own actions are changing the climate very quickly in a way that may have really bad consequences for human lives, economies, and politics. Think it's a good idea to ignore that truth, or try to do something about it?

RonW
10-03-2011, 08:01 PM
Flying orca--
If you have a question about a legitimate science topic, Ron, I'd be happy to do my best to break it down for you. "Chem-trails" are not a legitimate science topic.

Well I am sorry bud, but they are real, I have been watching them spray heavily here in the cincy area since last nov the 10th to be precise.......Now maybe canada isn't spraying and that is great, but you don't know what you are talking about calling
them not real.........It is a very serious problem that has been going on since the late 90's under clinton, and in the last couple of years grown full blown under this obama person...

Now wise up........get on the internet and look at photos of the skies being sprayed.....

Flying Orca
10-03-2011, 08:18 PM
Ron, I'm sure you believe that stuff, but it's fruitcake. La-la land. Complete batsh1te insane.

A balanced look (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory).

RonW
10-03-2011, 08:26 PM
Ron, I'm sure you believe that stuff, but it's fruitcake. La-la land. Complete batsh1te insane.


Sorry orca but it is like this........I, like you, actually questioned it before, but since last nov.. of 2010, there is no more
questions in my mind..I watch them spray just like farmers crop dusting..
They spray in blue skies, the chemicals cause it to cloud up and then rain, like all the rain we had this year..
When it ain't raining, due to lack of moisture, then it gets hotter then hell, just like the drought all over the southern states
with crops burnt up in the fields...Now I really don't expect you to know about this being up there
in canada...but that is the way it is...and there are lawsuits getting ready to be filed across the U.S. on this chemtrail
problem that the obama administration is knee deep involved in...........

Now educate yourself and quit coming back with stupid uniformed remarks..

Flying Orca
10-03-2011, 08:28 PM
Uh, yeah. Let me know how that lawsuit works out. Meanwhile I'll continue educating myself my own way, thank you - it involves reliable sources.

RonW
10-03-2011, 08:33 PM
http://www.google.com/search?q=chemtrail+pictures&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=677&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=VmSKToWdJ4KPsQLcoIXUBA&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQsAQ

http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/


THEN EDUCATE YOURSELF, SO YOU DON'T LOOK SO SILLY..

wardd
10-03-2011, 08:42 PM
http://www.google.com/search?q=chemtrail+pictures&hl=en&biw=1024&bih=677&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=VmSKToWdJ4KPsQLcoIXUBA&sqi=2&ved=0CCIQsAQ

http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/


THEN EDUCATE YOURSELF, to LOOK SO SILLY..

ftfy

RonW
10-03-2011, 08:44 PM
Wardd
ftfy

what does that mean wardd ?

Flying Orca
10-03-2011, 08:52 PM
http://contrailscience.com/contrail-or-chemtrail/


THEN EDUCATE YOURSELF, SO YOU DON'T LOOK SO SILLY..

Oh, man... fish... barrel... have you actually poked around that second site you listed? It pretty much debunks the whole chemtrail thing.

thud
10-03-2011, 11:56 PM
NatGeo or the Science channel had a great explanation for the loosely termed Global warming.
It's complex. But so far, it seems to be "global Warming" in only about 1/6th of the Surface. It just so happens it's affecting a lot of the U.S.
The Earths core is molten metal. The Core flows around and normally holds a Magnetic field, which snuff's off the Electron blasts from the Sun.

So every once in awhile that Molton core flows and ebbs away from some places.
That allows the Magnetic field to collapse or dissipate over a certain area. That allows the Sun's bombardment to really warm up what's just below that hole in the Magnetic field. The Ozone layer now has a huge Hole in it.

This program showed a big hole just over the Equator from just west of Sough America, and sorta banana shaped hole in the Ozone layer that extends from west of the north shoulder of south America, eastward towards the north Atlantic not quite as far as Greenland.

That allows the "Atlantic shuffle" current to warm up. Which causes it to move faster. All the things you see happening that amount to Global warming, seem to be happening right alongside of the Banana.

One good thing about this warming is the Difference in Potential between the Cold wet winds coming south eastward from the Arctic, and the Warm (hot) winds heading westward off the north of Africa.
Normally those winds collide over the Eastern Atlantic every 24-40 hours. A few of those collisions cause the Whirling storms off shore in the South Atlantic and eventually about 1 in 30 become Hurricanes.

The warming trend is lessening the energy of those Collisions.
Hmmmmm so how come we still have Hurricanes? And what's all this weird weather mean to us?

