An Inconvenient Truth

[SilkyJohnson]

the air is less concentrated with oxyge today then it was in the past. says ice core samples. higher concentration of Oxygen in the air is a huge benefit to all life, like humans. how do we get more Oxygen in the air? plants convert CO2 into O, and they can consume up to 3x the CO2 they do right now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XttV2C6B8pU

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Speaking of displaying your ignorance. Heat is the energy behind weather. As the average temperature around the globe rises, storms will be more frequent and of greater intensity (ie. hurricanes and typhons). The debate in the scientific world is whether global warming is casued by human action or part of a geological cycle. The fact that the average global temperature is increasing is well established. Climate models indicate that as the average global temperature rises, weather will become more severe (both colder and hotter). The world is not yet as warm as it was during the 11th century, we still have a ways to go. But when it gets there, I doubt all will be sweetness and light here in Canada as our prairies dry up and become deserts. Northern communites will suffer as the winter road system begins to fail. No doubt we will adapt to these changes and some will even be beneficial. But in the end it will cost money and cause a lot of economic hardship and displacement.

Umm - so that's why things like the fact that the US just had the coldest winter in decades is happened? So in effect we can blame EVERYTHING on Global Warming, including frostbite and cold winters.

Global warming may be happening, but there very little that we can do to prevent it. It is a natural Earth cycle that cannot be stopped. it has happened before and it is happening right now.

Real quick I want to bash on Al Gore and his powerpoint "documentary" that he made. It's kind of sad when someone who lies to us and scares us to death gets an Oscar award. I don't know how people like that can live in fear all their life.

Anyway Mr. Gore stated in his documentary that the oceans will rise 20 feet due to global warming. This is interesting. According to the U.N., who has much more credibility, information, and proof, said that the ultimate maximum the oceans could rise if global warming was occuring was 17 inches.

Now how does a lying politician like Al Gore get the credit that he does?

 

[citylover]

By my count, RH has 5 posts of the same drivel on this subject on this page alone

Proof for the old adage that action is easy, but thought is hard

 

[aznboi9]

It is equally obvious that you know very little about the subject of "climate change" yourself. If Global Warming were happening, the weather would actually get milder, not rougher.

It's obvious that I have a better understanding of it then you do; otherwise, you wouldn't have made that statement. They've never said that Climate Change means milder weather. In fact, earlier in this very thread, you were arguing against the very idea that there would be more extreme weather due to Climate Change. You're so messed up that you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore; you're just making shit up.

I never said that I was an expert. But I'm pretty sure that I have enough of an understanding to know when someone presents an argument that is fallacious, based on an incorrect representation of Climate Change, or is just completely off the mark. Which, I would say encompasses roughly 99% of your arguments that you've posted in here.

Additionally, given that I have to read scientific literature on a fairly regular basis, I also understand that one has to be able to evaluate and differentiate between different levels of evidence as well as credibility of sources when making decisions like this. But you just seem content on only listening to arguments that agree with your own ideas, regardless of the source.

It's pretty clear that you've made up you're mind no matter how much evidence is presented to you in support of Climate Change or how much of your evidence is shown to be completely ridiculous or false. I have a feeling that, fifty years from now, everything that is predicted could turn out to be 100% true and you'd still be sitting at your computer googling internet websites proclaiming “Climate Change isn't settled!”.

Now don't get me wrong. You are free to believe what you want; just admit that you have no rational basis for your decision and that it's purely based on a personal desire to not have to acknowledge that the scientists (or heaven forbid, Gore) could be right. But don't try to tell me that you're refusal is based on science or rational and that it's not based on some political bias against all things “lefty”, some weird personal antagonism against Gore or just a desire to not have to take an evaluation of your own lifestyle; your previous posts in this thread would strongly indicate otherwise.

 

[Bartdude]

Umm - so that's why things like the fact that the US just had the coldest winter in decades is happened? So in effect we can blame EVERYTHING on Global Warming, including frostbite and cold winters.

This little tidbit says it all.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

This little tidbit says it all.

