View Full Version : What's up with all this Global Warming, uh, Climate Change, anyway?
Hmmm. :stop:
The only year when the spring started colder was 1975.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/second-coldest-start-to-spring-in-us-history/
ETA: A few of the comments are particularly interesting.
brickboy240
04-29-13, 17:14
The hey days for the "climate clowns" is just about up...is it not?
I mean...they rode this thing as long as they could but I think even they know this lie is about to come to an end.
Sad thing was that 99% of the things the Green Mafia wanted to pass did zilch to stop, slow or reverse any perceived warming of the planet.
Can we go back to our regular light bulbs too? I hate the blue tint of these glaring squiggly bulbs! LOL
-brickboy240
GeorgiaBoy
04-29-13, 17:15
Am I the only one who thinks there is nothing wrong with looking out for our environment?
Belmont31R
04-29-13, 17:20
Am I the only one who thinks there is nothing wrong with looking out for our environment?
The two are not the same.
Am I the only one who thinks there is nothing wrong with looking out for our environment?
Nope. I love, respect and look out for my environment.
What does that have to do with the myth of MAN MADE global warming and the fact I can see through the BS "Statistics" they report as being absolute proof of MAN MADE global warming?
Caring for the environment and believing in Man Made global wamring- are not mutually inclusive...
montanadave
04-29-13, 17:28
Call it whatever you want. It's hotter and drier around this neck of the woods and that ain't good for nobody.
GeorgiaBoy
04-29-13, 17:32
Trying to dismiss the effects of 150 years of continuous burning of fossil fuels as having little affect on the atmosphere is intellectually dishonest.
Does it have a huge effect? A effect bigger than natural sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases? Perhaps not, but its still an effect either way.
I can't understand why so many want to dismiss the research into more alternative, cleaner sources of energy and instead want to parade around boasting that we still have "a lot" of oil left and we shouldn't worry about it just yet. In fact, the fact that these sources of energy are not infinite are one of the reasons we should be looking into alternative sources of energy, not only because of their affects on the environment.
Belmont31R
04-29-13, 17:34
Call it whatever you want. It's hotter and drier around this neck of the woods and that ain't good for nobody.
Might just be but when our weather people can't predict things 12hrs in advance I don't trust anyone to predict things next week, next year or 100 years from now like their hockey stick graph.
WC, WU, and a local places have been dead wrong everyday for the last week. Yesterday was supposed to be rainy with thunderstorms, and it was bright blue all day with an errant cloud. Today supposed to sunny, and storm cells pop up all around us. Got a nice shower earlier.
The_War_Wagon
04-29-13, 17:41
Goremons... :rolleyes:
http://coloradoright.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/cap_and_trade_salvation.jpg
I think I agree with almost everything stated here so far.
I agree that man has certainly made an impact on the environment, but just how much is probably something that cannot possibly be determined. The other part of that is that the world's environment has been changing for untold numbers of years. Why do we think that it should stop changing as soon as we start collecting data and that continued change must be due to man's interference?
But at the end of the day, I think this is as much a racket to gain control as is the killing of the dollar and the 2nd Amendment.
When evidence comes from a side without a financial stake in their "findings", I might give a shit. Might.
Hint: That's not Al Gore.
Clean environments make sense. Overbearing Govt intrusion like mandated retard bulbs filled with poison do not.
I think this is the best part of the entire blog. Cliff's Notes:
Storm intensity is not increasing….
Assessment reports allege that extreme storm events are increasing even though storm severity per se is not reported or documented in any government archives. A “storm” is not even a well-defined object in climatology. There is an apparent increase in the number of tornados over time. However, improvements in radar quality and coverage over the past decades cause a detection bias trend, with more, smaller tornados being detected and recorded over time. Furthermore, increases in available disaster assistance aid have encouraged more frequent reporting of smaller storms in efforts to get disaster aid. Counting only category F4 and F5 events, which are relatively consistently detectable and recorded, there is no trend over the past 100 years (Balling and Cerveny 2003).
Bouziotas et al. presented a paper at the EGU a few weeks ago (PDF) and concluded:
Analysis of trends and of aggregated time series on climatic (30-year) scale does not indicate consistent trends worldwide. Despite common perception, in general, the detected trends are more negative (less intense floods in most recent years) than positive. Similarly, Svensson et al. (2005) and Di Baldassarre et al. (2010) did not find systematical change neither in flood increasing or decreasing numbers nor change in flood magnitudes in their analysis.
2. Global tropical cyclone activity, as measured by frequency and ACE is at the lowest in 30 years,
Here’s another germane article:
Another blow to warmist hysteria over weather is not climate unless we say it is: “2011 damage is qualitatively indistinguishable from 1974″
Simmons, K., D. Sutter, R.A. Pielke, Jr. (2012), Blown away: monetary and human impacts of the 2011 U.S. tornadoes. Extreme events and insurance: 2011 annus horribilis (Edited by C. Courbage and W.R. Stahel) The Geneva Reports: Risk and Insurance Research , Published March 2012.
Hurricane activity reduced, http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/27/major-hurricanes-hitting-the-us-half-as-often-as-they-used-to/
Sea level rise not happening. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/26/australian-sea-level-data-highly-exaggerated-only-5-inches-by-2100/
Temperature not increasing….
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/01/10/noaa-tells-a-texas-sized-lie/
There is significant evidence that would tend to falsify global warming. The mean global air temperature has not risen for the last fifteen years. At the end of March the global extent of sea ice was above the long-term average and higher than it was in March of 1980. Last December, snow cover in the northern hemisphere was at the highest level since record keeping began in 1966. The UK just experienced the coldest March of the last fifty years. There has been no increase in droughts or wildfires. Worldwide hurricane and cyclone activity is near a forty-year low.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/08/07/smoking-gun-that-tobs-adjustments-are-garbage/ 72,989 correctly recorded daily high temperature records in the US since 1895. 84% of them were set when CO2 was below 350ppm.
Temperature in US only increasing due to adjustments extreme… https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/prior-to-hansen-tampering-1970-was-cooler-than-1900/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/how-giss-corrupt-us-temperatures/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/giss-adjustments-in-iceland/
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/04/18/ghcn-adjusting-the-adjustments/
The past was as warm or warmer then current T http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/11/evidence-for-a-global-medieval-warm-
The truth is we are “Still waiting for greenhouse”.
Belmont31R
04-29-13, 18:02
Clean environments make sense. Overbearing Govt intrusion like mandated retard bulbs filled with poison do not.
The best capitalism is making your competition illegal to sell....;)
Crow Hunter
04-29-13, 18:22
My favorite part about the "climate change" crowd is their firm belief that the world has "warmed" in the last 150 years and they base that from data taken to the .1 degree from instruments 150 years ago....
We have arguments today about the resolution of our gauging equipment but no one doubts the ability of someone 150 years ago to measure temperature repeatably to the tenth of one degree. I am sure they have GR&R data showing how repeatable their instruments were at the time...:rolleyes:
Climates do change, all the time, it has been colder before, it has been warmer before, that we can tell by the dispersion of fossils and historical records about different areas of the planet and what could and could not be grown there over the centuries. Attempting to make predictions on what is happening on a 2,000,000,000 year time scale by looking at a sample of data less than 100 years old (and reliable data for even less time) is like looking at the tip of a elephants toenail an describing the entire elephant correctly.
I have no problem whatsoever will seeking alternative energy sources and developing "clean" energy, particularly those that will utilize our VAST coal reserves. But not under the Chicken Little threat of "OMG the Earth is going to DIE!!! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?!?!?! Now give me more tax funding to study it! It is very important!
Dona websearch on GEOENGINEERING.
"Voila!"
"Bam!"
Fill in your own "expletive".
"One man with courage makes a majority."
When evidence comes from a side without a financial stake in their "findings", I might give a shit. Might.
Hint: That's not Al Gore.
Clean environments make sense. Overbearing Govt intrusion like mandated retard bulbs filled with poison do not.
This. Although I might add a poltical axe to grind in addition to financial.
Cagemonkey
04-29-13, 20:23
Dona websearch on GEOENGINEERING.
"Voila!"
"Bam!"
Fill in your own "expletive".
"One man with courage makes a majority."Funny you mention this. Tonight while my Wife and daughter ate dinner, I was transfixed on the sky above. I'm very certain I was looking at Chemtrails and not Contrails. Been doing a little web surfing since.
MMGW™ is going to force women to whore themselves out.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/296679-dems-warn-climate-change-could-drive-women-to-transactional-sex#ixzz2RrkVzmJL
Maybe not a bad thing, depending on your perspective...
Trying to dismiss the effects of 150 years of continuous burning of fossil fuels as having little affect on the atmosphere is intellectually dishonest.
What is intellectually dishonest is fear mongering the world into trillion dollar "solutions" of questionable effect.
Most of you guys are probably too young to remember that in the early '70 they were predicting an ice age within the next decade due to global cooling due to, yeah, you guessed it CO2 emissions (aka greenhouse) reflecting the sun's energy back into space.
It's all about money. Give someone a dire prediction of impending doom and the promise that "if you fund my research, I can find a solution". Funny how we haven't found the "solution" but sure can keep finding money for global cooling/global warming/climate change/flavor of the week.
I remember talking to a meteorologist back when CFC's were all the rage and how they somehow managed to stay parked above the US despite the fact that they had to travel up through the 100+ mph Jet Stream. I pointed out that they would be distributed around the globe by said Jet Stream, but he was unconvinced.
And the Ozone Hole, how could we forget that? Had a Green Peacer come by and say; "a six month study of the Antarctic showed that the hole was getting bigger." "Which six months?" I asked. She didn't know, but asked what difference did it make. I asked if she'd ever had chemistry and then proceeded to explain to her that O3 was an unstable ion and tended to break down in the absence of sunlight, like when it was dark in the Antarctic. The subject was changed immediately after that. Really had fun disassembling her world climate view and kept her from bothering the neighbors for the next hour.
RogerinTPA
04-29-13, 20:57
It would be great if the concept were true and not doctored information. First it's global warming, now climate change...they win either way. Typical liberal bullshit. It's been one of the redistributive wealth schemes from the very beginning.
From a Thermodynamic perspective it is getting colder with a more marked difference in temperature differences (summer and winter).
How so? It takes energy to produce storms and we have had more storms and more powerful storms as of late. To maximize energy (or horsepower for that matter) the greater the temperature difference the greater the energy and the lower the low temperature the better. Yes, hurricanes occur in very warm oceans but if you define your system as the earth up to the troposphere the Thermo Theory would be more or less valid.
Either way major change is on the way.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
Crow Hunter
04-29-13, 22:14
Most of you guys are probably too young to remember that in the early '70 they were predicting an ice age within the next decade due to global cooling due to, yeah, you guessed it CO2 emissions (aka greenhouse) reflecting the sun's energy back into space.
It's all about money. Give someone a dire prediction of impending doom and the promise that "if you fund my research, I can find a solution". Funny how we haven't found the "solution" but sure can keep finding money for global cooling/global warming/climate change/flavor of the week.
I remember talking to a meteorologist back when CFC's were all the rage and how they somehow managed to stay parked above the US despite the fact that they had to travel up through the 100+ mph Jet Stream. I pointed out that they would be distributed around the globe by said Jet Stream, but he was unconvinced.
And the Ozone Hole, how could we forget that? Had a Green Peacer come by and say; "a six month study of the Antarctic showed that the hole was getting bigger." "Which six months?" I asked. She didn't know, but asked what difference did it make. I asked if she'd ever had chemistry and then proceeded to explain to her that O3 was an unstable ion and tended to break down in the absence of sunlight, like when it was dark in the Antarctic. The subject was changed immediately after that. Really had fun disassembling her world climate view and kept her from bothering the neighbors for the next hour.
I remember that ozone hole crap when I was in middle school. Even then, I remember asking. "So what did the ozone look like 100 years ago? What do you mean we don't know? How long have we been studying this? So how do you know the hole is a new phenomenon?" My teachers used to send me to the library a lot. :lol:
Heavy Metal
04-29-13, 22:22
From a Thermodynamic perspective it is getting colder with a more marked difference in temperature differences (summer and winter).
