Bundle Up, It's Global Warming

Look. Arguing the man made global warming fraud and describing in detail how it is fraudulent with someone who is blinded by years of carefully crafted psychological manipulation is like trying to tell a three year-old that there are really no monsters in the closet.

The global warming lie, like the boogeymen in the closet, can't be disputed with fact, science, logic and empirical data. You have to pat them on the head, offer them cookies and milk, and move past it to more adult things.

Hopefully, children will get over these childish fantasies when they mature.

Folks, the answer to climate change is found 93 million miles away. C02 has been as high as 250,000 ppm in the past. It is currently about 380ppm. Most GW fanatics say it should be below 350. Plant growth stops at 200 and below. Its happened in the past. The Maunder solar minimum devestated most of the population in the middle ages and later the Dalton solar minimum hit from 1780 to 1830.

Astrophysicists say 1000 ppm is optimal for plant growth.

Another thing to consider is that in the cycle of climate changes, a warming period has been historically good for flora and fauna while cooling trends have been near extinction level events.

The earth remains in a period of deglaciation (I hope) and technically, an ice age.

The minute warming detected (although questionable) ceased in 1998 and we have just emerged from a deep solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24. If (and I hope not) the minimum from 24 to 25 is as long, the planet could be shortly in another chill down.

What can we do to stop it? Nothing, but at this point with the possibility of climate induced famine looming in the future, why are we using every crackpot theory coming and going to raise energy costs and curtail supplies? The answer could only be the INTENTIONAL neglect of population's welfare.

Originally posted by astrocreep
Folks, the answer to climate change is found 93 million miles away. C02 has been as high as 250,000 ppm in the past. It is currently about 380ppm. Most GW fanatics say it should be below 350. Plant growth stops at 200 and below. Its happened in the past. The Maunder solar minimum devestated most of the population in the middle ages and later the Dalton solar minimum hit from 1780 to 1830.

Astrophysicists say 1000 ppm is optimal for plant growth.

Another thing to consider is that in the cycle of climate changes, a warming period has been historically good for flora and fauna while cooling trends have been near extinction level events.

The earth remains in a period of deglaciation (I hope) and technically, an ice age.

The minute warming detected (although questionable) ceased in 1998 and we have just emerged from a deep solar minimum between cycles 23 and 24. If (and I hope not) the minimum from 24 to 25 is as long, the planet could be shortly in another chill down.

What can we do to stop it? Nothing, but at this point with the possibility of climate induced famine looming in the future, why are we using every crackpot theory coming and going to raise energy costs and curtail supplies? The answer could only be the INTENTIONAL neglect of population's welfare.

You're dead-wrong on nearly every count, just hope you know that.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Its in the history books! Google search Maunder , Dalton Minimum. Or don't. I don't care. It won't change a thing. What does change things is raising energy costs for no better reason than some sort of fanciful whim. It may be an inconvenience to modernized nations but causes millions to perish in third world countries.

Just saying that I'm wrong on every count doesn't make me wrong. The climatory record of C02 levels is well documented as are the effects of solar cycles on global temparture.

You all are hanging the blame for something your not even sure exists on a gas that merely makes up about .04% of the atmosphere and of that small percentage, humans contribute about 3%. The first 20 ppm greatly affect and help regulate temperature but the affect decreases as the levels increase.

An example came during the Maunder minimum when temperature levels reached dangerously low levels. Tree growth slowed so much, the rings of some species ended up so close together that the Stradovarious violen crafted from them is worth millions today. The close grain of the slow growing wood made for an unimitatable sound.

The bad thing is, most of the population of Europe froze/starved to death.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Also, to tell someone who says that the sun has an effect upon temperatures on earth that they are wrong on every count goes way on past "drinking the coolaid" as they say. I hope you know that.

Dust study raises concerns about climate models

This'll throw a spanner in the works and also backs up my previous post on the last page where I linked reports from scientists detailing how dust particles affect global warming.

The study's key conclusion was to show that the ratio of small soil dust particles (clay), which cool the atmosphere, to large soil dust particles (silt), which yield an indirect heating effect, may be much higher than previous estimated. This is a critical finding because it shows that the Earth's climate may be much more sensitive to solar radiation than previous models have indicated, which in turn casts doubt on anthropogenic warming theory -- the idea that human carbon dioxide emissions bear the primary warming influence on the climate over the last several decades.

So the bottom line with this finding is that all the computer modelling up to now hasnt been accurate because they havent considered the cooling effect of small dust particles or the warming effect of the larger dust particles.

I'd love to see the last 100 year climate tempriture records rewritten taking these factors into account and see what the results really say.

