Originality Rating for this thread: 4.8/5 (4 votes cast) |
Interest Rating for this thread: 4.5/5 (4 votes cast) |
Scholarship/Prose Rating for this thread: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast) |
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #31
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
   
   
|
Posted: Mon 2004-02-16 09:55
|
 |
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Global Warming |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Let me just re-iterate what I said on the old forum (just to get this puppy started...)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming is not a fact. It really isn't much of a theory either . . . It's just an unproven conjecture. And it isn't a very good one either.
As far as I can tell, the four most important things to know about this issue are:
1) Earth climate undergoes periodic changes.
2) The Primary cause of these changes is solar activity.
3) CO2 levels have risen (They are correct here)
4) Everything else you have ever heard about global warming is either based on faulty data, or is a flat out lie.
I'll take these in reverse order
#4 - I mean... these are Weathermen we are talking about ... Are we supposed to believe that models which can't predict the weather TOMORROW are to be trusted to tell us what the weather will be a decade or century from now?
And all joking aside... There are two questions that need to be asked:
A) Is the atmosphere actually warming?
B) If it is, what is the cause?
It is true that data collected from surface weather stations have shown a 0.5 degree increase in temperature. It is also a fact that data collected from weather balloons and satellites have shown almost NO increase in temperature.
The only theory I have heard that can possibly explain this discrepancy is that the data from surface stations has been skewed by local effects such as the "Urban heat Island effect". You can't just ignore data that you don't like. And I have yet to hear any good reason for ignoring the data from satellites and balloons.
Concerning the 3rd point...
Yes. CO2 levels have risen over the last 100 years. (from 300 parts per million to almost 370 ppm)
But even if ignore weather balloon and satellite data and assume that there has actually been a real 0.5 degree increase, is there any proof that CO2 is the cause? Earth's climate has routinely fluctuated like this for centuries. In fact, the only surprising thing about a 0.5 fluctuation is that that is all there has been. And if you take weather balloon and satellite data into consideration, the 20th century had one of the most stable climates in recent history. And what are we talking about here... a change from 300 ppm to 370ppm? That means that CO2 has gone from 0.030% of the atmosphere to 0.037% (For reference... the atmosphere of Venus is 96.000% carbon dioxide.)
Is this a cause for alarm?
And again... has it led to an increase in temperatures? The temperature has risen by more than 0.5 degrees several times in the last two millenniums ... what caused those changes? It wasn't CO2 then, so what makes everybody so sure it is CO2 now?
Which brings me to points 1 & 2...
The primary cause of climate changes is solar activity.
-------------------------
So, I ask you...
"Where's the Beef?"
It is treated as heresy to suggest that global warming does not exist, yet I have yet to see any proof of its existence.
At most, there is some anecdotal evidence. But, it should be pointed out that there is also anecdotal evidence that we are heading for an new Ice age...
| External site |
"Consider this. The same groups now preaching environmental hellfire and brimstone were predicting a new ice age just twenty years ago. In the 1970s headlines warned "Earth may be headed for another ice age" (The New York Times) with "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciations" and "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science magazine). "Brace Yourself for Another Ice Age" (Science Digest), because there were "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," and "meteorologists are almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity" (Newsweek). "Glaciers had "begun to advance" and armadillos were retreating south from Nebraska (The Christian Science Monitor).
- Jon Perdue, "Global Warming is Hot Air",The New Australian, 15-21 March 1999
|
In fact, there are still some people out there who are predicting another Ice Age -- and I don’t think their arguments are any less valid than that of the global warming crowd.
So which is it... global warming or global cooling?
And like I said before, even if you ignore weather balloon and satellite data and base all your theories solely on data from ground-based stations... which wouldn't be a very scientific thing to do... But if you did, you could make the claim that that the temperature has risen by 0.5 degrees. But even then, there has not yet been a definitive answer as to why.
But from what the climate records show us, the temperature has fluctuated since the dawn of time. It’s a complete natural occurrence. Take a quick look at Earth's climatologically history...
Last 1100 years...
Last 18,000 years...
Last 160,000 years...
Most theories on global warming are based on graphs such as the following image, compiled by Dr Michael Mann.
And, as this site explains...
The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science
| From http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/hockey/hockey.htm |
Using tree rings as a basis for assessing past temperature changes back to the year 1,000 AD, supplemented by other proxies from more recent centuries, Mann completely redrew the history, turning the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age into non-events, consigned to a kind of Orwellian `memory hole' [this image] shows Mann's revision of the climatic history of the last millennium.
From the diagram, the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have disappeared, to be replaced by a largely benign and slightly cooling linear trend in climate - until 1900 AD.
At that point, Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control. The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann's `warmest year of the millennium'), a year warmed by the big El Niño of that year. It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.
|
Last edited by Big Brother on Thu 2004-08-05 04:44; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bill
Committee Member
Post #92
Joined: 21 Feb 2004
Posts: 411
Total Words: 42,715
Average words per post: 103.93
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-02-21 22:55
|
|
|
Country: Airstrip One |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
What can I say, I agree completely.
I suspect we'd also agree about the 'ozone hole' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #125
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-02-23 08:56
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Ozone |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Probably... 
I have not looked into this very much. But I do have a few gut reactions...
Why are the holes is located over the poles?
Why is the "ground level ozone" produced by car exhaust so bad? Doesn't it make it into the upper atmosphere eventually?
Maybe somebody else would like to explain this..  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldHippieDude
Prole
Post #157
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 18
Total Words: 813
Average words per post: 45.17
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-02-25 06:46
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Global Warming |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
____________________________________________________________
"Global Warming is not a fact. It really isn't much of a theory either . . . It's just an unproven conjecture. And it isn't a very good one either."
____________________________________________________________
I tend to worry about it a little more in July than I do when it is 4 degrees farenheit outside.
_________________
Peace,
OHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #160
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-02-25 07:38
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Global Warming |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| OldHippieDude wrote: |
| I tend to worry about it a little more in July than I do when it is 4 degrees farenheit outside. |
Yeah... and every time it gets warm in July the press goes ape shit. And on those cold winter days, they used to just sit there and act like nothing happened...
