Date: Mon Feb 25 10:04:25 2008
Sender: Just Oz
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
It's interesting that as soon as the sun became more inactive that we had a
really cold year.
I guess it being really active for the past eight years must have just been a
coincidence when it comes to globabl warming since its really the fault of
cars.
Date: Mon Feb 25 10:21:55 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
man, global warming is a fact.
If there is a cold winter in Finland it doesn't mean the ice caps aren't
receding, the oceans aren't rising, the tree line isn't getting higher...
which is about the significance of that article. An increase in earths
overall temperature will cause all kinds of weather anomolies. It also doesn't
mean you couldn't have one cold year.
After all, one or two white WR's doesn't mean black athletes aren't faster
People that are still trying o refute global warming, are the same people who
still think Iraq had a bunch of Nuclear Missles ready to fire at the US.
Date: Mon Feb 25 10:36:11 2008
Sender: Kevin Caery
man, global warming is a fact.
End of discussion. Thank you, O great arbiter of truth.
Date: Mon Feb 25 10:51:53 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
it's up there with
yes, dinosaurs did exist.
Date: Mon Feb 25 12:01:48 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
"man, global warming is a fact." - AJ
You would be accurate if you said 'cyclic nature of the climate is a fact'.
The dominate causes of the cycles are unknown, but there are a great many
theories.
"Tis better to be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all
doubt." - unknown
Date: Mon Feb 25 12:09:05 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
(Sarcasm on) Who would have thunk that the largest most energetic object in the
solar system, from which all life derives it's energy, could have an effect on
our environment......(Sarcasm off)
From the article:
"...Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant
radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of
severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.
The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that
lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer
frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so
did rivers, and trade ceased."
Date: Mon Feb 25 14:00:20 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Boy would this ever be poor timing for that kind of event.
Date: Mon Feb 25 20:15:03 2008
Sender: Dan Hilsgen
Good thing the DEL server(s) are in Arizona. Glaciers don't go that far in an
Ice Age, do they? Bad thing I live in Minnesota. Better put away the Speedo and
buy another ice scraper for car.
Date: Mon Feb 25 20:26:07 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
the thought of two independent variables is just too far over your head, huh?
If the sun can effect earths normal temperature, that means the 15 billion tons
of new pollution released everyday can't possibly be doing anything. It just
magically turns into rainbows and moonbeams.
Date: Tue Feb 26 06:35:18 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" If the sun can effect earths normal temperature, that means the 15 billion
tons of new pollution released everyday can't possibly be doing anything. "
I think what it means is that the liberal scare tactic is a lie, not the
pollution factor. Everyone knows pollution is bad, we just don't need a bunch
of fearmongers forcing the 'global warming' story on us.
Pollution: work on fixing it-not using it as a crutch to raise personal
funds of the 'global warming fearmongers' pockets.
Global warming: admit it's a cyclical function and stop scaring our kids
into thinking the end of the world is near because of it.
Date: Wed Feb 27 09:50:13 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
Time for some GLOBAL COOLING scare tactics....
(sarcasm on) Over the past year, the average temperature dropped nearly 0.6
degrees C (January 07 to January 08). At this rate, the Florida keys will be
covered in a glacier in less than twenty years. Time to pull the catalytic
converters off your cars to help prevent this Global Cooling trend. Time to
indoctrinate the childing in to thinking they need to do their part (and to
convince their parents the do their's) to stave off this life threatening
Global Cooling. (sarcasm off).
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Clearly,
one data point is not evidence of anything, just like data presented (and
likely manipulated to their slant) by Global Warming activists is equally
limited.
Let me wax a bit about control systems, which when you boil it down, is the way
people think of the climate (if that is true or not is a different topic).
In control systems minor perturbations are quite common and easy to make,
however the system's frequency response time dictates the frequency at which
real corrective measures can be taken. Lets assume there is one dominate
frequency (when in reality there could and probably is many frequency
components) then a corrective measure cannot be applied faster than that
dominate frequency. Like steering a car at slow speed, you can't yank the
wheel from center to stop and back to center in under a second and expect the
car make a turn. Yeah, you will perturbate the direction of the car, but you
won't change the long term direction.
Now, the other side of the coin, is you can't observe a system and a system
response at a frequency greater than the fundamental frequency (simplified a
bit, the Nyquist limit applies here). So until the scientific community
understand the climate/world and the underlining system behaviors and response
times, making a correction (think Kyoto accords, et al.) is nothing but a
shotgun approach and frankly is a waste of money and resources.
The long and short of it, a single data point is not valid. Heck a decade,
century, or even a thousand years worth of data probably isn't enough to draw
conclusions about the system. Gathering the data, understanding the system,
making and observing changes is going to take a long time, even if 'man' can
effect the system.
So, IMHO, anyone claiming conclusively that man is the 'root of all evil'
regarding "global warming/cooling" is just (insert an adjective of your choice)
wrong/ignorant.
Date: Wed Feb 27 11:30:27 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Had a friend in HS that took all the emissions crap off his S-10 and threw a
big engine in it...That thing weighed probably like 700 pounds and half of it
was the motor.
Outran anything except a gas station, and had to have the equivalent of a large
animal in the back to weigh it down in the winter.
Date: Wed Feb 27 11:38:20 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Today was 5 degrees cooler than yesterday, It's the onset of an ice age in
Florida.
How stupid does that sound?
Thats how most of the global warming deniers arguements sound to me.
Just hang on to your fringe science, and occasional anomolies. We might never
have 100% proof, in the meant time 99% proof is doing quite a number on the
planet.
Date: Wed Feb 27 12:23:10 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Funny I think some folks feel the same way about the people pushing (and
profiting) from GW.
Date: Wed Feb 27 12:55:05 2008
Sender: Dusty Reed
I don't doubt the fact the world is getting warmer, however I doubt us humans
really can stop it. There are somethings that we can't control, this isn't some
movie where Ben Aflect saves the day. This is real life and if it truly is
going to destroy everything it's going to destroy everything. I do believe in
the central message of global warming, taking care of nature should never leave
us or forsake us. It's a concept we have to live by because we are the care
takers of this planet. So in short, I don't believe we can stop it, however we
should be care about the mother nature.
Date: Wed Feb 27 13:29:20 2008
Sender: Just Oz
Today, it snowed for the fourth time this year in Atlanta, double the record
for the past 15 years that I've lived here.
Guess I'll have to join these guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Date: Wed Feb 27 14:07:19 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Woohoo for the Appalachian Mountains. If not for them that crap woulda been
here. It snowed once this year though...first time in the 3 years I've been
here.
Date: Wed Feb 27 14:51:08 2008
Sender: Randy Rhodes
Just read this article...pretty interesting:
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note
the steep drop over the last year.Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures
wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China
has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all
recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places
like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of
Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia,
Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and
on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been
supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking
outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show
that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of
cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out
nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's
time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever
recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar
activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than
man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time
seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon
dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more
powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean
temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops
and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were
beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little
Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.
Date: Wed Feb 27 15:11:23 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Winner, winner. Chicken dinner.
Couldn't have said it better.