There are a whole bunch of other Weather factors that cause problems for us.

pipefitter
10-04-2011, 03:11 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Dave Gray
10-04-2011, 03:47 AM
TANSTAF1, you may want to look at an overall article instead of posting a number of links to how Mount Shasta's glaciers are growing. Very interesetng, however, overall, glaciers in the Pacific Northwest are shrinking at a fairly quick rate.

Here are some articles about glaciers and their cumulative retreat:

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/Glaciers.asp#Header1_6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/entry/view/glaciers_in_oregon/
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/deathglacier.htm

One could go on.

LeeG
10-04-2011, 03:52 AM
she hates us because we have the choice to be ignorant

http://www.cphpost.dk/component/content/52211.html?task=view

EU climate commissioner Connie Hedegaard had strong words for the US – especially the country’s political opposition and conservative presidential candidates – for refusing to take responsibility for climate change.

“I’m shocked that the political debate in the US is so far away from the scientific facts,” Connie Hedegaard, a member of Denmark's Conservative party, told Politiken newspaper last weekend. "It’s difficult to see the bright side,” in the American climate debate, she added.

”When more than 90 percent of researchers in the field are saying that we have to take [climate change] seriously, it is incredibly irresponsible to ignore it. It’s hard for a European to understand how it has become so fashionable to be anti-science in the US,” Hedegaard told Politiken. "And when you hear American presidential candidates denying climate change, it’s difficult to take.”

TANSTAF1
10-04-2011, 06:35 AM
Yes yes, we know the climate is capable of great variation. We also know that it's overwhelmingly likely that our own actions are changing the climate very quickly in a way that may have really bad consequences for human lives, economies, and politics. Think it's a good idea to ignore that truth, or try to do something about it?

What is your theory on how we are causing this? If it's manmade CO2 then that theory has been disproved. first the amount man contributes is an infinitesimal amount of the total CO2. Next CO2 follows a warming it does not precedes, so unless the planet is sentient and prescient and is smart enough to "know" that CO2 is going to warm up in the future and warms up because it "knows" this, then an increase in CO2 (manmade or otherwise) does not increase temperatures.

TANSTAF1
10-04-2011, 06:41 AM
Ten Hottest Years (U.S.):
1. 1934
2. 1998
3. 1921
4. 2006
5. 1931
6. 1999
7. 1953
8. 1990
9. 1938
10. 1939

TANSTAF1
10-04-2011, 06:45 AM
We need to stop sending landers to Mars. They are causing warming there too. Granted we have goen up .7 degrees in the last 100 years. Mars haqs gone up only .5 degrees, but that is only since 1970 (40 years):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece


Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

TANSTAF1
10-04-2011, 06:50 AM
. . . Think it's a good idea to ignore that truth, or try to do something about it?

What do you suggest we do other than to go live like cavemen?

Flying Orca
10-04-2011, 07:18 AM
What is your theory on how we are causing this? If it's manmade CO2 then that theory has been disproved.

Really! Well, that's wonderful news. To the best of my knowledge (and please, correct me with references if I'm wrong, mmmkay?), no quality science refuting the basic findings of the IPCC has been published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Otherwise, old bean, I'll have to conclude that you're lying. Maybe repeating the lies of others, but lying nonetheless.


first the amount man contributes is an infinitesimal amount of the total CO2.

Ah, this old lie. The beauty of the internet: misinformation lives forever!

We've nearly doubled the amount in the atmosphere, kiddo, and there's more to come. Hardly "infinitesimal".


Next CO2 follows a warming it does not precedes, so unless the planet is sentient and prescient and is smart enough to "know" that CO2 is going to warm up in the future and warms up because it "knows" this, then an increase in CO2 (manmade or otherwise) does not increase temperatures.

While elevated levels of CO2 do sometimes lag a warming trend, they may also cause warming; the real picture and underlying mechanism is neither as simple nor as one-way as your lying sources would have you believe. Suffice to say that climate scientists, every major scientific body in the entire world, and the scientific community in general do not dispute the IPCC's basic conclusions, including anthropogenic GHGs forcing climate change.

A question for you - since the politically- and economically-motivated opponents of climate science are very well-heeled, and have been funding contrarian research for well over a decade now, don't you think they'd have published some kind of meaningful challenge to the current state of climate science if it was there to be found? And since they haven't been able to, what does that tell you?

TANSTAF1
10-04-2011, 07:57 AM
. . .


We've nearly doubled the amount in the atmosphere, kiddo, and there's more to come. Hardly "infinitesimal".

. . .