How so? It takes energy to produce storms and we have had more storms and more powerful storms as of late. To maximize energy (or horsepower for that matter) the greater the temperature difference the greater the energy and the lower the low temperature the better. Yes, hurricanes occur in very warm oceans but if you define your system as the earth up to the troposphere the Thermo Theory would be more or less valid.
Either way major change is on the way.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
Everything goes in 30 year cycles. A thirty year warming cycle just ended and we have entered a 30 year cooling cycle.
NeoNeanderthal
04-29-13, 22:36
I like to think i am pretty smart. However, I dont pretend to be smarter than:
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Medical Association
American Meteorlogical Society
American Physical Society
US national academy of sciences
USDA, DOC, DOD, DOE, HHS, DHS, EPA
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
George W. Bush
Romney (some days)
Ron Paul
Over 200 International Scientific Organizations
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
Crow Hunter
04-29-13, 22:41
Everything goes in 30 year cycles. A thirty year warming cycle just ended and we have entered a 30 year cooling cycle.
That would definitely explain why I remember us having much more snow when I was less that 10 but then didn't see them for a while and why my parents remembered having to keep ice broken out of stock ponds growing up and my dad actually had rear snow tires for his 1967 L79 Chevelle that he would switch out to in the winter. (I only barely remember him doing that).
That exact car, which he special ordered from the factory, sold a few years ago at Barrett Jackson for nearly $50,000. My dad sold it in the early 1980's for $3,000...:cray:
Heavy Metal
04-29-13, 22:42
I like to think i am pretty smart. However, I dont pretend to be smarter than:
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Medical Association
American Meteorlogical Society
American Physical Society
US national academy of sciences
USDA, DOC, DOD, DOE, HHS, DHS, EPA
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
George W. Bush
Romney (some days)
Ron Paul
Over 200 International Scientific Organizations
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php
And yet it hasn't warmed in 16 years...explain that!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html
And yet it hasn't warmed in 16 years...explain that!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2261577/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-Met-Office-report-reveals-MoS-got-right-warming--deniers-now.html
Curious: have you done any research into this article? Noticed that it has been conclusively falsified --I mean-- utterly ripped to shreds?
Dana Nuccitelli's response over at Skeptical Science would be a good place to start. That page is also a good resource if you want to really learn about this stuff.
Crow Hunter
04-29-13, 23:49
The problem I have with it all is that they are only looking at a tiny slice of data and making a prediction assuming a linear regression.
The catch is, I don't think we can say it is linear.
Not only that but they are saying that they have data from 1880 that can be relied upon to the 0.1 of a degree? That means that the gauge itself must have a resolution to the .01 of a degree to pass any realistic Gauge R&R.
I really don't think that you can say that looking at a thermometer with the Mark 1 eyeball whose graduations were applied by hand after hand blowing the glass can be relied upon to that degree of discrimination. I would imagine that requires a thermocouple and a resistance chart at the minimum. And that would be assuming that the same person was measuring in the same location at the same time of the day/year with the same instrument for over 100 years. With multiple people measuring with multiple instruments over multiple locations all over the world, did you really see a .4 degree increase between 1880 and 1970 or was it essentially the same +/- gauge error and only in the 1970's with the advent of "climatology" did you start getting really accurate measurements using highly sensitive thermometers and saw an increase so you "assumed" the lower average readings from earlier in the century were "more accurate?"
With such a small data set, do we know what the actual total 6 sigma variation is? I heard an report on NPR some years ago where a "climatologist" was going on about how the temperatures hand gone up a whole standard deviation from the mean since I think 1940. Everyone was fawning over how "large" that was.:blink:
Poppycock.
That isn't how statistics work.
Heavy Metal
04-29-13, 23:55
Curious: have you done any research into this article? Noticed that it has been conclusively falsified --I mean-- utterly ripped to shreds?
Dana Nuccitelli's response over at Skeptical Science would be a good place to start. That page is also a good resource if you want to really learn about this stuff.
Junkscience is a good place to research global warming claims.
Speaking of falsified, that is the whole problem with so-called 'Climate Change'.
More storms=Climate Change, weaker storms=Climate Change, stronger storms=Climate Change, less storms=Climate Change, more snow=Climate Change, drier=Climate Change, wetter=Climate Change, hotter=Climate Change, colder=Climate Change.
Everything 'proves' it and nothing falsifies it. It cannot be falsified.
NeoNeanderthal
04-30-13, 07:55
The problem I have with it all is that they are only looking at a tiny slice of data and making a prediction assuming a linear regression.
The catch is, I don't think we can say it is linear.
Not only that but they are saying that they have data from 1880 that can be relied upon to the 0.1 of a degree? That means that the gauge itself must have a resolution to the .01 of a degree to pass any realistic Gauge R&R.
I really don't think that you can say that looking at a thermometer with the Mark 1 eyeball whose graduations were applied by hand after hand blowing the glass can be relied upon to that degree of discrimination. I would imagine that requires a thermocouple and a resistance chart at the minimum. And that would be assuming that the same person was measuring in the same location at the same time of the day/year with the same instrument for over 100 years. With multiple people measuring with multiple instruments over multiple locations all over the world, did you really see a .4 degree increase between 1880 and 1970 or was it essentially the same +/- gauge error and only in the 1970's with the advent of "climatology" did you start getting really accurate measurements using highly sensitive thermometers and saw an increase so you "assumed" the lower average readings from earlier in the century were "more accurate?"
With such a small data set, do we know what the actual total 6 sigma variation is? I heard an report on NPR some years ago where a "climatologist" was going on about how the temperatures hand gone up a whole standard deviation from the mean since I think 1940. Everyone was fawning over how "large" that was.:blink:
Poppycock.
That isn't how statistics work.
You are partially correct. Human kept temperature records used to be sketchy and we dont have that many years of them. Climate science is not based on this data however. Much of the information used is derived from ice cores which contain trapped gases and can be extrapolated to estimate temperature for many thousands of years.
Dont forget fossil records which contain temperature sensitive flora and fauna.
Crow Hunter
04-30-13, 08:58
You are partially correct. Human kept temperature records used to be sketchy and we dont have that many years of them. Climate science is not based on this data however. Much of the information used is derived from ice cores which contain trapped gases and can be extrapolated to estimate temperature for many thousands of years.
Dont forget fossil records which contain temperature sensitive flora and fauna.
My key points.
Extrapolation and estimation to the .1 of a degree? What is the error calculation in that extrapolation? Is that a 95% confidence interval or lower or higher? Can we demonstrate today by taking an ice sample from 10 years ago and correlate that 100% to what the "global" temperature was at that time? Blind study with multiple different ice cores no knowledge of depth or location with at least 3 different "climatologists" determining temperature. Will they all get the exact mean temperature to the .1 of a degree and match that to known records? I bet not. If that has been done, I would be impressed and would LOVE to read the study.
How are we determining the temperature? We are making assumptions that the ice core's trapped gases are not localized and that the mixture of observed phenomenon of available CO2/Methane/etc will result in the temperature variation that we see today. Are we taking samples from multiple places across the world to "prove" that it is global and not localized and if so, how are we determining that there hasn't been a localized melt event that changed the total depth at which we are measuring to make sure we are at the same time period?
On top of that, can ice cores demonstrate the effects of cloud cover/solar effects/wind patterns/etc which have been claimed to be what has "cooled" the planet during recent events?
I have no problem with using ice cores like we do carbon-14 dating. A general approximation, it was warmer during this period or colder during this period, but trying to say that we can prove that the Earth has warmed .X degrees because of human activity is a serious stretch in my opinion.
I still don't disagree with doing our best to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and doing more to clean our air and water, but not at the expense of everyone's quality of life. Going back to an 1830's agrarian economy would pretty much eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels, but I don't think anyone in their right minds would want to live that way.;)
My father in-law sent me this email today and I thought it appropriate to post here:
"Where Does the Carbon Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs ...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.
Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario.
Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention “Global Warming” any more, but just“Climate Change” - you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.
But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!"
montanadave
04-30-13, 11:46
^ And the USGS says:
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).
In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).
There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.
For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach. (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)
I worry more about landfills and waste than anything.
I recycle.
Investment into alternative energy sources = Good, even if its tax money. I'd much rather my money to there than to supply F16 to countries with questionable motives.
Taking care of mother Gaya = Good. Don't litter, don't leave a trace when out and about. Don't waste water. Don't pollute. All those things are fine and dandy.
Fleecing the US tax payer and handicapping manufacturing in the USA = NOT GOOD. Taking a .10 light bulb made at an EPA controlled facility and replacing it with a Mercury filled bulb made in an unsupervised Chinese factory = NOT GOOD. Wasting tax $$ to sponsor people's hybrid cars filled with Chinese made toxic batteries from strip lines natural resources = NOT GOOD.
Doing the above based on skewed, and politicized data if SUPER NOT GOOD.
Hell in addition to the volcanoes and other natural disasters dumping more CO2 out how much CO2 do China and India dump out every year?? Yes let's move more mfg over there to make more green shit using toxic and uncontrolled processes. Yeah only government can come up with something that retarded.
Winter is coming. It's now called climate change because all of the smart folks are predicting a cooling much like they did in the 60's and 70's.
If you want to check out a well done documentary on the subject, check out Bjørn Lomborg's Cool It. He destroys Al Gores garbage propaganda piece and attacks it with a very common sense approach.
Crow Hunter
04-30-13, 12:15
Hell in addition to the volcanoes and other natural disasters dumping more CO2 out how much CO2 do China and India dump out every year?? Yes let's move more mfg over there to make more green shit using toxic and uncontrolled processes. Yeah only government can come up with something that retarded.
Plus anything and everything that lives and breathes that is not a chlorophyll based life form. Every breath you take you are expelling CO2 and every time you fart, methane.:D
And all this CO2 is absorbed by chlorophyll based life forms and converted into carbon "sequestration".
Don't forget, all that fossil fuel carbon that we are burning and converting back into free CO2 was once free CO2 and was "sequestered" into living matter trapped chemically in the form of oil/shale/coal/etc. Since fossil fuel came from living breathing animal and plant matter all that carbon could not have originally been "sequestered" and Earth still existed then with living breathing creatures wandering around on it for millions of years and they weren't as adaptable as we are... ;)
Ice core samples show ice ages happen roughly every 12,000 years or so.
We're at that period now.
No magic. No pixie dust.
Prepare for it and of you're correct you live. I you are wrong I'll buy some of your Arc'Teryx gear after you're convinced you won't need it.
"One man with courage makes a majority."
brickboy240
04-30-13, 16:07
The problem is that NONE of the changes they have already made or want to make (carbon taxes, etc.) will do a damn thing to stop, slow or reverse and perceived warming. It is all one huge and expensive crap shoot.
I'd rather adjust to a little warmer and drier climate than wreck life as we know it, trying all sorts of expensive and uncomfortable nonsense that we know will not stop, slow or reverse anything.
-brickboy240
One of the many, many great ideas from Bill Maher I agree with totally.......
The religious groups in this world.....Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., have absolutely no reason in the world to take care of this place we call mother Earth.
If you believe is some kinda second coming, or a world ending apocalypse with only the chosen taken home to the mother planet, or even some other special event that includes the Earth burning, and the beautiful rapture happening.....then planet Earth is merely a holding tank for these special folks. Earth is just a "hub flight" to a special paradise for all these spiritual travelers.
For those that use science based reasoning, even if they might happen to be spiritual in some form or another, can clearly see the writing on the wall, and it's only a matter of time til humans ruin this "true miracle" of a planet that supports such vast arrays of beautiful life forms......many of which have already been killed off to extinction by mankind.
For some of us, the here and now is all that is promised....and we'd like to continue to pass that here and now on to generations to come. Too bad that will never happen, even if America stopped being so damn ignorant to this clear as day problem we all face.
Heavy Metal
04-30-13, 20:32
Too bad that will never happen, even if America stopped being so damn ignorant to this clear as day problem we all face.
The natural environment in the United States is in better shape than any time since at least 1930.
The water and air is cleaner, there are more forestland, more habitat restored and less environment-related illness. Less lead in the environment for instance.
Mines are reclaimed, discharges are reduced and eliminated, emmissions are scrubbed.