...Now they blame cold weather on global warming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OldHippieDude
Prole
Post #163
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 18
Total Words: 813
Average words per post: 45.17
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-02-25 08:00
|
|
| Politics: Anti-prohibitionist |
Country: United States |
|
| Re: Global Warming |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
| OldHippieDude wrote: |
| I tend to worry about it a little more in July than I do when it is 4 degrees farenheit outside. |
Yeah... and every time it gets warm in July the press goes ape shit. And on those cold winter days, they used to just sit there and act like nothing happened...
...Now they blame cold weather on global warming. |
Yeah, well that makes a helluva lot of sense!
I blame dirty air for all that pollution.. 
_________________
Peace,
OHD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #198
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-02-27 10:34
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Ozone |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Here is the standard line on ground-level ozone...
--Bad Ozone--
So follow me on this....
Ozone is created by pollution... and ozone at ground-level is bad... but high in the sky it is good.
Chlorofluorocarbons destroy ozone. They are released at ground level. There are carried high into the atmosphere (and down to the poles) where they destroy the good ozone.
So, why isn't the "bad" ozone lifted into the upper atmosphere as well?
This site gets into the chemistry of why the holes are located over the poles...
The Science of the Ozone Hole
Ok.. I can accept that...
But according to this, the only place where ozone loss is significant is over the poles. And if cars are pumping out new ozone by the ton, what's the problem?
Maybe I'm missing something.
-----------------------
But I can say that after looking into this a little more, it appears that the environmentalist may have actually gotten this one right ... and that banning CFC's may have done the trick....
Antarctica's Ozone Hole Shrinks
But of course, some people are still worried about it...
It's Back and Big |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill
Committee Member
Post #204
Joined: 21 Feb 2004
Posts: 411
Total Words: 42,715
Average words per post: 103.93
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #249
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-03-03 16:22
|
|
| Politics: Anarcho-syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| The truth will only confuse people.... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
A memo from the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) to its members on how to answer questions about global warming...
“1. Stay on message. The message is simple … global warming is a serious problem … we must take action now to fight global warming.
“2. Don’t confuse them with doubt. In other words, don’t talk like a scientist, with caveats and error bars. Emphasize the word consensus.
“3. Don’t talk too much. So practice your soundbites and don’t get trapped into giving the reporter what he is looking for. Set your time limit in advance … so that you can terminate the interview before you are in over your head without appearing to be evasive … Your main purpose is to advocate, not to educate.”
Read the whole story here...
Enviros Commence Election-Year Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pig Farmer
Junior Spy
Post #250
Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 24
Total Words: 2,888
Average words per post: 120.33
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-03-03 17:28
|
|
| Politics: Alien Worship |
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Global warming is indeed a natural thing. Heating up by .5 degrees is not a large increase.
The press will give you as much confusing and contradictory information as possible so as to discourage you from finding the real story on your own. It's been going like this for a long time, and it will only get worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thing
Ignorant Prole
Post #271
Joined: 05 Mar 2004
Posts: 4
Total Words: 844
Average words per post: 211
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-03-05 22:32
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Airstrip One |
|
| High school science is all it takes |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Quote: |
| But according to this, the only place where ozone loss is significant is over the poles. And if cars are pumping out new ozone by the ton, what's the problem? |
To use this as a basis
Ozone is O3, so three oxygen atoms lumped together. Most oxygen carrying molecules have some sort of dipole (i.e. they'll have a slight difference in electrostatic charge at one end than the other). This means they can be influenced by magnetic fields.
CFCs contain two other highly electronegative atoms (ones that will be centres of negative charge in a molecule), chloring and fluorine. For those that didn't take high school chemistry, oxygen, chlorine and fluorine are the three most electronegative atoms. CFCs therefore are also influenced by magnetic fields.
The Earth has a magnetic field. It's quite handy, 'cos it causes most heavy interstellar particles to be deflected to the poles, depending on their charge, where they make pretty lights in the sky, whilst reacting with whatever chemicals they find. Unfortunately they liberate the chlorine (as chloride ions) and fluorine (as fluoride) from their molecules. These adore oxygen, and will happily interfere with the ozone cycle (3 oxygen + UV = 2 Ozone. 2 Ozone + UV = 3 Oxygen) by mopping up lonely oxygen atoms. Since all these are attracted to magnetic fields, it happens at the poles - q.e.d.
Why did CFCs diffuse into the stratosphere and not the ozone from car exhausts? CFCs don't exist in nature, so there was diffusive pressure; they could force themselves across the fluid boundary between atmospheric shells. We produce such a piddly amount of ozone that there's simply no reason for it to budge.
What's the problem with low level ozone? It likes to react by free-radical mechanisms. Free radicals + DNA = high mutation rate = bad.
What's the solution? CFCs are "bad", so be careful in handling them. Shame no better propellant/refrigerant exists. Otherwise just time.
As for the rest of this guff about global warming and CO2 - what even the greens can't dispute is that methane is 10 times as damaging weight for weight as CO2. The primary source of methane is not landfill sites, the oil industry or ESPN but livestock farting and rotting vegetation in the rainforests we need to keep us supplied with oxygen.
My own view is that by meddling, we'll only make it worse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Winston Smith
Junior Spy
Post #1108
Joined: 04 Mar 2004
Posts: 39
Total Words: 18,594
Average words per post: 476.77
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-04-24 01:19
|
|
| Politics: Ingsoc |
Country: Oceania |
|
| Re: Global Warming |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Big Brother wrote: |
Let me just re-iterate what I said on the old forum (just to get this puppy started...)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Warming is not a fact. It is a theory... and not a very good one at that.
|
Ummm. No.
"A recent study from NASA says that satellites are acting as thermometers in space. Contrary to meteorological ground stations which measure the air temperature around two meters above the ground, satellites can accurately measure the temperature of the Earth's skin. And this new study, which covers the 18-year period going from 1981 to 1998, shows that the Earth's temperature is rising 0.43C per decade instead of the O.34C found by previous methods. Unfortunately for us, as satellites can more precisely measure this rise of the Earth's temperature, they cannot cure this fever. This overview contains more details and a spectacular image showing the European heat wave of the summer of 2003."
details:
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0315skintemp.html
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0315skintemp.html
Fact: The Earth IS warming, and very quickly.