Here's some graphs (so you may more easily understand) on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and of that, how much is CO2, and of that small amount how much is due to man.

I will deal separately with your other misinformation.

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk162/TANSTAF1/greenhousegasesinatmosphere.jpg

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk162/TANSTAF1/WheredoCO2enmissionscomefrom.jpg

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk162/TANSTAF1/whatishumansshareofgreenhouseeffect.jpg

TANSTAF1
10-04-2011, 08:08 AM
Really! Well, that's wonderful news. To the best of my knowledge (and please, correct me with references if I'm wrong, mmmkay?), no quality science refuting the basic findings of the IPCC has been published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Otherwise, old bean, I'll have to conclude that you're lying. Maybe repeating the lies of others, but lying nonetheless.

Again so you be better able to understand that warming precedes an increase in CO2, not the other way around, here's a graph:

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk162/TANSTAF1/400kyrantarctictempCO2.jpg

And here's one showing temperatures dropping while CO2 increases.

http://i280.photobucket.com/albums/kk162/TANSTAF1/GlobalCoolingGraph.jpg

BTW: you do know that CO2 is the same chemical whether it's natural or man made, right?

TANSTAF1
10-04-2011, 08:14 AM
. . .

A question for you - since the politically- and economically-motivated opponents of climate science are very well-heeled, and have been funding contrarian research for well over a decade now, don't you think they'd have published some kind of meaningful challenge to the current state of climate science if it was there to be found? And since they haven't been able to, what does that tell you?

Where have you been? There's been more than a meaningful challenge. I admit that the HalGore and his cronies who are set to make fortunes off global warming are still able to control the political process, but many more articles on why man is not causing global warming are now being published in peer reviewed publications despite the un-science like attempt to prevent them. And numerous flaws in the IPCC report and its processes have been found.

ucb4ume
10-04-2011, 08:35 AM
I see a lot of discussion on this forum about climate change. I don't post much, but I read a lot of what is written on this forum. You all seem to pick a side and regurgitate the talking points from some website that supports your political ideologoy.

It's real easy to sit at your computer and complain. What I want to know is:

What are you personally doing on a daily basis to improve the envorinment?

RonW
10-04-2011, 08:58 AM
Tansttaf1 - you are really confusing the subject with these stupid boring facts...

So now that some believe according to science that the earth has heated up 2/3 of 1 degree over the last 100 years, but wait we have a chart that rebuts that fact, so what do we do to keep the polar bears from drowning?

How about a tax, in fact a tax on the whole world and we will call it a global warming or better yet a
climate change tax or even a carbon tax. So who gets this tax? And who gets to sell carbon credits
and get to collect the funds from this wonderful source of revenue? And next we will create a wonderful new market
in carbon derivatives. Cool another derivative.

In the meantime we have these corrupt evil bast#rds spraying the skies with a very fine powder of
aluminum, barium, magnesium,lead and arsenic, to list the main ingredients. And what does this do.
Well according to our scientist this reflects the sun rays back into space and saves our world from burning up.
And besides acting as a reflector, what else does these fine powder metals do.
Well they cause all human and animal life on earth to have sinus problems and respiratory problems,
that also can lead to various forms of cancer. Then they fall to earth contaminating the soil and water.
Yep total contamination of air, soil and water, which might be more important then this so called
2/3 of 1 degree B.S. line that is being fed to the naive public.

This has been going on for quite a while in europe and now they have found contamination
in baby food that has been traced backed to the food grains themselves that the plant absorbed
from the contaminated soil.
And guess what? The big pharmaceutical companies are actual pitching in on the cost of this
wonderful spraying program.....Gee I wonder why they would do that ???

RonW
10-04-2011, 09:00 AM
Ucb4ume--
What are you personally doing on a daily basis to improve the envorinment?

spreading the truth about chemtrails........

Flying Orca
10-04-2011, 09:02 AM
There's been more than a meaningful challenge (...) many more articles on why man is not causing global warming are now being published in peer reviewed publications

Show me one, just one, paper of quality science, published in a respectable, peer-reviewed journal, refuting the basic findings of the IPCC. Really. Find me ONE. You know what? You can't, because not a single paper like that has been published. You're blowing smoke and quoting irrelevant quibbles and posting irrelevant graphs that do nothing but obscure the truth - and the truth is that the basic findings of the IPCC are accepted by every major scientific body in the world.

TANSTAF1
10-04-2011, 09:25 AM
What are you personally doing on a daily basis to improve the envorinment?

I don't throw ciggy butts out the window (cause I don't smoke).