A computer model is only as good as the input you put in.

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia


A computer model is only as good as the input you put in.

Correct ....... rubbish in = rubbish out

Thats just it. We have been fed material from a computer model and not had any clarification that it was from a model and not actual measurments. For decades, they have quoted inaccurate model predictions as if they were actual observed data and conveniently dropped the "according to the global warming model" qualifyer.

Since the formulation of the hypothesis, it has been shown that the predictions were inaccurate on the order of about 300%. Had this been any other theory, it would have been thrown out. Just so happens, money and a lot of it rides on it. I just wish those who are pushing the environmental policies which skyrocket energy costs would realize the affects on impoverished countries.

Originally posted by astrocreep
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Its in the history books! Google search Maunder , Dalton Minimum. Or don't. I don't care. It won't change a thing. What does change things is raising energy costs for no better reason than some sort of fanciful whim. It may be an inconvenience to modernized nations but causes millions to perish in third world countries.

Just saying that I'm wrong on every count doesn't make me wrong. The climatory record of C02 levels is well documented as are the effects of solar cycles on global temparture.

You all are hanging the blame for something your not even sure exists on a gas that merely makes up about .04% of the atmosphere and of that small percentage, humans contribute about 3%. The first 20 ppm greatly affect and help regulate temperature but the affect decreases as the levels increase.

An example came during the Maunder minimum when temperature levels reached dangerously low levels. Tree growth slowed so much, the rings of some species ended up so close together that the Stradovarious violen crafted from them is worth millions today. The close grain of the slow growing wood made for an unimitatable sound.

The bad thing is, most of the population of Europe froze/starved to death.

Annnd you somehow believe that the world body of Climatology (which has DISCOVERED and STUDIES these sorts of climatic shifts) somehow forgot to factor in these "minimums" and the larger effects of the Milkanovitch cycles...?? No... because once again THEY DISCOVERED AND STUDY THESE THINGS FOR A LIVING. So when they tell you that something is very very off and cannot be explained by normal/natural cycles, you should probably listen to them instead of listening to paid-off "scientists" with no credibility in Climatology and/or industry-backed/right-wing blogs which have no deep respect for truth/science anyway.

Global warming is far beyond a fanciful whim. Do you seriously realize what you're typing? Everything you say is a lie, a myth... yet you keep repeating the same propaganda as if it's true. You know that ignorant people will read "oh yeah global warmin's just a fanciful whim they don't even know fer shur!!11" and start to believe it right? Something tells me you were one of those people who believed it because A) It sounded nice to you, and B) It allows you to take yourself and your society massively off the hook for its poor behavior. While I can understand the psychology of such false beliefs... I must urge you NOT to try to convince yourself or others that it somehow reflects the truth.

First of all- the sun is NOT to blame for the current global warming, at the VERY MOST it can be blamed for about one-fifth of that. No other natural cycle can explain the past century's rise in temps. The best and most GLARINGLY OBVIOUS link (which has been proven in so many countless ways beyond a shadow of a doubt) is human emissions of greenhouse gases which have increased atmospheric PPM from 280 to 350 in just a few decades... that is an INCREDIBLE LEAP. And keep in mind... CO2 might only be a small fraction of the atmosphere, but that means NOTHING in terms of global warming. Long-wave radiation doesn't bounce back towards the CO2 and then calculate CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere and then warm it accordingly, it reacts to CO2 (and other GHGs) as a NET AMOUNT. So if we're talking NET AMOUNTS of atmospheric CO2 we're talking GIGATONS of CO2 which is absolutely enough to explain the Earth's natural greenhouse effect AND (via the CO2 increases) the subsequent human-induced warming. If ALL the CO2 were removed from our atmosphere, the planet's temperature would decrease by 60 degrees Fahrenheit, HARDLY a minor effect doncha think? CO2 is CENTRAL to the greenhouse forcing effect of our planet, in fact it is responsible for 80% of the FORCING effect. Water vapor contributes 35-65% of the TOTAL greenhouse effect which includes forcing and feedback factors, but without CO2, there would BE NO WATER VAPOR FEEDBACK. CO2 is the first mover as far as the greenhouse effect is concerned, other than the sun. And like I said, the sun is NOT responsible for it. Solar irradiance has DECREASED over the past couple decades, as have sunspots (drastically actually) while temps continue to rise in concordance with CO2 levels. You can stick your head in the sands of denial all you want, but the science is quite clear and undeniable to those educated that AGW is real and poses a serious threat to the biosphere.

