New Study Explodes Human-Global Warming Story

Originally posted by Mcyeah
hmmmmmmmmmmm very interesting seeing as though they are a world leader in co2 emissions!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOR YOUR INFORMATION....the US was passed by China this year, but most people think they actually passed them some time last year. Stop spreading lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by angst18

Where are all the other scientifically trained people? Why do I feel like I'm drowning in ignorance on this thread.

Sounds like your drowning in something, just not information.

One of the points I continue to make is that you can take all the peer reviewed papers, all the data you want and all the scientists signatures you can find and come to a conclusion. What I continuously point out is there are unlimited questions that can not be answered. Unlimited scenarios that could also create global warming/global cooling. Who is to say what the acceptable temperature for the earth is? Who is to say what the correct level of CO2 is for the earth? The earth is not here to provide for us. It is here to sustain itself. Who is to say that by us screwing with things, we are not creating an imbalance in the earths system of survival? I think screwing with the earths natural system is a lot more dangerous then letting it naturally heat and cool.

Originally posted by whatsup
Warming expert says the 'Arctic is screaming'

Record ice melt seen on Greenland

Okay, ya'll just keep pushing your "globalization conspiracy" paranoia and false science. Just hope that you (or any of your descendants) don't live anywhere close to sea level. I guess you like to play with loaded guns huh people! This is serious stuff folks and I resent you making a political issue out of it (at the expense of the planet).

[edit on 11-12-2007 by whatsup]

Have you ever heard of any ancients cities off the coast of Egypt??? These cities and civilizations were wiped out 2 millenia ago. Lets see. I guess we are sending CO2 back into the past and creating rising sea levels back then. So your telling me the world has never seen rising sea levels before?

About rising sea levles.....I think Algore started with 10 meters and reduced it to 3 meters. The IPCC has reduced it even further.

When do finally accept a correct answer. Tell ya what. I live on Long Island in the US. When the water starts splashing on my front door, I will announce to everyone.....I WAS WRONG!!!!!!!

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by angst18

 

Well, I have to say I'm with you now too. After finding out about faulty scientific evidence that DOESN'T support global warming, I really don't see if the global-warming-is-bs crowd has a leg to stand on.

And I really thought global warming was a scam...amazing. It would seem that all the info that traderonwallst and people who think global warming is bunk have been using, has just been discredited as of yesterday.



[edit on 12/11/2007 by bigbert81]

Thats OK...Every time the IPCC report is discredited they are allowed to rewrite it, as long as the ending is the same.


I am not asking you to change your way of thinking....Just asking to question all results. when we finally get to the bottom of things we will see the truth. For now both sides have a lot to lose and a lot to win.

Originally posted by bigbert81
reply to post by pepsi78

 

I don't think anybody's disputing the Earth getting warmer, we're disputing what exactly is causing and/or contributing/accelerating it.

I hope this is not a one liner.

Actually we are disputing global warming and whether or not the heating and cooling is real or naturally occurring events. i go with the latter!

Originally posted by melatonin
There is only so much I can do - When I've just spent a few posts explaining why the idea of solar variations underpinning solar system-wide warming is not supported by the evidence.

Hardly, the increase in energy is from the influx of ionized dust that is entering the solar system because of the way the magnetic fields are currently aligned, Uranus is cooling after heating up between 1977 and 1983. One of the reasons proposed for this is thermal conduction from heating of the lower atmosphere, or possible the core itself. It has had a huge increase in auroral brightness and increase in global wind speeds. Warming for the solar system is not the appropriate term, the solar system is charging up, this can manifest in many ways depending on the composition of the atmospheres and the conductive nature of the planet or moon. The sun is an electric anode not a nuclear furnace, with this point of view the sun variability is determined by the galactic environment. All planets and moons are part of the solar circuit.

Gas giants don't follow the same processes for heat exchange as other planets. All the gas giants are showing increased auroral brightness and higher wind speeds and more violent storm systems.

Concerning Saturn....

It has long been thought that the culprit behind the heating process was the ionosphere, being driven by the planet's magnetic field, or magnetosphere. By using numerical models of Saturn's atmosphere the researchers found that the net effects of the winds driven by polar energy inputs is not to heat the atmosphere but to actually cool it.

source

[edit on 12-12-2007 by squiz]

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Originally posted by Mcyeah
hmmmmmmmmmmm very interesting seeing as though they are a world leader in co2 emissions!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOR YOUR INFORMATION....the US was passed by China this year, but most people think they actually passed them some time last year. Stop spreading lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

China has now overtaken the US because it is a developing industrial economy of the old school. That said, the US per capita CO2 emissions are beaten only by a few of the Gulf states and are more than three times as high as China's.