TANSTAF1
10-04-2011, 10:09 AM
The IPPC 2007 Summary for Policy Makers was released well in advance of the detailed document on which it was based which iin itself is rather strange. It has been reported that only 50 or so of the 2,500 scientists involved signed the summary. The summary conclusion is based on four findings in the detail document that followedn its release:

(a) The world is warming and the temperature increase is widespread
(b) The temperature increase cannot be explained by internal variability or heat moving from one
climate component to another
(c) The distribution of warming is not consistent with models
(d) Climate models need to include an anthropogenic (i.e. "human") component in order for the output to
match the observed surface temperatures,

Here's the first 15 or so peer reviewed articles refuting many of the basic findings (I have ready access to about 900 more if you are interested):

A 2000-year global temperaturereconstruction based on non-treering proxies (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/dxk28g4662481342/) (PDF (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Loehle-2000-year-non-treering-temp-reconstruction-Energy-and-Environment.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December2007)
- Craig Loehle

- Correction to: A 2000-Year GlobalTemperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/) (PDF (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Loehle_McCulloch.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 93-100, January 2008)
- Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch
"The corrected estimates are very similar to the originalresults, showing quite coherent peaks. ... The corrected data continue to showthe Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly. ...While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in 29year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise to the 1935 reconstructed value,the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of the 20th Century values"

- Reply To: Comments on Loehle,"correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based onNon-Tree Ring Proxies" (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/bn65030011v552r3/)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
- Craig Loehle

A Climate of Doubt about GlobalWarming (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/120100252/abstract)
(Environmental Geosciences, Volume 7, Issue 4, December 2000)
- Robert C. Balling Jr.

A comparison of local and aggregatedclimate model outputs with observed data (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content%7Edb=all%7Econtent=a928051726)
(Hydrological Sciences Journal, Volume 55, Issue 7, pp. 1094-111, October2010)
- G. G. Anagnostopoulos, D. Koutsoyiannis, A. Christofides, A. Efstratiadis, N.Mamassis

A comparison of tropical temperaturetrends with model predictions (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117857349/abstract) (PDF (http://www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Edouglass/papers/Published%20JOC1651.pdf))
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701,December 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

- Addendum to A comparison of tropicaltemperature trends with model Predictions (http://www.pas.rochester.edu/%7Edouglass/papers/addendum_A%20comparison%20of%20tropical%20temperat ure%20trends%20with%20model_JOC1651%20s1-ln377204795844769-1939656818Hwf-88582685IdV9487614093772047PDF_HI0001) (PDF)
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2007)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer

- An updated comparison of model ensemble and observedtemperature trends in the tropical troposphere (http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.0445) (PDF (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0905/0905.0445.pdf))
(Submitted to the International Journal of Climatology, 2009)
- Stephen McIntyre, Ross McKitrick

A Critical Appraisal of the GlobalWarming Debate (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119836604/abstract)
(New Zealand Geographer, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp. 30-32, 1994)
- C.R. de Freitas

A critical review of the hypothesisthat climate change is caused by carbon dioxide (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/b21073095313wk21/)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 631-638, November 2000)
- Heinz Hug

A dissenting view on global climatechange (http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/1040619093901152)
(The Electricity Journal, Volume 6, Issue 6, pp. 62-69, July 1993)
- Henry R. Linden

A natural constraint to anthropogenicglobal warming (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/t803pn7962172v21/) (PDF (http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf#page=67))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 225-236, August 2010)
- William Kininmonth

A new dynamical mechanism for majorclimate shifts (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007GL030288.shtml) (PDF (http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/tsonis-grl_newtheoryforclimateshifts.pdf))
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 34, Issue 13, July 2007)
- Anastasios A. Tsonis et al.

A null hypothesis for CO2 (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/9p72043270187318/) (PDF (http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf#page=13))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 21, Number 4, pp. 171-200, August 2010)
- Roy Clark

A sceptical view of climate change andwater resources planning (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/85006747/abstract)
(Irrigation and Drainage, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp. 221-226, July 2001)
- Geoff Kite

A Surfeit of Cycles (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/cj0937tp75m1w0n8/) (PDF (http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/SurfeitOfCycles.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Number 6, pp. 985-996, October 2009)
- William M. Schaffer

A test of corrections for extraneous signals in griddedsurface temperature data (http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v26/n2/p159-173/) (PDF (http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2004/26/c026p159.pdf))
(Climate Research, Volume 26, Number 2, pp. 159-173, May 2004)
- Ross McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels

John A. Campbell
10-04-2011, 12:41 PM
I don't know if the entire globe is warming but I can assure you that Texas is damned sure warming and getting drier than a popcorn fart.......I keep a careful watch on my rain guage and record even the tiniest amount and have had 6.03" since 01/01/11. Lakes are drying up, streams barely running if at all, pastureland burned up, trees dying, and many people continue to use water with no regard to conserving it. My sister lives in Corsicana, TX and told me about a certain party that lives in that town in a huge expensive home with lush lawn, shrubbery, etc. and had a water bill for August that was over $3000. They think water comes out of a f-----g hydrant and can't see past the end of a water hose and if they have lots of wealth, they think this somehow entitles them to abuse of a natural resource......this situation is DEPRESSING ME NO END.....if I could do it, I'd shut their water off for a couple of months and see if they then understood the consequences of their actions.

John

PhaseLockedLoop
10-04-2011, 04:01 PM
Ron, I'm sure you believe that stuff, but it's fruitcake. La-la land. Complete batsh1te insane.

Now that is brisk. He may be right, and, if so, it would suggest that Wilhelm Reich didn't die after all, and that he's shared his cloudbuster/DOR plans with American left-wingers, who sit scrunched in their Orgone accumulators in the White House bunkers, bursting with Orgone and selling the US down the tubes. It would explain Obama's purchase of hundreds of acres of aluminum foil and untold slabs of plywood, not to mention nameless alterations of the WH substructure and the rumors of obeisance to Great Cthulu. Ia! Shub N*****th! The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young!
.

Flying Orca
10-04-2011, 04:06 PM
Here's some graphs (so you may more easily understand) on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and of that, how much is CO2, and of that small amount how much is due to man.

I doubt that my understanding of these things is lesser than yours. The point, when it comes to GHGs, is not the overall amount, but whether they are increasing (they are), why they are increasing (human activity, primarily), and what effect this is having upon the Earth (it's increasing the amount of heat in the entire system, i.e. global warming or climate change for short).

The people who designed your cute little graphs think that by emphasizing certain functions of scale, they will convince the gullible that anthropogenic GHGs couldn't possibly be responsible for climate change. Clearly, it's worked on you, but it's about as dumb as saying "A banana is much bigger than a grape, so this grape couldn't possibly become a raisin!".

Flying Orca
10-04-2011, 04:16 PM
Here's the first 15 or so peer reviewed articles refuting many of the basic findings (I have ready access to about 900 more if you are interested):

A 2000-year global temperaturereconstruction based on non-treering proxies (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/dxk28g4662481342/) (PDF (http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Loehle-2000-year-non-treering-temp-reconstruction-Energy-and-Environment.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1049-1058, December2007)
- Craig Loehle

- Correction to: A 2000-Year GlobalTemperature Reconstruction Based on Non-Tree Ring Proxies (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/82l462p2v37h7881/) (PDF (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Loehle_McCulloch.pdf))
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 1, pp. 93-100, January 2008)
- Craig Loehle, J. Huston McCulloch
"The corrected estimates are very similar to the originalresults, showing quite coherent peaks. ... The corrected data continue to showthe Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA) quite clearly. ...While instrumental data are not strictly comparable, the rise in 29year-smoothed global data from NASA GISS from 1935 to 1992 (with data from 1978to 2006) is 0.34 Deg C. Even adding this rise to the 1935 reconstructed value,the MWP peak remains 0.07 Deg C above the end of the 20th Century values"

- Reply To: Comments on Loehle,"correction To: A 2000-Year Global Temperature Reconstruction Based onNon-Tree Ring Proxies" (http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/bn65030011v552r3/)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 5, pp. 775-776, September 2008)
- Craig Loehle

Energy & Environment. Riiiiight. The journal with the reputation for poor peer-review process and an editor who has openly avowed an anti-climate change stance. Oh, and Craig Loehle? Not a climate scientist (his specialty is forest management), and he's associated with, oh I am shocked, the Heartland Institute! Reliable source, my patootie.

Flying Orca
10-04-2011, 04:23 PM
I was going to give the rest of the papers a similar treatment, but I can't be arsed. Tinstiff ain't gonna change his mind and fortunately most of the people here are a fair bit smarter. I will, however, leave this challenge for Tinstiff:

If there is one (just one) paper that you think refutes the basic findings of the IPCC, feel free to provide the link to the paper along with your take on how it refutes the IPCC's findings. I'll respond to that. Just so you know what I mean by basic findings, I mean the basic truth of the current state of climate science: that global overall heat content (temperature) is rising rapidly, that a significant portion of the increase is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gasses, and that the long-term consequences of a significant rise in overall heat content are predicted to negatively impact human lives, economies, and living conditions.

