storm1977

And the award for the most irrelevant comment of the day goes to..... Justin. Try to stay on topic. BTW - They do put Goveners and GPS system in company vehicle for this exact reason. My Brother-In-Law drives and 18 wheeler for Dunkin Donuts and, his truck can NOT travel faster than 70mph... ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

yes, but again my arguement was not whether it was happening. Like I said... you claim it is humans speeding up a normal cycle. I disagree and say warming and cooling are larger cycles that we reall do not affect. Truthfully the data which suggests to you that next yr will be warmer than this one and warmer still the yr after that is not a good predictor, in reality, the next 10yrs could be cooler than average in the artic. Why? Because the modeling is no good. A good example is the one that claims that the earth is warming even fast than the models predicted... Well, if that is the case, then the model didn't do a good job on the short term did it? If it didn't initiallize correctly and got the very short term wrong, then how can we expect it to get the long term correct? Do you know with any certainty that current trending in global temperature will continue past the next solar cycle? If so, how do you know that? FYI - The major long term climate models do NOT even factor in Solar Cycles.... Strange since this is a well documented creator of temperature fluctuations and storm severity on earth. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

You can say what you want... you obviously do drugs, so to you it should be socially acceptable. But, Drugs are illegal. Pot is a drug. So, if I had the choice of 2 employees both with identical experience etc, but one smoke pot and one didn't, I would hire the one that didn't. The same is true of smoking cigaretts. BTW- I would like to see a study which showed this. Average number of sick days taken per year by people who smoke pot vs. people who do not smoke pot. I would bet money there is a corrilation!!!! Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

If I owned a business I would require drug testing.... I would rather have an employee that did not use drugs than one who did. Wouldn't You? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Though I believe this is hypocritical of O'Reilly, to be fair... O'reilly has not started a boycott on any retailer because of this. He did start a list of places he wouldn't shop, but not a boycott. The only boycott O'reilly is running is that of FRANCE... and come on Bill, you can understand that one right? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

See, this is where The models and speculation begin. The evidence is not there to support the claim that the artic will be "Ice Free" in 100 yrs. This is a "Scare Tactic" like I was talking about. The studies used and models used to Predict this are a crapshoot. You believe the science because some guys selectively grabbed some ice samples and generated a few longterm model runs. I don't believe the science because I compare these models to some of the ones I use everyday and help to develop for long term trending... Your guess is as good as mine, but please.... Don't think for a minute that the Models are good predicters. First of all they are probabistic forecast anyway, not deterministic. Though listen to the creators of them would lead you to believe the opposite is true. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

So, this is where you and I differ i think. Correct me if I am wrong. You thing Humans are speeding up a natual warming cycle. I dissagree. Because of this you also believe that Humans by doing the opposite of what they are currently are doing, can slow down the natual warming cycle. I do not. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Bill, You may not choose to accept it, But most environmentalists have resorted to "Scare" tactics to get their point across. They claim huge climate change over a very short period of time. The global temperature change over the next 100 yrs, or even 500 yrs is not likely as drastic as some looneys would have you believe. I have never debated the earth is currently heating up... or that 25yrs ago it was cooling off. What I have argued was the cause. Models used to predict the future environment are piss poor at BEST. We meteorologist spend Billions every year studing models and creating new ones to mimic natural wx patterns, and we cant get that right. The truth about weather is this... Beyond a 4 day forecast there is 0% skill involved [Lee Grenci 2005]. That being said, it is these meteorological as well geological and biological funtions which will utimately determine the environment in 5yrs and 5 million yrs from right now. 1) we don't understand the processes. 2) we can not model the processes 3) we have little understanding of the logic of the output of the unreliable long term models... It is a crap shoot at best. Sorry to be negative, but that is the truth. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

