cliby

I really must be getting too old for this forum. There have been a rash of threads lately that quickly take a tone of 'in your face', name calling, insult flinging, not afraid to say anything offensive about ANY group. I guess some find it funny in a jack-*** kind of way. it gets tiring. My fault for reading them I understand, but maybe everyone should just go back on their meds or remember its OK to actually discuss an idea without hating the other voice. I think there is supposed to be a common purpose/vision of this site. Its hard to accept offer help on one thread and be called unamerican or ******* on another by at times the same posters.

My last word on the subject. this is one of my favorite pictures. representational portrait of human activity on earth - we show up as a few seconds on the larger clock - take a snapshot of that small time as post-industrialized. we are having a huge impact in a short amount of time. I like science - I like the spirit of inquiry that wonders what are we doing and what will the effects be, especially since the pace is like nothing seen before (relatively speaking of course). Sure it gets manipulated and always has - doesn't make it less valid.

MOONSTER

I think it's all due to excessive cow farts. Yep, just look it up on google it's a fact. In fact, since Obumba's so eco friendly I think I'll file for a grant to study this phenominon.

RK1

I'm not convinced that elevated CO2 results in higher temps, or that human produced CO2 adds to world temps.

It has been getting cooler since 1998 despite the fact that more humans have been producing more CO2 for the past 11 years.

I think it irrelevant in any case. Liquidoggie is bragging about making my arguments for me. He doesn't realize how right he is.

The USA is less than 5% of world population. The Indians and Chinese communists combined are about 45%. They don't care one whit about CO2 or "global warming" and aren't going to do a damn thing about it.

If a country with 5% of the planet's population stops producing CO2, the only result will be the destruction of that particular country.

Redone

It HAS to. Basic physics. CO2 is transparent to visible light, but partially blocks infrared, aka "heat". The effect has been known for over 100 years, we finally made enough CO2 to make a noticeable difference. About 30,000,000,000,000 tons per year, these days.
This common argument is addressed in post # 19, with the data that proves it wrong. Nice graph, too. 9 of the 10 warmest years in the last 100 were 2000-2008. The 10th was the very unusual year of 1998.
The Chinese are starting to do something about it, with major efforts underway on solar cells and electric cars. More than 90% of India's citizens think the (democratic) government should take action. The world meets at the end of this year to come up with a global plan. Whether or not the outcome will be positive remains to be seen, but we were pretty much the last advanced country to deny the reality of the issue.

Thank you for the civility of your post. Sincerely.

killer5280

Claude Allegre, the "father" of global warming scientists, now thinks it's a scam. There are many, many others who once proselytized for global warming who now have seen the science for what it is.
It's the new religion of pseudoscience.
This topic really isn't worthy of debate it's so transparently phony, but that won't stop the pro global warming juggernaut from taking everything we have in the name of saving the planet. It is such a worthy cause after all. Never mind that proponents of Kyoto long ago acknowledged that those measures would have no effect on "global warming" (or the new PC term-climate change), not to mention that Kyoto exempted so called third world countries like China and India and other major CO2 contributors. Of course the answer (to the true believers) is incrementally more and more and more stringent controls on human activity.
You can put up all the "facts" you want here, but it won't change the truth that this is a scam being forced down our throats to justify colossal, controlling, crushing government.

trinc

http://www.surfacestations.org/


tim

lazn

Yep, most of the measurement tools used in the surface temperature studies have a margin of error of 5 degrees (not .5, five) and they are showing a trending of a .3 or .4 degree increase over the last 35 years.

Real accurate data here.

But I am bored with this thread.

When the SWAT team invades your back yard because you forgot to buy a CO2 license for your BBQ party that weekend, don't blame me. (eventually it will get to this point if the greenies are given their way)

Stevebis1

Redone - this is one of the aspects to the theory that is in question. It does not HAVE to have a measurable affect on the system at all. By itself we know that CO2 absorbs infrared better than O2 or N. But that is one component to a hugely complicated system. It is a question of relative magnitude. There are many other components to this system that we know impact it and likely many more components yet to be discovered.
Historical temperatures were dynamic long before man arrived - I understand that argument is facile, BUT you are suggesting that limiting mans CO2 production will have a measurable, desireable affect on our world. There are no conclusions only correlations that are presented. The science is not close to proving any causation.
This is where the anger from some comes from. Polititions - those in a position to impose change upon us, are making decisions that impact all of our lives over what many believe to be JUNK conclusions.

RCVTR

Bill,
the debate is not about whether humans have an impact on the environment. That is without question and something that we should all be conscious of and do our part to minimize our negative impact.

This is simply a question of whether the combustion of hydrocarbons is responsibe for climate fluctuations, when climates have so obviously always fluctuated. Climatologists can not even come close to modelling it. Never will. Weather models diverge into chaos with no predictive capability after about 2 week's time.