For being so damn ignorant, we are doing one ****ing awesome job protecting the environment and getting better by the year in spite of our ever-increasing population. ****, we put the vaunted Europeans to shame!
The solution for pollution is wealth. A clean environment is a luxury. Poor people are too busy surviving to give a shit about the long-term.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lovhmwhJF31qcrz20o1_500.gif
People stuck at the bottom don't care, people at the top are the ones thst do somethign about it.
Belmont31R
04-30-13, 22:02
Exactly. We use to have rivers CATCH FIRE because they were so polluted. Now you can get in pretty much any body of water in the US and be fine.
To those who believe in man-made climate change, what radical change in lifestyle have you implemented to eliminate your contribution to this proposed catastrophe? I don't mean trivial things like using the recycle barrels, compact fluorescent lights, riding your $800 bike six times per year. And I don't mean "doing your part" by just voting to carbon tax everyone.
What radical changes have you made to eliminate production of CO2, water vapor, use of petrochemicals, plastics, travel by motorized conveyance, etc in your day to day life?
I ask because several of my family members are in a tizzy over sinking islands, sinking Manhattan, dying polar bears, etc yet they do nothing substantial in their day to day living to reduce their own carbon footprint. I am wondering what a serious believer does when motivated by such dire consequences.
One of the many, many great ideas from Bill Maher I agree with totally.......
The religious groups in this world.....Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc., have absolutely no reason in the world to take care of this place we call mother Earth.
If you believe is some kinda second coming, or a world ending apocalypse with only the chosen taken home to the mother planet, or even some other special event that includes the Earth burning, and the beautiful rapture happening.....then planet Earth is merely a holding tank for these special folks. Earth is just a "hub flight" to a special paradise for all these spiritual travelers.
For those that use science based reasoning, even if they might happen to be spiritual in some form or another, can clearly see the writing on the wall, and it's only a matter of time til humans ruin this "true miracle" of a planet that supports such vast arrays of beautiful life forms......many of which have already been killed off to extinction by mankind.
For some of us, the here and now is all that is promised....and we'd like to continue to pass that here and now on to generations to come. Too bad that will never happen, even if America stopped being so damn ignorant to this clear as day problem we all face.
I know of no "believers" who actually think that. While it sounds like a good posit, I think most folks actually believe to the contrary, albeit with a health dose of skepticism about the "research", much like what is being discussed here. Goes on the order of, "God gave us this planet, so we should take care of it." Speaking only from the Christian perspective, it isn't "Biblical" to trash our planet simply because we believe in the Rapture. When you peel the onion back, it doesn't make sense. Nice try, Maher.
I know of no "believers" who actually think that. While it sounds like a good posit, I think most folks actually believe to the contrary, albeit with a health dose of skepticism about the "research", much like what is being discussed here. Goes on the order of, "God gave us this planet, so we should take care of it." Speaking only from the Christian perspective, it isn't "Biblical" to trash our planet simply because we believe in the Rapture. When you peel the onion back, it doesn't make sense. Nice try, Maher.
Agree, having dominion over creatures does not mean a license to despoil. I always laugh when people against religion try to tell us what our beliefs are. They only announce their ignorance and prejudice all the louder.
Another thing to ponder is, since America, and to some extent Europe (there may be others), are the only ones who are really doing anything about the environment as a matter of policy, what about China and India?
Many pollution effects remain local, but we all breathe the same air and share the same ocean water. So are our efforts helping the world (we know it's helping the U.S.)? Are we simply treading water as a planet, maintaining status quo? Are we cleaning Asia's air for them? Are we peeing in the wind?
I'll assume that you guys are dead on the money......burning coal, driving SUVs, and industrializing the entire planet has no negative effects on this so called "climate" thing. Greenhouse gases are completely harmless, and therefore in regards to this thing we call a "climate", humans are totally off the hook. We can go back to being awesome snowflakes again :)
However on the other hand, humans are gonna kill the Earth off by killing it's biodiversity, and other life forms way before the climate will come into play. Humans are the best at making shit go extinct real quick....we move in, everything else moves out or dies. That simple!
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/images/ExtinctionAndPopulation_102609.jpg
"We’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction crisis. Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that 30,000 species per year (or three species per hour) are being driven to extinction. Compare this to the natural background rate of one extinction per million species per year, and you can see why scientists refer to it as a crisis unparalleled in human history.
The current mass extinction differs from all others in being driven by a single species rather than a planetary or galactic physical process. When the human race — Homo sapiens sapiens — migrated out of Africa to the Middle East 90,000 years ago, to Europe and Australia 40,000 years ago, to North America 12,500 years ago, and to the Caribbean 8,000 years ago, waves of extinction soon followed. The colonization-followed-by-extinction pattern can be seen as recently as 2,000 years ago, when humans colonized Madagascar and quickly drove elephant birds, hippos, and large lemurs extinct. [1].
The first wave of extinctions targeted large vertebrates hunted by hunter-gatherers. The second, larger wave began 10,000 years ago as the discovery of agriculture caused a population boom and a need to plow wildlife habitats, divert streams, and maintain large herds of domestic cattle. The third and largest wave began in 1800 with the harnessing of fossil fuels. With enormous, cheap energy at its disposal, the human population grew rapidly from 1 billion in 1800 to 2 billion in 1930, 4 billion in 1975, and over 7 billion today. If the current course is not altered, we’ll reach 8 billion by 2020 and 9 to 15 billion (likely the former) by 2050.
No population of a large vertebrate animal in the history of the planet has grown that much, that fast, or with such devastating consequences to its fellow earthlings. Humans’ impact has been so profound that scientists have proposed that the Holocene era be declared over and the current epoch (beginning in about 1900) be called the Anthropocene: the age when the “global environmental effects of increased human population and economic development” dominate planetary physical, chemical, and biological conditions [2].
Humans annually absorb 42 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial net primary productivity, 30 percent of its marine net primary productivity, and 50 percent of its fresh water [3].
Forty percent of the planet’s land is devoted to human food production, up from 7 percent in 1700 [3].
Fifty percent of the planet’s land mass has been transformed for human use [3].
More atmospheric nitrogen is now fixed by humans that all other natural processes combined [3] "
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/extinction/index.html
My kid's kids will be laughing when grandpa tries to tell them what a coral reef was..... "you mean they were beautiful underwater cities full of life?....like Atlantis ? :(
Forty percent of the planet’s land is devoted to human food production, up from 7 percent in 1700 [3].
Some of those facts seem convincing enough, but I'm having a hard time believing this one. Forty percent??? I've seen a few farms in my lifetime, but way more wilderness and city...
I'll assume that you guys are dead on the money......burning coal, driving SUVs, and industrializing the entire planet has no negative effects on this so called "climate" thing. Greenhouse gases are completely harmless, and therefore in regards to this thing we call a "climate", humans are totally off the hook. We can go back to being awesome snowflakes again :)
However on the other hand, humans are gonna kill the Earth off by killing it's biodiversity, and other life forms way before the climate will come into play. Humans are the best at making shit go extinct real quick....we move in, everything else moves out or dies. That simple!
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/images/ExtinctionAndPopulation_102609.jpg
"We’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction crisis. Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that 30,000 species per year (or three species per hour) are being driven to extinction. Compare this to the natural background rate of one extinction per million species per year, and you can see why scientists refer to it as a crisis unparalleled in human history.
The current mass extinction differs from all others in being driven by a single species rather than a planetary or galactic physical process. When the human race — Homo sapiens sapiens — migrated out of Africa to the Middle East 90,000 years ago, to Europe and Australia 40,000 years ago, to North America 12,500 years ago, and to the Caribbean 8,000 years ago, waves of extinction soon followed. The colonization-followed-by-extinction pattern can be seen as recently as 2,000 years ago, when humans colonized Madagascar and quickly drove elephant birds, hippos, and large lemurs extinct. [1].
The first wave of extinctions targeted large vertebrates hunted by hunter-gatherers. The second, larger wave began 10,000 years ago as the discovery of agriculture caused a population boom and a need to plow wildlife habitats, divert streams, and maintain large herds of domestic cattle. The third and largest wave began in 1800 with the harnessing of fossil fuels. With enormous, cheap energy at its disposal, the human population grew rapidly from 1 billion in 1800 to 2 billion in 1930, 4 billion in 1975, and over 7 billion today. If the current course is not altered, we’ll reach 8 billion by 2020 and 9 to 15 billion (likely the former) by 2050.
No population of a large vertebrate animal in the history of the planet has grown that much, that fast, or with such devastating consequences to its fellow earthlings. Humans’ impact has been so profound that scientists have proposed that the Holocene era be declared over and the current epoch (beginning in about 1900) be called the Anthropocene: the age when the “global environmental effects of increased human population and economic development” dominate planetary physical, chemical, and biological conditions [2].
Humans annually absorb 42 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial net primary productivity, 30 percent of its marine net primary productivity, and 50 percent of its fresh water [3].
Forty percent of the planet’s land is devoted to human food production, up from 7 percent in 1700 [3].
Fifty percent of the planet’s land mass has been transformed for human use [3].
More atmospheric nitrogen is now fixed by humans that all other natural processes combined [3] "
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/extinction/index.html
My kid's kids will be laughing when grandpa tries to tell them what a coral reef was..... "you mean they were beautiful underwater cities full of life?....like Atlantis ? :(
I really don't think anyone here is proposing that humans have not affected our environment. It would be disingenuous to think that.
But it seems that most of the research is not "provable," or in some other way, does not stand up to peer review, except by like-minded peers and those who stand to profit from these data. Even some of the data you cited cannot possibly be proven. Scientists don't even know how many species exist, so how can they accurately predict how many are becoming extinct on a yearly basis due to human encroachment, much less prove Nature's extinction rate outside of human encroachment? In our infinite and omnipotent wisdom and scientific knowledge, we still discover new species every year.
Outside of all of this, what would anyone suggest we do? There is always a bunch of finger pointing, but not a whole lot of viable options for "fixing" the perceived problems. Except mercury-laden light bulbs???
For example, let's take what the EPA has done in the last 10 years to diesel pick-up trucks and emissions. These trucks are now outfitted with all kinds of particulate filters, converters, etc. Besides the dismal mileage now created by the emissions systems, to burn off the trapped particulates, the engine now dumps more fuel into the emissions system. We've choked them down so much so as to take much of the diesel advantage out. Sure the emissions are cleaner, but at what cost? These diesel options now cost several thousands of dollars more per unit, and the fuel mileage isn't there anymore. They're cleaner, but less efficient. We're burning more fuel to do the same amount of work.
What kind of disconnect is that? :confused:
Crow Hunter
05-01-13, 09:49
I'll assume that you guys are dead on the money......burning coal, driving SUVs, and industrializing the entire planet has no negative effects on this so called "climate" thing. Greenhouse gases are completely harmless, and therefore in regards to this thing we call a "climate", humans are totally off the hook. We can go back to being awesome snowflakes again :)
However on the other hand, humans are gonna kill the Earth off by killing it's biodiversity, and other life forms way before the climate will come into play. Humans are the best at making shit go extinct real quick....we move in, everything else moves out or dies. That simple!
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/images/ExtinctionAndPopulation_102609.jpg
"We’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction crisis. Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that 30,000 species per year (or three species per hour) are being driven to extinction. Compare this to the natural background rate of one extinction per million species per year, and you can see why scientists refer to it as a crisis unparalleled in human history.
The current mass extinction differs from all others in being driven by a single species rather than a planetary or galactic physical process. When the human race — Homo sapiens sapiens — migrated out of Africa to the Middle East 90,000 years ago, to Europe and Australia 40,000 years ago, to North America 12,500 years ago, and to the Caribbean 8,000 years ago, waves of extinction soon followed. The colonization-followed-by-extinction pattern can be seen as recently as 2,000 years ago, when humans colonized Madagascar and quickly drove elephant birds, hippos, and large lemurs extinct. [1].
The first wave of extinctions targeted large vertebrates hunted by hunter-gatherers. The second, larger wave began 10,000 years ago as the discovery of agriculture caused a population boom and a need to plow wildlife habitats, divert streams, and maintain large herds of domestic cattle. The third and largest wave began in 1800 with the harnessing of fossil fuels. With enormous, cheap energy at its disposal, the human population grew rapidly from 1 billion in 1800 to 2 billion in 1930, 4 billion in 1975, and over 7 billion today. If the current course is not altered, we’ll reach 8 billion by 2020 and 9 to 15 billion (likely the former) by 2050.