Simple equation.

David H. Douglass + (Heartland Institute x Funding from Exxon Mobile) = Unsuprising report trashing climate change theories.

Seriously, about time....




www.msnbc.msn.com...



How the hell do people think its right we're responsible for four ice ages? Especially since evidence is showing us, each one got drasticlly less severe then the last.

The sun a couple Billion years ago was producing 40% heat of what it is today. People need to understand our planet was mostly ice a long time ago, the Sun is just naturally getting warmer, meaning our planet is naturally getting warmer, the effects of something like this on our planet is almost like putting a ice cube in a cup of cold water on a sunny day, just a lot more complicated.

Whats horrible about this situation is... yes global warming is happening. But we're being sold global warming, who do you think is going to pay for all these changes, all the fancy satellites that help cool our planet. Their saying in 20 years we'll see changes. 20 Years means 20 wasted years we could be preparing for this thing for real.

We need to stop fighting these pointless wars, and start financing our scientists and our space program, cause honestly, this planet cant be to far off from going straight to hell.


Unless our leaders just choose to commit human genocide.


[edit on 12-12-2007 by Praafit]

We can't rely on our so called "leaders" to solve this problem. The change will have to start with us.

Originally posted by squiz
Hardly, the increase in energy is from the influx of ionized dust that is entering the solar system because of the way the magnetic fields are currently aligned

I don't see much support for this suggestion in your post. The person I was responding to was suggesting the sun was the cause. Solar variations. I challenged that.

Sounds great though, almost cosmic ray-like.

Originally posted by angst18

Originally posted by Miishgoos

LOL you don't need to have volcano eruptions of asteroids hitting us to cause warming and/or cooling periods although they speed things up a bit.

Nah this is just a natural cycle as discussed many times before by countless other people.

LOL?! seriously, you're laughing at me? And then you don't even give any kind of explanation of your statement about climate 'cycles'

Where are all the other scientifically trained people? Why do I feel like I'm drowning in ignorance on this thread.

Things don't just happen. Especially this quickly without some major event or series of events.

If I'm wrong, I'd love to hear how this 'cycle' naturally propagates without the aforementioned geological events in such a fast-paced manner.

The answer is simple : it's what the skeptics believe and to hell with all the tens of thousands of scientists worldwide with vast quantities of data and experience. They know nothing. All you need is an armchair and a stubborn attitude.

The original article was based on conclusions from historical temperatures. An item of informastion which is insignificant on its own, irrespective of your interpretation, compared to the vast quantities of RECENT data. Historical data coupled with recent data IS significant. This is called cherry picking data to fit your beliefs.

You are correct, for a site that declares "deny ignorance" the ignorance on this topic is astonishing and overwhelmingly US based where you have an administration that has been caught lying, oops sorry "adjusting", climate information before issuing it to its public. Given the amount of vitriol expressed when the authorites do such things on any other topic why the acceptance of this?

It does make me think this more to do with the psychological phenomena of denial when people can't face the truth.

I think it is obvious that the Sun is the factor of chage here. I mean there is nothing more important that the Sun when it comes to climate change on a planetary level. We are polluting Earth, but we can't compete with the Sun.

When you think Carbon dioxide is just 383 ppmv (0.0383%) of the atmosphere, well, I don't think that some 0.03% gas can change a planet.

That 0.03% is all the CO2 we and nature create. So I am very skeptic about global warming being caused by CO2. If a child were to pick between the Sun and CO2, what do you think he would pick?

You really can't ignore the Sun, I mean if you want to study climate change you start with the Sun and then continue. I think CO2 should be at the bottom of the list.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by angst18
Where are all the other scientifically trained people? Why do I feel like I'm drowning in ignorance on this thread.

Doing their best to get the 5 IQ points back they've lost in the last couple of days being involved in this thread?

There is only so much I can do - When I've just spent a few posts explaining why the idea of solar variations underpinning solar system-wide warming is not supported by the evidence, to then see another post stating this as fact, I just start to think 'frack it'.

