Global Warming => Global Cooling ? The Big Chill

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Would information from the University of Alabama be acceptable?

Yes.

Quote

how did you put it "like a retarded child sitting in the back of the classroom"?

Yeah, it was something like that.

I meant to include this in the last post

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/ghcc_cvcc.html

Mankind's impact on the global climate and whether pollution from modern energy use is indeed warming the Earth have become important issues for national and international policy makers. Political pressure and public sentiment are based on complex data sets that, alone, cannot tell the whole story. The ultimate question is whether our climate is becoming warmer because of the slow build-up in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The answer is not clear, because much of what we know about global climate change in inferred from historical evidence of uncertain quality. Reliable ground-based measurements by scientific instruments have been made just in this century. These measure conditions only at the location of each instrument, and they are usually land-based, although 75% of the Earth is covered with water. We have been able to take precise, direct measurements only in the last four decades, and not until the advent of precision spaceborne instruments in the 1970s were we able to measure global temperatures at a range of altitudes across the entire atmosphere.

[rushmc 18]

http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/153_Regulation.pdf

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/RobinsonAndRobinson.pdf[/url][url]

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

The answer is not clear

I don't know; I'm not a scientist. My joking comment in the other thread was simply observing the fact that the majority of world scientific opinion is that the answer is in fact clear and that they have concluded that mankind is having an impact on climate. While I know there are dissenters to that established worldwide opinion... it is important that we all recognize them as just that - dissenting voices.

(again, not to say that they're wrong... just descanting. The kid at the back of the class who just doesn't get subtraction might after all just hit upon a new and genius mathematical theory... but don't rush down the bookies hey. )

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

The answer is not clear

I don't know; I'm not a scientist. My joking comment in the other thread was simply observing the fact that the majority of world scientific opinion is that the answer is in fact clear and that they have concluded that mankind is having an impact on climate. While I know there are dissenters to that established worldwide opinion... it is important that we all recognize them as just that - dissenting voices.

(again, not to say that they're wrong... just descanting. The kid at the back of the class who just doesn't get subtraction might after all just hit upon a new and genius mathematical theory... but don't rush down the bookies hey. )

I agree. I'm just not willing to turn a deaf ear to those who disagree. Scientists have been wrong in the past and the issue of global warming is too complex to only base ones belief on data that is very suject to interpetation. I have even read articles that claim the percentage of land use has changed in the last 100 years and that hasn't been added into the calculations. It sound kind of nutty until you read the research.

[billvon 2,384]

>Once again, your show your arogance.

Your one warning.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Once again, your show your arogance.

Your one warning.

Sorry, I did not mean this as an attack

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,384]

Good summary, with one exception:

>The ultimate question is whether our climate is becoming warmer
>because of the slow build-up in atmospheric greenhouse gas
>concentrations. The answer is not clear,

If that were changed to read "The ultimate question is whether our climate is becoming warmer solely because of the slow build-up in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. The answer is not clear . . ." then the statement would be accurate. No serious scientist questions that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet to warm. The question has become how quickly it will happen, and whether other mechanisms will kick in that either slow or accelerate the trend.

[newsstand 0]

I confess to having not read this thread in detail and hope others have made these points.

1) Interesting coincidence that the current natural period of warming coincides with the beginning of the industrial age.

2) Even if global warming theorists are wrong cleaning up the atmosphere is still a good thing for our general health and well being.

3) If global warming theorists are right by the time it can be proven it will be too late to do anything about it.
(BTW see number two.)

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[smiles 0]

I enjoyed reading the following:
(quoted from cspa chat list and written by a skydiver residing in Edmonton)

Quote

How come when people are whining about global warming and climate change, ozone layers, nobody ever stands up and says, "Oh for pete's sake give it a rest, it's just that we're living in what is known as The Pleistocene Ice Age, an event that has been going on for roughly 1.75 million years and has, so far, been through about 20 - 30 'glacials' or ice sheet advances and the same number of 'interglacials' or ice sheet recessions, since it started. What is happening now is just a normal part of that process."

To silence all the kvetching someone should point out that right now the Earth is in about the midpoint of an interglacial that started roughly 11,000 years ago. In another 7 to 11,000 years we will be hitting the peak of the next glacial and we (us'ns here in Edmonton at least) will be under about a mile and a half of ice.

