posted
These guys have no idea what's really going to happen. One degree or three over a hundred years? I'm really not that worried. Ofcourse, preaching that the global average will only increase by a degree or three in a century won't sell many movies... And that's what this is all about... isn't it
posted
For the first time, scientists are confident enough to project a 3C rise on the average global daily temperature by the end of this century if no action is taken to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
3 C is 5.4 degrees fahrenheit....
uh, that's pretty bad...
4 degrees this past July in the midsouth was bad...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
i have a hilarious video on global warming on my myspace page. if you click the link below you can go see it. its will ferrel imitating president bush...its pretty good.
posted
Glass, they are trying to predict weather a hundred years from now and asking us to believe them when they can't get tomorrow's weather right. Point blank; they haven't any idea what the average global temp will be tomorrow, let alone in a hundred years.
IP: Logged |
posted
From what I read, many believe the Government caused Global Warming with the HAARP PROJECT. Not only that, we're supposed to be able to controll the weather and have incredible weapons in developement.
"The Pentagon document constitutes a convenient cover-up. Not a word is mentioned about its main weather warfare program: The High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokona, Alaska --jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy."
'However, several researchers claim HAARP poses many dangers, including blowing thirty-mile holes in the Earth's upper atmosphere. They also warn of possible disruption of the subtle magnetic energies of our Earth and ourselves."
posted
They are predicting with very great confidence the overall global climate condidtions.
This is not stuff that depends on the daily fronts and temperatures and winds to see if it might rain tomorrow, but OVERALL CLIMATE of the WHOLE world.
If you make the simple minded mistake of confusing local day-to-day weather predictions with global climate predictions, you can't possibly understand or accept the facts, because you have already cast your reasoning into the wrong area of science. You then will, like the super-uneducated dubya, be hopelessly confused and be willing to claim it isn't reliable, since those day-to-day forcast are specifically limited to NOT predicting climate change and cannot, by design, predict global climate conditions, just local "probable" conditions over a few days time.
These results are NOT fodder for political propaganda and shouldn't be treated as such by novice scientist and non-scientist and, particularly, by uneducated politicians, whose leanings are to get the equally unqualified masses to vote thier way.
Have you never noticed that those that run about claiming these predictions are wrong NEVER offer any evidence for their claims, just claims of skepticism? They can't, since there are no bases for that claim. It is hopelessly unscientific and seriously irresponsible..
IP: Logged |
posted
EXAMPLES OF GLOBAL COOLING IN THE AFTERMATH OF HISTORIC ERUPTIONS:
Observational evidence shows a clear correlation between historic eruptions and subsequent years of cold climate conditions. Four well-known historic examples are described below.
LAKI (1783) -- The eastern U.S. recorded the lowest-ever winter average temperature in 1783-84, about 4.8OC below the 225-year average. Europe also experienced an abnormally severe winter. Benjamin Franklin suggested that these cold conditions resulted from the blocking out of sunlight by dust and gases created by the Iceland Laki eruption in 1783. The Laki eruption was the largest outpouring of basalt lava in historic times. Franklin's hypothesis is consistent with modern scientific theory, which suggests that large volumes of SO2 are the main culprit in haze-effect global cooling.
TAMBORA (1815) -- Thirty years later, in 1815, the eruption of Mt. Tambora, Indonesia, resulted in an extremely cold spring and summer in 1816, which became known as the year without a summer. The Tambora eruption is believed to be the largest of the last ten thousand years. New England and Europe were hit exceptionally hard. Snowfalls and frost occurred in June, July and August and all but the hardiest grains were destroyed. Destruction of the corn crop forced farmers to slaughter their animals. Soup kitchens were opened to feed the hungry. Sea ice migrated across Atlantic shipping lanes, and alpine glaciers advanced down mountain slopes to exceptionally low elevations.