What is a subject for debate: The role of industrial civilisation in creating or amplifying the heat and the role of industrial civilisation in reducing the heat.
It's important to be clear about these things.
WS[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1116
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-04-24 08:27
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Global Warming |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Winston Smith wrote: |
And this new study, which covers the 18-year period going from 1981 to 1998, shows that the Earth's temperature is rising 0.43C per decade... |
0.43C per decade? is that the best you've got?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ingsoc Officer
Minister of Truth
Post #1119
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Posts: 3714
Total Words: 367,784
Average words per post: 99.03
PoliMatch: n/a
 
 
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-04-24 11:44
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
---
Last edited by Ingsoc Officer on Mon 2008-05-19 21:56; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1127
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-04-24 17:22
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Total BS |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| From Winston's Article |
For the first time, satellites have been used to develop an 18- year record (1981-1998) of global land surface temperatures...
Inter-annually, the 18-year Pathfinder data in this study showed global average temperature increases of 0.43 Celsius (C) (0.77 Fahrenheit (F)) per decade. By comparison, ground station data (2 meter surface air temperatures) showed a rise of 0.34 C (0.61 F) per decade, and a National Center for Environmental Prediction reanalysis of land surface skin temperature showed a similar trend of increasing temperatures, in this case 0.28 C (0.5 F) per decade.
|
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0315skintemp.html
1981-1998?
It's 2004. Why would they release a study whose analysis ends in 1998? We have data for the last six years...
source: http://www.john-daly.com/
So don't you think it's odd that somebody would release a study and not include all the available data? As you can see, the temperature regularly oscillates. And it just so happens that this study started in the year of a tiny "dip" (that little blue dip in 1981), and ends in 1998, the highest peak.
Not very scientific of them, is it? That looks like a purposeful deception on their part, doesn't it?
If you were to look at all the available satellite data, you would see that the "per decade trend" was only +0.085°C... which is only
20% of what they claimed.
Again... purposeful deception.
And again, compare a .085° per decade trend to the last 1000 years...
Is it that big of a deal? Looking at this chart, it appears that the temperature has increased/decreased by this small bit regularly. So how do you know that this isn't a natural oscillation?
Just look at the data. What are we talking about here... a 1/12 of a degree per decade rise over the last 20 years? It's happened before... many times.
I suppose that's the reason that the people that wrote that study decided to skew the data.
:?
So, yes. The temperature has risen slightly over the last 150 years. But look where most of that rise occurred. The temperature rose sharply in the late 1800's, and then has remained somewhat steady over the last 100 years. So the question is, why do we think that man is responsible for this jump?
Was mankind responsible for all other similar oscillations through history?
And why are we so willing to submit to "global organizations" who use this "global problem" to justify their existence (and as a means to increase their power and gain more control over the world's economy) --- especially when it's clear that some of these people go out of the way to skew the data in order to create a problem where one doesn't really exist.
"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"
Yeah... I've heard that one before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skrewdriver
Spy
Post #1146
Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 136
Total Words: 11,952
Average words per post: 87.88
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-04-25 19:38
|
|
| Politics: Kneel before GOD! |
Country: Hungry |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Why does it matter? I'll be dead before it's a problem, and my children shall be super geniuses. Let them figure it out. A little heat builds character 
Seriously tho. Wasn't there this thingy where like 1900 scientists signed a huge petition saying that global warming was real, and then there was another petition by like 10 times more scientists saying that it wasn't. Then we all believed the fewer scientists...
People will believe what they want to believe.
_________________
Wait a second lois, a boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything... even a boat! You know how much we've wanted one of those! - Family Guy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1165
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-04-25 23:06
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Skrewdriver wrote: |
| Seriously tho. Wasn't there this thingy where like 1900 scientists signed a huge petition saying that global warming was real, and then there was another petition by like 10 times more scientists saying that it wasn't. Then we all believed the fewer scientists... |
Petition Project (no Global Warming)
17,200 Signatures (scientists).
(More info on that petition)
...but I can't find a similar "pro-global warming" petition by scientist
| Skrewdriver wrote: |
People will believe what they want to believe. |
Yes, it's as bad as a religion. And I hate religions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THX 1138
Junior Spy
Post #1166
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 38
Total Words: 1,577
Average words per post: 41.5
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-04-25 23:16
|
|
|
Country: Belgium |
|
| Anyway, the earth will protect itself... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Nature has built in protection mechanisms, if the surface get hotter...
HURICANES AND TORNADOES... to cool it back down...
See, no need to worry, everything is taken care off... 
There is a cycle of things, perhaps we just speed it up a bit... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1171
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-04-26 02:36
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Anyway, the earth will protect itself... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| THX 1138 wrote: |
Nature has built in protection mechanisms, if the surface get hotter...
HURICANES AND TORNADOES... to cool it back down...
See, no need to worry, everything is taken care off... :mrgreen:
There is a cycle of things, perhaps we just speed it up a bit... |
If the earth will "protect itself", what are all these worldgovernment-er’s going to do with themselves?
Global Warming Is Greatest Hoax Ever
Revisiting the global warming hoax
Gee, Brain, what are we going to do tomorrow?... Hmm.. maybe we can claim that people that claim that global warming is a hoax are perpetrating a hoax themselves....
Global Warming Hoax Hoax
| From That Guy |
In fact, the campaign to discredit global warming is even more insidious than the drive to discredit evolution, because it does not rely on the theoretical existence of a supreme being. It simply relies on bad science and that's all. Plus, the consequences of ignoring global warming are a bit more serious than those of ignoring evolution, involving not merely removing offending passages from biology textbooks, but potentially removing most of biology itself from the planet. When those phytoplankton start frying, it's bye-bye food chain. Never mind the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement -- who's up for involuntary extinction? We're not just talking about snail darters and spotted owls, we're talking about us. Should this even be a partisan issue?
...