That someone could go further and explain how previous glacials have involved cooling that produced ice sheets that have advanced to latitudes as low as 40 degrees on the Earth - which is about as far down as Madrid (Spain), New York (either one of them), and Sapporo (Japan), though not in a consistent global girdle. The various ice sheets have always had ragged bottom edges with parts of the World as low as California being covered sometimes and some parts, such as Wisconsin never having had any at all.

Conversely, they could say, some interglacials have been so warm that ice and snow disappeared completely from the planet, the oceans of the world rose several hundred feet and covered a lot of existing land masses, and palm trees grew at the north pole. South pole, too, I seem to remember.

*Nota bene for the person who is going to do this - in actual fact the interglacial we are in right now is apparently on the cold side as such things go, which means the next glacial will be a rough one so tell everyone to stock up on fleece before the rush hits.
ANYway... nobody has done this and I can't figure out why not.

Y'know, if one thinks about it for about a nanosecond one can figure out for ones self that it has been constantly getting warmer and colder - pretty much like it is doing right now - for the previous 1.75 million years of the Pleistocene... and it's been doing so without any human help whatsoever. From there the obvious deduction is that humans are, at one time, entirely too arrogant and entirely too insecure if they can think for a second that they have any more influence over global warming OR cooling than a gerbil might.

By the way, there is lots of freely available information in libraries that everyone has been studiously ignoring for years if anyone needs to reassure themselves about this.

While I am much too circumspect to say the first bit, I will come right out and say:
"Of course we are doing SOMETHING to the Earth, but humans are nowhere near capable of affecting global warming or cooling to any great extent by their day to day activities - unless, of course, you count creating a nuclear winter which isn't actually one of our normal day to day activities and which isn't going to happen anyway.

No, humans can't REALLY do global warming but what humans can, and are, doing is making this planet incapable of supporting life. Then again, since they're not making it inhospitable for ALL life, just human life (ok, and most other mammals), I guess it's not really that big a deal, eh? so we can classify any human actions more as of a sort of short term and self limiting inconvenience in the life of the Earth, like a zit, than a problem.

What you will see after humans have done their absolute worst to pooched the place and have killed themselves off as a species is that Earth will simply do its recycle thing and in a short 750,000 years or so the sum total of human existence will be nothing more than a thin black, and slightly smelly, line in the coral reefs and soil strata. I find it cool to think that, some time in the future, some sentient life form - not human - will be looking at core samples of that sort of thing under a microscope and say to itself, "Whoa!! What the heck caused THAT!".

As I say, no big deal, and our remains should skootch down nicely and become a dandy non-renewable energy source. Especially the methane that's left over from skydivers eating bad food at boogies.

I would bet that for some of you out there the big statement bubbling to the surface right now goes something like: "Never! Humans will rally gallantly and do the 'right thing' and repair the damage we've done so far and continue to exist to the very ends of time itself!!"

Ok, keeping in mind that saving this particular version of the environment is a matter of extreme indifference to the Earth itself and that humans ARE the ones that are going to have to do it, I will reply to that statement before you say it.
No. Sorry. They won't.

While the inevitable valiant and useless attempts to change how humans live and consume their environment and thus become a sustainable part OF their environment will be made towards the end (oh... wait... I'm talking about right now, aren't I), we cannot stop ourselves from being ourselves. It is our nature.

We are the Borg.
Nature as we found it is irrelevant.

We will consume it's biological distinctiveness to maintain our existence regardless of the cost and what remains will be adapted to service us.
Resistance is futile.

Errol

SMiles

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

after humans have done their absolute worst to pooched the place and have killed themselves off as a species is that Earth will simply do its recycle thing and in a short 750,000 years or so the sum total of human existence will be nothing more than a thin black, and slightly smelly, line in the coral reefs and soil strata. I find it cool to think that, some time in the future, some sentient life form - not human - will be looking at core samples of that sort of thing under a microscope and say to itself, "Whoa!! What the heck caused THAT!".

Probably more truth to that than he realizes. Thanks for sharing.

illegible usually

[billvon 2,384]

>Earth will simply do its recycle thing and in a short 750,000 years or
>so the sum total of human existence will be nothing more than a
> thin black, and slightly smelly, line in the coral reefs and soil strata.
> I find it cool to think that, some time in the future, some sentient
> life form - not human - will be looking at core samples of that sort
> of thing under a microscope and say to itself, "Whoa!! What the
> heck caused THAT!".

Are you kidding? They will drill it, and pump it out, and burn it, and assume that it's inexhaustible.