KRAKATAU (1883) -- Eruption of the Indonesian volcano Krakatau in August 1883 generated twenty times the volume of tephra released by the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. Krakatau was the second largest eruption in history, dwarfed only by the eruption of neighboring Tambora in 1815 (see above). For months after the Krakatau eruption, the world experienced unseasonably cool weather, brilliant sunsets, and prolonged twilights due to the spread of aerosols throughout the stratosphere. The brilliant sunsets are typical of atmospheric haze. The unusual and prolonged sunsets generated considerable contemporary debate on their origin. For a more thorough description of the 1883 eruption, see Krakatau.
PINATUBO (1991) -- Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines on June 15, 1991, and one month later Mt. Hudson in southern Chile also erupted. The Pinatubo eruption produced the largest sulfur oxide cloud this century. The combined aerosol plume of Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Hudson diffused around the globe in a matter of months. The data collected after these eruptions show that mean world temperatures decreased by about 1 degree Centigrade over the subsequent two years. This cooling effect was welcomed by many scientists who saw it as a counter-balance to global warming.
IP: Logged |
posted
Another favorite tactic, is claiming global warming when your margin of error is greater than the amount of increase in temperature you are claiming occured....
quote:The group found a warming trend of 0.16°F (0.10°C) per decade in the layer between about 1.5 and 7.5 miles (2.4–12.1 kilometers) high, compared to a trend of 0.02°F (0.01°C) in the previously published University of Alabama in Huntsville analysis. Both estimates have a margin of error of plus-or-minus nearly 0.2°F (up to 0.12°C)
There is nothing in the global warming predictions that discounts the fact that huge volumes of volcanic matter cast into the athmosphere will lower near term temperatures, but it is clearly NOT an eon-term alteration of climate, only a temperory alteration of far larger forces.
Similar local effects can be seen in shorter term climatic events. For example, today the high temperatures here will not reach the 90s because of clouds and rain, but seasonal temperatures for early September usually bring high 90s and 100+ here. Clearly, it isn't a climate altering event, just a pecularly, as it relates to the climate.
IP: Logged |
posted
When global warming supporters and scientists figure out the exact mechanisms that caused and thawed the last couple ice ages, then I will be more inclined to believe them when they claim we are going to burn the earth up.....
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: So, what is your point?
There is nothing in the global warming predictions that discounts the fact that huge volumes of volcanic matter cast into the atmosphere will lower near term temperatures, but it is clearly NOT an eon-term alteration of climate, only a temporary alteration of far larger forces.
Similar local effects can be seen in shorter term climatic events. For example, today the high temperatures here will not reach the 90s because of clouds and rain, but seasonal temperatures for early September usually bring high 90s and 100+ here. Clearly, it isn't a climate altering event, just a pecularly, as it relates to the climate.
My point with the volcanic post was to show that there are more dangerous and severe climactic changes that can occur quickly and we should be a bit more concerned about them than global warming. Sure they are "short term" but what would the world do if a large volcanic eruption occurred that caused the average temperature of the earth to cool 5degF for 3-5 years? Snow in June/July? IMO, global warming, while a possible concern, should be the least of our worries at the moment.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
so? we should continue polluting the way we are cuz it doesn't matter?
we should teach our children that it's OK to frivolously abuse our environment and leave a mess for future generations to worry about because it's a "bargain" today?
how about stuff we can prove? like the water quality conditions in the lower Missisippi?
i can't eat any fresh water fish down here.... (unless they are just a couple months old)
it's a crime, it's ongoing, and? you ain't gonna believe what these guys do at the end of the growing season...
they burn their feilds...
after they have spent all spring and summer spraying them? they then burn the stubble which releases whatever residue into the air...
i am talking about mile squares of controlled burns..
you can see the smoke plumes from ten miles away
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, you put words in my mouth....yet again....