And my argument is that we are NOT changing it any quicker than it has done before in its cycle. You are lookng at the last 1000yrs and are sying... "Hockey Stick" and then looking at the last Billion and saying "No hockey Stick" Break down the Billion yrs to 1000 yrs and looking through them I am sure you will find many hockey sticks both facing up and down, but what you won't find is human interaction. The environmentalists tote the Line of "Save the Planet" What they really mean is "Try to keep the earth exactly how we humans want it even if that means changing the planet" at a cost mind you which dwarfs our current budget deficit. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Grabbed online: Rings true to me. Today the Earth warms up and cools down in 100,000- year cycles. Geologic history reveals similar cycles were operative during the Carboniferous Period. Warming episodes caused by the periodic favorable coincidence of solar maximums and the cyclic variations of Earth's orbit around the sun are responsible for our warm but temporary interglacial vacation from the Pleistocene Ice Age, a cold period in Earth's recent past which began about 2 million years ago and ended (at least temporarily) about 10,000 years ago. And just as our current world has warmed, and our atmosphere has increased in moisture and CO2 since the glaciers began retreating 18,000 years ago, so the Carboniferous Ice Age witnessed brief periods of warming and CO2-enrichment. Following the Carboniferous Period, the Permian Period and Triassic Period witnessed predominantly desert-like conditions, accompanied by one or more major periods of species extinctions. CO2 levels began to rise during this time because there was less erosion of the land and therefore reduced opportunity for chemical reaction of CO2 with freshly exposed minerals. Also, there was significantly less plant life growing in the proper swamplands to sequester CO2 through photosynthesis and rapid burial. It wasn't until Pangea began breaking up in the Jurassic Period that climates became moist once again. Carbon dioxide existed then at average concentrations of about 1200 ppm, but have since declined. Today, at 370 ppm our atmosphere is CO2-impoverished, although environmentalists, certain political groups, and the news media would have us believe otherwise. What will our climate be like in the future? That is the question scientists are asking and seeking answers to right now. The causes of "global warming" and climate change are today being popularly described in terms of human activities. However, climate change is something that happens constantly on it's own. If humans are in fact altering Earth's climate with our cars, electrical powerplants, and factories these changes must be larger than the natural climate variability in order to be measurable. So far the signal of a discernible human contribution to global climate change has not emerged from this natural variability or background noise. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

See, and you think it is about what WE (Humans) want... It is not my friend.... Humans will come and humans will go. Mother Nature runs the show here, and we are one of Millions of species which will become extinct... and guess what ...something else will take over. It is the envirnmentalist who are trying to change the natural cycle of thing. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Bill, your charts aren't that Old.... PLAESE SEE ATTACHMENT: Earth's climate and atmosphere have varied greatly over geologic time. Our planet has mostly been much hotter and more humid than we know it to be today, and with far more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than exists today. The notable exception is 300,000,000 years ago during the late Carboniferous Period, which resembles our own climate and atmosphere like no other. Also, I would like to note that "Tree Ring" research globally does not support the theory that the earth is warming. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