[EricTheRed 0]

Quote

>Earth will simply do its recycle thing and in a short 750,000 years or
>so the sum total of human existence will be nothing more than a
> thin black, and slightly smelly, line in the coral reefs and soil strata.
> I find it cool to think that, some time in the future, some sentient
> life form - not human - will be looking at core samples of that sort
> of thing under a microscope and say to itself, "Whoa!! What the
> heck caused THAT!".

Are you kidding? They will drill it, and pump it out, and burn it, and assume that it's inexhaustible.

And maybe we'll leave some cool fossils too...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-10/uoo-pgw101205.php

illegible usually

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Kallend has not presented his opinion, merely asked for the qualifications on which you base yours. Others here, such as Billvon with that graph, have presented the opinion and data of scientists who have conducted studies into climate change.

You however are merely presenting your own opinion. On the one hand we have scientists presenting scientific studies and data. On the other hand we have your opinion. I could point out which would normally be seen to carry the most weight... but I guess that's probably not necessary.

Again, I fail to see what I need to be qualified in to have an opinion. While I have not posted what reports I have built my opinion from (and by the way, most of the other research is based on "models" projecting what might happen given inputs supplied) I have taken time to investigate so called gobal worming. I have come to a conclusion that the sience is (for the most part )bogus.

Most of the reporting seen is for the global warming "cause". But despite was has been posted in this thread, there is consideral disagreement what is causing it.

A good example of the global warming mind set was the considerable effort given to get the huricane experts to say global warming is causing more and stronger huricanes. (what a great disapointment to those that wanted it otherwise)

So, discount what ever you want, when I have taken the time to find again those reports giving other sides the source is attacked in one form or another. (another tackit imployed by the wackos)

Do the dam reserch yourself. I have looked at both sides.......have you? Or is the media enough for you

What the hell is it about you right wing guys and your global worming posts...



http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3232075#3232075

[Coreece 189]

Quote

What the hell is it about you right wing guys and your global worming posts...

yeah...that's how I suppose it should be.

warm should be worm and worm should be werm...

and why not???...werm isn't even being used!

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

gobal worming

What the hell is it about you right wing guys and your global worming posts...

Don't you hate it when you try to zap someone for a spelling mistake and you end up mis-quoting them?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

gobal worming

What the hell is it about you right wing guys and your global worming posts...

Don't you hate it when you try to zap someone for a spelling mistake and you end up mis-quoting them?

Hey genius... did you check the link????

Maybe YOU need some global worming.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

gobal worming

What the hell is it about you right wing guys and your global worming posts...

Don't you hate it when you try to zap someone for a spelling mistake and you end up mis-quoting them?

Hey genius... did you check the link????

Sure didn't, genius... I just looked at the text YOU bolded and then misquoted.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

gobal worming

What the hell is it about you right wing guys and your global worming posts...

Don't you hate it when you try to zap someone for a spelling mistake and you end up mis-quoting them?

Hey genius... did you check the link????

Sure didn't, genius... I just looked at the text YOU bolded and then misquoted.

I suppose you want to blame it all on the NEA too.... just like he does...

I was makin a funny.. only YOU would get a bug up the butt about it...or is that a worm

Here let me help you with that since you cant figure out how to click the url...

Quote

Try more thn just one source next time Just cuase you didnt find it at one place does not mean it is wrong. That is like talking to Al Gore about global worming and not fact checking his lies and taking them for fact..... oh did you do that to???

[brenthutch 383]

Dr. Mann from Penn State AKA Mr. Global Warming IS a scientest and by his own admission has no idea why the climate is not changing as he predicted it would.

[skiskyrock 0]

Quote

The ice is melting here and on Mars. Why because the sun is in a period of putting out more energy.
(a reason for golbal heating not caused by man?)

But I am sure GWB caused the sun to get hotter too

Currently we are coming out of a solar minimum so the irradiance is below average and has been for the last half decade, but in any even the difference between minimum and maximum amounts to a fraction of the forcing due to CO2.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The ice is melting here and on Mars. Why because the sun is in a period of putting out more energy.
(a reason for golbal heating not caused by man?)

But I am sure GWB caused the sun to get hotter too

Currently we are coming out of a solar minimum so the irradiance is below average and has been for the last half decade, but in any even the difference between minimum and maximum amounts to a fraction of the forcing due to CO2.

*Rolls eyes*

Yeah, ok...you might want to google "The Year Without A Summer", or perhaps Dalton or Maunder minima.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706