What it says is that these days most everyting is being blamed on GW whether it makes any sense or not.

Forget CO2 as the cause of global warming, now it's floating soot particles that change the chemistry of the air, scientists say, turning regular clouds into towering storm clouds through convection, or rising warm air.

China and India seem to be to the blame for using sulphurous coal.


The study shows that we're still learning how complex the climate is, said David Phillips, Environment Canada's senior climatologist and author of the popular Canadian Weather Trivia Calendar.

"Every time the weather changes, people are very quick to point to the fact that it must be climate change," he said. "It's easy to go to that (explanation). You can be seduced into going there. And yet we also know that changes in the chemistry of the atmosphere can influence changes in climate."

source:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=b6c0d3f9-52de-4c6f-8e92-ab36bb02d9df&k=89291

You see, that is my point, every time the story changes proves that these renowned "scientists" do not really have a handle on the issue at all. Just grasping at straws - ie. trying to get more grants out of yours and mine's pockets. Its not too likely everyone here will grasp that fact.

Soot is not carbon dioxide, it is much larger particulate matter with higher heat retention qualities at a lower level (height) which do not stay in the atmosphere for any great length of time.

So maybe you can prove to me how man made carbon dioxide (not natural) is the cause for accelerating the greenhouse effect to the point where these temperatures are actually responsible for warmer ground temperatures and extreme weather patterns.

What this article is describing is the abnormal weather patterns caused by soot clouds resulting in abnormal global weather, with the soot primarily imported from China and India.

 

[rollerboy]

Speaking of displaying your ignorance. Heat is the energy behind weather. As the average temperature around the globe rises, storms will be more frequent and of greater intensity (ie. hurricanes and typhons). The debate in the scientific world is whether global warming is casued by human action or part of a geological cycle. The fact that the average global temperature is increasing is well established. Climate models indicate that as the average global temperature rises, weather will become more severe (both colder and hotter). The world is not yet as warm as it was during the 11th century, we still have a ways to go. But when it gets there, I doubt all will be sweetness and light here in Canada as our prairies dry up and become deserts. Northern communites will suffer as the winter road system begins to fail. No doubt we will adapt to these changes and some will even be beneficial. But in the end it will cost money and cause a lot of economic hardship and displacement.

Heat is energy in transition. Thermal energy flows from hot to cold. You can have higher temperatures, but if the temperature differences decrease storms will be less violent. You need hot and cold to drive a heat engine.

During the winter, less solar flux reaches the Northern latitudes, temperatures drop, but the temperature gradients increase.

Global warming raises temperatures much more strongly at colder climates than at equatorial regions, hence the temperature range should theoretically narrow.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

It's obvious that I have a better understanding of it then you do;

Additionally, given that I have to read scientific literature on a fairly regular basis,

Seeing as you have to read so much scientific literature on a regular basis, perhaps you could be so kind as to explain this: (please keep it simple because some of us just aren't smart like you).

'Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. "Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated," he maintains. "Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."

The real news from Saint Petersburg -- demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world's oceans -- is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and "will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60" lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.'

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html?source=rss

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0

 

[Tatortot]

By my count, RH has 5 posts of the same drivel on this subject on this page alone

Proof for the old adage that action is easy, but thought is hard

What the hell are you talking about others spewing the same drivel, take a look at your posts, you're quite the hypocrite.

 

[citylover]

The lefties are gettin' serious, this whole climate change

You're so messed up that you don't even know what you're arguing about anymore; you're just making shit up. ...

It's pretty clear that you've made up you're mind no matter how much evidence is presented to you in support of Climate Change or how much of your evidence is shown to be completely ridiculous or false. I have a feeling that, fifty years from now, everything that is predicted could turn out to be 100% true and you'd still be sitting at your computer googling internet websites proclaiming “Climate Change isn't settled!”.

you've pretty much hit the nail on the head for the village idiot.

except in 50 years he'll simply say "Well, too late to do anything now! It was those crazy environmentalists that kept Big Oil from working on the problem."