Right now, the vast majority of evidence indicates that the world is indeed warming up -- it's already hotter than it's been for the last 150,000 years -- and that it's warming up due to human activities. And that evidence continues to mount almost daily.
|
Of course, he feels no need to present any of this evidence on his site. But since when are religions based on evidence?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THX 1138
Junior Spy
Post #1177
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 38
Total Words: 1,577
Average words per post: 41.5
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-04-26 09:25
|
|
|
Country: Belgium |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
To me, the global warming was happening anyway, we had an Ice Age before and there will be one again - there is no running away from that.
That is what I call the "natural" cycle.
On the other hand, industrialisation can cause the cycle to go faster - but that is pure speculation, since we do not know the speed of such cycles...
Global warming - due to human behaviour or due to natural effects, will cause ice caps to melt and will raise water levels...
Goverments shoud worry more about that than the global warming itself.
In the Netherlands they are already building houses that can float...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,894231,00.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THX 1138
Junior Spy
Post #1178
Joined: 25 Apr 2004
Posts: 38
Total Words: 1,577
Average words per post: 41.5
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-04-26 09:37
|
|
|
Country: Belgium |
|
| Computer Models |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
That brings me to another question...
All those "computer models" that seems to prove things...
In the end, the computers will become so powerfull, we wont be able to tell if it's correct or uncorrect the human way.
So will we blindly believe what the machine tells us? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1181
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-04-26 14:35
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: Computer Models |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| THX 1138 wrote: |
That brings me to another question...
All those "computer models" that seems to prove things...
In the end, the computers will become so powerful, we wont be able to tell if it's correct or uncorrect the human way.
So will we blindly believe what the machine tells us? |
The global warming cult, which was formed out of the ashes of the older and now nearly defunct ice age cult, is barely two decades old. But it is interesting to look at some of the early "revelations" of this religion, to see how many of their prophecies has come to pass.
Source: EnviroTruth.org
Experts Expose Flaws in Global Warming Extinction Predictions
"The Surface Record: ‘Global Mean Temperature’ and how it is determined at surface level"
Global Warming: Myth, Reality or Distraction
| From the above link |
Scientists approximate and theorize using models and then by iteratively disproving those theories through observation and debate, improve or create new and better theories. The problem with global warming is that general and fruitful discussion often seems to be tinged with a little too much emotion and is often overly politicized—by both sides.
We are correct to be concerned about environmental issues such as global warming. It makes good sense to monitor and attempt to limit “greenhouse gas” and other emissions, and to conduct scientific research into the prospect of global warming. The energy industry of course must respond, and while some utilities have chosen to take a proactive role, other energy companies such as American Electric Power Co. and Cinergy Corp. have been motivated to act by shareholder concerns. Cinergy, for instance, will produce a report on “rising regulatory, competitive and public pressures related to carbon dioxide and other emissions.” Shareholder groups are also reportedly putting pressure on Southern Co. and TXU Corp. to provide environmental risk reports.
But could it be that arguing about current global warming theories is actually distracting our attention and billions of dollars of research funds from other pressing environmental issues such as ozone depletion, over-fishing or the demise of the rain forest? Energy companies—and all good global citizens—would like to be able to make environmental spending and strategy decisions that will have the most impact. Right now, not everyone's agreed on where that will be.
|
Global Warming. An environmental red herring. Throw that puppy back into the water and go fish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1182
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Mon 2004-04-26 15:10
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| The Sun is a Mass of Incandescent Gas... |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I think we've found and explanation for most of that .085° per decade increase...
Solar output rising: Does it affect climate
| From MSN |
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the sun’s radiation has increased by 0.05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
|
So please stop trying to Brainwash our kids...
| From a bunch of cult members |
It's not really happening, is it?
[Global Warming] seems to be, but there are some people who say it is not. Can you think who these might be? You guessed it! The people who don't think climate change is happening are those who use lots of fuel, who make things like cars that use lots of fuel, or actually get the fuel out of the earth: that's heavy industry, carmakers and the oil, gas and coal companies. This is what people call 'vested interest'. These are people who depend on other people using lots of fuel if they are to continue making money. It's not surprising that they don't think there is any climate change. But it doesn't make them right
|
As much as I despise the oil companies and other "vested interest" it appears that they are right... the "vested interest" of globalization is wrong about global warming. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #1976
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-05-27 13:46
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| GLBWMG is BULLSHIT! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #1999
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-05-28 06:36
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| General Hein wrote: |
| GLBWMG is BULLSHIT! |
It's nice to agree every once in a while... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #3384
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-07-08 16:31
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| CO2 |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
More on the "CO2 Crisis"...
Coconuts in Wyoming?
| From Junk Science |
Coconuts in Wyoming?
Thursday, June 17, 2004
By Steven Milloy
It's almost summer in the northern hemisphere, and that can only mean one thing — it's time for global-warming (search) activists to sound the alarm.
Though temperatures obviously rise due to natural causes during the summer, global-warming activists like to take advantage of this time to dramatize their cause.
This year is no exception, as global-climate worry-warts gathered this week in Washington, D.C., at a conference sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science to convulse about the Bush administration's refusal to embrace the Kyoto global-warming treaty and clamp down on emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.
Speakers at the conference said they hoped to convince the U.S. public to pressure politicians into policy changes.
"In this country, it depends a lot on what happens in the next election," geochemist Daniel Schrag of Harvard University told Reuters. "I don't think we can expect to change the minds of this administration in the next couple of months."
Schrag then went on to provide alarmist factoids about the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. He said the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 380 parts per million — higher than it has been for at least the past 430,000 years.
"In the next 100 years, unless immediate action is taken, carbon-dioxide levels will rise to between 800 and 1,000 parts per million. The last time carbon dioxide was that high was during the Eocene, 55 to 36 million years ago," Schrag told Reuters.
At that time, he said, "palm trees lived in Wyoming, crocodiles lived in the Arctic, Antarctica was a pine forest and sea level was at least 300 feet higher than today."
But is atmospheric carbon dioxide all that really separates us from coconuts in Laramie and Inuit crocodile wrestling?
Hardly. About 95 percent of the greenhouse effect — the atmospheric warming due to the trapping of solar energy that makes life possible on Earth — is due to water vapor, 99.999 percent of which is of natural origin.