We are now generating more CO2 than the planet can recycle. Anyone with a chemistry kit can prove that CO2 concentrations are increasing. First of all no they cant :-) I have been to school with some of those fools. Bill, if you want to put all the facts out there, put them all out there. In the Grand scheme of thisng CO2 concentrations are VERY low compared to previous historical and prehistoric times. Also, you said something earlier which I wasn't going to comment on, but will.... You made a point of H2O and CO2 being the major output of Industry and Vehicles ...etc. You said, Nature has an easy way of dealing with excess H20 Rain/Snow. That isn't exactly true.... An increase in H20 in the Atmosphere would lead to an increase in cloud cover. This cloud cover would actually work to reduce the Earth surface temperature. The 9/11 study of contrails was a good example of this. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I would agrue they are both working on emotions and not facts.... Their methodology and science is poor. They are assuming a conclusion(GW) and using science to try to prove it. They are not use science to find an answer to their questions. You are probably too young, but the environmentalists were screaming "The Sky is falling" about Global Cooling 30 years ago. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change), the body behind the heavyweight promotion of GWT and the campaign for drastic preventive countermeasures now, is a shadowy body of virtually self-elected bureaucrats and pro-GWT environmentalists whose scientific reputations, and ultimately whose livelihoods, are utterly dependent on the worldwide acceptance of the GWT concept. Indeed, GWT is now essential to the worldwide Environmental Sciences movement to ensure a continuous flow of research funds. It is therefore hardly surprising that the IPCC predictions on the long-term effects of GWT are dire. More worryingly, however, is that those scientists who legitimately question the IPCC- imposed “consensus” on GWT find themselves subject to marginalisation and withdrawal of funding. The hard scientific evidence shows that the alleged c.0.5C change in average global temperatures over the last 100 years (based mainly on Northern hemisphere ground-based measuring stations) being used by GWT’s proponents to justify drastic action now can be observed due to random variations over timescales as short as two weeks. To ascribe temperature changes of this magnitude over the course of a century to GWT is therefore highly inadvisable. Meanwhile, satellite plus ground data evidence shows no evidence of global warming over the period 1914-1993; i.e. over the last 90 years. The computer models being used to predict global temperatures based on atmospheric CO2 concentrations, when applied to historical atmospheric concentrations of the gases’ global levels, do not accurately predict the observed historical global temperature variations. How then can one expect them to accurately predict future temperatures? The CO2-based atmospheric warming mechanism proposed by GWT’s supporters is not scientifically valid, and the atmospheric warming associated with a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels would be no more than 0.2C. The case for GWT rests on “evidence” that current atmospheric CO2 levels (c.350ppmv) are 26% higher than those in pre-industrial times. It is assumed that pre-industrial levels are accurately reflected in the CO2 concentrations in entrapped air bubbles extracted from glacier ice. Yet no experimental study has thus far demonstrated that greenhouse gas concentrations in old ice, or even in air from recent snow, in any way accurately reproduce atmospheric concentrations. Three further incredibly sweeping assumptions concerning the mechanism of air absorption into glacier ice are made: * The absorption process is essentially mechanical and the dissolution rates of the component gases (including CO2) remain proportional to their respective atmospheric concentrations. * The gas concentrations are permanently preserved in the polar ice sheets, irrespective of subsequent geological changes and handling during extraction for analysis. There are, in fact, some 20 physical and chemical processes occurring in the ice-sheets that make the gas samples unrepresentative of the original atmospheric concentrations. * The age of the gas is 80 to 200 years younger than the ice in which it is entrapped. This assumption is required because CO2 concentrations in 19th century ice cores are similar to present atmospheric concentrations. Ice-core data unsupportive of the GWT hypothesis are regularly ignored: some workers in this field have excluded up to 44% of the collected ice-core CO2 concentration data-points to ensure that only those supportive of the GWT proposition are reflected in the final analysis. Taken from the point of view of chemical exchange processes between sea and ocean; the partition coefficient for CO2 between atmosphere and ocean is 1 is to 50. This means that to sustain an equilibrium atmospheric CO2 concentration of double today’s level (as predicted by the IPCC by 2010) requires a 50-fold increase in the aquatic concentration of the gas. This would require a quantity of carbon significantly in excess of all known terrestrial fossil sources of the element. But perhaps the most damning scientific endictment of GWT is provided by workers investigating the influence of variation in sunspot cycle lengths on global temperatures. Separately, Friis-Christensen & Lassen in Finland & Butler in Eire have concluded that there is a very strong correlation between sunspot activity cycle lengths and global temperatures. In the July 1995 edition of the Journal of Applied and Terrestrial Physics(²), Friis-Christensen & Lassen have demonstrated that some 75% to 85% of global temperature variation between the last decades of the 16th century and the present day can be accounted for through variations in the length of sunspot cycles: the longer the timespan between periods of high sunspot activity, the lower the average global temperatures, and vice versa. Perhaps the most telling (& undoubtedly the most cynical) summation of the whole GWT roadshow was made by Matt Ridley in the Sunday Telegraph on December 10th, 1995: “Imagine that you have been toiling away at atmospheric physics for 30 years and suddenly along comes global warming. Next thing you know the United Nations is paying you hundreds of pounds a day to sit in Madrid sampling room service and appearing on Newsnight. Would you admit that the whole thing was nothing to worry about?” Well, would you? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Still amazes me that termites generate more atmospheric CO2 than all the fossil fuels burned in the world ... every year. When will you people realize that the GWT - is a money driven radical group whoses studies are flawed at best? I compare the the sponsors of the GWT to the members of PETA!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I provided a link to the study. If you have some point you want to make, do your own homework, and then be out with it. You have an obsession with the UK and try constantly to link this with your domestic gun debate in the US. Really can not understand why you do that. You have also several times been exposed of dodgy stats and claims regarding crime and violence in the UK and elsewhere. Maybe you should try to get out of the US and spend some time in the UK or Australia and see for you own eyes. In regard to this “study” – we have seen a lot of crap with these in the past. From my own experience staying in the UK a lot – I can only say that I always found it relatively save – e.g. more save in the inner city of London then in inner urban areas of the US – but always was careful in regard to Pubs and Clubs. Has to do with that some Brits like to drink quite heavily and there is a tendency for more “brawls” then I have seen in other places – but this is a completely subjective view. One thing that is important to remember is that there is a big difference between being punched by a drunken Brit and being shot. So, How many people in the USA were killed by guns last year???? Do you have have any idea? I will bet you 5 jumps you guess high. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