Round and round we go. Like whack-a-mole.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by melatonin]

Evidence. Whoa there. This thread is not about evidence but about ignorance. Still those words almost rhyme maybe we could write some lyrics for all the budding Nero's here who can sing whilst they burn or rather sink....literally under the sea due to the sun melting our ice caps during a cooling phase. Oops sorry that's more unfortunate evidence. I must be wrong mustn't I. How can the sun be warmer during a cooling phase......oh I know. The number of people on the plant is increasing and this is causing a shift in the weight of the earth (like a ballerina extending her arms) and so the earths rotation is slowing down. This in turn is causing a wobble between the moon and the earth and this wobble has caused the earths orbit to # slightly towards the sun. Not only that but this wobble is affecting all the planets in our solar system and causing them to warm up as well. Phew I knew I could explain it. Who needs climatologists! Pah!

I think we need to re-label this thread "Bliss" so all the ignorants feel right at home.

Originally posted by malcr

The original article was based on conclusions from historical temperatures. An item of informastion which is insignificant on its own, irrespective of your interpretation, compared to the vast quantities of RECENT data. Historical data coupled with recent data IS significant. This is called cherry picking data to fit your beliefs.

Algore recently made a movie based on historical termperatures and a theory reffereed to as the Hockey Stick theory. The theory was debunked and thrown out by the IPCC. He continued to produce his movie and won awards and accolades by the faithful left here and around the world. The movie has been shown to a large amount of errors and there are many threads on here pointing them out.

It was his interpretation, compared to vast quantities of recent data, and he ran with it. By the way, the hockey tstick theory alos cherry picked data and ruled data that did not fit the theory to be anomolies. That data was removed from the theory and it worked.

Originally posted by traderonwallst
Algore recently made a movie based on historical termperatures and a theory reffereed to as the Hockey Stick theory. The theory was debunked and thrown out by the IPCC.

You're great entertainment, but that's really about it. There is no 'hockey-stick' theory, it was a description given by some to the very first reconstruction Mann et al produced. It showed pretty constant temps for a long period, then a large increase during the industrial era. Thus, it was hockey-stick-like

Here's the multi-proxy reconstructions from the latest IPCC report (12 reconstructions):



They all show similar findings to the original Mann study - recent temps might well be greater than anything for 1000 years.

[edit on 12-12-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by traderonwallst

Have you ever heard of any ancients cities off the coast of Egypt??? These cities and civilizations were wiped out 2 millenia ago. Lets see. I guess we are sending CO2 back into the past and creating rising sea levels back then. So your telling me the world has never seen rising sea levels before?

Those submerged cities were drowned as the result of a massive earthquake and tsunami.

www.geotimes.org...

Other cities around the Med have likewise been drowned (or raised higher above the sea) as a result of tectonic activity.

Nowt to do with climate change

Originally posted by Pericle
When you think Carbon dioxide is just 383 ppmv (0.0383%) of the atmosphere, well, I don't think that some 0.03% gas can change a planet.

Just because it's a small amount, doesn't mean it's insignificant. For example, ozone (O3) makes up only 0.00006% of the atmospehere. Yet without it, we'd all be bathed in UV radiation.

Another example on how small amounts of something can be just as effective -- the effective dose for acetaminophen (Tylenol) is about 30,000 micrograms. The effective dose for lysergic acid diethylamide ('___') on the other hand is 25 micrograms.

Nobody is ignoring the Sun. But a lot of people are ignoring greenhouse gasses and the science behind it.

actually wall street boy, i said "A WORLD" leader in co2 emisions not "THE WORLD" leader in co2 emisions.

learn to read bud and stop spreading YOUR lies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a question, have any of you READ the report?

'A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions'
by: David H. Douglass*, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred
Singer

Printed in: 'International Journal of Climatology'

Do any of you know exactly what these authors are talking about?

I have to say the arguments of many of those who contest the reality of GW is tiresome. It is frustrating to watch a group of people waving one scientific article (which i am sure the majority of you have not read) over your heads as proof. There are thousands of scientist that have been publishing documents for years, yet they were untrustworthy? Now these 4 scientists are? I fail to see the logic in this difference.

The article in question, like many others looking at the same topic, is looking at the variations in climate data modeling. It is not the only study done in this regard, there are many.

I will gladly concede that the sun could very well be playing a roll in global warming. Yet, this one article is not enough to make me question the work of thousands of other scientists. So i will have to continue believing humans do play a roll.

One last point. Everyone talk about GW as a scam and one of the things I hear most often is how much $$ the government will make on green taxes. heads up people, "For the year the company [Exxon/Mobil] earned net income of $36.1 billion, or $33.9 billion excluding special items. That's up 31 percent from the $25.9 billion it earned on that basis year earlier." Link


Talk all you want about how pro-GW will lead to us being subject to high-way robbery all you want, all the while your paying these boys and their friends an arm and a leg....please.....