The other 5 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other miscellaneous gases.
Although carbon dioxide is the most dominant of these gases by volume, comprising about 99.4 percent, the other gases trap more heat. So the contribution of carbon dioxide to the 5 percent of the greenhouse effect not due to water vapor is much less than 99.4 percent — it's about 72 percent.
Carbon dioxide, therefore, is responsible for roughly 3.6 percent of the greenhouse effect (5 percent, representing the percentage of the greenhouse effect not due to water vapor, multiplied by 72 percent, representing the percentage of that 5 percent due to carbon dioxide).
But carbon dioxide is produced both naturally and by humans. About 97 percent of atmospheric carbon dioxide is natural, in fact. Only about 3 percent is from human activity.
That means that only about 0.11 percent of the greenhouse effect (that is, 3 percent of 3.6 percent) is due to human releases of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Put another way, about 99.89 percent of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon-dioxide emissions from human activity.
Factoring in the other greenhouse gases, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is about 0.3 percent. In other words, about 99.7 percent of the greenhouse effect is due entirely to nature.
When you consider that the greenhouse effect contributes about 60 degrees Fahrenheit to the Earth's average temperature (which would be about zero degrees Fahrenheit without the greenhouse effect), it doesn't really seem like atmospheric carbon dioxide levels — even if they triple or quadruple because of human activities — are all that important to global climate.
If the carbon dioxide-emissions reductions called for by the Kyoto global warming treaty were implemented, human greenhouse contributions would be reduced by about 0.03 percent. Atmospheric physicist Fred Singer says this would have an "imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050."
As the Kyoto protocol would require cutting energy use by about 30 percent by 2010 — necessarily causing inestimable negative economic consequences — it's easy to see why U.S. politicians can't run away from the Kyoto protocol fast enough.
It seems we don't need to worry about coconuts in Wyoming so much as the nutty global warmers who meet every summer in Washington, D.C
Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
autogod_v1
Committee Leader
Post #3389
Joined: 17 Feb 2004
Posts: 658
Total Words: 61,297
Average words per post: 93.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-07-08 17:26
|
|
| Politics: Coalitionism |
Country: United Civilized States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
"Nuke 'em form orbit, I'm for that!"
"Game over man, Game O^ver! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #3391
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-07-08 18:04
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I knew this CO2 thing was a scam, but I had no idea how bad it was.
Only 0.11 percent of the greenhouse effect is caused by humans? ... and the Kyoto treaty would only put a small dent in this virtually non-existent amount? Why have I not heard this on the news? How is it possible that all these environmental “scientists” don’t know this? It's just ridiculous that the media and government make this sound like the end of the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Solitary Poet
Committee Member
Post #4553
Joined: 29 Jun 2004
Posts: 455
Total Words: 63,024
Average words per post: 138.51
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-08-04 20:04
|
|
| Politics: Patriot |
Country: Evil Empire |
|
| WARNING FOR BIG BROTHER!! |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Big Brother, I’ve been posting your articles on Global Worming on every message board I visit and I just thought I would worn you since my signature on every other message board I am a member of besides this one is a banner/link to your Web-site.   
_________________
Why I don’t believe in “world peace”, by S. Poet
World peace would inevitably lead to lethargy of the human race and it’s eventual extinction. It’s adversity that fuels change; chaos is what moves things forward. It is not religion that fuels war, but opinion and individuality that drive people into conflict.
As long as humans are free to think and disagree there will be conflict and war. The individuality and uniqueness of free thought, that form the mote of the soul, are the causes of war. To end war you must destroy the human soul, you must cease to be human.
If there is nothing left to fight for, there is nothing left to live for. World peace is suicide.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #4564
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Thu 2004-08-05 04:59
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| Re: WARNING FOR BIG BROTHER!! |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Solitary Poet wrote: |
| Big Brother, I’ve been posting your articles on Global Worming on every message board I visit and I just thought I would worn you since my signature on every other message board I am a member of besides this one is a banner/link to your Web-site. |
Spread the gospel, my brothers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #6747
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-10-02 18:01
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Hmm. Personally, I think that people are completely on the wrong track. It seems unlikely that fossil-fuel use will ever make much of a difference, considering that we are hurtling towards peak production of oil and we can't seem to make much of a dent in the environment. My concern is more in acid rain and resource depletion, which the media constantly ignores. Both acid rain and resource depletion are documented, and scientific.
What I worry about is the effect of possible mass-coal usage to supplement dwindling oil supplies.
Just a question- why are the polar ice-caps melting?
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #6751
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sat 2004-10-02 23:05
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| One Of The Few wrote: |
Just a question- why are the polar ice-caps melting? |
Becasue they're made of ice.
ba-dum-dum
But seriously folks...
There has been an increase in temperature, but it is not as great as some have claimed. It also interesting to note that ice caps are melting on Mars as well. All of this is most likely caused by the aforementioned increase in solar output, coupled with humanity's meager contributions to CO2 levels.
But the point is that none of it is out of the ordinary ... minor fluctuations such as this have been occurring since the dawn of time. (see the post which started this whole thread)
The sky is not falling. Kyoto need not apply.
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
One Of The Few
Minister of Truth
Post #6763
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 3259
Total Words: 460,056
Average words per post: 141.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-10-03 11:59
|
|
| Politics: Atheist |
Country: Scotland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
I was just making sure. The last time that I took something for granted resulted in a slap in the face and one lost girlfriend. You can still see sense, however, in becoming less fossil fuel dependant? This would result in a stronger United State that was less inclined to metaphorically sodomising Middle Eastern countries (sorry about the prolix, but I'm doing an essay right now on literary technique and can't quite seem to undo the mindset).
_________________
If you can't say what you mean then you'll never mean what you say
God holds no fears
Death no worries
And while good is readily attainable
Evil is readily endurable |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RAK
Minster of Plenty
Post #6767
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 1689
Total Words: 320,480
Average words per post: 189.75
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Sun 2004-10-03 13:58
|
|
| Politics: Socialist |
Country: Ireland |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
Not just a stronger United States, but a more efficient one. And add Europe to that, and soon you have your Eurasian and Oceanic superstates. Hello Oligarchy.