RH & facts do not even have a passing acquaintance; he still cites that Channel 4 doc as "proof" even tho scientists in it say they're misquoted to say the exact opposite of what they know about Global Warming, & others have been proven over & over again to base their conclusions on disproven studies

Because in the world of partisan ideologues like RH & rollerboy & the others carrying the water for Big Oil...

(RH is the one in the middle w/ the ascot, thinks it makes him look smart)

 

[Tatortot]

you've pretty much hit the nail on the head for the village idiot.

except in 50 years he'll simply say "Well, too late to do anything now! It was those crazy environmentalists that kept Big Oil from working on the problem."

RH & facts do not even have a passing acquaintance; he still cites that Channel 4 doc as "proof" even tho scientists in it say they're misquoted to say the exact opposite of what they know about Global Warming, & others have been proven over & over again to base their conclusions on disproven studies

It won't take 50 yrs for all of this global warming due to human generated CO2 garbage to be shown to be incorrect.

 

[Randy Whorewald]

By my count, RH has 5 posts of the same drivel on this subject on this page alone

Proof for the old adage that action is easy, but thought is hard

C-Licker - you're proof of the old adage that the empty barrel makes the most noise.

It won't take 50 yrs for all of this global warming due to human generated CO2 garbage to be shown to be incorrect.

You are quite right Tatortot - the whole plot has great big holes in it already.

 

[ericestro_88]

 

[jjinvan]

Yes yes, we know, it's all just a big conspiracy to make the EI people look bad, right?

 

[ericestro_88]

Yes yes, we know, it's all just a big conspiracy to make the EI people look bad, right?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

I really don't understand why you post after so many of my posts about something that doesn't even apply to the thread.

 

[aznboi9]

Seeing as you have to read so much scientific literature on a regular basis, perhaps you could be so kind as to explain this: (please keep it simple because some of us just aren't smart like you).

Gee, I guess I didn't keep it simple enough the first, second or third time when I mentioned that solar radiation already seemed to be accounted for in the IPCC report. Also, I had already mentioned to you over at "that other board" that Dr. Andrew Weaver (one of the IPCC authors), in an interview on CKNW, was asked about this and spoke about how the climate on Mars was more complicated than simply being a matter of solar radiation. Hell, the solar radiation theory is even criticized in the national geographic article that you just listed; maybe you should try actually reading the articles that you link to. Dr. Weaver also acknowledged that solar radiation played a role in Earth's climate (hmm, kind of like in the ICPP report) but that it still didn't account for the last 20-30 years.

But keep on googling, you're doing really well with it.

 

[SilkyJohnson]

http://www.2012.com.au/Photon_belt.html

speaking of solar radiation, this might be whats feeding our sun right now. apparently in 11 years it will double in radiance..... yay????

 

[citylover]

Hell, the solar radiation theory is even criticized in the national geographic article that you just listed; maybe you should try actually reading the articles that you link to.

you're asking a lot of him to actually read real info on a subject before he posts. i mean, i try to post a few cartoons, figgering comic books are his real forte, but he don't read them, either

he doesn't have to; anything that looks like it might remotely question the ideas of Global Warming is gold, to him.

It's his life-long vocation to stop the evil environmentalists from fostering a socialist dictatorship

that's what him & the other ideologues flogging this horse care about -- just about every real climatology scientists, most politicians & gov'ts, most of business (except the most neanderthal co's in Big Energy) -- have left the field to the few partisan ideologues to keep on fighting the war against rationality, science, and facts

But please, village idjit -- please tell us how your "experts" from the oil industry, unable to publish in real science journals, generally shown to lie about the data, -- how they're smarter than the American Association for the Advancement of Science & the National Academy of Sciences

*snicker*

& then tell us how

Is it reasonable and scientific to assume that global warming will be a net negative for humankind?

we could all use a LOL

.

 

[rollerboy]

I dunno. Them horsies are tricky. Could just be pretendin'.

You turn your back and pow! Best give it a few more wacks, and then fire up the grill.

 

[sdw]

Germans invent pill to stop cows farting

Yes, really. Also increases milk production.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2040846,00.html