Date: Wed Feb 27 18:56:00 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I don't understand how/where you guys find all these obscure websites trying to
manipulate some statistic essentially trying to to prove the sky is orange
All you have to do is google "earths temperature" and you get 1000 sources,
it's just source, after source, after source.... all saying:
"2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year"
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2008-01-15-global-temperatures_N.htm?csp=34
Date: Wed Feb 27 20:09:32 2008
Sender: Randy Rhodes
Okay, I went to google and typed in "earths temperature" and thru the first 3
pages didn't see anything about how hot 2007 was. Maybe 1000 sources start
after page 3, I did however see a cool site on the earth's temperature at the
core...cool.
Dailytech.com was where I got the article and it was linked off the Drudge
Report. I heard them talking about it on the radio on the way home from work.
Do you deny that Bagdhad had it's first ever reported snow?
(http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8U3RFHO0&show_article=1) Or that
North America had the most snow cover in 50
years?(http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289) Or
that there was record cold in: Minnesota
(http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UO7SJ00&show_article=1), Texas,
Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina,
Chile -- the list goes on and on.
(http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140)
and
(http://www.ana.gr/anaweb/user/showplain?maindoc=6157497&maindocimg=6154941&service=6)
Here's
a compiled list of the data from the above mentioned obscure website that has
manipulated this data.
(http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/)
I
guess if it's not on usatoday.com then it can't be true?
Date: Wed Feb 27 20:17:29 2008
Sender: Randy Rhodes
Here's one more "obscure" site that I was reading about the record levels of
sea ice in Antarctica. We hear about how low the arctic ice is but no one
discusses the ice levels in the Antarctic. Here's the site:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307m.htm
Date: Wed Feb 27 20:32:36 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
from your excerpt:
1)
"While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it
diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica
has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting"
so at the South Pole it's still cold, and ice is accumulating like it has been
since the last 11000 years? That is supposed to refute global warming?
2)
Snowcover has almost nothing to do with temperature. It has to be below 32,
but thats about it. Snow is formed from moisture in the air, like rain. March
is by far warmer than January in Pennsylvannia. Yet we have some of our
biggest snowfalls in March, if you want an easy example.
3)
Your finding these right wing websites where they pick an effect and say look
at this thingy here....
yet the earths temperature is no mystery, it's not an opinion. It's measured
by NASA- cut and dried.
It is what it is. Despite, snow fall here, or a cold month there. 2007 was the
2nd coldest year on record.
Date: Wed Feb 27 20:45:08 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
this is just cold science, it's not even from a Pro-Global Warming Website.
It's the US Dept of Commerce
EARTH'S TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS
1- 2005
2 - 1998
3 - 2002
4- 2003
5 - 2007
6 - 2006
7 - 2004
8 - 2001
9 - 1997
10-1999
(Since 1880)
(Source: National Climatic Data Center)
Date: Wed Feb 27 20:57:55 2008
Sender: Randy Rhodes
"so at the South Pole it's still cold, and ice is accumulating like it has
beensince the last 11000 years? That is supposed to refute global warming?"
Ummm, yes. So let me get this straight, global warming is only occurring in
the arctic and everywhere else except Antarctica? That really doesn't make
much sense.
"Your finding these right wing websites"
This is my favorite. If someone disagree's with you, all of the sudden it's a
right wing conspiracy. Please. I came across something I heard on the radio,
posted it, now it's a right wing conspiracy. C'mon.
Let me get this straight, was 2007 the 2nd warmest? Or the 5th warmest? Wait,
there were 1000 hits on google that said 2nd warmest...geesh, I'm confused.
Date: Wed Feb 27 22:38:36 2008
Sender: Eric Opperman
I didn't know the earth only began existing in 1880.
Date: Wed Feb 27 22:50:59 2008
Sender: William Johnson
I guess you went to a public school :)
Date: Wed Feb 27 22:58:49 2008
Sender: William Johnson
Alright, this should be the tie-breaker. Google 'global warming' and 'global
cooling'.
The winner is.....
Global warming: 25,100,000 'hits'
Global cooling: 8,190,000 'hits'
So, there are 3:1 odds that global warming will be the correct guess.
Date: Thu Feb 28 05:59:31 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
This according to the average of the opinions of all idiot bloggers on the
internet and the product of all mass media related to GW. I'm shocked it's not
more than 3:1.
The earth has very provably been much warmer than those 10 years...yes since
1880 we're in a warming trend. This has happened before without fossil fuels,
hell without fossils. While the stuff that became fossil fuels was still
running around the planet eating and farting and producing methane.
Date: Thu Feb 28 06:58:41 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
LOL @ Eric: "I didn't know the earth only began existing in 1880."
Henry hit the nail on the head. What is the frequency of the cycles.
Certainly longer than 100 years. So those ten hottest years have no
calibration to the rest of the earth's history. When compared to 10 million
years ago, those dates might not even get out of the bottom quartile.
Again drawing conclusions/theories (or as AJ says; facts) from incomplete data
is dangerous.
Date: Thu Feb 28 11:55:51 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
I challenge those 'Global Warming' worriers, among the DEL community, and all
others, to track and read up on a conference of scientists in New York in early
March.
Titled: "The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change"
98 speakers are slated to talk and hopefully their material will be publish for
all to read and digest.
Website:
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm
The speaker list on topic can be found here:
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/ConferenceSchedule.pdf
Date: Thu Feb 28 11:57:29 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
LOL... keep trying.
Randy don't play like that-
-50 degrees = snow/ice accumulation
-25 degrees = snow/ice accumulation
0 degrees = snow/ice accumulation
25 degrees = snow/ice accumulation
32 degrees = Now it starts to melt......
last I checked the center of Antartica was always below freezing. Therefor,
guess what????
todays snow accumulation on the south pole is more than yesterday!!! The key
part of that article was "though we acknowledge ice is receeding around the
pole"
Date: Thu Feb 28 12:32:52 2008
Sender: Kendell R Jillson
AJ, i'm pretty sure the listing of the hottest years have been updated:
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html
Apparently some issues with y2k bugs and other poor statistics. 1934 (i.e.
before the vast majority of CO2 emissions) was the hottest year on record,
followed by 1998.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif
or
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt
(This was from some relatively old reports (i.e. August of 2007, so i don't
know if they've been effectively refuted or not...more likely ignored...
Date: Thu Feb 28 12:39:17 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Yeah, some government geniuses screwed up the numbers. Was waiting for someone
to pick that up...I read it a while back but didn't feel like finding it again.
Date: Thu Feb 28 13:20:29 2008
Sender: Just Oz
global warming wiped out in a single year!
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Date: Thu Feb 28 13:28:22 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Quite possibly the most Irresponsible Article ever.
Yet 2007 is still 2nd/3rd hottest year on record?? Nice misuse of statistics.
Directly from Goddard (not some guys blog)
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/
and to quote your source:
"I wish to state for the record, that this statement is not mine: “–a value
large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100
years”
There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it
coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence"
Date: Thu Feb 28 13:29:01 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
1. Taking a sample of 100 years out of a few billion is widely accepted by
blogs to be enough evidence to prove anything.
2. If you are a scientist that does not agree with global warming, you are a
sell-out.
That said, I think that it is equally silly to think that global warming is a
"fact" as it is to think that we should do nothing to help the planet from
possible warming effects.
Date: Thu Feb 28 14:13:05 2008
Sender: Randy Rhodes
sorry about being "cheeky" AJ, it was past my bed time last night and instead
of typing one more (sarcastic) post, I should've hit the ol' hay!