SamSam
10-05-2011, 12:27 AM
I didn't read much of those papers, but did notice a number of them, while posted on the internet or published fairly recently were originally written in 1993, 94 and such. Are papers that old of much relevance?

TANSTAF1
10-05-2011, 06:39 AM
Now that is brisk. He may be right, and, if so, it would suggest that Wilhelm Reich didn't die after all, and that he's shared his cloudbuster/DOR plans with American left-wingers, who sit scrunched in their Orgone accumulators in the White House bunkers, bursting with Orgone and selling the US down the tubes. It would explain Obama's purchase of hundreds of acres of aluminum foil and untold slabs of plywood, not to mention nameless alterations of the WH substructure and the rumors of obeisance to Great Cthulu. Ia! Shub N*****th! The Black Goat of the Woods with a Thousand Young!
.

Obama bought "hundreds of acres of aluminum foil and untold slabs of plywood?" I did not know that. I hope he got aluminum foil, rather than tin. :d

TANSTAF1
10-05-2011, 06:43 AM
I doubt that my understanding of these things is lesser than yours. The point, when it comes to GHGs, is not the overall amount, but whether they are increasing (they are), why they are increasing (human activity, primarily), and what effect this is having upon the Earth (it's increasing the amount of heat in the entire system, i.e. global warming or climate change for short).

The people who designed your cute little graphs think that by emphasizing certain functions of scale, they will convince the gullible that anthropogenic GHGs couldn't possibly be responsible for climate change. Clearly, it's worked on you, but it's about as dumb as saying "A banana is much bigger than a grape, so this grape couldn't possibly become a raisin!".

I'm not denying that CO2 is increasing. It has increased in the past before there were even humans to much higher concentrations than we now have. I agree that some of the increase is due to humans, but there have to be other more significant reasons for it. My bet is on the Sun. It is warming up the earth and the other planets.

TANSTAF1
10-05-2011, 06:49 AM
Energy & Environment. Riiiiight. The journal with the reputation for poor peer-review process and an editor who has openly avowed an anti-climate change stance. Oh, and Craig Loehle? Not a climate scientist (his specialty is forest management), and he's associated with, oh I am shocked, the Heartland Institute! Reliable source, my patootie.

You wanted peer reviewed articles. I gave a few to you. I did not attempt to evaluate them.

I could say that all pro anthropomorphic warming articles associated by anyone connected with CRU are 'patootie" also. Their scheming to prevent publication of counter views and promote their own was exposed. Their effort is decidedly unscientific and therefore calls into question anything they have published. They destroyed data so their results could not be checked. Again, very unscientific and reminiscent of the Catholic church's attempt to kill Galileo's theory.

Flying Orca
10-05-2011, 06:51 AM
I'm not denying that CO2 is increasing. It has increased in the past before there were even humans to much higher concentrations than we now have.

Yes - volcanic action being the main culprit. Because we are able to determine the relative contributions of different CO2 sources, we know that is not the case now.


I agree that some of the increase is due to humans, but there have to be other more significant reasons for it. My bet is on the Sun. It is warming up the earth and the other planets.

Uh... the sun doesn't produce CO2 on earth.

Look, think of the earth's atmosphere as a bathtub. It's 99% full of 40-proof booze, which corresponds to our lovely and drinkable mixture of nitrogen and oxygen. Floating on top of that is a cocktail of more exotic juices, CO2 among them. Just like your bathtub, there's a skimmer to relieve overfilling, but it can't handle much CO2. It can handle what's produced naturally, most of the time (massive volcanic eruptions are a problem), but it can't handle the excess humans are adding to the atmosphere, so the tub starts overflowing elsewhere. That overflow is the greenhouse effect that is heating our planet.

TANSTAF1
10-05-2011, 06:53 AM
I didn't read much of those papers, but did notice a number of them, while posted on the internet or published fairly recently were originally written in 1993, 94 and such. Are papers that old of much relevance?

I just copied the first fifteen or so at the top of the list which may have been the older ones. I don't know how rigorously the list is kept up to date now that they efforts of manmade global warmists attempts to squash skeptical articles has been exposed and presumably has lessened (or gone further underground). It is now well known that many reputable scientists dispute that man is the cause of the warming and there is less need to traack peer reviewed articles to support the argument that there is educated and reasoned dissent.

Tylerdurden
10-05-2011, 07:11 AM
What are you personally doing on a daily basis to improve the envorinment?