No population of a large vertebrate animal in the history of the planet has grown that much, that fast, or with such devastating consequences to its fellow earthlings. Humans’ impact has been so profound that scientists have proposed that the Holocene era be declared over and the current epoch (beginning in about 1900) be called the Anthropocene: the age when the “global environmental effects of increased human population and economic development” dominate planetary physical, chemical, and biological conditions [2].
Humans annually absorb 42 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial net primary productivity, 30 percent of its marine net primary productivity, and 50 percent of its fresh water [3].
Forty percent of the planet’s land is devoted to human food production, up from 7 percent in 1700 [3].
Fifty percent of the planet’s land mass has been transformed for human use [3].
More atmospheric nitrogen is now fixed by humans that all other natural processes combined [3] "
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/overpopulation/extinction/index.html
My kid's kids will be laughing when grandpa tries to tell them what a coral reef was..... "you mean they were beautiful underwater cities full of life?....like Atlantis ? :(
99% of all the species that ever existed were gone before humans even evolved and that is just by looking at fossils.
Is that Bush's fault too?;)
The "humans are a virus" mantra is pretty silly. We can't possibly know what the extinction rate was before we started checking it because we weren't here and for most of our existence, we didn't bother to keep up with it.... The fossilization rate is very small for every organism that perishes. It must die in exactly the right conditions in exactly the right location for it's bones to become fossilized. There are many biospheres that may have existed that there are no fossil remains existing to document. Many of the "species" that have been documented may have merely been genetic anomalies of existing species. (Like ginger humans) Without good DNA sequences demonstrating that a particular orange and black beetle is actually a different species, it could be that the red and black beetle, that still exists is really the same just colored differently and the "species" really isn't extinct.
This is another aspect of the self deprecating "White Guilt" modern European cultural bias that shows up in all of the halls of academia. Looking back at our successes and trying to tear it all down to show how "understanding" we all are.
Personally, I think killing off 30,000 species (of mostly inconsequential invertebrates of questionable genetic diversity) is a fine price to pay if it means that I don't have to live as a hunter/ gatherer with a 35 year life expectancy fighting off bear and wolves with pointy sticks hoping that I don't die from a blood infection because I got stuck by a thorn gathering berries.
Funny you don't see researchers like that volunteer to be the first to give up all the benefits of modern society and wander around naked digging up roots to survive. They just want all us to pay for their ideas.
Some of those facts seem convincing enough, but I'm having a hard time believing this one. Forty percent??? I've seen a few farms in my lifetime, but way more wilderness and city...
It's actually dead on as I've sourced this same percentage from a number of solid sources including imo the best....the USDA's official listed data as shown below on their map.
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Farms/Land_in_Farms_and_Land_Use/07-M079.gif
Half of my car rides on vacations have been spent looking at farm, after farm, after farm while passing though for myself mainly the southern US region.
Here's my point pretty plain and simple....only humans can stop humans! How anyone can justify believing humans are the superior life form on this planet when we're responsible for the total destruction of everything else around us is beyond me.
It's the natural order in time that humans die completely off....how can it be any other way? How do 10 billion humans survive on a planet where:
A) all the air, water, and land has been poisoned to the point it's unfit to sustain complicated lifeforms such as plants, animals, and fish?
B) all of the other lifeforms on earth that could potentially benefit/sustain human life such as the plants, or gamefish/animals have been completely killed off, or made extinct?
Ultimately obviously, I'm a human...so I can't hate myself too much. That said, no way in hell do I think myself or any other human is the superior life form on planet Earth, rather just the opposite.
The cheetah got the "speed card", the owl got the "hearing card", the Bear got the "olfaction card", the various birds of prey got the "vision card", and the Sailfish got the "swim card".
Humans got the "brain card", and personally I believe it's not because we're any more special than any other complicated life form on Earth, rather just the way the cookie must have crumbled.
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Farms/Land_in_Farms_and_Land_Use/07-M079.gif
I suspect your handy graph of the USA is absolute garbage. If this is what has convinced you then you need to do a reality check on ALL of your beliefs.
The particular county in Pennsylvania where I live is shown to be 30-49% farms. That is ABSOLUTELY not true. Not even remotely close.
The assertion on every other Pennsylvania county I am familiar with.... is also inaccurate.
Your chart is garbage.
Why I occasionally run my mouth off in the useless GD, I have no idea.
Perhaps I enjoy hearing from the occasional hardass GD poster that calls out my shenanigans (opinions) for what they are. Those guys really spur those reality checks on my entire life history. Can't even remember now how many times I leave GD completely reassessing my life, and it's direction.
Here ya go tough guy GD poster.....
Tell the USDA, and the NASS about the garbage their putting out on the internet if your as outraged as you sound through the internet.
Here ya go:
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Ag_Atlas_Maps/Farms/
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/index.asp
I live here, and that chart is clearly incorrect for my area. It is not even laughably close.
The "objective data" is not starting out with a high accuracy rating when compared with what is clearly accurate information from my own knowledge.
When you find bad data, it is bad data. How can I justify belief in some chart when the small little 2% I know about is clearly false?
Sorry to rustle your jimmies.
I have no problems at all with you or anyone who disagrees with me, and moreover generally speaking it makes for a better discussion when opinions are quite varied or polarized.
I only ask that if somebody calls me out directly, to do so in a civil manner. Again, no worries...it's the internet :)
VooDoo6Actual
05-01-13, 13:48
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lovhmwhJF31qcrz20o1_500.gif
People stuck at the bottom don't care, people at the top are the ones thst do somethign about it.
Reminds me of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
I have no problems at all with you or anyone who disagrees with me, and moreover generally speaking it makes for a better discussion when opinions are quite varied or polarized.
I only ask that if somebody calls me out directly, to do so in a civil manner. Again, no worries...it's the internet :)
Well said. I am actually shocked when people here agree with me. Doesn't happen too often. :p
The_War_Wagon
05-01-13, 14:02
Since we seem to be WAAAAY off track...
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc305/The_War_Wagon/Goremons1_zpsf2d3167c.jpg
:rolleyes:
GeorgiaBoy
05-01-13, 16:08
Lets just burn every single fossil fuel that we have available to us until its gone, while turning a blind eye to the clean energy of solar, water and air. Oh wait, that's what we're doing! We feel so comfortable int he fact that we have a "centuries worth" of coal, natural gas, and oil left that we might as well burn it to extinction while avoiding the inevitable problem that we simply don't have the common sense to rapidly advance new technology. Think of the jobs that could be created by solar panel factories, wind turbine manufacturing, and hyrdo-dam building. They could even be private enterprise, so no taxpayer money will have to pay for it, lest we be socialist.
And then we have the Tesla coil free energy possibility...
But it's simply too convenient to simply brush off human affects on the atmosphere as left wing propaganda than rigorously try to find a solution to the problem.
RancidSumo
05-01-13, 16:35
When it comes to climate change, I think it is fairly simple:
1. Humans have undeniably had an impact. We aren't the only cause but we are certainly one of them and not an insignificant one.
2. I believe that we do not need to go back to candles and walking everywhere to fix the problem. The answer lies in new technologies improving what we have, not in returning to a primitive, uncivilized lifestyle.
3. Government does nothing but get in the way. We don't need laws regulating everything from our toilets to our lightbulbs. When a better, more efficient technology is invented, the market will naturally adopt it.
That's it. Problem solved. The answer is the same for climate change as it is for pretty much everything: more liberty.
Obviously we as human beings are a catalyst to our changing climate and to the biodiversity changes around us. No one is arguing against those points. To what extent and the level of historical evidence avialable to see the whole picture with any clarity and come to a cogent understanding- is another story...
So let's really get into alternative energy sources debate here.
You want to utilize alternative energy sources? Great! I do too and already do (At my home/compound out in the country I have a solar array, wind turbines and battery array. Only have solar in our city home though).
There are some great systems out there, and there are some bad ones. For many reasons.
First off, get out of the box and quit thinking that an alternative energy can be created in bulk and sent down-line to end users- NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! So much wasted energy, in so many ways. I could go into this MUCH further, but suffice it to say that there are several road blocks to creating clean energy at a single source and then sending it out on wires to the end user- keeping it efficient and viable in the process.
Until we have true wireless energy transfer that is both efficient and safe- not going to happen.
We do have limited wireless energy tranfer capabilities, but they are very LIMITED at this point and mostly in the infancy of R&D.
Once we have true wireless energy tranfer that is viable and efficient, all we need to do is conveniently place some photovoltaic arrays in low orbit constantly absorbing the sun and beamthe energy on down.
That WILL happen one day I am certain- if we can maintain/survive until then.
The only way to utilize alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, tesla, etc; and make it viable is to create it on a personal basis. No big company sending it to you via a power line.
The future of energy is truly going to be individuals creating all of their own energy at their "household power plant"- if you will.
The revolution is already happening if you're not paying attention; it is just moving very slowly, and all the "green" idiots are mucking it up with non-viable means; making buku cash in the process.
You REALLY want to help the environment?
GET a battery array, a photovoltaic array and a wind turbine. Power when there is sun, or wind , utilize LV systems all you can and a battery back-up system constantly trickel charged for when the wind and sun aren't around to produce the energy needed.
You can even have as shitter that traps and collects the methane to be used for cooking/heating! Seriously!
The intial investment is quite large, but pays for itself quickly. The cost to maintain is minimal (IF done properly) and you can actually SELL energy back to the Power company if you create an excess and send it back down the line to them. I do.
The major road block here- other than greedy green dickheads and people in existing/traditional energy production fighting it- is that most neighboorhoods & areas will not allow for a wind turbine on your property (Especailly in the city), and some not even photovoltaic arrays (Damn homeowners associations).
Using the power you generate for your needs and having a battery array- to trickle charge constantly; is a great way to be free of the grid and the dependence on others to produce your power for you.
So you really want to help the environment; stop recycling every damn thing (Waste of time) and start re-using it all instead! And start making your own energy.
If you really want to help the environmment, brew your own beer (And grow your own ingredients/propagate your own yeast and re-use your beer bottles or get a kegging system), distill your own booze (And grow your own ingredients), make your own cheese, raise/hunt slaughter and render your own meat and produce your own milk, grow your own crops for food- etc, etc, etc, etc.
This "Green" thought that some company is going to come along with a viable means to provide your "clean" energy for you, or magically create some new gizmo that will solve all these problems is a pipe dream and quite naive.
So all of you shouting about MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING and the trouble we are in here are my questions to you:
Are you creatin gyour own energy?
Are you re-using everything that you can?
Are you making/gorwing/producing anything and everything you can for your own family?
Or are you buying energy from a company?
Are you recycling (Which is counter productive and causes great amount sof C02 emmissions due to transportation and sorting logistics) only?
Are you buying everything you need from a retailer?
So what you say you?
Not to say that our pollution output has no impact on our climate, but I find it very convenient that now they are blaming the cold on "global warming".
http://sixty-six.org/x_drive/global_warming.jpg
Heavy Metal
05-01-13, 17:24
I'll
However on the other hand, humans are gonna kill the Earth off by killing it's biodiversity, and other life forms way before the climate will come into play. Humans are the best at making shit go extinct real quick....we move in, everything else moves out or dies. That simple!
"We’re in the midst of the Earth’s sixth mass extinction crisis. Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson estimates that 30,000 species per year (or three species per hour) are being driven to extinction. Compare this to the natural background rate of one extinction per million species per year, and you can see why scientists refer to it as a crisis unparalleled in human history.
The current mass extinction differs from all others in being driven by a single species rather than a planetary or galactic physical process. When the human race — Homo sapiens sapiens — migrated out of Africa to the Middle East 90,000 years ago, to Europe and Australia :(
And again, turn you ire to the poor cultures of other continents. It ain't the US doing it. The more like the US they become, the fewer species will go extinct as habitat will be preserved and NOT trashed. Your linking Biodiversity to so-called man-made 'Climate Change' is ust a lazy Strawman argument. Habitat destruction is the key to extinction and it is poor nations that shit where they eat.