Kind've funny how you talk at irrelevant length about the Maunder minimum... the Maunder minimum was a 30-year decrease in sunspots that caused globally lower temps... and like I mentioned before, we were just steeped in around a decade of ridiculously low sunspots... but the past decade was the HOTTEST DECADE ON RECORD, with the top ten hottest years on record ALL being within the past 12 years.

Originally posted by astrocreep
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

Also, to tell someone who says that the sun has an effect upon temperatures on earth that they are wrong on every count goes way on past "drinking the coolaid" as they say. I hope you know that.

Yet another old old stale denier tactic of setting up false strawmen.

NOBODY IS SAYING that the sun has no effect on Earth's temps. The sun is CENTRAL to Earth's climate, but when we're talking about the CURRENT global warming then the sun is NOT to blame, PERIOD. Can we move on now?

Originally posted by AndrewJay

yes and every other plannet in out solar system is warmer too. I guess man caused that too? whats wrong with drudge?

3 planets and a moon do not a solar system make. While it is interesting, it means nothing in regard to CC.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by ANOK

 

I am 50 years old and have learned through my training here on Earth that if they say look left, I instinctively look right. They said we were running out of fossil fuel, I went out and bought a second vehicle.
They said man-made Global Warming, I said get out your mittens.

Well I consider that a mistake because in my almost 50 years I've learned that sometimes they tell us the exact truth, but in a way that confuses instead of informs. In other words they hide the truth in plain site.

Funny thing is when I was young it wasn't governments warning of climate change due to pollution, it was people like you and me, the government has only recently jumped on this because they now have no choice but to control the information we receive.

The government is not black and white, it's very sly and knows human psychology.

You are doing what the government really wants, to ignore what we are doing to our planet so the capitalist economy can keep raping it and destroying it's eco system.

I am not part of any problem for I don't think pollution has ANYTHING to do with Global Warming.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I feel different.

Originally posted by ANOK
...
You are doing what the government really wants, to ignore what we are doing to our planet so the capitalist economy can keep raping it and destroying it's eco system.

is it about ecosystems or the climate now? i mean pollution and habitat loss are real and very pressing issues (as is soil depletion), but they appear to be constantly ignored in favor of AGW.

now riddle me this, how could any of the supposed mitigating strategies like biofuels, windmills and some solar prototypes, which are with precious few exceptions centered around electricity generation and vehicle fuels, help in any way?

their net contribution is typically negative, so it's a PR campaign driven by expensive subsidies, see

EU biofuel policy has ‘negative’ climate impact

and

www.abovetopsecret.com...

so, what's the real goal behind these plans?

why do so many people support these goals, which they profess not to understand?

why should anyone have to explain not backing this cult when in fact the PRO camp has a lot to explain?



normally, people learn from mistakes and revise their policies when serious obstacles are encountered. Let's take a look at pharmaceuticals, if they have serious side effects, they are (supposed to be) quickly withdrawn, which is why you can no longer buy Thalidomide (Contergan ) over the counter. when dealing in AGW, famine isn't considered serious enough to reconsider even the slightest bit of policy.

Secret report: Biofuels upped food price

What will it take to change or end these insane, (self-)destructive programs? It seems the answer is that no amount of discussion will accomplish that.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


To answer your questions: No. I do not think the Global Warming Theory figures in solar cycles, in fact those espousing it have gone out of their way to deflect any discussion concerning its impact.

Second, the last decade was not even close to being the warmest on record. The Vikings once farmed Greenland before the Maunder minimum. Third, even pro global warming grant collectors are having a tough time explaining why there has been no warming since 1998. Once again, you confuse reality with model projections. Thats been the problem all along. Quoting model predictions as reality is a misnomer. Since the 1970's we have had the equipment to make real-time observations so lets use those, shall we.

And lastly, the Maunder minimum was not a 30 year absense of sunspots. It was deep minimums on the end of two cycles which had lasting and reverberating effects. You didn't mention the more recent Dalton Minimum which last approx 1780 to 1830 and had global climate affects.

You never addressed my point that civilizations have historically thrived during warming trends and suffered during the opposite other than to give me a blanket "wrong" on all my points but I assure you, that is the case. We know the famine in Europe which brought about the Plague happened during a cooling period (Maunder) and also the Vikings, who were diriving about 70% of their food from agri/horticulture in Greenland 25% from the Sea and 5% from shipments via their homeland. During their demise, this reversed and as the sea ice closed in, their fish left and their route to home was closed off. They withered.

It happens that easy. Folks, we all take for granted that come what may, those trucks will still deliver to your local grocery but that is dead wrong. If (and its an if I do hope I'm dead wrong about) if the growing seasons in the nation's bread basket shorten to the point that crops are damaged before they are ready to be harvested, I guarantee those trucks won't run.