Nothing, Not one thing anymore. I don't follow Scientology either. I run on the belief that the whole agenda is a scam on us. Why? Because the government is working in the opposite direction. Soon Homeland security will be exempt from all environmental regulation for 100 mile around the borders and coasts.
I don't see you zombies jumping on those threads which tells me you are not genuine but instead religious with no critical thought left. Don't see you on any of the Fukishima threads either or even concerned children in Tokyo are showing signs of thyroid damage. Not concerned with the many hundreds of tons of Depleted uranium being sprayed all around the world.
Your all just a joke and its on you.

TANSTAF1
10-05-2011, 07:34 AM
. . .

Uh... the sun doesn't produce CO2 on earth.



I meant to say the sun was causing the increase in warming, not that the sun was causing the increase in CO2 (directly). But when there has been warming about 6-800 years later there is an increase in CO2. Coming out of the little ice age fits this time scale. So the sun causes warming and then (much) later due to this warming CO2 increases.

RonW
10-05-2011, 07:51 AM
tyler-
Not concerned with the many hundreds of tons of Depleted uranium being sprayed all around the world.

I missed that one, got a simply and fast explanation...I bet flying orca would be interested too,..

Flying Orca
10-05-2011, 09:00 AM
It is now well known that many reputable scientists dispute that man is the cause of the warming and there is less need to traack peer reviewed articles to support the argument that there is educated and reasoned dissent.

Pure, unadulterated fertilizer. There is still no serious scientific challenge to the basic findings of the IPCC. You keep spinning and dancing and tossing up irrelevant and discredited arguments, but you can't disprove my assertion because it's true. There is no serious scientific challenge to the basic findings of the IPCC. None.

TANSTAF1
10-05-2011, 09:09 AM
As to (a) and (b) of the basic four IPPC findings, you are correct. I am not sure about (c) - I do know that the models are flawed and cannot reliably predict temperature changes. It's (d) for which there are siginifcant and numerous scientific challenges. Here are the findings:

(a) The world is warming and the temperature increase is widespread
(b) The temperature increase cannot be explained by internal variability or heat moving from one
climate component to another
(c) The distribution of warming is not consistent with models
(d) Climate models need to include an anthropogenic (i.e. "human") component in order for the output to
match the observed surface temperatures,

varadero
10-05-2011, 09:14 AM
Pure, unadulterated fertilizer. There is still no serious scientific challenge to the basic findings of the IPCC. You keep spinning and dancing and tossing up irrelevant and discredited arguments, but you can't disprove my assertion because it's true. There is no serious scientific challenge to the basic findings of the IPCC. None.

No one argues that man is not A cause, Many many argue that man is not THE cause. The basic findings of the IPCC are basic science. Beyond the basic science is the garbled gobledygoock of unsubstanciated forecasts and alarmist predictions that have all, ALL, so far failed to even show. The scandals, the Al Gore circus and the rest are most to blame for the trend in denial we are seeing now. Not to mention the constant drain on finances that go to even the most rediculous research projects purely because of some link to Global warming and man made CO2.

Flying Orca
10-05-2011, 09:18 AM
when there has been warming about 6-800 years later there is an increase in CO2. Coming out of the little ice age fits this time scale. So the sun causes warming and then (much) later due to this warming CO2 increases.

This is a common denialista argument that you have raised before. For an explanation of why it is incorrect, you could see, for example, here (http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm#Causes), or this PDF (http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf) ("forcing or feedback", p. 10), or you could look here (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php), or here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html).

You guys always seem to think you have miraculously thought of something that climate scientists haven't thought of, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary if you bother to look for it. Why, it's almost like you have decided not to believe the science regardless of evidence, and are hell-bent on finding something - anything! - that might cast doubt upon it. And still, even with millions of dollars pumped into denialista think-tanks and propaganda efforts... there is no significant scientific challenge to the IPCC's basic findings.

You'd think that would tell you something, but I guess you ain't gonna hear what you don't want to know.

Tylerdurden
10-05-2011, 09:34 AM
tyler-

I missed that one, got a simply and fast explanation...I bet flying orca would be interested too,..

I posted on it many times in the past. Our military along with the Brits used Depleted uranium rounds like it was candy and the rise in birth defects in those regions is astounding. I consider it to be one of the most unreported crimes against humanity far surpassing land mines in scope. None of these greenies here gave it a second glance but they sure can buy CFL bulbs like Jesus will forgive them.