If you want habitat destruction, go to Hati. It is a simple, easly verifiable fact that the richer nations are the one preserving habitat and the poorer ones who are trashing it.
Take note of Brazil as it moves out of ist's third world status and it's economy prospers, it's protection of the Tropical Amazon Rainforest in likewise increasing.....because they can now AFFORD to protect it!
Is the light coming on yet?
Heavy Metal
05-01-13, 17:28
Some of those facts seem convincing enough, but I'm having a hard time believing this one. Forty percent??? I've seen a few farms in my lifetime, but way more wilderness and city...
I agree, that number is BS. America is the world's largest food producer and we don't come close to 40% Ag unless you count Silviculture as Ag.
I suspect that is where he is getting his 40% number.
brickboy240
05-01-13, 17:28
Yeah...have you noticed that the "climate clowns" and Green Mafia blame EVERYTHING on climate change/global warming.
We get no rain - climate change
We get tons of rain - climate change
We get a tornado - climate change
We get hail - climate change
We get a hurricane - again....climate change!
Every year, they predict that our hurricanes will be much worse than the last season. When that does not pan out...they have no comment!
Question these guys and you are told that you are a dunce or anti-science.
...anyone still buying this crap?
I swear...they are making this shit up as time goes along.
When I was a kid in the 70s, they said we would run out of drinking water by 2000. Also...they said we'd be starving and running out of food.
It is complete BS...they are literally making shit up as time goes by. Many of you in your 20s cannot see this yet but those of us in our mid 40s or older have seen enough of these people to know they are making it up, then "adjusting" it as time goes by and their predictions don't pan out.
-brickboy240
Heavy Metal
05-01-13, 17:31
Reminds me of Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
There is a reason for that.
And again, turn you ire to the poor cultures of other continents. It ain't the US doing it. The more like the US they become, the fewer species will go extinct as habitat will be preserved and NOT trashed. Your linking Biodiversity to so-called man-made 'Climate Change' is ust a lazy Strawman argument. Habitat destruction is the key to extinction and it is poor nations that shit where they eat.
If you want habitat destruction, go to Hati. It is a simple, easly verifiable fact that the richer nations are the one preserving habitat and the poorer ones who are trashing it.
Take note of Brazil as it moves out of ist's third world status and it's economy prospers, it's protection of the Tropical Amazon Rainforest in likewise increasing.....because they can now AFFORD to protect it!
Is the light coming on yet?
I think you've got that backwards. The more "developed" or industrialized a nation becomes it thirsts for - no CRAVES - oil, feedstock and foodstuffs for a population that no longer feeds itself. This is why Kissinger and Brzezinski push for genocidal programs for Third World nations (access to natural resources) and why they promote (and our leaders - regardless of Party affiliation DO) inhibiting Developing Nations from becoming DEVELOPED Nations.
Heavy Metal
05-01-13, 18:41
I think you've got that backwards. The more "developed" or industrialized a nation becomes it thirsts for - no CRAVES - oil, feedstock and foodstuffs for a population that no longer feeds itself. This is why Kissinger and Brzezinski push for genocidal programs for Third World nations (access to natural resources) and why they promote (and our leaders - regardless of Party affiliation DO) inhibiting Developing Nations from becoming DEVELOPED Nations.
The United States no longer feeds itself? That's news to me. Talk about mis-managing our 40% cropland.
I agree, that number is BS. America is the world's largest food producer and we don't come close to 40% Ag unless you count Silviculture as Ag.
Again it's not just all about humans, and their food needs, and the term "farm" doesn't just refer to Old McDonalds types.
What Defines a Farm in USDA Statistics?
With the goal of capturing as much production as possible, the definition of a farm has changed multiple times since originally introduced. For the 1850 Census, a farm was defined as any establishment that sold at least $100 worth of agricultural goods. In 1870, a farm had to have at least $500 worth of sales or more than three acres of productive land. By 1900, sales and acreage limits
were dropped. Instead, the entire time of at least one individual needed to be devoted to the farm during the year. In 1925, when the agriculture census began to be taken every 5 years instead of every 10, the definition of a farm reverted to using an acreage/sales screen combination, this time requiring at least three acres of productive land or $250 worth of agricultural sales.
In 1975, USDA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s U.S. Census Bureau agreed on a definition of a farm that is still in use today. “A farm is currently defined, for statistical purposes, as any place from which $1,000 or more of agricultural goods (crops or livestock) were sold or normally would have been sold during the year under consideration” (Glossary, 2005). USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) also includes government payments as sales. In other words, a farm is defined as any place with any combination of sales, potential sales, and government payments totaling at least $1,000.
The phrase “normally would” aims to ensure the inclusion of farms that do, or could, contribute to agricultural production, even if they did not have $1,000 in sales. Farms might experience adverse events, such as droughts, hurricanes, fires, or disease that destroy the farm’s production in a particular year (or several consecutive years). Some commodities require a long production cycle before sales are realized. For example, a new orchard will typically
require several years before the trees mature and harvest can begin. Even for crops with annual production cycles, crops might be harvested and stored, with no sales recorded during a year. Current practice aims to include establishments with the capacity to realize at least $1,000 in revenues from any combination of government payments, cropland, and/or livestock activities.
To identify farms that could normally produce at least $1,000 worth of agricultural commodities, USDA uses a system that assigns specific point values for crop acreage and livestock inventory. Each assigned point represents $1 in potential sales; any establishment with 1,000 points ($1,000 of potential sales) is classified as a farm. In USDA statistics, such places are called “point farms” and are numerous, since many places could produce $1,000 in sales from the cropland and livestock on the premises (see box, “How Large Is a Point Farm?”). Overall, using 2006 ARMS data, we estimate that there were approximately 440,000 point farms (over 20 percent of all farms). The newly released 2007 Census of Agriculture reports roughly 500,000 point farms. NASS created new methodologies to collect the data for this Census of Agriculture, designed to more accurately count small farms. While NASS believes that the new methodologies account for at least some of the increase in small farms reported, the new Census of Agriculture data suggest that almost 23 percent of all farms in the United States had the potential to generate at least $1,000 worth of agricultural sales, yet did not do so (USDA/NASS, 2009). Due to its broad, inclusive nature, the current USDA definition of a farm encompasses almost all organizations that produce agricultural goods, from small farms with very little or no production, to commercial farm businesses with sales in the millions of dollars. Such variation means that simple statistics of the agricultural sector can be misleading. Figures 1-7 show a range of farm sizes and provide a picture of farm structure useful for helping to refine the term “actively engaged".
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/450362/eib49b_1_.pdf
USDA census of agriculture breakdown (illustrating the point apparently lost on some, or that a "farm" isn't just for growing crops)
http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac81/trident1982/c0f03f50-023d-4b7f-8e69-965db559cb9c_zps6b04601a.jpg (http://s888.photobucket.com/user/trident1982/media/c0f03f50-023d-4b7f-8e69-965db559cb9c_zps6b04601a.jpg.html)
Crow Hunter
05-01-13, 21:39
I agree, that number is BS. America is the world's largest food producer and we don't come close to 40% Ag unless you count Silviculture as Ag.
I suspect that is where he is getting his 40% number.
I think you are correct.
I own 2 "agricultural properties".
One grows trees and one grows grass, literally.
Both are considered "farms" by the government and I have to fill out the farm census by law and show what I am "producing" among quite a few other nosy questions, every five years.
"Global Warming" is a term coined by the media. Science has been using the term Climate Change since the late 1800s when the first hypothesis was put forward. If you read the actual science, and not just random news articles, you will see that all predictions have been pretty much spot on. Hotter summers, Colder winters. A decrease in spring and Fall seasons.
The problem with Climate change is that is has become politicized. Not by the scientists but by politicians who are looking to get re-elected. So just like every other issue we can name, we get a bunch of posturing, attacks, and schemes to help out donors. But no actual progress on the real issue.
I have no problems at all with you or anyone who disagrees with me, and moreover generally speaking it makes for a better discussion when opinions are quite varied or polarized.
I only ask that if somebody calls me out directly, to do so in a civil manner. Again, no worries...it's the internet :)
Yeah, I stand corrected. I was a little crass. I get so irritated when I find what appears to be falsified information from what is supposed to be a unbiased trusted source....over and over again. It is not your assertion... it is the underlying data I find to be inaccurate again, and again, and again.
I can't begin to count the number of times I take a chart in a news publication and find the source to be sloppy... like that 2% of the chart I know to be inaccurate. How can I trust what the rest of the chart "says" and helps me "conclude".
Mis-information is a real problem in our society. Not only are people not paying attention, and many apathetic... but the information put before us a "truth" is often grossly inaccurate.
No wonder everything is so screwed up.
VooDoo6Actual
05-02-13, 10:50
Geoengineering, Stratospheric Sulfate Aerosols (SAG), Solar Radiation Management (SRM) Carbon Dioxide removal (CDR), Cloud Seeding (CS) et alia has nothing to do w/ it.
regarding "Weather Modification" or "Weather as a Force Multiplier", the UN Convention on the prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification which went into effect October 5th 1978 & applies to "widespread, long-lasting or severe environmental modifications" is a fallacy.
Right, got it ....
Spot on comments about how people comport themselves here. At times I truly believe we have passed the rubicon of Rectal Craninal Impaction (RCI).
VooDoo6Actual
05-02-13, 11:21
What is intellectually dishonest is fear mongering the world into trillion dollar "solutions" of questionable effect.
This.
morbidbattlecry
05-02-13, 16:21
Yeah...have you noticed that the "climate clowns" and Green Mafia blame EVERYTHING on climate change/global warming.
We get no rain - climate change
We get tons of rain - climate change
We get a tornado - climate change
We get hail - climate change
We get a hurricane - again....climate change!
Every year, they predict that our hurricanes will be much worse than the last season. When that does not pan out...they have no comment!
Question these guys and you are told that you are a dunce or anti-science.
...anyone still buying this crap?
I swear...they are making this shit up as time goes along.
When I was a kid in the 70s, they said we would run out of drinking water by 2000. Also...they said we'd be starving and running out of food.
It is complete BS...they are literally making shit up as time goes by. Many of you in your 20s cannot see this yet but those of us in our mid 40s or older have seen enough of these people to know they are making it up, then "adjusting" it as time goes by and their predictions don't pan out.
-brickboy240
Actually your right about what you just said. Global warming does in the long run cause a net heat increase. But it has effects in the short term as well. What you will see is more extreme weather. If it was going to be hot it will be hotter, if it is cold it will be colder if it is going to snow the it will snow more. Sense there is more heat and thus energy in the system that drives the climate engine more extreme things happen. Just saying its going to get hotter and there will be no more rain or cold weather is not accurate. We talking about a very small increase in temperature. Maybe like 5 degrees on average over the next hundred or so years.
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly things become politicized followed shortly by teeming millions (who probably haven't done enough research to form an educated opinion one way or another) digging in their heels and looking upon the other side with disdain for their stupidity. :rolleyes:
GeorgiaBoy
05-02-13, 18:41
It never ceases to amaze me how quickly things become politicized followed shortly by teeming millions (who probably haven't done enough research to form an educated opinion one way or another) digging in their heels and looking upon the other side with disdain for their stupidity. :rolleyes:
Indeed, it is rather unfortunate that something as serious as climate change/pollution/environment has to be something that is politicized and divided according to whether you have a "R" or a "D" next to your name.
Trying to dismiss the effects of 150 years of continuous burning of fossil fuels as having little affect on the atmosphere is intellectually dishonest.
Does it have a huge effect? A effect bigger than natural sources of CO2 and other greenhouse gases? Perhaps not, but its still an effect either way.
I can't understand why so many want to dismiss the research into more alternative, cleaner sources of energy and instead want to parade around boasting that we still have "a lot" of oil left and we shouldn't worry about it just yet. In fact, the fact that these sources of energy are not infinite are one of the reasons we should be looking into alternative sources of energy, not only because of their affects on the environment.
Co2 is good for the plant life and the heath of plants animals and people.
Yeah...have you noticed that the "climate clowns" and Green Mafia blame EVERYTHING on climate change/global warming.