Date: Thu Feb 28 14:15:32 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
I have to admit to having a bit of a hard time figuring out why warming is so
bad, human-induced or otherwise.
Warm is good. I bet the folks in Siberia are thrilled at the 4C temperature
anomaly of 2007. Weird though that the warming is supposed to be human induced
but the land where it's the most prevalent has almost no people on it.
Date: Thu Feb 28 17:01:19 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
Old Lyme said: "That said, I think that it is equally silly to think that
global warming is a "fact" as it is to think that we should do nothing to help
the planet from possible warming effects."
If you don't understand the system, you cannot understand what affect a change
will have. Your intentions to 'do something' could actually have the opposite
affect that you intended.
Now if you want to improve smog or other small scale pollution, by all means
let's do so, but in a measurable cost effect way (maximizing your ROI). Doing
'something' just to do something makes no sense.
'Doing something' is a political solution designed to feel good and
win/maintain votes. Effecting an improvement requires study and planning on
the cause and effect and on the ROI.
Date: Thu Feb 28 22:25:04 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
That is great and all A but you are quoting "do something" as though I said we
should just "do something" just for the sake of "doing something".
I understand that you don't want us just to "do something" because that
"something" could hurt "something", but "something" that I feel should be made
clear is that you will not see "do something" in my post. I suspect that
"something" you inferred from my post was that "something" that was not there.
Date: Fri Feb 29 03:43:36 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Alec I suspect you already know this, but we've already made TREMENDOUS
improvements in the areas you mention. Look at Pittsburgh circa 1920 -- it
looked like Linfen, CHN looks today. And look at it now. No comparison.
We've still got pollution problems, no doubt. But a lot has been improved and
many of those problems are residual from things that happened in the past.
Today's pollution pales in comparison to the past.
Date: Fri Feb 29 07:03:19 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
Old Lyme, I didn't really think you meant it the way you said it, however, I
did want to make the point that there is this notion that 'Global Warming' is
fact and we need to 'do something'. If you ignore the first part and
concentrate on the second, 'doing something' maybe just as harmful as doing
nothing. Anyways I have beat that horse enough.
Henry, I don't specifically know about Pittsburgh, but I am sure small scale
pollution is improved over the last few decades, and that is great.
Date: Fri Feb 29 08:58:48 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
"Don't just do something, sit there."
Date: Fri Feb 29 09:25:03 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
That is fair A. I thought I was being lumped in with the hippies.
Date: Fri Feb 29 09:36:05 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
hippies or anyone actually who simply enjoys a little bit of nature now and
then.
When you look at a National Park do you see
a) a wild, beautiful place unharmed by the modern world, where one can let
loose and just be free for a while
or
b) Dollar Signs. a tragic waste of natural resources that could be powering our
cars and a sadly missed goldmine of prime real estate. (most global warming
deniers)
Date: Fri Feb 29 09:54:51 2008
Sender: Joshua MacOscar
a.
Maybe it goes against your fundamentalist debating style, but I think that I
can feel as though Manbearpig is an exaggeration while also wanting to treat
the planet better.
Date: Sat Mar 1 06:26:48 2008
Sender: William Johnson
I choose 'a' also.
I think you've let your global warming fearmongering take over your mind.
There is science that sees what you don't see and since you don't see it, then
those scientists must be 'irresponsible'. If you're going to blind yourself to
all data and only accept what agrees with your current attitude then you'll
never have any credibility while making 'fact filled' arguements.
If WorldNetDaily came out with an article that said GW is at it's worst
since recorded time started, would you believe it or not? What if they came out
with an article about GC taking effect over most of the world, would you
believe it?
If you would 'generically' believe one article over the other simply because
of its subject then you are not being fair in your arguements and are simply
fostering the fearmongering attitude that democrats/liberals do because they
need the extra money created from the GW scam.
Date: Sat Mar 1 08:25:39 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
the science is the earths temperature which is measured every year, is easy
read, and really isn't open to debate.
the pseudo-science of snowfall here, temperature in this remote mountain
village there or a cool month somewhere is anectdotal and flimsy....
unfortunately global warming deniers are so determined to believe what they
want to.... San Diego could be 4' under water and some right wing scientist
would still be claming "not our fault".
Date: Sat Mar 1 08:31:06 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" the science is the earths temperature which is measured every year, is easy
read, and really isn't open to debate. "
What year did they start measuring the earth's temperature? In your
world...how long has the earth been here? So, less than 1% of data on the
history of the world and it "isn't open to debate". Very liberal of you.
Date: Sat Mar 1 08:50:38 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I believe yearly since 1888.
About the same as baseball statistics. So go tell Andy he doesn't know what
the hell he is talking about.
Date: Sat Mar 1 08:57:24 2008
Sender: William Johnson
I can't tell Andy that. He has stats from the beginning. YOU don't!
Date: Sat Mar 1 10:05:39 2008
Sender: Kendell R Jillson
"the science is the earths temperature which is measured every year, is easy
read, and really isn't open to debate."
Except for the fact that we CAN debate the accuracy, since there have been
several discrepencies in the statistical analysis and reporting. (e.g. the
fact that it's been suggested that 1934 is the hottest year on record).
And I don't think most global warming deniers deny that the earth is/was in a
warming phase. Maybe the magnitude of the warming, and certainly the
mechanism. (i.e. you know, the fact that the sun for a long period was getting
hotter could play a role, and now that activity is reported down, surprise,
surprise, we've started to cool a little bit)
Date: Sun Mar 2 06:26:13 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Date: Sat Mar 1 08:50:38 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I believe yearly since 1888.
About the same as baseball statistics. So go tell Andy he doesn't know what
the hell he is talking about.
---
This might be the worst argument for GW that I've ever seen.
If the earth had been invented in the 1860s, you might have a point.
Date: Sun Mar 2 08:54:56 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
AJ: "The science is the earths temperature which is measured every year, is
easy read, and really isn't open to debate."
Have you looked into those temperature stations and their data? The data is
not fact. The data is manipulated! A majority of the stations are located in
heat islands. The data is then adjusted to remove the heat island effect.
Fact is not the correct word at all. In fact, this data is the most hotly
contested data of all. Don't take my word for it, do some research.
I love it when people assume facts without understanding the underlying
concepts/data. The drive by media reported X, and as such X is fact.
Date: Fri Mar 14 10:54:36 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
An article from the Washington Times dated 3/14/2008, By H. Sterling Burnett.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html
Select
quotes:
"...several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006
Congress requested an independent analysis of it. ... the researchers who
created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean
temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because
the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and
dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were
never consulted."
"Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the
peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original
authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead
researcher who constructed the hockey stick."
"IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming
will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the
most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature
statistics. .... many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now
surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures
resulting in an urban-heat-island effect."
"....the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming
"cannot be supported."
Date: Fri Mar 14 11:29:16 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
so what your saying now is people don't know how to measure temperature?
I guess thats just another tactic.
Date: Fri Mar 14 14:12:37 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
AJ: "I guess thats just another tactic."
I love a closed mind. For someone who expunges his opinion frequently, you
sure are a one way street.