I didn't say we shouldn't be concerned about possible global warming or pollution, rather that there are other climactic concerns that could come much quicker and prove far deadlier in the short term that we should be more worried about.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
This global warming stuff is due in large part to the weakening of the earth's magnetic field over the last three hundred years. It's looking like we are coming up on a pole flip. This will expose us to more radiation from the sun and will increase our average temperature. Blaming this all on cars or mississippi field burns is myopic at best. There is also a solar system wide warming of all planets. Seems we are not alone in our warming. I hope we don't blame Bush for global warming of Saturn.
IP: Logged |
posted
i asked a question, i didn't put words in anybodies mouth...
how does one go about effecting change and concern?
as far as the MS burning? i wasn't implying it's adding to global wamring...
there is no implying about it..
the watershed down here is toxic...
it's not an "if"...
and the main reason it's so bad here is that it's been going on here longer and with more intensity...
it's coming to the rest of the world too..
most of this polution is just pesticides...
and it's not just bugs.. before cotton gets picked? they spray it with defoliant... yup.... DuPont™ FreeFall™ SC cotton defoliant is used for removal of leaves prior to harvesting.
and fungicides too...
the residue from all this is in the smoke...
the use of genetically modified crops is DECREASING the amount of chemicals that need to be applied...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
The 4-5degF increase in temperature over the next 100 years from global warming is still easily within the range of normal variation in the earths climate, if you look back further than ~11,000 years.
Anyone see a pattern in the chart above? Who can tell me what caused the last spike 125,000 years ago before humans and their SUV's were around pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
Glass I imagine that I'll be living in Alaska at that point.. not real worried about it. Oh.. how you liking the cold front that came through?
IP: Logged |
posted
when you guys pull the ancient temp charts? you are showing thousand year changes... not hundred year changes..
Anyone see a pattern in the chart above? Who can tell me what caused the last spike 125,000 years ago before humans and their SUV's were around pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?
i dunno aboutthe 125,000 one, buthte 11,00 year one was probably an underwater landslide off the coast of what is now Norway.. it disturbed a large methane hydrate deposit.. methane is a powerful greeen house gas too..
it would be a shame if we had another event like that on top of what we are adding now..
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, imagine a climate change over the course of a year where you have snow in June/July that lasts for 3-5 years.
the thing is? you never know for sure what is gonna come out of the volcanoes, and a volcoanoe on the sea floor could totally change the world climate at anytime...
it still doesn't excuse being pigs....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
Glass, you know damned well these scientists are bought and paid for by extensions of the communist party. They have no concern for saving us from anything. All they want is to cripple our economy. The easiest way to do that is to take away our ability to transport ourselves with ease. Sadly there are many people in this country stupid enough or not learned enough to believe what they hear coming from Al Gore's mouth. What we are seeing in our global climate is the result of natural cycles in the earth.. We are seeing very long cycles and the harmonics inside. We are also seeing our magnetic field weaken faster than it has ever done in hundreds of thousands of years. We are also seeing all the planets in our solar system warming. The CO2 that we add from our industrial civilisation has some effect to be sure.. but that effect is minute and is nothing to fret over.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: when you guys pull the ancient temp charts? you are showing thousand year changes... not hundred year changes..
Glass, trend is important. Using a short data set (i.e. ~11,000 - 100 years) is not taking into account the long term natural trend of the earth.
As one who reads stock charts, I'm sure you understand why you need to use long term data sets.
quote:i dunno about the 125,000 one, buthte 11,00 year one was probably an underwater landslide off the coast of what is now Norway.. it disturbed a large methane hydrate deposit.. methane is a powerful greeen house gas too..
it would be a shame if we had another event like that on top of what we are adding now..
That's exactly my point Glass, we don't know what caused the spike 125,000 years ago.
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: have you guys read "State of Fear" by Crichton yet?
the issue really comes down to how you are gonna live...
it's not a question of "can we make our economy work" but "how we are gonna make our economy work"..
face it, bush and cheney show no "artistry" in living....
No, I haven't read it yet. I will add it to my book list. I agree humans live like wasteful pigs, and in all reality, one cannot honestly argue that we are not having a negative effect on the earth's natural orders and cycles.