We get no rain - climate change
We get tons of rain - climate change
We get a tornado - climate change
We get hail - climate change
We get a hurricane - again....climate change!
Every year, they predict that our hurricanes will be much worse than the last season. When that does not pan out...they have no comment!
Question these guys and you are told that you are a dunce or anti-science.
...anyone still buying this crap?
I swear...they are making this shit up as time goes along.
When I was a kid in the 70s, they said we would run out of drinking water by 2000. Also...they said we'd be starving and running out of food.
It is complete BS...they are literally making shit up as time goes by. Many of you in your 20s cannot see this yet but those of us in our mid 40s or older have seen enough of these people to know they are making it up, then "adjusting" it as time goes by and their predictions don't pan out.
-brickboy240
Through out history the climate does change.
GeorgiaBoy
05-02-13, 19:57
Co2 is good for the plant life and the heath of plants animals and people.
Are you familiar with oceanic acidification?
Nitrogen makes many plants grow better too but too much can kill them. It's not quite a simple as saying "CO2 is good for plants. Therefore, more is better".
Heavy Metal
05-02-13, 20:11
Are you familiar with oceanic acidification?
Nitrogen makes many plants grow better too but too much can kill them. It's not quite a simple as saying "CO2 is good for plants. Therefore, more is better".
So why didn't the Ocean acidify during the Paleozoic or Mesozoic when CO2 levels were FAR HIGHER?
Because pH is a LOGRITHMIC scale and the whole Ocean Acidification thing is bullshit. The Ocean has ENORMOUS buffering capacity.
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/PhanerozoicCO2-Temperatures.png
Frankly, looking at that graph, we NEED more CO2 in the atmosphere. We are getting kind of low. Below a certain level, some lifeforms can't cope, like TREES!
Talk about mass extinction!
So why didn't the Ocean acidify during the Paleozoic or Mesozoic when CO2 levels were FAR HIGHER?
Because pH is a LOGRITHMIC scale and the whole Ocean Acidification thing is bullshit. The Ocean has ENORMOUS buffering capacity.
http://deforestation.geologist-1011.net/PhanerozoicCO2-Temperatures.png
Frankly, looking at that graph, we NEED more CO2 in the atmosphere. We are getting kind of low. Below a certain level, some lifeforms can't cope, like TREES!
Talk about mass extinction!
Very interesting regarding the oceans. Actually, the ocean is one of the biggest factors to consider when discussing the climate, or at least our survivability. Most of our O2 comes from the Big Blue.
Heavy Metal
05-03-13, 09:56
US headed for the Coldest Spring on record:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/us-headed-for-the-coldest-spring-on-record/
Anybody here read 'Fallen Angels'?
morbidbattlecry
05-03-13, 11:16
US headed for the Coldest Spring on record:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/us-headed-for-the-coldest-spring-on-record/
Anybody here read 'Fallen Angels'?
Short term effects on climate resulting from global warming are not well understood. But 2012 capped the warmest decade on record. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/15/globe-continues-hottest-decade-ever/
Short term effects on climate resulting from global warming are not well understood. But 2012 capped the warmest decade on record. http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/15/globe-continues-hottest-decade-ever/
Maybe, but the data is still far from "unimpeachable," which is why we’re having the discussion in the first place. But the author also draws conclusions that he cannot possibly draw: that humans are THE SIGNIFICANT cause of the warming, if there actually is warming.
Heavy Metal
05-03-13, 13:32
Maybe, but the data is still far from "unimpeachable," which is why we’re having the discussion in the first place. But the author also draws conclusions that he cannot possibly draw: that humans are THE SIGNIFICANT cause of the warming, if there actually is warming.
Arguably, we are still coming out of the Little Ice Age and also note we are nowhere near the high temps experienced during the Mideval Wamring Period when the Britons were able to eschew winter clothing entirely.
In the past, Britian was a Wine Producing region and Greenland could support farming.
Crow Hunter
05-03-13, 13:56
In the past, Britian was a Wine Producing region and Greenland could support farming.
Yep.
People tend to conveniently forget that.
That was probably man made too. All those pesky people and domesticated animals breathing out CO2 and farting methane.:rolleyes:
It was only the Black Death that reduced the human population and allowed sweet mother Earth to recover from the human virus.
Plot to Rainbow Six....
:D
morbidbattlecry
05-03-13, 14:44
Maybe, but the data is still far from "unimpeachable," which is why we’re having the discussion in the first place. But the author also draws conclusions that he cannot possibly draw: that humans are THE SIGNIFICANT cause of the warming, if there actually is warming.
If there is warming its human caused. Simple as that. All that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could not have come from someplace else.
If there is warming its human caused. Simple as that. All that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could not have come from someplace else.
:stop: Except maybe volcanos, and deep sea vents, and the ocean, and...
Our world, not just humans, produces CO2.
Heavy Metal
05-03-13, 15:41
If there is warming its human caused. Simple as that. All that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could not have come from someplace else.
Just like Humans cause the warming during the Medeval Warm Period and the Roman Warm period, right?
What makes you think that CO2 is the sole or even the majority reason for any warming?
The sun has variable output, water vapor is a far more powerful and abundant greenhouse gas...etc.
You reasoning about a highly-complex phenomenon is laughably simplistic.
morbidbattlecry
05-03-13, 16:35
Just like Humans cause the warming during the Medeval Warm Period and the Roman Warm period, right?
What makes you think that CO2 is the sole or even the majority reason for any warming?
The sun has variable output, water vapor is a far more powerful and abundant greenhouse gas...etc.
You reasoning about a highly-complex phenomenon is laughably simplistic.
What makes you think its not? Is the sun in a cool cycle right now? Is there vastly more volcanic activity right now? Something i'm missing? Please explain it to Mr. climate scientist. Whats laughable is your willingness to cherry pick facts that make your case seam better. Learn to science before you try to pass BS
morbidbattlecry
05-03-13, 16:39
:stop: Except maybe volcanos, and deep sea vents, and the ocean, and...
Our world, not just humans, produces CO2.
The world does not produce it like we do. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
The world does not produce it like we do. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Really? In any case, that's not what you stated.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.
morbidbattlecry
05-03-13, 17:05
Really? In any case, that's not what you stated.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
Where did i not state that. And i love how all you information comes from one anti climate change site. Got any legitimate sources? By the way thanks for making me do my research. And clearing this up for me. http://grist.org/article/natural-emissions-dwarf-human-emissions/
Crow Hunter
05-03-13, 17:37
Where did i not state that. And i love how all you information comes from one anti climate change site. Got any legitimate sources? By the way thanks for making me do my research. And clearing this up for me. http://grist.org/article/natural-emissions-dwarf-human-emissions/
Wait, you are using info from the blog of a:
Former musician, turned tree planter, turned software engineer.
To refute claims about legitimate sources? :confused:
ETA:
The source you claim is anti-climate change is actually an anti-anti-climate change site.
morbidbattlecry
05-03-13, 18:52
Wait, you are using info from the blog of a:
To refute claims about legitimate sources? :confused:
ETA:
The source you claim is anti-climate change is actually an anti-anti-climate change site.
This i what i get isn't it? For arguing with people on the internet. Fine then.
Noaa http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html
World Meteorological Organization http://www.wmo.int/pages/about/wmo50/e/world/climate_pages/global_warming_e.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research http://ncar.ucar.edu/learn-more-about/climate
MIT http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html
California Institute of Technology http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf
All legitimate sources. But why does it matter right? i mean its not like you guys are pulling out what you want and ignoring the rest or anything.
Case and point this skepticalscience site is trying to tell people its real http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Crow Hunter
05-03-13, 19:34
This i what i get isn't it? For arguing with people on the internet. Fine then.
Noaa http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html
World Meteorological Organization http://www.wmo.int/pages/about/wmo50/e/world/climate_pages/global_warming_e.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research http://ncar.ucar.edu/learn-more-about/climate
MIT http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/climate.html
California Institute of Technology http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tapio/papers/skeptic_2008.pdf
All legitimate sources. But why does it matter right? i mean its not like you guys are pulling out what you want and ignoring the rest or anything.
Case and point this skepticalscience site is trying to tell people its real http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Just look at your NOAA chart. From 1880 to 1890 you have a .2 Degree C increase in temperature.
Really? People using muzzle loading black powder firearms and riding horses were capable of measuring a 2 tenths of a degree of temperature? That means they would have to have gauges cable of measuring to one hundredths of a degree to be statistically capable of measuring that repeatably. Even in the Southern Hemisphere...?;)
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that we can take 200 years of even accurate data and determine the long term trends for the last 1,000,000 years?
I am not a climate scientist. I am an engineer and the first thing I do when someone asks me to fix a problem is to determine if I am measuring correctly.
Maybe climate scientology is different.
ClearedHot
05-03-13, 19:52
Running a catless exhaust on the C63 AMG. What's global warming? :D
morbidbattlecry
05-03-13, 19:56
Just look at your NOAA chart. From 1880 to 1890 you have a .2 Degree C increase in temperature.
Really? People using muzzle loading black powder firearms and riding horses were capable of measuring a 2 tenths of a degree of temperature? That means they would have to have gauges cable of measuring to one hundredths of a degree to be statistically capable of measuring that repeatably. Even in the Southern Hemisphere...?;)
Do you believe that?
Do you believe that we can take 200 years of even accurate data and determine the long term trends for the last 1,000,000 years?
I am not a climate scientist. I am an engineer and the first thing I do when someone asks me to fix a problem is to determine if I am measuring correctly.
Maybe climate scientology is different.
It was about that time the industrial revolution was started. Also at this time people where burning wood for heating.
Heavy Metal
05-03-13, 19:57
What makes you think its not? Is the sun in a cool cycle right now? Is there vastly more volcanic activity right now? Something i'm missing? Please explain it to Mr. climate scientist. Whats laughable is your willingness to cherry pick facts that make your case seam better. Learn to science before you try to pass BS
Dude, you can't even spell seem and "Learn to science before you try to pass BS' is bullshit nonsense Grammar. You don't learn 'to science' like you are trying to operate a lawnmower. Science doens't work like that.
It's a process, not a device, please learn to understand what you are talking about okay?
Whay should I take someone who posts like a 5th grader seriously?
And yes, the Sun is going into a period of diminished output.
Learn to science before you try to pass BS
Yes, learn to science.
morbidbattlecry
05-03-13, 20:16
Dude, you can't even spell seem and "Learn to science before you try to pass BS' is bullshit nonsense Grammar. You don't learn 'to science' like you are trying to operate a lawnmower. Science doens't work like that.
It's a process, not a device, please learn to understand what you are talking about okay?
Whay should I take someone who posts like a 5th grader seriously?
And yes, the Sun is going into a period of diminished output.
Whay indeed.
Crow Hunter
05-03-13, 20:24
It was about that time the industrial revolution was started. Also at this time people where burning wood for heating.
Yep.
And they had what gauges capable of measuring to the .01 C?
Precision, accuracy, and reproducibility
The precision or resolution of a thermometer is simply to what fraction of a degree it is possible to make a reading. For high temperature work it may only be possible to measure to the nearest 10 °C or more. Clinical thermometers and many electronic thermometers are usually readable to 0.1 °C. Special instruments can give readings to one thousandth of a degree. However, this precision does not mean the reading is true or accurate.
Thermometers which are calibrated to known fixed points (e.g. 0 and 100 °C) will be accurate (i.e. will give a true reading) at those points. Most thermometers are originally calibrated to a constant-volume gas thermometer.[citation needed] In between a process of interpolation is used, generally a linear one.[34] This may give significant differences between different types of thermometer at points far away from the fixed points. For example the expansion of mercury in a glass thermometer is slightly different from the change in resistance of a platinum resistance of the thermometer, so these will disagree slightly at around 50 °C.[35] There may be other causes due to imperfections in the instrument, e.g. in a liquid-in-glass thermometer if the capillary tube varies in diameter.[35]
For many purposes reproducibility is important. That is, does the same thermometer give the same reading for the same temperature (or do replacement or multiple thermometers give the same reading)? Reproducible temperature measurement means that comparisons are valid in scientific experiments and industrial processes are consistent. Thus if the same type of thermometer is calibrated in the same way its readings will be valid even if it is slightly inaccurate compared to the absolute scale.