It has become a poitical football and people who choose to believe it completely ignore and dismiss any arguments to the contrary.

CentralCoaster

Unfortunately, you can't separate the politics from the science. Everyone seems to have a stake in it. It's the new religion.

RK1

I was in a foul mood and drank too much brandy yesterday.

I get passionate about some issues in these political threads. Sometimes I get angry and lose my temper.

I apologize for the rough language, insults and cuss words I posted yesterday.

It's my intention not to post that way anymore.

killer5280

I love it when you talk dirty.

L8RGYZ

So is there any reason to think that volcano in Hawaii has an impact on the temperatures recorded there?

Liquidogged

I appreciate that.

Liquidogged

Good point.

Redone

Not correct. Anthony Watts (the weatherman arrives, as predicted) has pictures of weather stations and rhetoric. No data. There is no data showing they're in error, because they're not. The weather stations he focuses on are urban, ones near buildings. Yet urban and rural temperature stations show the same temperature increase. And the data from satellite measurements confirms the data from the ground stations.

Here's another version of the temperature graph. Scientists use measurements from multiple stations to calculate the error in the data. That's the green bars on this graph. Note the improvement in measurement as time goes on. The data these days is easily good to 0.1 degree. Averaging multiple measurements is very effective in reducing error.

Redone

You CAN separate the politics from the science. By separating the qualified scientists from people with political motivations. The guys making political arguments have poor credentials and a lot of rhetoric. No good, non-"cherry-picked" data. We've seen a number of examples of those here; amateur scientists, economists, and a TV weatherman. Some references from political organizations.

Expert climatologists analyze the data. They don't put forth rhetoric. The vast majority of them (and virtually every major scientific organization in the US) agree on two things. We are warming (hopefully that's been demonstrated here), and it's mostly due to us.

This is not religion. It's as solid as science gets.

autoteach

I don't mean to be a dick here. I agree that there should be something done about global warming, or cooling, or forget that **** and lets talk about how the things that we use daily (car, lights, ovens, etc.....) should be more efficient than those of the past, and cleaner. I question this, but there isn't a bureaucrat that is going to be able to make a difference there, its the companies that make the items and the people who use them. BUT>>>>>>>>>



When you place a graph in this text to use it as rock solid data, you should check the scale. The graph on temp shows drastic change because the scale is so small. If you use an oscilloscope at all, you know why this is inconclusive. If you changed the scale to .0000000001 degrees, then humans will be the single greatest downfall of the environment. If you place your scale at 1degree, it doesn't look so bad. All in all, i could give a **** about this thread, other than newish members crying out on there cause.


Redone, what bike(bicycle?) do you own? Or are you here to spread the word?

RK1

Oh Yes. The scientists are immune from politics and earth mother religion.

GLOBAL COOLING!

"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko

Redone

The graph was used to show that this is a historically very rapid change. After cooling a tenth of a degree in about 10,000 years we suddenly shot up about seventh tenths in less than 100. That's weird. And a noticeable change. Two degrees C would cost us big bucks.

BTW, I have a 2002 SH. Red, of course, the fastest color.

Redone

Also from the YouTube video "This (one) article is proof that there was a scientific consensus about global cooling." Flat wrong. This was a few guys speculation in the 1970s. They had no good data, and simply got way more attention in the media than they deserved.

Even in the 1970s, with MUCH less data, the clear majority scientific position was warming. Since then, as the data has accumulated, that majority has become much larger.

Internet article (from 2005) about the 1970s thing from a climatologist, with references:

"The Global Cooling Myth"
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-cooling-myth/

Published scientific journal article (from 2008), with a detailed analysis of the scientific literature of the times, showing the clear majority of papers predicted warming:
Petersen, et al, "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus", Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89:9, pp. 1325-1337.
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?...2008BAMS2370.1

Read it for yourself, don't trust me. The quality is clear. The difference between a flashy YouTube video, and the scientific journal article cited above, is how you separate the political stuff from the scientific.

RK1

Country Boys don't worry too much about CO2.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lVrajX1daU

RK1

Good question! Does Redone have a VTR with more RWHP than a Prius hybrid or a non polluting ChiCom bicycle made in a Chinese city where people choke to death on the street every day due to pollution levels unimaginable to Los Angeles or Pittsburgh in the 1950s

Redone

Both, actually. I pretty much like anything on wheels.

Thanks. Enjoyed that. Beat the crap out of the Gwen Stefani song on the "Global Cooling" video. I had to turn that one down.

RK1

Redone;

I was pretty young but paying attention in 1975. "Media" was three networks, Time and Newsweak, a few big city dailies.

"Global cooling" was a big story. A substantial number of the now older "global warming" alarmists were global cooling alarmists 30+ years ago. I just don't buy it. Either way.


The once honorable environmental movement sold it's *** to the left when it took millions from leftist interest groups and agreed to stop talking about population control and immigration.

nekkid