Date: Fri Mar 14 15:00:21 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
No, I read your article and then some.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st308/
It totally ignores the obvious visual evidence. Receding Ice coverage, rising
sea levels, melting snow lines. receding glaciers etc...
and attempts to say essentially we can't measure temperature, so don't believe
what you see.
It's the essentially, if you can't 100% prove, beyond the slightest doubt, then
it's not true.
Not to mention, the author H.Sterling Burnett is from where else? Texas. and
works for NCPA a conservative pro Bush Website.
Date: Fri Mar 14 15:47:20 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
Clearly you didn't read the article. The author doesn't matter he is quoting a
congressional requested independent group statisticians chaired by Edward J.
Wegman, of George Mason University, who drew then conclusion that the IPCC is
'blowing smoke' (my words).
Like I said closed minded and dare I say hypocritical. When the IPCC's own
data is refuted with sound scientific methods you evoke the FOB (Friend of
Bush) or a picture of a glacier emotional argument.
Incredible. You would think a numbers guy like you would understand the
concept of scientific methods and accurate data collection.
It is, in an odd way, comforting to know that you are consistent in your
zealous beliefs and cannot be swayed nor are interested in an open dialog of
theory.
Date: Fri Mar 14 17:49:54 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
How is visual evidence "emotional"?
It's a numbers game people are playing to forward there own agenda. You can
argue some whether station wasn't located properly to get an accurate
reading...
or you can simply look at an irrefutable picture like:
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?gid=42
or
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://climatechange.ws/images/greenlandicesheet01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://climatechange.ws/icecaps/&h=302&w=435&sz=28&hl=en&start=11&sig2=DuHgZ3cyS2THxBIN11f0LA&um=1&tbnid=17JsjcaJwVu97M:&tbnh=87&tbnw=126&ei=ThzbR6-YHJrswwGjlv3VCA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dice%2Bcaps%2Bmelting%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG
your
going to call me a hypocrite because I won't play some manipulative game of
stat analysis where I have to 100% prove something to be right.. while 1-99%
uncertainty supposedly means I'm wrong.
meanwhile you won't even look at the obvious.
How's the saying go-
"Can't see the forest through the trees?"
Date: Sat Mar 15 07:36:37 2008
Sender: William Johnson
There's another saying that goes: 'Fool me once, shame on me! Fool me twice,
shame on you!'
I've learned long ago how much credence to put in your 'statements of fact'.
Repeating the same thing over and over again doesn't suddenly make it a fact.
Date: Sat Mar 15 08:42:49 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I just posted a number of pictures....
short of building a time machine and flying us around, there is nothing else I
can say if you refuse to look at the evidence before your eyes.
Date: Sat Mar 15 09:15:16 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
A lot of people are convinced that the climate is changing, but where they lose
connect with the GW crowd is over "proof" of why.
So you can show all the current surface temperatures you want (and the "heat
island" effect is UNQUESTIONABLY true), and it isn't proof that humans are
causing global climate change.
Date: Sat Mar 15 11:50:30 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
so what happens to the 15 billion tons of noxious gases that are put into the
atomsphere every day? Nothing?
Date: Sat Mar 15 16:39:36 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
What's the total tonnage of the atmosphere?
Date: Sat Mar 15 17:39:04 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
There's about 1.5-2.0 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. In 2004, CO2
emissions worldwide due to fossil fuel usage were 27 billion tons. It's
believed to be much higher today with Asia growing so fast, probably in the
35-40 billion area. This excludes deforestation and other manmade sources.
There's no sign this will let up, of course.
Forget about warming or not warming, because no one is debating that we're
currently dumping on the order of a few percent to several percent more CO2
into the atmosphere every year. We're also chopping down forests that absorb
so much CO2 to begin with, so the mechanisms for reducing the effect of our CO2
emissions are being weakened. All this is simple fact, I'm talking about CO2,
not temperature.
Now, there are people here arguing that we don't have enough proof that this
kind of change will actually matter enough in the long run to take seriously.
Nearly all the scientific community thinks you're wrong, but let's say for the
sake of argument that you know more than them.
Certainly, you would be foolish to think that you're certain it WONT matter.
At best, all you can say is "it might be harmful, it might not, we dont know
yet".
If that's the case, then that's enough cause for concern. If I tell you
there's a 50% chance your house will be badly damaged by a hurricane next week,
would you take that seriously, or would you say "I need further proof before
doing anything about it"?
So, if you're convinced by the remaining uncertainties about global warming,
then fine. But, for those who seek to use them as an excuse for inaction is
irresponsible. We need to act with the best information we have, which is that
there's a definite risk this could really come back to bite us.
It would be one thing if acting to curtail the danger involved monstrous
sacrafices. Some of it might, but a lot of curtailing the risk can be aided
with changes that involve absolutely no sacrifice to our prosperity, economy,
way of life, etc. Unfortunately, there is too much inertia from people who
have something to lose as a result of these simple changes, and they're out
there fighting tooth and nail to have this entire issue sidestepped for as long
as possible.
Date: Sat Mar 15 17:55:54 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
Addendum: I chose an analogy that was intended to illustrate a threshold for
action, but I chose one that is also connected to the conversation about global
warming, so it's effect as an analogy was weakened
"If I tell you there's a 50% chance your house will be badly damaged by a
hurricane next week, would you take that seriously, or would you say "I need
further proof before doing anything about it"?
So, I will present a better analogy...
If you find out that there's a 50% chance that you will win a lot of money if
you buy a lottery ticket next week, would you say "I need further proof before
taking this seriously", or would you go out and buy a lottery ticket next week?
Date: Sun Mar 16 06:48:56 2008
Sender: William Johnson
Or, you could use;
My dog has to go outside to poop. I take him out and he poops, what caused
him to poop, the steak he stole off the table or the dogfood he was fed. I
don't know either, but he had to poop either way. Do you stop feeding him steak
or dogfood to make him stop pooping? Doesn't matter, pooping is a natural
occurance, the steak only makes it happen at a different time. So, sure...stop
feeding him steak, but he will still have to poop.
Date: Sun Mar 16 07:20:00 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
or you can look at a basic chart. One shows CO2, one shows temperature.... and
say wow, they look a lot a like.
OF course their is no 100% proof they are related, it could be a .000010280%
chance it's pure coincidence. Which is good enough for some to hang onto the
"man can't possibly harm the planet" stance
http://www.whole-systems.org/co2.html
Date: Sun Mar 16 08:24:40 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
How about if you start feeding your dog a different kind of steak with a new
kind of marinade, and all of a sudden the pooping gets quite a bit more
frequent and more liquid? I suppose there's not enough evidence to think there
might be a problem with the marinade, and moreover, the dog is 10 years old,
and you've only been feeding him tainted steak for 3 weeks! How can one
possibly think anything of that? Obviously the best thing to do is to keep
putting more and more of the new marinade in the steak, and wait at least 5
years before paying attention to anything coming out the other end.
Date: Sun Mar 16 08:27:20 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
Oh, and your doctor also tells you that steak and marinade is bad for your
dog....but what does he know?
Date: Sun Mar 16 08:28:21 2008
Sender: Morris Cohen
(and by doctor, I meant veterinarian....ok this is getting silly)
Date: Sun Mar 16 09:34:42 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
AJ, what proof is there over the planet's history that CO2 rises cause a rise
in temperature?