However, I'm just not sure how much humans are to blame for the latest global warming trend. Long term charts and information suggests this is mearly the bottom of the latest cycle. To suggest we are the primary cause for the latest global warming trend is IMO, self centered and egocentric.... Humans always think they are bigger and more powerful than they really are.....
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that we are only going to settle this debate 100 years from now. I suggest a bet.
I'll pony up a third of my portfollio that 100 years from now global warming predictions prove valid. (The bet is void of course if significant environmental warming factors such as vehicle emmissions are altered.)
Whatdoyasay RD and NR? Want to take me up on it? Better start investing in longevity vaccines.
Seriously though...what's the point in fighting? If there is a potential for a global scale problem...why avoid taking steps to change it? Even if it is at this point hypothetical....didn't we learn from Katrina that it is good to plan during the hypothetical phase rather than wait until it actually happens?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
posted
To suggest we are the primary cause for the latest global warming trend is IMO, self centered and egocentric.
that is the basis of Crichtons book too..
the issue of "living green" should be about creating a lifestyle that is just (what?) better?
is it really good that we work 40 miles from where we live? ... we just went that way because we COULD....
the US had a plan to create a huge economy after WW2 and it has worked, now? it's time to begin to make that economy into something better...
"going green" is not a "death-blow" to the economy... the "deathblow" is actually to the dinosaurs of that economy..
the dot-com craze? that really spooked the "old money" they had to let a few "nouveaux riche" inside the gates cuz of that... that's not good... it makes them "less rich by comparison"
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Glass, you know damned well these scientists are bought and paid for by extensions of the communist party. They have no concern for saving us from anything. All they want is to cripple our economy. The easiest way to do that is to take away our ability to transport ourselves with ease. Sadly there are many people in this country stupid enough or not learned enough to believe what they hear coming from Al Gore's mouth.
Uh....what? R.D. Could you explain your conspiracy theory a bit more please?
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
I guess I'm not making myself clear... I'm not suggesting that global warming isn't occurring, but rather that we can't really prove humans are 100% to blame for the latest global warming because we don't even understand the natural mechanisms or cycles that cause global warming/cooling.
Also, I'm not suggesting we shouldn't try to lessen the negative effect we do have on the earth, but rather that we realize we probably have minimal effect on the earth and it's cycles and plan for the possibility of global COOLING as well as global warming.
While charts going back millions of years suggest a global warming is in the works, charts going back 100,000's of years suggest we are in for a global cooling.
I agree, though, major climate change, IMO, will only be proven through time and any prediction of dramatic climate change, whether cooling or warming, at the present time, is hypothetical at best.
[ September 03, 2006, 13:50: Message edited by: NaturalResources ]
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
IMO, the issue of climate change is genuine, and something humans need to study. I do agree with you however, that while the global warming issue is legit, there are some who use it as a means to try to cripple the U.S. and destroy our economy. It is the same with any issue, there are always extremists on both sides....
-------------------- One is never completely useless. One can always serve as a bad example.
IP: Logged |
posted
ND....no, I understand what you are saying.
I just don't understand when you are going to think that we know *enough* to take action.
Perhaps we aren't the major cause for this warming pattern...but until we remove ourselves as a factor we won't be able to prove or dis-prove that theory will we?
And to R.D. I don't think I have heard anyone saying don't drive from the environmental movement. I DO think I've heard folks saying car pool, don't accept vehicles that are gas guzzlers, and spend money on research to find more viable alternatives. Where does that cripple our economy?
Perhaps you are speaking of manditory clean regulations for our coal burning and other power sources.
Think of how much money has been spent on *security* for our nation in the last five years. Not just on the federal level but on the individual business level as well. Has that crippled our economy despite its negligable results? No. It has added costs but our economy is far from stagnant. Fact is, these regulations would increase spending, create jobs, and open a whole new sector in research and development. There will be costs...but there will be gains as well for enterprising individuals. As is always the case with ingenuity and advancement.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
