Global Warming Update

jeff f

New Member
I don't think anyone is saying changing to a clean renewable source of energy is a bad idea. I am just tired of the scientific manipulation and lies that are rampent, and I don't think that cap and trade is the solution. Don't start taxing my cows farts (+CO2) unless your gonna give me a tax credit for the corn (-CO2) I raise to feed the cow.

Quote "The atmosphere has a mass of about five quintillion (5 × 1018 or 5,000,000,000,000,000,000) kg, three quarters of which is within about 11 km (6.8 mi; 36,000 ft) of the surface. " source: Lutgens, Frederick K. and Edward J. Tarbuck (1995) The Atmosphere, Prentice Hall, 6th ed., pp14-17, ISBN 0-13-350612-6

quote "Total mass of atmosphere: 5.1 x 1018 kg "
Source: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

Quote "CO2 365 ppm"
source: http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/221.htm

Quote "CO2 388.63 "
Source: http://co2now.org/

qoute "manmade CO2 = 3.225%"

Quote " how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not."
source:http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Quote " “Man-made CO2 doesn’t appear physically capable of absorbing much more than two-thousandths of the radiated heat passing upward through the atmosphere,” Peden writes "
Quote "Peden is hardly the only skeptical scientist. In December 2007, 100 scientists signed an open letter to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon "
Source: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2009/01/19/man-made-co2-cant-cause-global-warming-it-doesnt-have-the-mojo/

Another perspective on global warming by a scientist. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/

A graph of earths CO2 content based on ice core sampleing going back 20000 years. Notice that CO2 ppm has hovered between 250 and 300 for about 12000 years.
Source: Brighton UK http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm

Ivy League geologist Robert Giegengack, chairman of the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, said he doesn't even consider global warming among the top 10 environmental problems.
Quote "Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
source: comment comes from Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at the University of Wisconsin
Quote “The great lesson from geologic history is that carbon dioxide is critical to life. The move to label it as a pollutant is simply preposterous. The logical extension to that thought process is that the government has legally regulated life. The notion would be laughable if it were not so tragically real.”
source: physical science and mathematics professor Richard F. Yada 2009 paper, “Reality Check: CO2”:

padawan I could go on but do you really want more?


That wasn't my random (to quote PadawanBater) "motherfuckers word" it is the science that (in part) derailed the World Climate Conference-3 in Geneva. I.E. That cap and trade summit.

pad doesnt want facts. he wants big oil big pharma walmart and any other company that makes money, punished.

the statists were micro seconds from winning this argument. thank god they were stopped in their collective tracks.

i will try one more time for ya pad.

all global temperatures recorded over the last decades came from one "set" of sources ( temperature stations). one "temp station" here, another one there. the people that were in charge of distributing that data lied. not,, made a mistake, flat out lied. then "lost" the original data, and "misplaced" the info that went into the hockey stick graph.

any data that was used to come to scientific conclusions came from this data. that makes all models using this "temp data" useless.
 

dukeofbaja

New Member
florida is about 14 degrees hotter on average than my place.....hasnt hurt me yet. i think i will be able to stand the increased point 5 degree increase over the next 50 years....yeesh. use your head.

But when crop outputs are reduced in some area or the other causing famine, or ocean levels rise in some other area forcing people to relocate (just to name the least of our worries), is that not going to cause the same type of economic disaster (and very very likely worse)? Are you not aware how small differences in average temperature can have an effect on local economies? It is funny how often the so called 'little ice age' is brought up here as somehow helping the skeptic's case, yet that 'ice age' was caused by minute variances in temperatures. Perhaps I am just not using my head. Yeeesshh

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
 

iivan740

Well-Known Member
But when crop outputs are reduced in some area or the other causing famine, or ocean levels rise in some other area forcing people to relocate (just to name the least of our worries), is that not going to cause the same type of economic disaster (and very very likely worse)? Are you not aware how small differences in average temperature can have an effect on local economies? It is funny how often the so called 'little ice age' is brought up here as somehow helping the skeptic's case, yet that 'ice age' was caused by minute variances in temperatures. Perhaps I am just not using my head. Yeeesshh

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Just one queston about the comparison graph you linked to.

How was the temprature collected between 1000 and 1850?

I know that scientists have been collecting temprature data for for the last 160 years or so, but I guess i'm a little confused where the rest of the data set came from.

And just to be clear, we now know that scientists have been manipulating the raw data for a few decades now. They have been reporting temprature data that is pure fiction and destroying the real data. This is fact that has been confirmed by the scientists that commited the fraud.

So, help me out here.
What exactly does that guessing game temprature graph tell us?

Now one more question. When did scientists develop the ability to measure minute concentrations of gasses? Can you say early in the 20th century. We really don't know how CO2 (or any other gas) fluctuates in earths atmosphere over any extended period of time. The best we can do are core ice samples drilled at some of the most remote places on earth. Then we just have to believe that we are reading them right.

BTW some estimate that the temprature in the antartic was once somewhere in the neighborhood of 73 F (I mean if were going with scientific estimations). Right now it's hovering around -4 F. By that estimation I would say that we (humans) haven't even come close to seeing the natural temprature cycle of planet earth.

Think about it!!
 

dukeofbaja

New Member

jeff f

New Member
florida is about 14 degrees hotter on average than my place.....hasnt hurt me yet. i think i will be able to stand the increased point 5 degree increase over the next 50 years....yeesh. use your head.

But when crop outputs are reduced in some area or the other causing famine, or ocean levels rise in some other area forcing people to relocate (just to name the least of our worries), is that not going to cause the same type of economic disaster (and very very likely worse)? Are you not aware how small differences in average temperature can have an effect on local economies? It is funny how often the so called 'little ice age' is brought up here as somehow helping the skeptic's case, yet that 'ice age' was caused by minute variances in temperatures. Perhaps I am just not using my head. Yeeesshh

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
longer growing seasons reduce crop output? tell me how that works. i know we could use an extra few weeks here. its a bitch to grow sativa here.

and worst case scenario, even if you believe the totally made up bullshit charts graphs and "computer models", its going to get about a single degree hotter in the next 50 to 100 years.

tomorrow the temp here is supposed to be 10 degrees hotter than yesterday....OMG how will we cope? :dunce:

and lets carry this to the extreme, lets suppose we ARE making it hotter. what if we are in a cooling cycle of climate headed for another mini ice age....are we helping or hurting?

come on bud, you are smarter than this. its fucking bullshit and YOU, ME, OR A MILLION KAZZILION SCIENTISTS couldnt change it if we wanted to. follow the money.
 

dukeofbaja

New Member
The fact that you can't grasp the difference between weather and climate is enough for me. I give up. Tell me how science works, genius
 

iivan740

Well-Known Member
I know that scientists have been collecting temprature data for for the last 160 years or so, but I guess i'm a little confused where the rest of the data set came from.

Just a little confused? I'd call that a bit of an understatement, considering your basic grasp of science seems to have been born from a climate change skeptic webpage...



http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/ozone-and-greenhouse-gases-4/how-far-back-in-time-can-scientists-measure-co2-levels
I have never said that our climate is not changing.
Didn't I say that the temprature has gone up somewhere between .75 and 1.5 degrees in the last 200 years?

For the record almost all of the data I posted came from textbooks and sites that are proponents of manmade CO2 global warming. Somehow you pick up on the one quote about a mini iceage and run with it. How about the data posts or the sites they came from. Don't you want to tell nasa, co2now.org, prentice hall, GRID-Arendal official United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), or Brighton College UK how stupid their data is? Or did you not see them sourced in my post?

I posted real numbers based on data collected from your own beloved proponents of manmade global warming, and somehow you just glossed over all of them.
WOW REALLY........

You do know that a proponent is an advocate for. Right?
Are you even reading the posts?

I watched the guy talk about ice core sampling and CO2.
I think I mentioned ice core sampling and CO2 in my post.

I watched him talk about CO2 monitoring on volcanos going back to 1957.
Didn't I say we started monitoring minute gasses in the 20th century?

I watched the guy talk about clever ways of measuring temprature.
I guess I missed exactly what those clever ways of measuring temprature were. Can you please fill us in on that? I mean we don't even have correct temprature data for the past few decades.

I watched him talk about correlations between ice core CO2 readings and the clever temprature extrapolation (which is yet to be explained). He said that whenever CO2 was high the temp was high. OK, lets say that is exactly right (I mean we don't really know but let's say). He says that it has fluctuated over the past 700 thousand years.
How far back does the industrial revolution go?
How many of those 700 thousand years of fluctuations are we going to blame on mankind?

I'm not arguing that climate isn't changing. I'm saying that mans contribution to the CO2 in earths atmosphere from fossil fuels is at best insignificant.

Maybe we should look at the burning peat fields in Indonesia, nuclear bomb testing, or natural fluctuations of our atmosphere.
 

CrackerJax

New Member
It is both correct to ask someone.....

What is the weather today?

What is the climate today?

Same....

The weather in my living room is cold but my house climate is warming.... is that how it goes? :lol: :roll:
 

BongFiend420

Active Member
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica] Global Warming Update[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]By Walter Williams [/FONT]






[FONT=Helvetica, Arial]http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, in an hour-long television documentary titled "Global Warming: The Other Side," presents evidence that our National Climatic Data Center has been manipulating weather data just as the now disgraced and under investigation British University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit. The NCDC is a division of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Its manipulated climate data is used by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, which is a division of the National Aeronautical and Space Administration. John Coleman's blockbuster five-part series can be seen at www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The Coleman documentary presents research by computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo. During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000. By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500. Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth. Not adjusting for their lost made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case. According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data. That means data loss was not simply the result of station closings but deliberate decisions by CRU to ignore them in order to hype their global warming claims. D'Aleo and Smith report that our NCDC engaged in similar deceptive activity where they have dropped stations, particularly in colder climates, higher elevations or closer to the polar regions. Temperatures are now simply projected for these colder stations from other stations, usually in warmer climates.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Mounting evidence of scientific fraud might make little difference in terms of the response to manmade global warming hysteria. Why? Vested economic and political interests have emerged where trillions of dollars and social control are at stake. Therefore, many people who recognize the scientific fraud underlying global warming claims are likely to defend it anyway. Automobile companies have invested billions in research and investment in producing "green cars." General Electric and Phillips have spent millions lobbying Congress to outlaw incandescent bulbs so that they can force us to buy costly compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL). Farmers and ethanol manufacturers have gotten Congress to enact laws mandating greater use of their product, not to mention massive subsidies. Thousands of major corporations around the world have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions including giants like IBM, Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Companies like Google, Yahoo and Dell have vowed to become "carbon neutral."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Then there's Chicago Climate Futures Exchange that plans to trade in billions of dollars of greenhouse gas emission allowances. Corporate America and labor unions, as well as their international counterparts have a huge multi-trillion dollar financial stake in the perpetuation of the global warming fraud. Federal, state and local agencies have spent billions of dollars and created millions of jobs to deal with one aspect or another of global warming.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]It's deeper than just money. Schoolteachers have created polar-bear-dying lectures to frighten and indoctrinate our children when in fact there are more polar bears now than in 1950. They've taught children about melting glaciers. Just recently, the International Panel on Climate Change was forced to admit that their Himalayan glacier-melting fraud was done to "impact policy makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]What would all the beneficiaries of the global warming hype do if it becomes widely known and accepted that mankind's activities have very little to do with the Earth's temperature? I don't know but a lot of people would feel and look like idiots. But I bet that even if the permafrost returned as far south as New Jersey, as it once did, the warmers and their congressional stooges would still call for measures to fight global warming.[/FONT]

I knew about this for awhile, and its complete fuckin bullshit. They are using Global Warming as a fucking marketing technique. I read somewhere that the earth is actually getting colder each year. GLOBAL WARMING is some FAKE BULLSHIT to get people to but environmentally safe products. It would be like a oil company claiming a shortage on oil just to raise the cost. (BULLSHIT) FUCK THE GOVERNMENT AND THEIR FUCKIN PROFITS, We MAKE OUR OWN PROFITS FROM FARMING THE LAND !
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
dude paddy Ivan is destroying you left and right with the facts


you have the nerve to ask how we are gonna end up paying trillions like we havnt already posted a harved study that says gas prices will sky rocket


I even have the Ego himself saying that energy prices will NECESSARILY SKYROCKET on video right from the Anoited one himslef!


so you are losing the argument and lieing about it


as to what cracker said about science not meaning shit if the poeple dont trust the scientists


here is the lastest:


GALLUP: Credibility drops for global warming, scientists...




Thursday, March 11, 2010 Updated 04:00 AM EST


March 11, 2010






Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated

by Frank Newport

Page: 12

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.
These results are based on the annual Gallup Social Series Environment poll, conducted March 4-7 of this year. The survey results show that the reversal in Americans' concerns about global warming that began last year has continued in 2010 -- in some cases reverting to the levels recorded when Gallup began tracking global warming measures more than a decade ago.
For example, the percentage of Americans who now say reports of global warming are generally exaggerated is by a significant margin the highest such reading in the 13-year history of asking the question. In 1997, 31% said global warming's effects had been exaggerated; last year, 41% said the same, and this year the number is 48%.
Fewer Americans Think Effects of Global Warming Are Occurring
"In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth's temperature over the last century."
Many global warming activists have used film and photos of melting ice caps and glaciers, and the expanding reach of deserts, to drive home their point that global warming is already having alarming effects on the earth. While these efforts may have borne fruit over much of the 2000s, during the last two years, Americans' convictions about global warming's effects have waned.
A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming's effects have already begun or will begin shortly.
Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%).
The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997.
Fewer See Global Warming as Serious Threat In similar fashion, the percentage of Americans who believe that global warming is going to affect them or their way of life in their lifetimes has dropped to 32% from a 40% high point in 2008. Two-thirds of Americans say global warming will not affect them in their lifetimes.
The shift in these views during the past two years has been particularly striking. The percentage who said global warming would pose a serious threat increased gradually from 1997 through 2008. The trend in these responses changed course last year, with slightly fewer Americans saying global warming would have a significant effect in their lifetimes. This year, that percentage is down even more, marking a six-point drop from 2009, and roughly similar to where it was nine years ago.
Americans Divided on Causes of Global Warming
In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth's temperature over the last century.
In 2003, 61% of Americans said such increases were due to human activities -- in line with advocates of the global warming issue -- while 33% said they were due to natural changes in the environment. Now, a significantly diminished 50% say temperature increases are due to human activities, and 46% say they are not.​
Americans Less Sure About Scientists' Beliefs
Since last fall, there have been widespread news accounts of allegations of errors in scientific reports on global warming and alleged attempts by some scientists to doctor the global warming record.
These news reports may well have caused some Americans to re-evaluate the scientific consensus on global warming. Roughly half of Americans now say that "most scientists believe that global warming is occurring," down from 65% in recent years. The dominant opposing thesis, held by 36% of Americans, is that scientists are unsure about global warming. An additional 10% say most scientists believe global warming is not occurring.
The percentage of Americans who think most scientists believe global warming is occurring has dropped 13 points from two years ago, and is the lowest since the first time Gallup asked this question back in 1997.
Implications
The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans' attitudes about global warming. Most Gallup measures up to 2008 had shown increasing concern over global warming on the part of the average American, in line with what one might have expected given the high level of publicity on the topic. Former Vice President Al Gore had been particularly prominent in this regard, with the publication of his bestselling book, "An Inconvenient Truth," an Academy Award-winning documentary movie focusing on his global warming awareness campaign, and Gore's receipt of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.
But the public opinion tide turned in 2009, when several Gallup measures showed a slight retreat in public concern about global warming. This year, the downturn is even more pronounced.
Some of the shifts in Americans' views may reflect real-world events, including the publicity surrounding allegations of scientific fraud relating to global warming evidence, and -- perhaps in some parts of the country -- a reflection of the record-breaking snow and cold temperatures of this past winter. Additionally, evidence from last year showed that the issue of global warming was becoming heavily partisan in nature, and it may be that the continuing doubts about global warming put forth by conservatives and others are having an effect. A forthcoming analysis here at Gallup.com will examine shifts in global warming attitudes in recent years among various demographic and political groups.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,014 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 4-7, 2010. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.









Obama is the most egotistical president I have ever seen, he is completly tactless when it comes to the people who may disagree with him to the point that he will proceed with things that his bosses the american people by large majority do not even want

this shows a lack of respect for democracy and egotistcal maniacle "I know better" mentality more pro dictatorship than anything


and for this he is crashing burning and fittin to get stopped on this November. its gonna be epic.

every day the pressure in the melting pot is rising and its going to explode!!

















they say people who are worrying about the situation in Greece are worried about the wrong things. they say to wait until whats happening in greece takes hold in California, its just a matter of a few years or months is what the "experts" are saying, you will see riots there too

California is the 5th largest economy in the world, larger than Greece
 

fdd2blk

Well-Known Member
how about this, ....






our coastal cities suck. from NY to SF to FL. would it really hurt us to flood them and move inland 100 miles? if the climate is changing then we will be able to habitat areas that once weren't habitatable(sp). the valleys will get the water they so need, so food will flourish again. cities will have to be rebuilt so jobs will be created. new roads, new seaports, new cities. would that really be so bad? it happens slow enough that you can back up a little. and the human race is not gonna die off.

the "climate" is like a huge earth tide. the tide is coming in. put on your boots.

it could happen. :wink:
florida is about 14 degrees hotter on average than my place.....hasnt hurt me yet. i think i will be able to stand the increased point 5 degree increase over the next 50 years....yeesh. use your head.

But when crop outputs are reduced in some area or the other causing famine, or ocean levels rise in some other area forcing people to relocate (just to name the least of our worries), is that not going to cause the same type of economic disaster (and very very likely worse)? Are you not aware how small differences in average temperature can have an effect on local economies? It is funny how often the so called 'little ice age' is brought up here as somehow helping the skeptic's case, yet that 'ice age' was caused by minute variances in temperatures. Perhaps I am just not using my head. Yeeesshh

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png





you posted after me. :roll:
 

CrackerJax

New Member
Did you know that the moon drifts away from us a little bit each year? At some point it will leave our orbit!

How can we tax the situation and change it?
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
i think its a great possiblily that the spike in earthquakes may have somthing to do with our solar systems position currently in the milky way galaxy


I think we orbit the the center of the milky way galaxy 1 revolution every 22,000 years right? like the myan calander had said way back when


but i think this could cause gravitational stresses on out earth causing possibly triggering more earth quakes and erruptions


like you know how the gravitation pull of jupitor keep some its moon very hot on the inside because of the streaching and stresses of gravity put in the moons.


wait i gues im wrong look at this:


It takes the Solar System about 225–250 million years to complete one orbit of the galaxy (a galactic year),[42] so it is thought to have completed 20–25 orbits during the lifetime of the Sun and 1/1250 of a revolution since the origin of humans. The orbital speed of the Solar System about the center of the Galaxy is approximately 220 km/s. At this speed, it takes around 1,400 years for the Solar System to travel a distance of 1 light-year, or 8 days to travel 1 AU



so what cool planetary thing is supposed to occur every 22,000 years as per the myan calander? next one comming you in 2012?


 

CrackerJax

New Member
There will be a planetary alignment on dec 20 2012. That and the fact we are crossing through the galactic plane...we have been for some time now...they don't mention that....has everyone all uptight.... for nothing I assure you.

It doesn't take much to spook the uneducated.

Just ask Al Gore.....
 

Stoney McFried

Well-Known Member
In the end, I can only truly go by my personal observation of my particular climate. The sunlight seems to me to be a bit weaker than what I remember as a kid. This was the first "proper" Iowa winter we've had in a long time..lots of snow, cold,etc. We had the first thunderstorm here last night of the year,and all the snow is gone. It's in the 50's. When I was a kid, March didn't get very warm until later on. There was always a rainy season at the end of summer right before fall, with plenty of thunderstorms. Not as much in the last few years. Things just "feel" different. If anything, I feel the earth is a living organism, not necessarily sentient,and we are a case of the crabs. There have been major extinctions throughout our geologic history,and there probably will continue to be. I think we're about due for Yellowstone to erupt.
Anyway, I think the earth has an "immune system",and that manifests itself through climate changes, viruses,bacteria,volcanism, etc. I think the earth is always "trying" to kill us,and those that survive make the herd stronger. I think maybe we've gotten to be too much of a nuisance,and that we've triggered that immune response. We're going through a natural cycle...the earth is due for a douche, and we will eventually be washed away like so much debris.
I don't have any proof of this, it's just a hypothesis I have.
 
Top