An example of a reference thermometer used to check others to industrial standards would be a platinum resistance thermometer with a digital display to 0.1 °C (its precision) which has been calibrated at 5 points against national standards (−18, 0, 40, 70, 100 °C) and which is certified to an accuracy of ±0.2 °C.[36]
According to British Standards, correctly calibrated, used and maintained liquid-in-glass thermometers can achieve a measurement uncertainty of ±0.01 °C in the range 0 to 100 °C, and a larger uncertainty outside this range: ±0.05 °C up to 200 or down to −40 °C, ±0.2 °C up to 450 or down to −80 °C.[37]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer
So now climate scientologists are going to say that there has been a .8 degree increase since the 1860s with a +/- .2 tolerance band even with modern high precision tools? Your gauging error eats up almost 1/2 of your total variation and you can make a judgement of statistical significance? That is completely leaving out the actual reliability of the gauging data from the 19th century.;)
I don't have a problem with reducing greenhouse emissions, developing green energy, weaning away from fossil fuels. I do have a problem with human caused global warming based on the data I have seen, it doesn't tell me what it tells climate scientologists.
Not touching this subject matter, but just FYI, the phrases "learn to X" and "do you even Y" are phrases that started on the internet but have crept into the vernacular at large.
Example: "Bro, do you even lift?" This was probably the original. People kept the form and then began using nouns as verbs in that form: "Bro, do you even logic?" Or "bro, do you even science?"
Variations: "Learn to logic" and "learn to science."
Clearly this is a syntactical disaster. You'd never use it in an official capacity, but it's a culture thing and not necessarily an indication that someone is stupid.
I'm friends with several PhD holders in Physics and Chemistry (reason I mention this is that it's mostly a science thing) who have astronomically high IQ's and use these phrases, plus all kinds of other modern, quirky language memes. You'd think they were idiots if you just read their informal writing. They don't care about there/their/they're, etc. But then they can flip a switch and write a seamless scientific paper. It's bizarre, really.
I have no idea if that's what's going on here, but it could be. Probably not, though.
Crow Hunter
05-03-13, 20:49
Clearly this is a syntactical disaster.
I like that.
I think it is syntastic.
We should all learn to meme.
:D
ETA: Whoa. That is a real word. I just thought you were being slick, instead you were just an English nerd. :D
I like that.
I think it is syntastic.
We should all learn to meme.
:D
I actually wasn't sure and looked it up. Dictionary says either one goes. The "-al" suffix is more consistent with other words that share the same basic form. It just sounds better to me.
For example, we take the root astronomy and make it astronomical instead of astronomic. Astronomical is an adjective meaning "of or relating to astronomy."
So I take syntax and make it syntactical instead of syntactic when I want to say "of or relating to syntax."
Apparently both syntactic and syntactical work, but I don't understand why it isn't more correct to match it with other adjectives where the "-al" suffix dominates.
Although, I do like words that end in TASTIC. Seriously, think of a bad thing that ends in "tastic." I can't do it. It's like trying to think of something bad that ends in "apolooza" or "fest" or "mania."
Crow Hunter
05-03-13, 21:00
I actually wasn't sure and looked it up. Dictionary says either one goes. The "-al" suffix is more consistent with other words that share the same basic form. It just sounds better to me.
For example, we take the root astronomy and make it astronomical instead of astronomic. Astronomical is an adjective meaning "of or relating to astronomy."
So I take syntax and make it syntactical instead of syntactic when I want to say "of or relating to syntax."
Apparently both syntactic and syntactical work, but I don't understand why it isn't more correct to match it with other adjectives where the "-al" suffix dominates.
I was saying Syntastic like fantastic. I thought YOU made Syntactical up being this is a tactical weapons site.
I was trying to respond in kind. I didn't realize it was a REAL word.
You won the internet today!
morbidbattlecry
05-04-13, 13:42
Yep.
And they had what gauges capable of measuring to the .01 C?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermometer
So now climate scientologists are going to say that there has been a .8 degree increase since the 1860s with a +/- .2 tolerance band even with modern high precision tools? Your gauging error eats up almost 1/2 of your total variation and you can make a judgement of statistical significance? That is completely leaving out the actual reliability of the gauging data from the 19th century.;)
I don't have a problem with reducing greenhouse emissions, developing green energy, weaning away from fossil fuels. I do have a problem with human caused global warming based on the data I have seen, it doesn't tell me what it tells climate scientologists.
No they didn't but we now use ice cores to measure such things.
I think the guy needs to learn to grammar.
Seems to be a poorly done sciencefest on the pro-man made climate change side coupled with "absolutastic mania" that cannot be argued with...
I would describe this as arrogantapalooza:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference
morbidbattlecry
05-04-13, 13:47
Not touching this subject matter, but just FYI, the phrases "learn to X" and "do you even Y" are phrases that started on the internet but have crept into the vernacular at large.
Example: "Bro, do you even lift?" This was probably the original. People kept the form and then began using nouns as verbs in that form: "Bro, do you even logic?" Or "bro, do you even science?"
Variations: "Learn to logic" and "learn to science."
Clearly this is a syntactical disaster. You'd never use it in an official capacity, but it's a culture thing and not necessarily an indication that someone is stupid.
I'm friends with several PhD holders in Physics and Chemistry (reason I mention this is that it's mostly a science thing) who have astronomically high IQ's and use these phrases, plus all kinds of other modern, quirky language memes. You'd think they were idiots if you just read their informal writing. They don't care about there/their/they're, etc. But then they can flip a switch and write a seamless scientific paper. It's bizarre, really.
I have no idea if that's what's going on here, but it could be. Probably not, though.
Yeah i can't spell or use grammar well at all. Believe me, i'll gladly admit it. In my defense i barely graduated high school and drive a lift truck for a living. Not much of a defense but its what i'm going with.
Yeah i can't spell or use grammar well at all. Believe me, i'll gladly admit it. In my defense i barely graduated high school and drive a lift truck for a living. Not much of a defense but its what i'm going with.
Then grasp that these Same kinds of limitations you have might also apply to your understanding of global warming. The science is not settled and the claims of liberalism are far from irrefutable.
The science is not settled and the claims of liberalism are far from irrefutable.
This. :agree:
Crow Hunter
05-04-13, 17:33
No they didn't but we now use ice cores to measure such things.
:confused:
You can't measure temperature from an ice core.
They are taking bubbles of air trapped in the ice cores and analyzing the elemental composition of that gas to determine what the atmosphere was like the moment the bubble was formed.
The problem with that is that it only describes the composition of the air at that exact moment in time at that exact location on Earth and you have selection bias just because you are only getting air samples in locations in which has ice year around.
You can't extrapolate temperature from gas bubbles. Otherwise, you could just go and grab a sample of air at any point on the globe, bring it back to the lab and 100% accurately determine what the temperature was when the sample was taken... That isn't possible by the way.
They are looking at the amount of CO2 in the air that was trapped as bubbles in ice X number of years ago and then using the very true and viable green house effect to hypothesize that the Earth is getting warmer then using bad data on temperature as "proof" that it is happening and that everyone else must lower their standard of living to "fix it".
I am arguing with the "proof". It isn't proof.
Until I see climate scientologists living a completely "carbon neutral" life, in 3rd world squalor, like they want the rest of us to live, instead of jetting around the world talking up their "save the world from carbon, give us more funding", I will probably not believe in anthropomorphic climate change.
morbidbattlecry
05-04-13, 19:34
:confused:
You can't measure temperature from an ice core.
They are taking bubbles of air trapped in the ice cores and analyzing the elemental composition of that gas to determine what the atmosphere was like the moment the bubble was formed.
The problem with that is that it only describes the composition of the air at that exact moment in time at that exact location on Earth and you have selection bias just because you are only getting air samples in locations in which has ice year around.
You can't extrapolate temperature from gas bubbles. Otherwise, you could just go and grab a sample of air at any point on the globe, bring it back to the lab and 100% accurately determine what the temperature was when the sample was taken... That isn't possible by the way.
They are looking at the amount of CO2 in the air that was trapped as bubbles in ice X number of years ago and then using the very true and viable green house effect to hypothesize that the Earth is getting warmer then using bad data on temperature as "proof" that it is happening and that everyone else must lower their standard of living to "fix it".
I am arguing with the "proof". It isn't proof.
Until I see climate scientologists living a completely "carbon neutral" life, in 3rd world squalor, like they want the rest of us to live, instead of jetting around the world talking up their "save the world from carbon, give us more funding", I will probably not believe in anthropomorphic climate change.
Oh i thought we where talking about Co2. I think your right they didn't have thermometers accurate enough back then to to 10ths of a degree. What they would have done is take daily temperature readings. You can average out 10ths doing that. And i don't know what else to tell you man. I believe it to be true that we are causing climate change. I'm not trying to push some Al Gore liberal agenda. You guys seam to be just as unmovable as the stanchest liberal. So don't be throwing that shit at me. I don't like to let political leanings tell me what to think. I'm honestly not sure why some people are so against the idea. You guys think its some global plot to make everyone not use coal or something? I hate how people take sides on things like this. Just because an idea is some how tacked as being liberal or conservative means its automatically deemed the worst idea ever by the other side.
morbidbattlecry
05-04-13, 19:36
Then grasp that these Same kinds of limitations you have might also apply to your understanding of global warming. The science is not settled and the claims of liberalism are far from irrefutable.
I think your grasping at straws here. Just because i have poor grammar doesn't mean i don't have a clue.
GeorgiaBoy
05-04-13, 19:42
I'm not trying to push some Al Gore liberal agenda. You guys seam to be just as unmovable as the stanchest liberal. So don't be throwing that shit at me. I don't like to let political leanings tell me what to think. I'm honestly not sure why some people are so against the idea. You guys think its some global plot to make everyone not use coal or something? I hate how people take sides on things like this. Just because an idea is some how tacked as being liberal or conservative means its automatically deemed the worst idea ever by the other side.
Exactly.
Why this issue has to be divided by political ideological lines baffles me. Everyone always believes and trusts in what science has to say 95% of the time until it offends either a) their religion, or b) their political ideology, or c) their pre-conceived notions.
But alas, a bunch of pseudo-intellects on the internet are always "smarter" than the plethora of scientific organizations that are devoted to studying these very things.
What hotly debated topics do not generally fall along ideological lines? There are no universal truths here, but there's always a predominate boundary. But who cares? Why does it matter?
I don't think anyone here is saying climate change is absolutely not happening, or that man doesn't play a part in that. But what is being said is that the dudes with pocket protectors may not be as smart as they think they are.
For every stat the climate change folks produce, another can be produced to the contrary. The point is that we really don't know what's going on. The climate has been changing for untold numbers of years. It's been hotter before, it's been colder too. The science is not cut and dry. Heck, there have been meteorologists who refute the "evidence." Maybe it should be more of a concern if we noticed the climate stopped changing?
Add all that to the fact that there are those who would use climate change to benefit themselves, or to control our lives, and you have a recipe for healthy doses of skepticism.
I think everyone here agrees that we should be good stewards of our resources and take care of our planet by finding cleaner and more efficient sources of energy, by developing new technologies, etc., etc.
GeorgiaBoy
05-04-13, 20:17
What hotly debated topics do not generally fall along ideological lines? There are no universal truths here, but there's always a predominate boundary. But who cares? Why does it matter?
Because I don't find how "believing" in whether or not man has influenced the climate should any correlation with whether you are a conservative or a liberal.
This isn't an issue on civil liberties. This isn't an issue on role of government. This isn't an issue with when a fetus is considered life. This isn't an issue on whether or not the rich should be taxed more.
This is simply an issue on whether or not our burning of fossil fuels for the last ~150 years has had an affect on our climate. Scientific consensus throughout the last 2 decades is that it is very likely we have.
What do scientists say we have to do to combat it? Cut our reliance on unclean, inefficient greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels, and develop and improve cleaner sources of energy. Not only do we improve our environment, lessen our carbon footprint, and provide a cleaner atmosphere for future generations; we also cut our dependence very early on from energy sources that are finite and non-renewable.
Of course, we can't change what the earth does naturally to affect the climate. But if it is something that we can affect, then we should have no problems changing our ways and lessening our impact.