If the United States is to become more efficient, so must the rest of the world. Some of that prosperity could go into Africa, South America and so on. Keep the whole world on a level pegging and there aren't going to be any ruling countries. However, this can be done without regression. (Had to add that. Protects me from the backlash from the people who desperately want to call me a Luddite.)
_________________
"Rejection of technology ruins a good mind." - RAK
* * * * * * * * * *
INTERNET NEWS SERVICES
[ Online Radio Resources:
RTE: www.rte.ie
BBC: www.bbc.co.uk ]
[ The Irish Times Online: www.ireland.com ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Post #6810
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-10-05 05:59
|
|
| Politics: Very Interested |
Country: Canada |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| Pig Farmer wrote: |
| Global warming is indeed a natural thing. Heating up by .5 degrees is not a large increase. |
True, but if it keeps doing that it can be significant.
| Pig Farmer wrote: |
| The press will give you as much confusing and contradictory information as possible so as to discourage you from finding the real story on your own. It's been going like this for a long time, and it will only get worse. |
Well that cuts both ways. Meaning the corporates have their biased media and scientists have their environment. I'd choose the knowledgable and cautious scientists (who feel forced to make bold claims to get ANY attention to a looming crisis); than over people who couldn't be bothered to look much farther than their quarterly reports.
| Big Brother wrote: |
| So don't you think it's odd that somebody would release a study and not include all the available data? As you can see, the temperature regularly oscillates. |
It does oscillate... and as you can plainly see it is oscillating to the red.
Since you seem to be in the mood for research, and your so gun ho to have lots of facts out on the table, could you find me the atmospheric levels of CO2 for the past 1000 years. Thanks.
| Steven Milloy wrote: |
| Hardly. About 95 percent of the greenhouse effect — the atmospheric warming due to the trapping of solar energy that makes life possible on Earth — is due to water vapor, 99.999 percent of which is of natural origin. |
The guy lost a big chunk of credibility with that quip. Given our huge population, our appetite for arible land, and our love affair with wasting water (because we currently have so much of it, which is changing rapidly) in watering that land... that statement is misleading. Certainly it is a small percentage when compared to what the sun can do with lakes, rivers and oceans; but we are compounding the problem with our aggressive agriculture.
In conclusion it should be said that yes global warming doesn't appear to be a crisis. However it would be prudent to consider that we are a very arrogant and ignorant species. Fundamentally we do not know how our activities will impact the Earth. Perhaps the Earth will enter a cooling phase and largely cancel out our reckless activities... alternatively it could warm up and compound them several fold.
Additionally this global warming trend is the beginning of something; not the end. It is a preview of what is to come. If we ignore it we guarantee ourselves a harder time ahead if something NEEDS to be done about it. The scary part is it might already be too late... and the steam engine of global warming has slowly pulled out of the station and is ready to pick up speed. Not that we would notice... after all we apparently don't live long enough to care. Yay US!
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #8665
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-11-30 20:27
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| Pig Farmer wrote: |
| Global warming is indeed a natural thing. Heating up by .5 degrees is not a large increase. |
True, but if it keeps doing that it can be significant.
|
Yes. Trendlines can be scary. But is there any justification for applying them to an oscillating system?
Yes... our production of CO2 is rising on a predictable scale, but since CO2 seems to be a rather small part of the equation we can’t solely base our predictions of global temperature on this one small factor.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| Big Brother wrote: |
| So don't you think it's odd that somebody would release a study and not include all the available data? As you can see, the temperature regularly oscillates. |
It does oscillate... and as you can plainly see it is oscillating to the red.
Since you seem to be in the mood for research, and your so gun ho to have lots of facts out on the table, could you find me the atmospheric levels of CO2 for the past 1000 years. Thanks.
|
source - "To what extent should the answers generated from such models be trusted? Consider this: if there are a dozen processes which we need to understand, and we only grasp each process within an error of 20 percent, the sum-total of the error adds to more than 200 percent! That is, if we now state that the content of carbon dioxide in the air so many million years ago had to be X, the true answer could be anywhere between 3 times X (200% more than stated) and X divided by 3 (200% less). Even if we make the reasonable assumption that half of the errors will cancel, we still get roughly a factor of two error on either side of the uncertainty statement. Thus, at the present state of knowledge, computing the answers will get us ballpark estimates and overall trends but not much more. Now you can appreciate why the range of errors plotted in the figure above are so large. "
This site attempts to show no correlation between atmospheric CO2 and climate change...
source - "The gray bars at the top correspond to periods when Earth's climate was relatively cool; the white spaces between them correspond to warm modes"
And this relates to that last graph...
Half a Billion Years of CO2 and Climate
| From http://www.co2science.org/journal/2002/v5n19c2.htm |
If the truth be told, however, a simple visual examination of the author's plot of CO2 and climate vs. time clearly indicates that the three most striking peaks in the atmospheric CO2 record occur either totally or partially within periods of time when earth's climate was relatively cool. Hence, not only is there no proof for the climate-alarmist contention that higher CO2 concentrations tend to warm the planet, there is evidence in this study to suggest that just the opposite may be true.
|
Well this is interesting... we have one graph which shows CO2 and global temperature changing hand-in-hand, and another graph that shows no correlation at all. What the hell?
High Temperatures with Low CO2
| From globalwarming.org |
High Temperatures with Low CO2; Solar Magnetism and Global Warming; Alaska Entering a Cold Spell
Cooler Heads Coalition
June 10, 1999
High Temperatures with Low CO2
Scientists are still uncertain about the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations on the earth’s temperature, although it is generally thought that higher concentrations of CO2 will increase global temperatures and vice versa. Recent studies have cast doubt on that hypothesis, however. In the March 12 issue of Science researchers showed, using ice core samples, that during three deglaciations temperature rises occurred before higher CO2 levels.
A new study published in Paleoceanography (June 1999) finds that CO2 concentrations were very low during the Miocene Climatic Optimum of about 14.5-17 million years ago, a period that experienced extremely high global temperatures that were about 6 degrees C higher than present.