This thread proves RACE does matter. Not because of the article, but because the Black community still thinks it matters. After Listening to Michael Savage on this topic the other night, I am convinced now more than ever Race does matter. Does it make me a racist? Maybe, maybe not. But, I think everything should be prefaced by a persons race. The blacks think Race should be an issue in New Orleans, so I argue it should be an issue in school acceptance, and everyother sector of life. All article stories and everything else should start by saying... "John Doe a (White/black/Hispanic) man from Anywhere USA was....." It obviously matters, so let's stop hiding it and make our own conclusions. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I would argue that one point. We pretty much knew we would get large hurrices this year. We of course didn't know if they would strike land, but we did know they would happen with some reasonable certainty. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Sounds like a nice, long time-constant phase-shift oscillator to me. Let's hope there's no strangeness about its attractor. Well, we all know it is a perfectly balanced system, but I do NOT think we will ever be able to understand it entirely... The whole Butterfly effect. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Kallend, I agree with you, but if you look at the world population of both people and of Plants in say the year 1000AD, you will notice there were pobably a lot more plant and a lot less people. So, I am curious to know how much the human population breaths. From that we can determine the necessary plant life to sustain a balance. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

I am not isolating systems, but you try to get me to say hurricanes bring warm air to the poles causes Global cooling. And that is not the case. Nor was it the point I was trying to make. The two topics, though in the same system, are on completely different scales. We are comparing Meso to Micro. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

There is a shitload more going on in the atmosphere other than CO2, however, I thought it would be interesting to compare human CO2 output to other things. Also, it would be curious then to make assumptions about rapid population groth and its output. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Point one: Hurricanes are a means of energy transport in the atmosphere. Extra energy (heat in the tropics) would most likely fuel stronger hurricanes. Point two: If global temperatures were to rise due to a build up of greenhouse gasses, over time there would also be a build up of upper amd mid level clouds. The Albedo of clouds is very high, and would therefore reflect a great ammount of solar radiation back out into space before being absorbed by the surface. This reflection and lackk of sunlight would cause the earth to radiate in the Infrared more than it absorbed, and therefore would lead to global cooling. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

No that is not my point... you are taking 2 different topics and merging them together. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty