Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years: study

1,000 years, huh? That will give them plenty of time for Big Brother to get the Ministry of Truth to alter all documents and historical records to demonstrate agreement between predictions today and reality in 1,000 years as well as give the Ministry of Thought all the time they need to wash in disparities between reality and desired perception of reality from everyone's minds.

1000 years? wow that is alot of carbon taxes being collected and carbon credits being traded. Lots of money to be made.

Meterologist can't get next weeks weather right but they must be right about what the weather is going to be like 50, 100 or 1000 years from now.

reply to post by Venit


To be honest with you guys I have read in an article by a former Navy Seal under the name I will not mention so I will call him umm... Blue Bird . Anyway what I read is the government acuatlly placed Global Warming out there to hide the real truth, becuase we could handle this better which I suppose was smart. They were hiding Global Cooling. Now I can't say that it's true or not becuase it hasn't been proved yet, but I can say that it's a relevant statement. One fact I have observed is the coldness of my state. Arizona. The grand canyon state. The HOT State. It's right now January 27, 2009 and it has been colder than ever usually it's in the 70's but it has become a record 35 average the mornings, 53 for mid-day and back to 35ish in the night. As I said earlier it still may not be true and has not been proved.

Originally posted by Venit
Humans have done the damage and now the rest of the species on earth are going to pay the price.

Relax.

Global warming is NATURAL.
It happens on earth in cycles. That's a fact.
It also happens in the entire solar system in cycles.
There is NO EVIDENCE that global warming is the fault of humans.

Yes, it's common sense. We are altering the planet's ecosphere. The slam-dunk is that scientists are not even factoring in the release of methane from thawing permafrost. Methane is a lot worse than CO2.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by Venit
Humans have done the damage and now the rest of the species on earth are going to pay the price.

Relax.

Global warming is NATURAL.
It happens on earth in cycles. That's a fact.
It also happens in the entire solar system in cycles.
There is NO EVIDENCE that global warming is the fault of humans.

There is evidence however that CARBON DIOXIDE traps terrestrial heat, such as on VENUS. This occurs because CO2 transmits visible light but absorbs other spectrums
such as UV and infrared.
This absorption increases molecular oscillation via friction with the energy transfer resulting in heat.

There is also proof that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide as a by product.

There is also the concept that humans burn plenty of fossil fuels everyday.

Thats 1+1+1 + plus a little extrapolation - maybe third grade level science.

This equation does not equate to = AL GORE, LIBRALS or TERISTS

Of course there has to be a political imperative that suddenly exempts this science.

I think most Global-Warming Deniers are motivated by laziness and selfishness. They don't want to alter their life-styles.

It's the same with meat-eating. We all know more or less what goes on in slaughter-houses, how pigs are caged etc. But we omit it as we scoff our bacon.

Originally posted by rizla
I think most Global-Warming Deniers are motivated by laziness and selfishness. They don't want to alter their life-styles.

It's the same with meat-eating. We all know more or less what goes on in slaughter-houses, how pigs are caged etc. But we omit it as we scoff our bacon.

ITS not that IMO... Its that it has become a charged political issue.

IF AL GORE believes it, it must be a liberal lie.

Its a shame that this issue that is a scientific one has been thrust into the emotional world of right and left.

IT will only get worse - deny it to deny the others of any standing in position.

Even if the whole global warming issue is a red herring, and there is good evidence to say that it is (and for both sides of the argument), it is a little sad that people do have a sense of apathy about the environment.

Hey OP you should request someone to change your title.

Your source says NOTHING about "Global Warming", yet you have it on your title. The source you link to is about "Global Climate Change", which is very different from "Global Warming".

It is very important that people realize this.

People will try to debunk "Global Warming" by mentioning a few cold spikes, not realizing the real problem is "Global Climate Change", which could be warm or cold changes in different areas. In the long run, the Earth will just heat up though, because it will get harder and harder for Earth to "balance" when we are "unbalancing" it.


Who cares what other people think, learn some science, and meteorology, and learn color theory and make the calculation on your own. Pollution is effecting the Earth, no matter what you calculate.

[edit on 27-1-2009 by ALLis0NE]

reply to post by ALLis0NE


Not sure what you are talking about, it clearly says it in the title of the article he posted.


Anyone who denies that we are affecting the Earth by excess pollution is clearly ignoring all evidence to support their agenda.

Challenge: Find as many peer-reviewed articles debunking global climate change as you can!

Ready!
Set!
Go!

it was 41 degrees in arizona today. tell al gore to shove global warming up his rear. maybe barney frank will fit too. probably not

[edit on 27-1-2009 by Swatman]

reply to post by Swatman


Perhaps you don't really know what global climate change is. It certainly doesn't mean that it never gets cold.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

There is evidence however that CARBON DIOXIDE traps terrestrial heat, such as on VENUS. This occurs because CO2 transmits visible light but absorbs other spectrums such as UV and infrared.
This absorption increases molecular oscillation via friction with the energy transfer resulting in heat.
There is also proof that burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide as a by product.
There is also the concept that humans burn plenty of fossil fuels everyday.
Thats 1+1+1 + plus a little extrapolation - maybe third grade level science.

This equation does not equate to = AL GORE, LIBRALS or TERISTS

Of course there has to be a political imperative that suddenly exempts this science.

Not even third grade; sorry. If you take off your shoes, maybe you can count higher than 1+1+1.

The most abundant greenhouse gas (as noted by S. Solomon, the subject of the OP article) is WATER VAPOR. There are chlorides, sulfides, sulfates, nitrides and fluorides from vulcanism (see same subject earlier in this thread). And of course, there's solar activity itself; and extra-solar activity.

CO2is only 38.5 parts per 100,000 of the atmosphere.

Add in the cash incentives of research grants, sequestration studies (all very expensive failures so far- each adding to the CO2 load in the process), elimination studies and subsidies, taxes and credits.

Mix that up with 400,000 years of geologic records from tree rings and ice cores (see Solomon (again!)); and, you will see that the equation = Al Gore = Lib[e]rals = "Terists" (who's that, anyway?) = cap and trade =$$$$ to Anthropogenic Global Warming fearmongers, MINUS $$$$$ from consumers, farmers and small businesses.


Check my math, but your's is absolutely wrong. It leaves out the biggest parts.

If man can change the weather, please warm it up over here, make it rain in the mid-West and Texas during the Spring, stop the snow in the East, help the desertified areas of N. Africa (there since the end of the last Ice Age), get rid of the smog on the West Coast; and, what's that smell over St. Louis?

I'm waiting.


[edit on 28-1-2009 by jdub297]

Originally posted by Swatman
it was 41 degrees in arizona today. tell al gore to shove global warming up his rear. maybe barney frank will fit too. probably not

[edit on 27-1-2009 by Swatman]

That would actually be related to the La Nina weather pattern more than global warming or climate change

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by stinkhorn
There is no global warming and if there was, it would be great for the planet, it would make it greener, warmer and more hospitable to everyone. Plant would grow like mad with the extra Co2 in the air and rainforests would populate the earth. Isnt that what you want?

Lol. I happen to know the source of that widely distributed nonsense.

www.junkscience.com...

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.

I actually wrote a paper on this article for a biology class. This article and the petition mentioned below;

www.sourcewatch.org...

n reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication.)

None of the coauthors of "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" had any more standing than Robinson himself as a climate change researcher. They included Robinson's 22-year-old son, Zachary, along with astrophysicists Sallie L. Baliunas and Willie Soon. Both Baliunas and Soon worked with Frederick Seitz at the George C. Marshall Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank where Seitz served as executive director. Funded by a number of right-wing foundations, including Scaife and Bradley, the George C. Marshall Institute does not conduct any original research. It is a conservative think tank that was initially founded during the years of the Reagan administration to advocate funding for Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative--the "Star Wars" weapons program.

are the root source of many, many, many of the claims of the "global warming is a lie" camp. They simply want to believe it so much that they never actually source the petition and the article back. They simply repeat the claim as if it were valid,

www.sundaypaper.com...

But thousands of respected scientists seem to share his view regarding climate fluctuation. A petition against the Kyoto Treaty signed by 15,000 scientists in 1997 carried a summary essay that was subsequently reported in the Wall Street Journal (Dec. 4, 1997), which stated: “The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. … Atmospheric temperatures have been rising … for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000 year average.”

No one seems to care that the scientists involved may or may not have any expertise in the subject of climatology. Thats kind of like saying anyone with a doctorate is qualified to do heart surgery. Doesnt matter one whit if the doctorate is in physics, or English. A doctor is a doctor right? No? Well the name "scientist" applies to a wide variety of specialties as well. Alone, the title "scientist" tells you little about what a person does.

The authors also have had a long loving relationship with industry, and has a home-schooling curriculum sales business;

The OISM website also offers educational links to a creationist website and an online discussion group called RobinsonUsers4Christ, "for Bible & Trinity-believing, God-fearing, 'Jesus-Plus-Nothing-Else' Christian families who use the Robinson Curriculum to share ideas and to get and give support."

Not that having a relationship with industry and a hard right wing viewpoint in general alone make you disreputable as a scientist. But add all of it together, no training in the field, a personal agenda, corporate funding, etc., and you get some very questionable science.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Would you mind posting some evidence that shows this? How the cycles of the Earths warming and cooling cycles have been measured? Graphs perhaps illustrating this natural cycle that shows humans are having no impact at all?

Thanks in advance.

Edit to add; even a link that has the name of the scientist who did the study will be fine. Just something to support the claim so I can backtrack and verify it.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


It's like I said, if they can even find one peer-reviewed article that says there is no global climate change occurring, then I'll be quite impressed.

Last time I heard, there weren't any, but I'd be okay with it if someone could prove it wrong.

[edit on 1/28/2009 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by Irish M1ck


Yeah, but hey, I always ask. Maybe there is one out there and we missed it somehow.

If they present anything at all in terms of evidence or support that gives a name, organization, whatever, I will gladly spend as much time as it takes to dig through it and get to the source. I dont have a vested personal interest in "global warming scare mongering" or whatever they are calling it. I have a vested interest in science and facts. If it turns out they are right and they have solid evidence, I will be the first to write a long and well supported post admitting it.

As it stands, I just have not seen anything credible that supports that conclusion. Like you, if there were I would be totally ok with it.


[edit on 28-1-2009 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by The Bald Champion


There is evidence however that CARBON DIOXIDE traps terrestrial heat, such as on VENUS. This occurs

anything can be explained into a distorted worldview with enough persistence.

Venus' period of rotation ('day') is longer than its year, to the tune of 300 earth days, which means that only one side is subjected to sunlight for a long time, yet there are precious little winds to balance it out.

in addition, its albedo (reflectivity) is more than twice that of Earth, which means that most of the incoming light is outright reflected. none of these glaring problems are ever adressed by people who use the 'straw planet' argument. chances are the heat is internal and no matter who's right, another planet's data wasn't really considered admissable by AGW'ers last time i checked the theads about the solar system undergoing a warming. the good old double standard i guess.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

I think most Global-Warming Deniers are motivated by laziness and selfishness. They don't want to alter their life-styles.

It's the same with meat-eating. We all know more or less what goes on in slaughter-houses, how pigs are caged etc. But we omit it as we scoff our bacon.

i believe history is full of movements which rely on marginalizing the perceived opposition as their favorite tool of group formation. unlike GW, this has been proven over and over again during the 20t century, to our detriment.

since you've chosen to accuse randomly, let me try it in return:

maybe you're trying to alter OUR lifestyles to suit YOUR needs? to this end, violence is only a late stage, talk is cheap, therefore it can be wasted with relative impunity, it's likely a something-for-nothing deal, which is so prevalent in the 'new economy'.

did you know that green talkers are more likely to take long haul flights? maybe you want us to be taxed to death so you can get an even greater share? after all, the movement implicitly admitted not so long ago, that it's not really about greenhouse gas, it's about reducing fuel consumption!

www.abovetopsecret.com...



so, there's the reason. now why not simply say so? ulterior motives, of course, much like what i said above. El Gore won't scrap his gulfstream either, will he?

Your source says NOTHING about "Global Warming", yet you have it on your title. The source you link to is about "Global Climate Change", which is very different from "Global Warming".

iow, you're right no matter what happens, no kneel down at the altar and don't forget to pay a cent per breath. let me guess, you're lready lobbying for a rebate, so the rest will have to be taxed higher accordingly! a win-win situation from your point of view, i presume.

so, let me get this straight: afaics, you're bradning anyone who disagrees with your holy cause a 'denier' without ever looking at contradicting evidence and there's ample reason to beleive thats because the entire notion is a trojan horse, designed to enforce austerity against your chosen target group, most likely while you're completely doing the opposite of what you're preaching here.

what did you expect for screwing us over? an applause? a nobel prize?

Get Real ! sensible people stop insisting after getting caught with their hands in the (now) empty cookie jar, but i guess the loot is too tempting this time.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck


It's like I said, if they can even find one peer-reviewed article that says there is no global climate change occurring, then I'll be quite impressed.

Last time I heard, there weren't any, but I'd be okay with it if someone could prove it wrong.

it's actually quite simple, since noone ever reads thiese papers on forums, it doesn't really matter that their projected changes are most of the time immeasurably small, insignificant or both.



example: from www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Long Lance
..
when it gets serious, the numbers plummet, take the following example:

www.sciencemag.org...

After a century of polar exploration, the past decade of satellite measurements has painted an altogether new picture of how Earth's ice sheets are changing. As global temperatures have risen, so have rates of snowfall, ice melting, and glacier flow. Although the balance between these opposing processes has varied considerably on a regional scale, data show that Antarctica and Greenland are each losing mass overall. Our best estimate of their combined imbalance is about 125 gigatons per year of ice, enough to raise sea level by 0.35 millimeters per year. This is only a modest contribution to the present rate of sea-level rise of 3.0 millimeters per year. However, much of the loss from Antarctica and Greenland is the result of the flow of ice to the ocean from ice streams and glaciers, which has accelerated over the past decade. In both continents, there are suspected triggers for the accelerated ice discharge—surface and ocean warming, respectively—and, over the course of the 21st century, these processes could rapidly counteract the snowfall gains predicted by present coupled climate models.

[edit on 2009.1.28 by Long Lance]