Climate change happened a long time before man walked the planet, let alone
started burning fossil fuels for energy.
So what caused it then? Answer that question, and I'm betting you have your
answer for why it's happening now.
Date: Mon Mar 17 05:06:15 2008
Sender: Mike Boofer
Now you are getting closer to my 'problem' with this all. Risk v. Reward.
Continuing the analogy, how far would you go to keep your dog from getting the
bad steak? Lock him out at supper time (enforce strict rules on companies
doing most of polluting)? Stop buying the marinade(small inconvience to
yourself)? Stop buying steak (large inconvience to yourself)? Where is the
cutoff point you will go on 'educated guess'. CO2 increases are NOT
debatable. Temp change isn't debatable (nor has it been). The correlation
between the two is VERY debatable. I find the whole notion of EVERYONE who
doesn't believe is just stupid very condescending and quite amusing itself.
"We swore that a new ice age was coming as a scientific community in the 70's
now we have reversed and you better believe us or you are stupid."
I'm willing to go to some extent. I am NOT willing to go to the point of
taxing people to pay for prevention of global warming/forcing you to buy carbon
credits. However, I'm not outraged by people doing so.
Date: Mon Mar 17 07:18:19 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
"AJ, what proof is there over the planet's history that CO2 rises cause a rise
in temperature?
The correlation between the two is VERY debatable"
yeah... look at this and tell me there is no correlation.
PS(why are we having this conversation again, we looked at all this before?)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xVostokCO2.htm
they sure look "correlated" to me and the other 10 people I just asked.
Date: Mon Mar 17 08:53:32 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
What caused the rise in CO2 levels and temperature 140,000 years ago? Can't
blame humans for that one.
Couple other things I notice...between about 140 and 110,000 years ago, the
temperatures drop much more precipitously than the CO2 and reached the lowest
level it would for the next 30,000 years. But the CO2 didn't bottom out until
about 20,000 years later.
Between 70 and 90,000 years ago, the rise and fall in temperatures occurred
before the change in CO2.
Around 45,000 years ago, the decrease in CO2 is greater than the decrease in
temperature.
About 20,000 years ago, the temperatures reached their all-time low, but the
CO2 did not.
The rise in CO2 levels and temperatures to their current level began about
18,000 years ago, well before man-made CO2 was ever thought of. It also looks
like a similar rise to that which occurred between 140 and 125,000 years ago.
IIRC, if you go back further, you see a pattern with this kind of (relatively)
sudden rise in temperature.
120-130,000 years ago, the Vostok core data showed a higher temperature than
there is today. This followed a much colder ice age than the one recently past.
Between 237 and 239,000 years ago, it was also warmer than it is today. Shorter
period of time yes, but I also mentioned that the ice age following was more
severe.
Between 318 and 325,000 years ago, we were also above present day, as much as 3
degrees. As well as 405 to 422,000 years ago.
So it seems like every 100ish years ago we have warming beyond what we have now
as part of a rapid rise similar to that which has been occurring over the last
18000 years (and was very rapid between 18000 and 14000 years ago).
In the last 12000 years, there have been numerous small timeframes where it has
been warmer than it is now, including as little as 400 years ago.
We've been through all this before on this board. If you look at the full
400,000 years of data, the Vostok data does a lot more to contradict global
warming dogma than it does to corroborate it.
Date: Tue Mar 18 06:03:33 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" What caused the rise in CO2 levels and temperature 140,000 years ago? Can't
blame humans for that one. "
Yes they can and they will continue to try to blame humans for that one
until everyone falls for their claim of ... well ... whatever they claim this
year. Maybe it will be global moderation next year.
I think the global warming fearmongers have turned a scientific eventuallity
into a joke. They've ruined the best opportunity we've had to create
alternative fuel vehicle systems by bickering like little children about who's
at fault and never actually thinking of ways to correct the problem. They were
able to find ways of profiting from the scam, but nothing to correct it.
Another good job by those who scream "the end is near". I wonder what the next
scam will be?
Date: Tue Mar 18 07:55:20 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
From the 'conclusions are only as good as the underlying data' file:
See the following pictures and comments at the following link:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2731
Draw your own conclusion.
Date: Tue Mar 18 19:01:18 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
"What caused the rise in CO2 levels and temperature 140,000 years ago? Can't
blame humans for that one."
I have a stomach ache, it couldn't possibly be the rotten fish I ate, because
the other day I had a stomach ache and didn't eat any fish.
thats how stupid this discussion has gotten.
Date: Tue Mar 18 22:24:28 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
So you're saying somethign different has caused every single temperature spike
in the last 500,000 years, even though they occur at regular intervals and
cover roughly the same time ranges?
Date: Wed Mar 19 06:25:23 2008
Sender: William Johnson
AJ " thats how stupid this discussion has gotten. "
Henry " So you're saying somethign different has caused every single
temperature spike..."
No, I think he's saying his scientists have no explanation for naturally
occuring events and he doesn't want to address a situation that disagrees with
the current 'mainstream' scientists. It's either: we believe what is told by
his scientists or we are all stupid.
Date: Wed Mar 19 08:16:47 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Well I think it's highly likely that the same thing has caused every
temperature spike. Cycles don't occur at random.
It appears I'm not the only one to notice this, since 1.4 million hits come up
on google for "sun cycle 100,000 years." Unsurprising, since it is so very
obvious. What is truly surprise is that there is a scientist that has NOT
noticed or taken note of it.
One thing is for certain; man-made CO2 didn't cause any of the previous
incarnations of the cycle.
It also seems as if, for the vast majority of its history, the climate on much
of the Earth has been, if not uninhabitable, unsuitable for societal
development. Hotter, generally speaking, has been better.
Homo sapiens flourished, it is estimated, about 100,000 years ago. Fancy that.
The out of Africa theory holds that human movement out of the east African rift
valley started about 100,000 years ago. Perhaps it was because it was getting
too hot there...however, if it wasn't, they didn't make the smartest move in
the world moving to the Middle East. :)
It is theorized that homo sapiens may have first appeared as much as 200,000
years ago.
Seems that it is when the temperature falls that we should start getting
worried, or moving to the tropics. I guess AJ has a head start.
Date: Wed Mar 19 08:38:57 2008
Sender: Laurent Boudias
What are you talking about?
Man is god's creation, not a homo sapiens whatever, we don't like gay people
here by the way, and he's not coming from Africa for sure. Please!
Date: Wed Mar 19 09:13:05 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
What do you have the intellect of 3rd graders? Are you incapable of looking it
up yourselves?
Why the earth has changed climate over the past 4 billion years...?
Actually we have had this discussion before, and I showed why-
1) changes in the earths axis which occur over about 40000 year cycles.
2) changes in the earths orbit which bring it closer/farther from the sun on
around a 100,000 year cycle
3) the earths precession- spinning like a top an 11000 year cycle.
Sometimes they cancel each other out, sometimes they add/subtract from each
other effects and can cause an extended warm period or cold (ice age)
There's your science lesson for today, now go find some new petty attempts to
discredit the obvious.
Date: Wed Mar 19 11:03:25 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
And so why do you keep insisting that, even though this has happened before,
that it's somehow our fault this time when the things you're blaming weren't
here the last time it happened?
You left out the theory of a larger solar cycle of increasing and decreasing
radiation.