Because I don't find how "believing" in whether or not man has influenced the climate should any correlation with whether you are a conservative or a liberal.
This isn't an issue on civil liberties. This isn't an issue on role of government. This isn't an issue with when a fetus is considered life. This isn't an issue on whether or not the rich should be taxed more.
This is simply an issue on whether or not our burning of fossil fuels for the last ~150 years has had an affect on our climate. Scientific consensus throughout the last 2 decades is that it is very likely we have.
What do scientists say we have to do to combat it? Cut our reliance on unclean, inefficient greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels, and develop and improve cleaner sources of energy. Not only do we improve our environment, lessen our carbon footprint, and provide a cleaner atmosphere for future generations; we also cut our dependence very early on from energy sources that are finite and non-renewable.
Of course, we can't change what the earth does naturally to affect the climate. But if it is something that we can affect, then we should have no problems changing our ways and lessening our impact.
It's like you assume that everyone is sitting around, thinking to themselves, "Hmmm. I've a conservative guy, so I should really dispute this climate change garbage." Or, work it to the liberal side. "I'm liberal, so I should go green." You see how ridiculous that sounds? No one does this. I know my perspective has nothing to do with my ideology.
Topics like these tend to fall into the ideologies for reasons we'll never be able to unpack in any M4C thread. But again, who cares?
As for your second point, well, you mostly just restated everything we've been discussing. Most here agree we need to be good stewards and continue to improve. But we don't need big brother to help us get there, especially when they're doing it based on disputable data.
GeorgiaBoy
05-04-13, 20:52
It's like you assume that everyone is sitting around, thinking to themselves, "Hmmm. I've a conservative guy, so I should really dispute this climate change garbage." Or, work it to the liberal side. "I'm liberal, so I should go green." You see how ridiculous that sounds? No one does this. I know my perspective has nothing to do with my ideology.
What did you mean by this: "What hotly debated topics do not generally fall along ideological lines?" I assumed you were saying that most debated topics fall along ideological lines. But do correct me if I'm wrong.
Personally, I don't find it a coincidence that while 75% of Democrats 'worry a great deal' about global warming, only 40% of Republicans do. Or that 78% of Democrats believe global warming is influence by humans yet only 39% of Republicans do. Further, a whopping 74% of Republicans believe global warming is exaggerated compared to only 17% of Dems. This is all according to a very recent Gallup poll from earlier last month.
Obviously, something is causing these percentage differences.
Crow Hunter
05-04-13, 21:19
Because I don't find how "believing" in whether or not man has influenced the climate should any correlation with whether you are a conservative or a liberal.
This isn't an issue on civil liberties. This isn't an issue on role of government. This isn't an issue with when a fetus is considered life. This isn't an issue on whether or not the rich should be taxed more.
This is simply an issue on whether or not our burning of fossil fuels for the last ~150 years has had an affect on our climate. Scientific consensus throughout the last 2 decades is that it is very likely we have.
What do scientists say we have to do to combat it? Cut our reliance on unclean, inefficient greenhouse gas producing fossil fuels, and develop and improve cleaner sources of energy. Not only do we improve our environment, lessen our carbon footprint, and provide a cleaner atmosphere for future generations; we also cut our dependence very early on from energy sources that are finite and non-renewable.
Of course, we can't change what the earth does naturally to affect the climate. But if it is something that we can affect, then we should have no problems changing our ways and lessening our impact.
The problem I have is that their "proof" is not only not irrefutable, it is completely suspect.
I don't disagree with their hypothesis, but I don't agree with saying, "Look the global temp has moved .8 degrees since 1860 this has been caused by man" when there is no way they could actually measure that accurately even 100 years ago repeatably, possibly even 50 years ago. At best we have 40 years worth of good data, but just isn't enough to show a trend much less prove anything with such a miniscule variation.
Most "normal" systems will vary within 6 standard deviations. Even using their questionable data, we are still WELL within normal variation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_deviation_diagram.svg
If they had data showing that there has been 3 or 4 degrees change in 150 years, THAT would probably be significant. But we are talking about tenths of a degree C being taken by multiple different people across the world and written down by hand and logged into books. So we can't trust the historical written record of battles/politics/etc but we can trust that people to accurately measure and write down that it was X.X degree C over 150 years ago?
What if the aggregate error over that time is actually .6 degrees?
They will often bring up "proxy data" which is where they take information like tree rings and deuterium to "prove" temperatures. The problem two fold with this. One, it is subjective, not objective. We are taking measurable data and extrapolating a completely different data from it based on what we "think" it should be and secondly we are again down to tenths of a degree again. Can extrapolated data be relied on to a tenth of a degree? Since our modern thermometers barely meet this level of accuracy, somehow I think they won't.
Bias is present in everything, just do a Gauge R&R sometimes, even something as simple as measuring the outside diameter of a cylinder will show some variation due to measurement bias between 3 different operators. The fact that we are talking about an "increase" that is not even one order of magnitude greater than the inherent measurement error of the device being used is HIGHLY suspect. (That is assuming a +/-.1 C accuracy of 1860 thermometers and "proxy data" measurements)
This doesn't mean we should do everything in our power to reduce emissions and find ways to make cleaner energy if nothing else so we don't have to breathe/eat/drink the stuff.
I think people would be MUCH more receptive to something other than the: We are all going to die from Global Cooling, no Global Warming, no Climate Change mantra that seems to be brought up every time even an asteroid comes by.
Of course the TEOTWAWKI probably works better to secure funding.;)
Heavy Metal
05-04-13, 21:23
Of course, when it's this, its merely bad Weather.....
http://www.magnoliareporter.com/news_and_business/regional_news/article_826c709e-b48c-11e2-8626-0019bb2963f4.html
.......and this was irrefutable proof of Global Warming,,,,,,,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/29/tornadoes-climate-change-2011_n_855369.html
The problem I have is that their "proof" is not only not irrefutable, it is completely suspect.
Proof is a Mathematical term not scientific. Evidence however is well in favor of Climate change with only a very few trying to claim otherwise.
What did you mean by this: "What hotly debated topics do not generally fall along ideological lines?" I assumed you were saying that most debated topics fall along ideological lines. But do correct me if I'm wrong.
Personally, I don't find it a coincidence that while 75% of Democrats 'worry a great deal' about global warming, only 40% of Republicans do. Or that 78% of Democrats believe global warming is influence by humans yet only 39% of Republicans do. Further, a whopping 74% of Republicans believe global warming is exaggerated compared to only 17% of Dems. This is all according to a very recent Gallup poll from earlier last month.
Obviously, something is causing these percentage differences.
What I meant is that like-minded individuals usually process information in ways that lead to similar conclusions. But again, I say it's irrelevant. The fact that this debate generally falls along ideological lines for us (the little people) is a non-issue, and I don't think anyone here is trying to make this an ideological issue. This debate does not occur simply because there are people on opposite sides of the isle. The only time it really matters is when you're headed to the polls.
What I meant is that like-minded individuals usually process information in ways that lead to similar conclusions. But again, I say it's irrelevant. The fact that this debate generally falls along ideological lines for us (the little people) is a non-issue, and I don't think anyone here is trying to make this an ideological issue. This debate does not occur simply because there are people on opposite sides of the isle. The only time it really matters is when you're headed to the polls.
The reason for this is simple. People are stupid.
No I am serious. And this includes me as much as anyone else..
Once we have a beliefe we will hold onto that despite facts to the contrary. It is the nature of our minds. Being social creatures we take it even further. We have chosen to associate ourselves with a particular set of values. In this case Conservative and/or libertarian values. That association comes with baggage. Part of that baggage is the need to discredit the other side. So since we disagree with them ANYTHING they say must be wrong.
Thinking like that is human nature and I don't know a single person of any political, economic, or religious leaning that doesn't suffer from it.
People in power know this fact. They manipulate it and take advantage of it. The media, Politicians, bosses. Anyone with power. The real irony is that many if not most of them think they are immune to it themselves. They are not.
We pretend that CNN is Liberal biased while Fox News is "Fair and balanced" But honestly that is Bullshit. CNN is liberal Biased and Fox News is Conservative Biased. That is just one example out of the thousands you can find on a daily basis.
If an idea doesn't line up with what we "believe" then it must be wrong. Facts be damned. If the other side embraces an idea then it must be bad. Once again, facts be damned.
The truth is that we are all idiots when it comes to this. Conservatives have good ideas that liberals should embrace, and liberals have some good ideas that we should embrace. But it will never happen. Because human nature gets in the way.
Heavy Metal
05-05-13, 10:24
Proof is a Mathematical term not scientific. Evidence however is well in favor of Climate change with only a very few trying to claim otherwise.
I'll take rank with Freeman Dyson over Michael Mann anyday. And it's alot more than a very few. That's another issue the warmists cook the number on.
Science isn't consensus.
Global warming alarmists are attacking the integrity of scientists, desperately seeking to minimize the damage presented by a recent survey of geoscientists and engineers regarding global warming.
A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly known as earth scientists) and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that humans are causing a serious global warming problem. By contrast, a majority of scientists in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/20/as-the-consensus-among-scientists-crumbles-global-warming-alarmists-attack-their-integrity/
Crow Hunter
05-05-13, 13:25
Proof is a Mathematical term not scientific. Evidence however is well in favor of Climate change with only a very few trying to claim otherwise.
Bringing in measurements as "evidence", numbers that aren't statistically sound, does not constitute evidence.
Take for example:
The preponderance of evidence shows that homosexuality is bad for the human race. Without procreation, we will cease to exist. Homosexuals cannot by definition, procreate naturally. Looking at the increase in homosexuals on TV since the 1950s there is "evidence" that the human race will become extinct because of the significant increase in the number of homosexuals as demonstrated by the "proxy data" taken from TV shows. At this rate of "coming out of the closet", homosexuals will become a majority in 150 years. Since homosexuality will destroy the human race's capability of natural procreation, we must take steps to severely limit the number of homosexuals allowed to reduce their "non-procreative" footprint on our environment.
Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?
If I apply the "skeptic's razor" to the above scenario:
The inferred increase in homosexuality is not a result of an increase in the per capita number of homosexuals in the population, rather it is the "better measurement" of the number of homosexuals in society due to the relaxing of societal taboos to open homosexuality. Just like a .8 degree "increase" in global temperatures is likely to be measurement error.
We do not need to take steps to eliminate homosexuality any more than we need to eliminate our "carbon footprint" to "save the world". In both cases the data is being extrapolated incorrectly, usually to fit an agenda.
In both cases the data is being extrapolated incorrectly, usually to fit an agenda.
You are assuming that information is being extrapolated incorrectly. Something that Science would disagree with you about.
Intellectually dishonest is believing the oil won't all get burned, no matter how much we spend on technology that is a known dead end or not yet mature enough to know. Unless we build enough nuclear power plants to give away energy to developing countries or cold fusion happens, it will all burn.
Heavy Metal
05-05-13, 21:43
Intellectually dishonest is believing the oil won't all get burned, no matter how much we spend on technology that is a known dead end or not yet mature enough to know. Unless we build enough nuclear power plants to give away energy to developing countries or cold fusion happens, it will all burn.
Locheed-Martin Skunk Works claims to have developed a working Hot Fusion IEC type reactor they will commercialize within a decade so all this is moot anyways. If it were anyone else, I would be skeptical but I suspect the Skunk Works have it figured out.
We will be using few carbon based fuels in a few decades and it won't be because of wind and solar bullshit or the envirowhackos, it will be because a new technology replaced hydrocarbons and the market place reacts accordingly.
http://www.fusionenergyleague.org/index.php/blog/article/charles_chase_and_lockheed_martin_skunkworks_fusion_device
The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of rock, neither will the Petroleum age.
Slight resurrection. Saw 34 degrees on my way into work this morning. Did some more looking and found this:
Devastated Arctic Has The Most Mid-May Ice In A Decade
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/14/devastated-arctic-has-the-most-mid-may-ice-in-a-decade/
You are assuming that information is being extrapolated incorrectly. Something that Science would disagree with you about.
Science cannot prove that data is or is not extrapolated correctly. By definition, it is the result of extrapolated data, therefore it cannot be both the measure and the result of data. That's a very flawed statement.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.