Steve McMahon
10-05-2011, 10:36 AM
It is a shame people get mixed up between "Global Warming" and "Global Climate Change", and natural climate change vrs human influances on climate change. You have to study each of these subjects at an individual level before you can put them together for a perspective. If you are a supporter of big oil and a generally right wing thinking type of person there are lots of facts available that can help confuse the issues. If you are a lefty extremist treehugger there is lots of ammunition also. I believe the real truth is somewhere in the middle. I suggest that the real question we should ask ourselves about the things we are doing is "Is this sustainable in the long term?" If we apply that test to carbon based fuels, hydro, or nuclear in it's presant form then the answer is clearly NO. Another underlying truth is there is no way to produce energy that is "green". All current forms of energy production have destructive side effects, it's a matter of compromise to find the ones that have the least damaging effects. To us simple people the basic first step is to use less energy. (oh yeah, also make sure you live well above the current sea level)

TANSTAF1
10-05-2011, 11:44 AM
This is a common denialista argument that you have raised before. For an explanation of why it is incorrect, you could see, for example, here (http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm#Causes), or this PDF (http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf) ("forcing or feedback", p. 10), or you could look here (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads.php), or here (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html).

You guys always seem to think you have miraculously thought of something that climate scientists haven't thought of, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary if you bother to look for it. Why, it's almost like you have decided not to believe the science regardless of evidence, and are hell-bent on finding something - anything! - that might cast doubt upon it. And still, even with millions of dollars pumped into denialista think-tanks and propaganda efforts... there is no significant scientific challenge to the IPCC's basic findings.

You'd think that would tell you something, but I guess you ain't gonna hear what you don't want to know.

Referring me to a Pew research site is like my referring you to the Heartland Institute.

Anyway, the gist of their argument is that man industrialized and CO2 levels went up. That simplistic coincidence may work as an argument for you, but it doesn't work for me or anyone else who has not been brainwashed. It does not account for the increases in CO2 to higher levels before man.

Further there are no cases in which the temperature did not go up after a CO2 increase which were not preceded by a CO2 increase.

Also, the theory does not account for why the temperatures dropped while CO2 remained at maximum to very high levels.

Nor does it account for why the infinitesimal amounts caused by man compared to the total amount is the cause.

The forcing factor in the temperature rise is the sun. The temperature rise causes the CO2 increase.

Flying Orca
10-05-2011, 12:57 PM
Referring me to a Pew research site is like my referring you to the Heartland Institute.

Last time I checked, the Pew Institute wasn't taking millions of dollars from oil companies to hire shills in hopes of confusing the public about the state of climate science. However, I included multiple sources for the same basic information... some academic, some government.


the gist of their argument is that man industrialized and CO2 levels went up. That simplistic coincidence may work as an argument for you, but it doesn't work for me

I know, I know, you think you know better than thousands of scientists all over the world... even the ones who have produced evidence as to where various amounts of CO2 come from. Yurr so smrt!!!111!1


It does not account for the increases in CO2 to higher levels before man.

That's right. Volcanism accounts for that. Either you are staggeringly ignorant about these things or you're not thinking about them enough to connect the dots. Either way, you know that CO2 is higher by far than any time in around 650,000 years, right? Like, all through a bunch of ice ages and interglacial periods?


Further there are no cases in which the temperature did not go up after a CO2 increase which were not preceded by a CO2 increase.

Care to try putting that into correct, intelligible English? It sounds like you're saying that in every case, a temperature increase has followed CO2 increases.


Also, the theory does not account for why the temperatures dropped while CO2 remained at maximum to very high levels.

I can't make sense of what you're saying here, either. Can you try to formulate a coherent sentence that makes reference to something specific? Maybe a link to whatever it is you're on about?


Nor does it account for why the infinitesimal amounts caused by man compared to the total amount is the cause.

Repeating this idiotic objection ad nauseum doesn't make it any more true than it was the first time you posted it and it was debunked. Human activity has nearly doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and added other GHGs as well. Every available method of testing and modelling agrees that the difference between the warming we are seeing and the more-or-less flat temperature line we should see using only natural inputs falls very neatly within the range of forcing attributable to human activity.


The forcing factor in the temperature rise is the sun. The temperature rise causes the CO2 increase.

To a certain moronically simplistic understanding, the first part of this statement is correct. Irrelevant, for the most part, to the discussion, but simplistically correct. The second part of your statement is demonstrably incorrect, because it is demonstrably true that human activity is dramatically increasing GHGs in the atmosphere, and all avaliable tests and models agree that this accounts for the observed rise in temperatures as well as the projected rise to come.