It has been thought that the high Miocene temperatures were caused by a combination of high CO2 levels and changes in the ocean. But the new study presents evidence that the CO2 levels were about 180-290 parts per million by volume, compared to the current level of 360 ppmv. The low levels of CO2 persisted throughout the entire Climatic Optimum and began to rise in concert with a global cooling and expansion of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet that occurred at about 12.5-14 million years ago (Nature, May 27, 1999).
Solar Magnetism and Global Warming
Evidence that the Sun plays a major role in climate change continues to mount, casting doubt on the CO2-global warming link. A new study in Nature (June 3, 1999) has found that the Sun’s magnetism has increased dramatically over the last one hundred years. The researchers, according to a commentary article in the same issue, "use records of geomagnetic activity, monitored in England and Australia since the nineteenth century, to show that the weak general magnetic field on the Sun has more than doubled over the past 100 years."
The researchers note that the solar wind "drags some magnetic flux out of the Sun to fill the heliosphere with a weak interplanetary magnetic field." These fields block cosmic rays that contain charged ion particles that contribute to the formation of ice crystals and water drops in the atmosphere, increasing cloud cover. A reduction in cosmic ray influence reduces cloud cover, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth.
The Sun’s general magnetism is also related to its brightness, although this is not well understood. Moreover, sunspots generate strong magnetic fields that also correspond to greater solar luminosity. These two types of magnetic fields appear to have different sources, but, "it is curious that the general level of both fields has increased by about the same degree over the last 100 years, suggesting some hidden commonality." These phenomena lead to a more vigorous Sun that is about 0.1 percent brighter.
The increase of solar magnetism has been about 131 percent over the last 91 years. From 1964 to 1996 the Sun’s magnetism has increase by 41 percent. This brightening has occurred during the same time as the measured surface warming experienced on Earth.
Alaska Entering a Cold Spell
Warmer temperatures in Alaska over the last few years have been cited as evidence of global warming. But as with other types of anecdotal evidence no research has linked Alaska’s warming spell with greenhouse gases. Now scientists believe that the warming period is a result of a natural 25-year cycle that causes climatic conditions in Alaska to swing back and forth between cold and warm periods.
The recurring weather cycle is called the Pacific (inter) Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and scientists believe that Alaska has "just finished roughly 25 years of good fishing, warmer ocean temperatures, early ice pack melt-offs and fairly mild winters." Now Alaskans can "look forward to about 25 years of gray summers, harsh winters, poor fish returns and a lingering ice pack." In fact, it has already begun. Salmon fishing in Bristol Bay has deteriorated significantly in the last two years, water temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska have cooled this year and the melting of the Arctic ice pack is long overdue. Similar conditions existed in the 1960s with very harsh winters.
According to scientists at the University of Washington’s Joint Institute for the Study of Atmosphere and Oceans, the 25-year pattern can be traced back 300 years. The PDO also influences the pattern of salmon returns. When salmon returns are high in Alaska they are low in Washington and Oregon, and vice versa. In 1915, for example, "Bristol Bay salmon returns were abysmal when Washington and Oregon had one of the best salmon fishing years in history," and "in 1939, the Bristol Bay catch was regarded as one of the greatest in history, while Washington and Oregon recorded one of the worst" (Anchorage Daily News, June 7, 1999).
Etc.
On May 26 Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D- Cal.) submitted an amendment to the House Science Committee that is virtually identical to the Knollenberg Amendment that prohibited federal agencies from implementing the Kyoto Protocol prior to Senate ratification.
A certain amount of confusion surrounds the amendment, however. Lofgren, a proponent of the Kyoto Protocol, states in a press release that, "The House and Senate have already agreed to adhere to the Kyoto language. Yet as originally drafted, H.R. 1743 would have undercut that commitment. My amendment simply reiterates that commitment, allowing the EPA to continue to work to limit greenhouse gases."
Lofgren also argues that, "we have agreed to reduce emissions in line with the Protocol. Such action is vital no only for the health of the world environment, but also to make us ready to ratify the Protocol if and when developing countries meet emissions standards."
|
So… Does decreased CO2 cause ice ages, or do ice ages cause decreased levels of CO2?.. or is there any connection at all? I’m afraid I don’t have the answer. The ice ages appear to be part of an oscillating system … but I don’t know what would cause CO2 levels to oscillate on their own. Solar output, however, is an oscillating system – so my guess that is the Sun which is responsible for these shenanigans.
-----------------------------------------------------
| RoyBoy wrote: |
| Steven Milloy wrote: |
| Hardly. About 95 percent of the greenhouse effect — the atmospheric warming due to the trapping of solar energy that makes life possible on Earth — is due to water vapor, 99.999 percent of which is of natural origin. |
The guy lost a big chunk of credibility with that quip. Given our huge population, our appetite for arible land, and our love affair with wasting water (because we currently have so much of it, which is changing rapidly) in watering that land... that statement is misleading. Certainly it is a small percentage when compared to what the sun can do with lakes, rivers and oceans; but we are compounding the problem with our aggressive agriculture.
In conclusion it should be said that yes global warming doesn't appear to be a crisis. However it would be prudent to consider that we are a very arrogant and ignorant species. Fundamentally we do not know how our activities will impact the Earth. Perhaps the Earth will enter a cooling phase and largely cancel out our reckless activities... alternatively it could warm up and compound them several fold.
Additionally this global warming trend is the beginning of something; not the end. It is a preview of what is to come. If we ignore it we guarantee ourselves a harder time ahead if something NEEDS to be done about it. The scary part is it might already be too late... and the steam engine of global warming has slowly pulled out of the station and is ready to pick up speed. Not that we would notice... after all we apparently don't live long enough to care. Yay US! |
I agree that we should monitor the situation... just I believe we should survey the night sky in search of comets on a crash course to Earth.
But in both cases, I have to wonder if there is really anything we could to avert an impending disaster. If we ever were to detect a comet is headed for Earth, there really isn't much we could do about besides "duck and cover" -- despite what Bruce Willis seems to believe.
And in the same vein, if solar output starts to decrease and a new Ice age emerges -- or if Solar output increases and starts to turn Alaska into a tropical paradise, is there really anything we can do to stop it?