Date: Wed Mar 19 11:17:16 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Obviously, because it's never happened in such a short period of time IN DIRECT
CORRELATION with man made pollutant levels in the atomsphere.
To me this is so blatantly obvious and simple, it's not even worth debate.
It's exactly the same as tobacco companies trying to make people prove that
cigarettes cause cancer.
Date: Wed Mar 19 11:46:10 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Well obviously it's never happened in correlation with man made pollutants
because 100,000 years ago, the last time it happened, there weren't any!
And yes, it has happened in this short a period of time. Look at the actual raw
data.
From 397 years ago to 351 years ago, for example, the Vostok data indicates we
went from 1.33 C above present day to 0.75 below it. From 304 years ago to 234
years ago we had a similar drop from -.22 to -1.84, the lowest in the last 2700
years. And before one data point then, you have to go 11,700 years back to find
a lower reading.
So 234 years ago(roughly 1770 AD, remember the winters during the Revolution?),
it was as cold as it has been post ice age. Now it's warm, but certainly not
historically so.
Date: Sat Mar 22 11:48:33 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23411799-7583,00.html
Couple of excerpts.
...actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of
reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have
plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving
temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures
have actually been coming down over the last 10 years....The head of the IPCC
(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He
talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century.
....they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how
the models predict, and I think they're about to recognize that the models
really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will
probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of
carbon dioxide.
Date: Sat Mar 22 14:19:13 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Was reading about the start of a new solar cycle (24) and speculation about
whether it would be stronger or weaker than the previous.
Basically, the longer before it starts, the less chance of it being stronger.
Will be interesting to see over the next 5-6 years how the strength of the
solar cycle corresponds to global temps.
Date: Sat Mar 22 14:47:29 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
Henry,
I suspect you might enjoy this book.
"Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years"
by S. Fred Fred Singer, Dennis Avery
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming/S-Fred-Fred-Singer/e/9780742551176/?itm=11
They
too draw a link between the sun's cycle nature and the affects on the earth.
Date: Sat Mar 22 18:29:16 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
I'd love to land a Space Weather assignment because of how little most people
know and understand (including me) about it.
Date: Sat Mar 22 21:10:41 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
1998 La Nina. yep
this is hopeless. We can revisit this in 10 years, to see what interesting
excuse you guys have then.
Date: Wed Apr 2 05:48:07 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
Ted Turner quote: "...We'll be eight degrees hottest in ten, not ten but 30 or
40 years and basically none of the crops will grow. Most of the people will
have died and the rest of us will be cannibals."
I would love to see his data that backs that conclusion.....
From:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2008/04/02/turner-iraqi-insurgents-patriots-inaction-warming-cannibalism
Date: Wed Apr 2 06:34:26 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
Straight from the horse's mouth....
"...he (Aynsley Kellow, the head of the School of Government at the University
of Tasmania ) has participated in the IPCC process (he was a referee for
Chapter 19 in the IPCC’s report (April '07), which covers ‘Key Vulnerabilities
and Risk Assessment’), Kellow is exasperated by the way in which critical
responses to chapters are dealt with. He has noted elsewhere the criticisms he
made to the IPCC about the way in which negative effects are overstated and the
ability to adapt is understated. Yet he says: ‘I’m not holding my breath for
this criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole
peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC
report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be."
It is worth repeating:
"...which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC:
there is no chance of a chapter ... ever being rejected for publication, no
matter how flawed it might be."
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3111/
Date: Thu Apr 24 06:52:57 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
"Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average
temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past
decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of
carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. "
"All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research
Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the
Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in
California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest
temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were
in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude
that global warming is over."
Opinion piece:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html
Date: Thu Apr 24 07:19:30 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Alec..
Honestly, do you think everyone is stupid? or just incapable of using the
internet? This isn't secret information.
For you to make a claim the earth is cooling when I can simply-
look for myself
"2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New
York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth’s second warmest year
in a century."
Top 5 Warmest Years since 1880
2005, 1998, 2007, 2002, 2003
This arguement is old and worn. You can look and see receeding glaciers, less
ice cover in the artic, snow lines on mountains and rising sea levels... this
is all measurable, most visable and doesn't take an expert to tell you what
your looking at.
2008 could be a cold year, global warming doesn't automatically mean Friday
will be hotter than Thursday. Though it seems this is the best arguement for
anyone trying to refute Global Warming.
Date: Thu Apr 24 15:27:21 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
I am merely providing sporadic data/quips/opinions from various sources and/or
experts (experts who at a minimum are on par with the IPCCs expert's
qualifications). People are free to formulate their own opinions.
I could easily overload the forum with specific sited data but I choose not to,
for that would get old quickly.
Date: Thu Apr 24 19:55:32 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
well to step back and try to be objective... (which I'm not)
I see enough info saying the last decade has been warmer than in the past for
the most part, and visuals of things that appear to be melting.
Date: Fri Apr 25 06:25:55 2008
Sender: William Johnson
Do you remember the 'aerosol spray' scare we had back in the 70's? They said
using aerosols would produce a layer in the atmosphere that would deflect the
suns rays away from earth and cause global cooling. There was an article in the
paper yesterday that said some scientists now believe this layer (only a
partial layer) is causing the sun's rays to bounce around near the north pole
and causes the ice to melt faster than normal.
Trying to figure out which scientist to believe from day to day is getting
harder for the average person. Do I believe scientists from the 70's? Do I
believe Dr Gore? Do I believe scientists that say nothing is happening? Do I
believe scientists that say everything is happening as it has for the past
billion years?
Date: Mon Apr 28 10:52:57 2008
Sender: Darren Reifler
The big problems liberals never seem to get is that if you consitently lie you
can't then fall back on "but it is true!".
Let me explain. "Global warming is true!" is a very dramatic and confident
statement, but then ask further WHAT exactly is true and things get a bit more
muddy.
Something being "true" in the general sense does not mean that every other
thing you attach to it is also true. This is where the lies come in. No one
can accurately model something as complicated as world climates. Huge
simplifications are made and many factors are just not well understood. We
can't mathematically model weather a week in advance let alone decades.
This becomes a problem cause liberals try to use scare tactics and say that
they know for a fact the globe will warm by X degrees and that will cause
horrible things etc. In reality, even if the general trend is known for sure,
nothing can be known beyond that, but they are afraid to mention that cause it
doesn't sound dramatic enough.
Then someone like me comes along and simply asks "what is true?" and I am
labelled as denying that global warming exists. The fact remains that there is
a huge gap between something existing and it causing the end of the world in
the next 50-100 years.
I am all for reducing pollution in any way we can. Once upon a time that was
enough, but now the world has to be coming to an end. All those scare tactics
do however is cause the people you are trying to get on your side to dig their
heels in further. Let's reduce pollution, but stop pretending we know the
world is coming to an end.
Date: Mon Apr 28 17:00:53 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
"All those scare tactics do however is cause the people you are trying to get
on your side to dig their heels in further."
It worked to get us into war, why can't it work to get a better environmental
future.
I'd imagine the odds of Saddam Hussein firing a nuclear missle into one of our
cities is about the same as Florida going underwater in the next decade.
Date: Mon Apr 28 20:28:23 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" It worked to get us into war, "
Yeah, it was very scary watching all those people jumping to their deaths from
the twin towers. Those were sure some vicious scare tactics. Name some other
scare tactics that were used.