I know that many people on this board have grandious ideas of survival on their own but I tell you all here and now, its a hell of a lot better to just dream about it than to have to live it. Its tough to grow every bite you eat and even tougher to keep what you grow during a famine.

Our current solar minimum's effects have already become apparent. The minimum allows more cosmic rays to evaporate moisture, increasing cloud cover which reflects sunlight. On the front end, more precip, more cloudy days. On the back end, a deep freeze.

The good thing about this is that we won't have to wait 100,000 years to see if the ocean rises an inch. If this is the case, it'll shortly become apparent and we won't worry much about what happens on some internet message board. If it doesn't and we return to a warming trend, you all can go back to hitting the panic button and I'll gleefully enjoy being wrong albeit well fed.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Wow! you really seem to be a true believer in the so-called science behind this fraud - most of those 'facts' you cited are anything but! - and your reasoning seems to consist of complete unscientific gibberish!

fact is there has been no 'warming for 15 yrs, as in the "we can't account for the lack of warming and it's a travesty" email

The whole theoretical basis for the (misnamed) 'greenhouse effect' - ie thought to be responsible for 33C of extra warming at the earths surface - is itself chock full of assumptions and estimates and is not a thing that can be directly measured. (ie Boltzman const applicability at low temps, earth albedo etc)

Fact is most of this effect is due to water vapour -95% -

Man made CO2 contributions to this effect amount to 0.117% - or approximately one thousanth part!

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%. This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!
www.geocraft.com...

I apologize that my last post was all over the place. I was watching the TV about the Arizona Blizzard.

One of my favorite archived documents and a quote from it:

"Ottmar Edenhofer, a German economist and co-chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Working Group III on Mitigation of Climate Change (say that twice), told the Neue Zurcher Zeitung last week: "The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War." After all, redistributing global wealth is no small matter.
Edenhofer let the environmental cat out of the bag when he said "climate policy is redistributing the world's wealth" and that "it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization."

Heir Ednhofer has become of interest in my research as of late and I assure you, he is a real winner.

Originally posted by astrocreep
reply to post by NoHierarchy

 

To answer your questions: No. I do not think the Global Warming Theory figures in solar cycles, in fact those espousing it have gone out of their way to deflect any discussion concerning its impact.

Second, the last decade was not even close to being the warmest on record. The Vikings once farmed Greenland before the Maunder minimum. Third, even pro global warming grant collectors are having a tough time explaining why there has been no warming since 1998. Once again, you confuse reality with model projections. Thats been the problem all along. Quoting model predictions as reality is a misnomer. Since the 1970's we have had the equipment to make real-time observations so lets use those, shall we.

And lastly, the Maunder minimum was not a 30 year absense of sunspots. It was deep minimums on the end of two cycles which had lasting and reverberating effects. You didn't mention the more recent Dalton Minimum which last approx 1780 to 1830 and had global climate affects.

You never addressed my point that civilizations have historically thrived during warming trends and suffered during the opposite other than to give me a blanket "wrong" on all my points but I assure you, that is the case. We know the famine in Europe which brought about the Plague happened during a cooling period (Maunder) and also the Vikings, who were diriving about 70% of their food from agri/horticulture in Greenland 25% from the Sea and 5% from shipments via their homeland. During their demise, this reversed and as the sea ice closed in, their fish left and their route to home was closed off. They withered.

It happens that easy. Folks, we all take for granted that come what may, those trucks will still deliver to your local grocery but that is dead wrong. If (and its an if I do hope I'm dead wrong about) if the growing seasons in the nation's bread basket shorten to the point that crops are damaged before they are ready to be harvested, I guarantee those trucks won't run.

I know that many people on this board have grandious ideas of survival on their own but I tell you all here and now, its a hell of a lot better to just dream about it than to have to live it. Its tough to grow every bite you eat and even tougher to keep what you grow during a famine.

Our current solar minimum's effects have already become apparent. The minimum allows more cosmic rays to evaporate moisture, increasing cloud cover which reflects sunlight. On the front end, more precip, more cloudy days. On the back end, a deep freeze.

The good thing about this is that we won't have to wait 100,000 years to see if the ocean rises an inch. If this is the case, it'll shortly become apparent and we won't worry much about what happens on some internet message board. If it doesn't and we return to a warming trend, you all can go back to hitting the panic button and I'll gleefully enjoy being wrong albeit well fed.

Your arguments are consistently either factually wrong, twisted in their logic, or irrelevant...

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Those are some great talking points you have there. Trouble is, most people on this board have been wading through those kinds of posts for damn near a decade.