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2men
Junior Spy
Post #8674
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 49
Total Words: 4,917
Average words per post: 100.35
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Tue 2004-11-30 23:56
|
|
| Politics: Ingsoc |
Country: Not Listed |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
quite, quite
The poles are entirely different.
The south pole was a continent of incredible mass that is glaciated.
The north pole was an iced ocean surrounded by massive continents.
The north pole is turning into a gaseous slurply and releasing fresh water into the oceans currents, like the gulf stream.
Permafrost is giving way and causing a breakdown for radioactivity. I'm sure some geek will stumble onto a 117th element due to that one
Meanwhile, chunks of ice the size of trinidad are breaking from the southern quotient. Emperor penquins tend to trip over meteorites these days.
Change is good. And it is sudden.
Urban bunnies should not feel so guilty of their carbon dioxide. BB is correct in his LOUD assessment of the situation, where politics is concerned.
Still, I have no desire to be in a NYC subway being dramatically transformed into an oceanic sewer while the planet decides to correct levels of gas. Regardless the levels and layers of the atmosphere.
Oceans will continue to rise into the 21st century, as they have been since IGY. They come and go, subjected to the shelf.
The sunken salt, is the thing that is dissolving in oceanic currents.
The salt with ice crystals is the thing that will snowball into the century. The spice is the ice. That's crystal clear.
Even with the "Kyoto accord" humans will not be able to stop the ice.
Global warming of the planet more than 2 degrees, regardless the "cause" will surely teach you to be a snow bunny, very quickly. I'm positively looking forward to it, as I count the solar flares.
You just have to decide wear you want to be.
Me? I enjoy minus degrees for some cross country skiing. The energy is free, and I enjoy raw fish.
I hate crowds of blobby flesh of humans. And working my butt off so I can own a "car" is well, you know, being a silly fucking pig.
Rant all you want of there being no "global warming". You're all such a larger gasy compound now, in a shrinking dish. And it would appear, by various examples of your terrible marketing, quite disposable without having to lift a finger. Or is that a fin or paw?
Mangled fucking Media presentations
quite, quite
_________________
We'd rather live in a cage as long as it's comfortable. Risk is unspeakable; and it is simply ludicrous to respect the enemy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Brother
Administrator
Post #8691
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 3002
Total Words: 1,168,805
Average words per post: 389.34
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-12-01 03:24
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Syndicalist |
Country: American Empire |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
| 2men wrote: |
quite, quite
The poles are entirely different.
The south pole was a continent of incredible mass that is glaciated.
The north pole was an iced ocean surrounded by massive continents.
The north pole is turning into a gaseous slurply and releasing fresh water into the oceans currents, like the gulf stream.
Permafrost is giving way and causing a breakdown for radioactivity. I'm sure some geek will stumble onto a 117th element due to that one
Meanwhile, chunks of ice the size of trinidad are breaking from the southern quotient. Emperor penquins tend to trip over meteorites these days...
|
There is a line from Billy Madison that comes to mind...
_________________
"The Aim of an Argument ... should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
"It is often argued that religion is valuable because it makes men good, but even if this were true it would not be a proof that religion is true. That would be an extension of pragmatism beyond endurance. Santa Claus makes children good in precisely the same way, and yet no one would argue seriously that the fact proves his existence. The defense of religion is full of such logical imbecilities." - H. L. Mencken
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attis The Bunny
Committee Leader
Post #8701
Joined: 06 Nov 2004
Posts: 647
Total Words: 87,486
Average words per post: 135.22
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Wed 2004-12-01 20:12
|
|
| Politics: Libertarian-Capitalist |
Country: United States |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
The pretti coloured pictures...
All in all, the trend in global warming isn't as severe as they projected but it still observed. My question would be how soon can we break these energy monopolies that are delibrately slowing the change over to non-greenhouse gas producing sources? All in all, even nuclear energy for mass power use would be better than oil and coal burning plants[which make up the majority of the US' energy production]. But it's not just companies against transitioning fossil fuels out, it's unions in various trades. From oil-drillers and operators to coal miners, truckers and so forth. Everyone has a stake in this on both sides. What I contend is that in some way a transitional commitee either governmentally-manned or oversight is necessary to form an objective plan of action to change over. And I think the biggest point also to be made is not to ignore the developing countries that don't have the shear leverage of capital and resources to change over. There must be a bit of balance if future problems are to be adverted. And one thing it clear to me, atleast, is that acting hysterical over it isn't the solution but aggitation to the problem. 
-- Bridget
_________________
The old appeals to racial, sexual, and religious chauvinism, to rabid nationalist fervor are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing that sees the Earth as a single organism and recognizes that an organism at war with itself is doomed. -- Carl Sagan
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RoyBoy
Committee Member
Post #8753
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 406
Total Words: 73,550
Average words per post: 181.16
PoliMatch: n/a
|
|
Posted: Fri 2004-12-03 00:24
|
|
| Politics: Very Interested |
Country: Canada |
|
| |
Post Rating: 0.0/4 (0 votes cast) |
|
|
This graphic it top notch Big Brother.
But with your ocsillating biosphere don't cha see the danger?
We have pre-spiked the atmosphere with CO2!
When that natural spike happens (probably volcano)...
it could be the end of all things! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!
OTOH the cycle of ice ages is certainly reassuring. 
| Big Brother wrote: |
I agree that we should monitor the situation... just I believe we should survey the night sky in search of comets on a crash course to Earth.
But in both cases, I have to wonder if there is really anything we could to avert an impending disaster. If we ever were to detect a comet is headed for Earth, there really isn't much we could do about besides "duck and cover" -- despite what Bruce Willis seems to believe.
And in the same vein, if solar output starts to decrease and a new Ice age emerges -- or if Solar output increases and starts to turn Alaska into a tropical paradise, is there really anything we can do to stop it? |
Within a few decades and the emergance of a molecular economy, I think so. 
_________________
"Money obfuscates truth for aggravating periods of time." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Search
Log in
FAQ
Usergroups
Memberlist
World War V
Medals
PoliMatch
Stats