Date: Mon Apr 28 22:20:33 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I'm more scared of some kid going into a mall with an assualt rifle than
terrorist attacking the office I work at. Besides I'm tired of 9/11 talk, I
think it's brainwashing effect is starting to wear off finally.
"Name some others"
Aug. 26, 2002Dick Cheney, Vice President
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction
(I love this one- where the hell did they get this?)
the Iraq army didn't even have planes.)
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of
manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or
biological weapons across broad areas."
George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
"Most Americans know the forces of terrorism will not rest until a mushroom
cloud hangs over one of our cities,"
that is an example of scare tactics, that had nothing to do with 9/11, BTW.
Date: Tue Apr 29 05:34:32 2008
Sender: William Johnson
You didn't say anything about whether 9/11 was involved. You said 'get us into
war'.
" I'd imagine the odds of Saddam Hussein firing a nuclear missle into one of
our cities is about the same as Florida going underwater in the next decade. "
But those who believe the global warming propoganda actually say that (Fla
scenerio) will happen and are devising ways of forcing us to stop it from
happening, ie. electric cars, lowered emissions, stricter greenhouse gas
controls (except in the space program-they can create all they want and it's OK
with those fearmongers).
So, while it's perfectly OK to stop Fla from going underwater, it is morally
aprehensible to stop Suddam from firing a nuke into one of our cities.
Conservatives are all wrong/liars concerning the war, but liberals all have
God/truth on their side concerning global warming. Isn't that what Darren was
saying (sort of)?
Date: Tue Apr 29 09:30:46 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Darren was using an arguement tactic.
My point is scare tactics were succesfully used to get us to war in Iraq.....
so if they can get me a car that doesn't cost $6.00 to go to the supermarket
I'm all for it.
PS- (the "live somewhere else" arguement lost validity when gas hit $3.80 a
gallon here.... I did move closer to everything when gas hit $2.50)
Date: Tue Apr 29 18:35:53 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" so if they can get me a car that doesn't cost $6.00 to go to the supermarket
I'm all for it. "
They have them and they've been around for 10+ years (efficient ones). Ask
Morris what milage he gets. Fully electric cars have been around also. And,
even solar powered vehicles have been in use (although mainly testing and
experimental) since the 80's.
You can spend $50K on a suburban (15mpg) or $30K on a hybrid (60mpg)...your
choice.
Date: Thu May 1 06:19:46 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
30 years of Global Cooling....
PDO = Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Read here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/la-nina-and-pacific-decadal-oscillation-cool-the-pacific.pdf
"Global
temperatures peaked in 1998 and have not been exceeded since then. Pacific
Ocean temperatures began a cooling phase in 1999 that was briefly interrupted
by El Nino and dramatic cooling in 2007-2008 appears to be a continuation of a
global cooling trend set up by the PDO cool phase as predicted."
-------------------------------------
Additionally, the author filed a comment to his own paper based on some of the
feedback he provided, which adds a layer of uncertainty of the future due to
the sun spot activity (cycle 23 transitioning to cycle 24). Which evidently
his paper does not take into account.
"An interesting question is the similarity between what we are seeing now with
sun spots and global temperature and the drop into the Little Ice Age from the
Medieval Warm Period. Could we be about to repeat that? Only time will tell–We
might see a more pronounced cool period like the 1880 to 1910 cool cycle (when
many temp records were set) or a milder cooling like the 1945-1977 cool cycle.
In any case, the setting up of the cool phase of the PDO seems to suggest
cooler times ahead, not the catastrophic warming predicted by IPCC and Al
Gore."
Date: Thu May 1 06:24:03 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
Yet another bloke comes to a similar conclusion.
"The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade. Our prediction is
that there will be no warming until 2015..."
Note: I could not original article/study, so read the news print at your own
risk...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
Date: Thu May 1 08:58:37 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
This is such a manipulation of statistics
"Global temperatures peaked in 1998 and have not been exceeded since then"
1998 was an El Nino year. It is supposed to be a little hotter, and it was a
little hotter.
It's no different than a major volcanoe or something happening, and raising the
earths temperature for a year.
It doesn't really mean anything when taken in context.
Date: Thu May 1 10:44:24 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Large volcanic eruptions lower the earth's temperature.
Date: Thu May 1 18:20:54 2008
Sender: William Johnson
I heard NASA agrees with the global cooling theory. Does that mean all NASA
scientists are in the 'back pocket' of republicans?
Date: Thu May 1 19:31:01 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Look man.... you guys have got to quit playing stupid, it's really annoying.
NASA is concerned a solar cycle could cause a dangerous global cooling trend.
THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY ZERO TO DO WITH EMISSION BASED GLOBAL WARMING.
William-
You are a freaking mechanic, I know you don't think so linearly.
Your tires could be wearing on your car causing it to shake, at the same time
you could hit a curb and bend your axle..... that doesn't all of a sudden mean
you don't need new tires
Date: Thu May 1 19:40:15 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
William, you asked about NASA?
They recently released data on the switch of the PDO to a cooling phase.
"the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO
can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and
Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin,
the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=18012
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-066
Date: Thu May 1 21:26:30 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
again, you do still realize global warming could be accelerating at a rapid
rate, and the earth could cool because of something else right?
Date: Thu May 1 22:46:11 2008
Sender: William Johnson
Sorry, AJ, I don't think you can play both sides of the fence on this issue.
There is either global warming or global cooling. I find it hard to believe
both can happen at the same time.
Date: Thu May 1 22:55:57 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
then I take back my other comment about you being smarter.
PS....
I can't figure out why it's hot in my house, I have the air conditioner on, but
all the doors are open.
I can't believe my air conditioner isn't working.
Date: Fri May 2 07:20:48 2008
Sender: Kendell R Jillson
By similar logic, i could light a candle and put it in my living room in may.
When June rolls around, see, it's getting hotter, the candle must be all I need
to warm my house. I better put the candle out now, even if it means i can't
see anything in my house until i buy some fancy light bulbs. (and in july when
it's still getting hotter, i'll have to make up some reason why that light bulb
is also making the house warmer).
Date: Fri May 2 17:55:19 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
If the PDO in a cool can mitigate global warming, can the PDO being in a warm
phase not exacerbate the effect or create the illusion of one where none
exists?
Date: Thu May 8 06:20:40 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Archibald2007.pdf
An interesting paper that shows a number of historical temperature plots. I
find figure 6 to be the one of the most interesting.
Also, the paper attempts to correlate the solar activity to the resultant
temperature affects on the earth.
I don't know anything about the author so read at your own risk. Note his
images are sited, but nothing else is.
Alec
Date: Thu May 8 06:28:52 2008
Sender: William Johnson
AJ, how would your A/C analogy work related to global warming AND global
cooling at the same time? Wait, I've figured it out, it is cold at the polar
ends while it is hot at the equator. If only we could have consistant
temperatures throughout the entire planet! That would sure make our discussion
on global warming...no, global cooling...no, global warming easier. What are
we discussing today? Global warming or global cooling? It gets so confusing,
but as long as the government forces me to pay more taxes on fixing whichever
one they hate more on any given day then all will be good, right??
Date: Thu May 8 07:57:46 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
William it was all about a very simple thing-
there are dozens of ways the earths temperature can change. If the sun were
suddenly to go out... the earth would get very cold.
Does that mean there was no global warming?
Does that make any sense to you?
Date: Thu May 8 07:57:52 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
William it was all about a very simple thing-
there are dozens of ways the earths temperature can change. If the sun were
suddenly to go out... the earth would get very cold.
Does that mean there was no global warming?
Does that make any sense to you?
Date: Thu May 8 07:57:56 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
William it was all about a very simple thing-
there are dozens of ways the earths temperature can change. If the sun were
suddenly to go out... the earth would get very cold.
Does that mean there was no global warming?
Does that make any sense to you?
Date: Thu May 8 11:50:53 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
Great link, Schwartz.
But since it doesn't use NASA numbers, I'm sure AJ will accuse you of saying
NASA is lying.
But that's probably the best aggregation of all the info that's out there on
this topic that I've seen. Should be required reading for every American who is
trying to figure out what to make of global warming.
Date: Thu May 8 18:41:37 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" William it was all about a very simple thing- there are dozens of ways the
earths temperature can change. "
How many of these "dozens" are you claiming is the reason for global
warming? How many of these dozens are global warming theorists blaming for
global warming? One or two, while denying any other possibility?
Date: Thu May 8 18:49:48 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
I'm not claiming any William.
Global Warming is far more basic than people like Henry try to make it. You
don't need 9 page thesis, scatter graphs etc, too understand the basic concept.
I think science has proven that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere warm the
planet. Naturally. Unless you want to argue that.
So if we put billions of tons more into the atmosphere it should warm it more.
Is that so crazy to you?
Date: Fri May 9 05:21:51 2008
Sender: William Johnson
That's good, you've demonstrated ONE example of a global warming cause. Are we
to spend millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars to correct ONE cause out of
"dozens"?
Date: Fri May 9 07:12:15 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
I will see your noble prize winner, and raise you a noble prize winner.....
Open letter to the IPCC challenging the the CO2 link. They are effectively
saying "show me the data". Heck they even use NASA's own data.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/letters/IPCC_letter_14April08.pdf
Date: Fri May 9 09:50:00 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
William-
It's an unnatural cause, and it appears to be very quick and destructive.
Theories about too much ice melting, changing the ocean currents and screwing
up weather patterns are catastrophic.
Global Warming causes like solar radiation, orbital location, natural shifts
in ocean currents we don't really have control over.
------------------------------------------------------------
Alec.
"More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world
temperatures have not risen and
indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen
dramatically."
The graph chose to use a variation instead of an overall temperature, for
obvious reasons. AND OF COURSE THEY STARTED with 1998. Not 1997,1996,1995- if
they were to do that they can't make the same claim. You realize next year no
global warming deniers will use these 10 year graphs right?
If this graph were to go back 30 years, 40 years (or even 10) it would be far
more meaingful.
If you look at a chart such as
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
that doesn't try to just focus on the 1998 anomolie, you can see a much more
hand in hand rise between C02 and Temperature. Also no one ever said any
change was INSTANTANEOUS, so looking at 2006- 2008 and saying C02 is rising
faster than temperature- doesn't really mean anything... No one ever claimed it
was a light switch.
But I'll bet as C02 continues to rise like your showing, barring some other
natural phenomenom temperatures will continue to break records.
***If this isn't a causal relationship- what are you claiming causes both CO2
and Temperature to rise relatively hand in hand over the past 100 years?
PS- YOUR AUTHORS!-------------------------------------------
- Svend Hendriksen IS A NUTCASE. He didn't win a nobel prize, the whole peace
keeping force he was part of did- he was just one of many.
He also makes outrageous claims that Al Gore hid subliminal Rorschach testing
in his movie! Not to mention he has his own gloom and doom scenario he
preaches where the whole world is in total anarchy by 2050
- Hans Schreuder is a big pharmaceutical guy who built his business on China.
Needs China and doesn't need GW legislation.
- Piers Cobin has been around for ever, for the past 20 years he has been the
"industry" guy. If you google him, you will see he gets tore up over and over
again for errors.
Date: Fri May 9 11:58:58 2008
Sender: Henry Morgan
- Svend Hendriksen IS A NUTCASE. He didn't win a nobel prize, the whole peace
keeping force he was part of did- he was just one of many.
He also makes outrageous claims that Al Gore hid subliminal Rorschach testing
in his movie! Not to mention he has his own gloom and doom scenario he
preaches where the whole world is in total anarchy by 2050
:Interesting theorem there. I can see it either being that or much of it
becoming much more centralized and controlled by regional governmental powers.
Depending on how it's controlled, there might not be much difference between
anarchy and centralization, I suppose. Good is a point of view, saith Emperor
Palpatine.
Date: Fri May 9 12:02:59 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Don't get me wrong the guy is brilliant, he is just off the beaten path-
which might not be a bad thing as far as science is concerned. His agenda may
just be he is pulling for his global apocolypse model over all others.
Date: Fri May 9 12:03:15 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Don't get me wrong the guy is brilliant, he is just off the beaten path-
which might not be a bad thing as far as science is concerned. His agenda may
just be he is pulling for his global apocolypse model over all others.
Date: Fri May 9 12:03:16 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
Don't get me wrong the guy is brilliant, he is just off the beaten path-
which might not be a bad thing as far as science is concerned. His agenda may
just be he is pulling for his global apocolypse model over all others.
Date: Fri May 9 18:33:16 2008
Sender: William Johnson
" Global Warming causes like solar radiation, orbital location, natural
shifts in ocean currents we don't really have control over. "
So, we won't spend any tax dollars on that, just on things we have control
over and let the "natural" events happen as they may? In other words, let's
spend billions of TAX $$$ on emissions, then let global warming happen anyway?
Date: Fri May 9 19:58:21 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
your tax dollars are spent on that, it's part of how we know about it.
Date: Fri May 16 05:56:00 2008
Sender: A Schwartz
Ever ask yourself who did AlGore beat out to win the Noble Prize for his
"documentary"?
Here name was Irena Sendler. A Polish Catholic, she spirited some 2,500 Jewish
children out of the Warsaw ghetto during WWII, displaying casual and
extraordinary courage. She kept a list of the children she had saved, hoping
one day to reunite them with their parents – although, in the event, almost all
lost their families in Treblinka. In 1943, she was arrested by the Gestapo and
tortured. Her legs and feet were broken, but she refused to give up her list.
She was sentenced to death, but rescued, whereupon – almost unbelievably – she
went back to work.
In 2005 Irena Sendler reflected: "We who were rescuing children are not some
kind of heroes. That term irritates me greatly. The opposite is true – I
continue to have qualms of conscience that I did so little. I could have done
more. This regret will follow me to my death."
Her obituary is here, please read it if you have a few spare minutes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1950450/Irena-Sendler.html
Date: Fri May 16 07:17:30 2008
Sender: Brian Dust
Was it the first time Irena Sendler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize?
If so, why did it take so long?
Date: Fri May 16 08:22:14 2008
Sender: AJ Perko
yeah, the Nobel Prize is about what have you done lately.
Not 64 years ago.
Anything to take a shot at people that care about the planet.
Dolphin Simulation Games is not responsible for the content of posts.
Please report any offensive messages to help@dolphinsim.com.
